Comments on: Rick Perry Tries Again

By: Michale

Michale — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:41:41 +0000

Agreed.

First David and now you!

Am I in some alternate reality Weigantia where everyone is in agreement?? :D

Michale

By: John from Arcadia

John from Arcadia — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:09:47 +0000

Of course, a profile on Clinton's billion-dollar slush find would ALSO be a relevant expose subject, right?? :D Agreed. I'd like to know where EVERY candidate is getting his or her money from. Looks like akadjian is with us on this too. Ever since the Citizens United decision, the corrosive influence of money (particularly "dark" or anonymous money) in politics has become overwhelming. The gist of the Times article is that the 2012 election changed the rules of the campaign game. Now, the wealthy donors primary "has eclipsed the traditional campaign structure." "The decider," according to Tom Rath, a longtime Republican strategist, "becomes something other than the ballot box." I think that should concern everyone who cares about democracy. I am also troubled by the ability of one particular billionaire donor to prop up one particular candidate, especially a presidential candidate, making that prospective president beholden to just one person.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:08:44 +0000

Hillary frak'ed up the first launch of her campaign so bad, she has to have a RE-launch...

Wonder how many times Hill is going to have to "launch" her campaign before she gets it right??

heh

Michale

By: akadjian

akadjian — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:28:09 +0000

After you finish your articles profiling the 2016 presidential candidates, could you do another series about the billionaires behind each one?

That's a great idea, John. And I love the suggestion to include Hillary, Michale.

I'm supporting Bernie because like him or hate him the guy came out and said I'm only taking donations from small donors and he's sticking to it.

-David

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:30:29 +0000

Let me caveat #5 with the qualification, "Assuming no newcomer shows up on the scene..."

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:14:33 +0000

The GOP Candidate for POTUS is going to be either Walker or Rubio...

Either candidate will wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton....

Michale

By: TheStig

TheStig — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:41:01 +0000

I would characterize Perry's fundamental political persona as "Swaggering Dufus." Quick on the draw, rather weak on his aim. As far as I can tell, this is not a political sin in Texas, or a lot of other places for that matter (Russia, Putin - Western United States, Wile Coyote). Supporters got what Perry meant, in spite of how Perry said it. His persona filed down the rough edges on his political goals.

Going for a run with a hollow point loaded, laser sighted, pistol (well before the pivotal "Oops") is the very definition of "Swaggering Dufus." The casual observer can kind of see Perry's point (snakes!!!) but also grasps a downside (shooting off ones "junk"). This is a Homer Simpson gag. Where did Perry stash the pistol? Running Holster? Running shorts waist band? The little pouch pocket for your key? No way. Fanny pack? What kind of swaggering man runs, nay wears, a fanny pack? Tucked inside his "runnin' boots?" Do you want Homer Simpson as President of the USA?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpdy2ncqqVY

The mental free association that comes with the above widely circulated story (and there are many others) goes in directions that leave a subliminal aftertaste of "intellectual lightweight." A mental booby-trap no candidate needs going into a debate. Especially a candidate high on a poorly documented "plausible excuse."

Perry's plausible excuse brings up two questions in the minds of many voters:

1) What exactly what was he taking?

2) Where can I get some?

Perry's self projected image isn't going away any time soon, but I'm confident his 2016 re-bid is dead before it hits the ground.

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:15:16 +0000

I know it's annoying to have someone constantly reminding ya'all that there really isn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans.. Take the issue of campaign money brought up by JFA... The money that any GOP candidate is expected to raise utterly PALES in comparison to the 2 BILLION (yes, with a 'B') dollars that Clinton is expected to generate for HER campaign... Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that Clinton is getting that kind of money out of the goodness of the donors' hearts??? That Clinton is not expected to be indentured to the donors?? It seems somewhat disingenuous to slam the GOP candidates for their donors, yet give Clinton a pass for her slush fund... Or maybe it's just me that thinks this way.... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:40:49 +0000

Hey Chris. After you finish your articles profiling the 2016 presidential candidates, could you do another series about the billionaires behind each one?

It would be enlightening to know more about these people who wield such power.

That's a great idea..

Of course, a profile on Clinton's billion-dollar slush find would ALSO be a relevant expose subject, right?? :D

That would ALSO be enlightening...

Right?? :D

Michale

By: John from Arcadia

John from Arcadia — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:59:17 +0000

Hey Chris. After you finish your articles profiling the 2016 presidential candidates, could you do another series about the billionaires behind each one? According to a story on the front page of today's Los Angeles Times, "big-money backers are almost required for political survival. This year, nearly every candidate in the Republican field - which could exceed 20 people - is seeking a patron. And they have shown little shame in groveling." It would be enlightening to know more about these people who wield such power.
http://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-angeles-times/20150610/281492159937852/TextView