Skip to comments.Joe Scarborough says "I just donít see Rick Perry surviving past March"
Posted on 09/13/2011 8:41:18 AM PDT by martosko
[A]fter listening to him talk last night in detail, I do not know how many levels there are to Rick Perry, Scarborough said. But I do know this The phrase Ponzi scheme is not Rick Perrys biggest problem.
The word that hes going to have to wrestle with during Republican primaries, let alone a general election, is the word unconstitutional, because when you call Social Security
this is about as funny as anything Ive heard on Curb Your Enthusiasm.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
I said that about Joe....and I was wrong....so is he.
He sounds more like a democrat every day...and he (and Michelle Bachmann) needs to get out his Constitution and read it again.
Neither Social Security nor Medicare are authorized by the Constitution.
Why do we accept what any talking head on TV says when they burp out a segment of random thoughts floating around inside their heads
These self-anointed ones talk before thinking and it`s accepted as wisdom ?
LOL I thought the same thing. Perry is not my choice, but he’s saying what Americans want to hear. Joe is foolish.
I just don’t see Joe Scarborough surviving past March.
Scarborough talks like that because he wants to get in Mika’s knickers.
Am I missing some salient facts or had Joe missed his cup of joe ?
The ruling was about SS being a tax ONLY.
Allow the USSC to rule on whether the Federal Govt. can create and run a national pensions plan.
Answer: 100% Un-Constitutional.
“Neither Social Security nor Medicare are authorized by the Constitution.”
Get with the program, this is the 21st Century, after all. Even within the Republican Party, only a small fraction think like that these days. Individuals cant be expected to take care of themselves. Its for the greater good, dont you know. [Furthermore, its a sad commentary that I have to add a sarcasm tag to this post.]
I didn’t watch the debate. I think Perry will be the nominee, and the next President.
That said, I see in the news coverage that many are saying that Perry could have been stronger. He was definitely the target of all, as the frontrunner, but the news coverage is saying that he could have been stronger?
SCOTUS also ruled that the Federal Insurance Contributions Act did not establish a contributory insurance program. blblblblblblbl!
‘Joe’ is just a useless flake, a faux foil for the radical Left on the worst cable channel.
‘Joe’ is just a useless flake, a faux foil for the radical Left on the worst cable channel.
I think that Perry is the most likely candidate to win the primary, but that is just my guess.
However, I think that to say Perry will drop out before March is ignorant. Perry will know that he has the Texas primary delegates pretty much in the bag, so even if he were behind, he would have no rational reason to drop out until after the Texas March primaries.
That’s kind of strange. I am starting to like Rick Perry more and more!
If you had watched the debate, you would see that Perry has some fundamental problems. They really went after him on the HPV issue and immigration.
Not a good night for the Guv at all.
Of course it’s unconstitutional but the SCOTUS ruled it was and Perry acknowledged that.
In other words, the left—little Joey included—see Perry as a Grade A threat to their boy in the White House, so all of the media guns will take aim at Perry, hoping to destroy his candidacy.
There’s a lot of things we think are unconstitutional but if the SCOTUS rules that it is constitutional then that’s the law of the land. Perry never said it “was” unconstitutional because it was ruled on.
Sadly, I agree. I think we were all looking for someone to come into the race that would steal everyon's hearts and minds and we so wanted that to be Perry. But he is not smooth enough. He often looks like a deer caught in the headights.
Bachman came across as a nagging woman, sorry. I don't like when we attack our own. I liked Newt and Cain but they are not going to make it, IMO. Romney, for all that he is not, has such a soothing voice and polished manner, I'm afraid he will run away with the nomination.
Totally agree with that assessment, although I think immigration more than the HPV issue will weigh much heavier in GOP primary voters' minds.
The clock continues to tick towards a Sarah Palin decision ... I think she has about a week left to SOGOTP. If/when she announces, the game changes completely.
—The phrase Ponzi scheme is not Rick Perrys biggest problem.—
He is right about that. Rather, its effect on Perry’s campaign was positive. Even though the word was used to describe it DECADES ago, Perry gets credit for saying it now and bringing the background dialoge up on the table in front of God and everybody.
It will serve him will for the next year, especially if this is but one of many such comments to come.
I’m still not in love with any of the candidates. They all have huge flaws.
But the guy that gets me most excited right now is Newt. He is doing the best job of articulating what I believe.
I also like Santorum and Cain, but I don’t think either of them have a prayer.
I interpreted Bachmann’s tone as passionate rather than nagging, but I have read that a lot of people were turned off by her badgering of Perry. But I like Michele a lot.
Romney is just all over the map, and his refusal to disavow Romneycare is a problem. Huntsman isn’t very impressive, either.
Maybe someone else will get in.
Perry lost me last night, forcing little girls to have shots, giving rewards to illegals, screw him and as for Michelle B, she did very well as did Newt, Rick S.
Romney is such a fraud a polished politician saying anything to get elected, how anyone could not see him for what he is just shows how far screwed up this country has become
And right after Scar Burro said “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, Mika Brzrznitwit had a squealgasm.
These clowns pretend to give serious commentary on the news.
Michelle Bachmann is trying to save the country from having as POTUS a career hack politician who is willing to sacrifice our future as a Free Republic by pandering to La Raza and CAIR. Just look at California, the state which gave us Ronald Reagan. Even a RINO can’t be elected there any more, and the reason can be stated in 2 words: Hispanic Invasion. The same thing is happening elsewhere in the Southwest. Perry is a pimp for his crony capitalist friends in agribusiness, who want cheap labor.
The Establishment is winning. They are setting up a situation in which our only choice is Eastern country-clubber Mitt Romney vs. Texas Crony-clubber Rick Perry.
I generally don't find "Curb Your Enthusiasm" very funny.
Did Joe say something? I miss it everytime.
MITT ROMNEY: “The real issue is, in writing his book, Gov.Perry pointed out that in his view that Social Security is unconstitutional, that this is not something the federal government ought to be involved in, that instead it should be given back to the states.”
THE FACTS: Perry indeed roundly criticized Social Security in his book, but not quite to the point of calling it unconstitutional. In words he is trying to walk back now, Perry branded the program the “best example” of the “fraud” and “bad disease” spread by Washington in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Perry furthermore criticized the Supreme Court of that era for “abdicating its role as the protector of constitutional federalism.” That falls somewhere short of declaring Social Security unconstitutional. Nor has Perry pushed to transfer Social Security to the states, an idea he has promoted for Medicare.”
“...when you call Social Security unconstitutional this is about as funny as anything Ive heard on Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
Joe is an idiot. Anyone who studies history knows that FDR pushed a bill through Congress which would have allowed him to appoint up to six more Supreme Court Justices to the bench; In essence, FDR was holding a gun to the heads of the SCOTUS.
Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS went into freak-out mode and suddenly started ruling in favor of FDR’s socialist policies, even though the majority privately held the opinion that Social Security and its ilk were unconstitutional.
So, the joke is on Joe and historical ignoramuses just like him.
The following is
Reprinted and excerpted from a book entitled, ”Our Ageless Constitution,” Part VIII, “The Ideas Of Liberty,” published by W. David Stedman Associates, 1987 (Bicentennial Edition), with permission of Foundation for Economic Education’s brochure entitled, “Not Yours To Give”).
David Crockett (Congressman 1827-31, 1833-35)
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road, I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again''
“This was a sockdolager .. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question'
,,'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in this country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000.00. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.''
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him-
“Well, my, friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot'
"He laughingly replied- 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgement of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
“If I don’t,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it ''
"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, some and to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you'
"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad to have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying-
" 'Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, have heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying-
"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came upon the stand and said:
" 'Fellow citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
“'I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased -a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice, to obtain it."
Still, Perry never claimed it was unconstitutional. That was one of several lies Willard told last night, and Joe was all too eager to run with it this morning.
No she isn’t. Michelle is trying to save her freefalling campaign and desperately latched onto Gardisol since Rush warned her not to try a Leftist attack in favor of SS. Now she’s flailing about claiming that vaccine caused mental retardation when there is no record of that. This is why no one was ever sold on Michelle and why her numbers crashed so quickly when Perry entered. Her mouth talks before her brain thinks and she cannot win against Obama with these types of statements uncontrolled.
Further then that she is only a 3 term Congresswoman with no real accomplishments of conservative reform or leadership in the House and as far as I’m concerned latched onto the tea party movement as a way to try and quickly climb the poltical rings of power.
Now having said all that...Perry’s record on immigration is awful and I knew that. And I am more then fine with that record being booed on that stage and him having some mud thrown at him over it and forcing him to try and defend its “logic”. Perry’s still my guy but he needs to know right now we blocked Bush and we’ll block him if he tries to bring these policies national. I’m okay with letting politicians know they are on a tight leash, even the ones I’m supporting because no one deserves to be put on a pedestal.
I hope Joe is wrong................but he is probably correct.
I saw the whole 2 hours of the debate. I’m astounded to read so many comments and articles today that are taking bits and bites from the debate to analyze Perry in minute detail AND are coming to the overall conclusion that Perry was weak. First of all, the issues they are faulting Perry on may be important to conservatives, but are going to be unimportant to the average unemployed Joe in the voting booth.
Perry was attacked from all sides, in many cases because questions were of this ilk: “Can you tell us how Governor Perry is wrong on this issue?” Perry, for his part, maintained his composure and a presidential bearing throughout, while the others looked petty and small as they misquoted him, screeched outrage, and made fun of him. There was even one moment when I glanced at him and I thought I was looking at Reagan.
Personally, I think Perry can beat Obama in a landslide.
“...It fits well within the commerce clause IMO.”
Read your history; even FDR and his fellow socialists knew that Social Security didn’t fit within the Commerce Clause. This is why they decided that they had a better chance of passing it through Congress and winning in court if they argued that it was a tax:
From the U.S. government’s very own Social Security Website:
“[...]When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to “provide for the general welfare,” as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question [...]”
Had Social Security fit well within the Commerce Clause (as you say), you can rest assured that the CES would have readily taken that avenue (like they did with the National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, and in the case of Wickard v. Filburn) instead of the taxation route.
Anyway, lest ye be ignorant of history, you would do well to read the rest of that page I linked to at www.ssa.gov. There you will discover that FDR, in essence, was holding a gun to the heads of the Supreme Court Justices so that they would rule in his favor.
Anyway, I just thought I’d give you the tools to help you possibly rethink your “IMO.”
Thank you. I will definitely read it.
agree on all accounts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.