Skip to comments.Anita Perry, Rick's wife, now also organizing an Iowa Strike Force for him
Posted on 11/21/2011 10:17:15 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
I take pity on them, though.
These are clearly people who never got to sit at the "cool table" in the high school cafeteria and weren't invited to senior prom.
Rather than grow up and get over it, they retain that resentment and continue to band together in their tiny groupthink club, making "jokes" more juvenile than middle-school kids themselves make.
Personally, I'm entertained watching them think they''re funny.
I agree with your assessment of the damage their immaturity can do, though.
They never figured out why people didn't like them when they were teenagers...and they still haven't figured out why they're generally disliked.
They just giggle and reinforce each other.
And while you’re at it———get Anita’s recipe for Cow Patty Casserole.
The Casserole is always served to the girls at Texans Againt Sexual Assault covered dish suppers.
Once the girls eat this, no one in their right mind would want to sexually assault them.
Perry has trouble finding the right words and is halting as he speaks. The wife has a zillion words and hurts him more than helps him (no, not going to give examples but when she does that, I keep thinking she needs to shut up). I am not being mean, but that’s the way it is. She mostly stayed out of his elections in Texas and that was a good thing.
Yes, in the sense that everybody who is a politician has a career, and so they are career politicians.
You might as well say that those career surgeons are responsible for every botched operation, so when YOU have a heart attack you want to get an untrained CPA to do your operation.
No question; a very ambitious wife. Very ambitious and in her husbands name. . .
(If only Anita could manage, somehow; to do Rick's debates for him. . .and be her husband's telepromter; and whatever else.)
This woman seems unusally tireless in her efforts to speak for her husband; and personally; am suspect of her 'devoted' efforts; given her husbands marked lack of mental dexterity.
“Lonesome Dove”-———one that didn’t get BBQ’ed?
Enough said. OTOH; am compelled to add that. . .
. . .we do have a candidate with a superior intelligence; a man with experience; and one who learns from his mistakes. He knows too; mistakes from our world's history; and what we must avoid as a nation; so as to not repeat same.
He knows how Congress works - because he has 'been there'. Because of his resume; he understands foreign policy. This candidate would win any debate with Obama; and he can stand shoulder to shoulder; or above; with our Allies; and he will not duck from - nor bow to - America's enemies. And there will be no 'mistaking' his message.
(We have a candidate, who is both, a Patriot and a Scholar and by turn, knows; loves and respects our Constitution; and is committed to protecting it's word and spirit. We need - and we have - a candidate who respects the merits of Capitalism; so neccessary to America's success; and who also recognizes the threat of anti-America 'isms'; now being imposed/impressed upon our nation.)
So, can only ask; Why, Why. . . are Repubs hunkering around those, who are inarticulate and clumsy when it comes to Foreign Policy? Why are we so desperately forgiving of our candidates; who readily admit, that they cannot sufficiently define/articulate/maximize issues? Why are we making allowances for those who are not yet; educated to the 'who/how/whatever' of America's enemies - foreign AND domestic? Why are we wasting time, arguing that they can learn?
Time is critical; and a learning curve for the 'needy' is a luxury we cannot afford!
WE need, not only 'boots on the ground'; but as critically; a MIND on the Ground. And with that; competent leadership; from first moment of Presidency! That our candidate must be an authentic Republican; should be a given.
We do NOT need; a warmed over; refurbished Democrat; with a Republican ID. (Anymore, than a Democrat wife/advisor in the White House. Not by a ten-foot pole, should any Democrat; by affiliation or just by 'heart'; be there; in our name.)
As well; we should not be waiting/hoping for a candidate to be appropriately schooled; or just 'brought up to speed' before next debate. And hopefully; we have finally learned; that a younger President is not neccessarily a better President; nor a 'pressed suit' and bright/white smile; a promise of greatness.
No 'hellooo' needed. . .
Jeez! What is with you people lashing out whenever someone pings people to a thread? You must the 500th Perrybot I’ve seen carping about this.
Newsflash, FRiends ping each to posts. That’s what FRiends are for. Anyone with an internet connection can read this thread. Any freeper can post in it unless ordered not to by Jim Robinson. It is not your property to be reserved for gushing comments of love for a RINO Governor.
Lonesome Dove - the one that got away.
And your James Gregory character comparison to Ricky is good, real good. Better than mine.
It’s always fun to compare politicians to the Manchurian Candidate characters. I remember comparing McCain to L. Harvey during the last go-around!
Yeah, but comparing Ricky to the henpecked, right wing James Gregory “Manchurian” character was priceless.
Apples and oranges, Chuck. But you know that.
You probably wouldn’t hire a gardener to fix your car, or have the garbage man cut your hair. But you’d give one of the hardest jobs in the world to someone with zero experience.
I don’t see this as an “apples-to-oranges” comparison. Lots of jobs are screwed up by professionals, but we don’t conclude that we need amateurs.
A baseball team with a losing record might well fire some of their pitching staff — professionals, especienced, career pitchers. But they won’t replace them with a half-dozen guys off the street, or even a half-dozen good pitchers coming out of high school teams. You might pick one rookie, but you usually put them in the minors first for experience.
The concept of experience being a bad thing is ludicrous. That’s why the term “career politician” is used instead, because it “sounds bad”.
Sarah Palin had been in politics 19 years — it was her career. She was a career politician, but nobody calls her a “career politician”. She simply was in politics as a career. She was a “good” experienced politician. We praised her for her experience, her savvy, her ability to get things done, for her many accomplishments starting out as a Wasilla councilperson in 1992.
What I think we really want is an outsider — someone who isn’t so wrapped up in Washington. But almost all our candidates meet that criteria. Bachmann is the most “Washington” of our candidates, but nobody would reject her as being a “Washington Insider” (I think Newt is most open to that criticism).
Btw, Newt disqualified himself as a viable candidate by embracing or rejecting conservatism when it suits him and his personal agenda of lust for power.
According to Newt, The Era of Reagan is over. Wrong!
The Era of Newt is over! Long over!
Saying Cain has zero experience is, frankly, insulting. His experience is in the real world, the world of business where you actually have to produce results or you’re finished. This contrasts drastically with others who spend years in office presiding over deterioration without being held to account (for whatever reason). Again, what we’ve seen from these so-called experts has been an unheralded disaster. The Founding Fathers would’ve preferred those “amateurs” with little experience to the permanent political class we’ve had now for far too long. We’d all be better off.
Saying a plumber has “no experience” would I guess be “insulting”, but you wouldn’t hire a plumber to perform a heart transplant. Heck, you wouldn’t hire a pediatrician to perform a heart transplant.
Cain’s experience was in the private sector, where you produce products and focus on earnings, profits, and for most leaders but not Cain, growing your company. None of that applies to running a government, which doesn’t produce stuff, doesn’t earn anything, has no concept of “market share” and we certainly don’t want to “grow”.
It would be nice to have a president who understands business, but government is not a business, and would never be run like a business.
There are many people in office who are lousy, and we should get rid of them. There are jobs where you could well use an entry-level politician. Executive functions are not those jobs.
The Founding Fathers were part of the political class. They weren’t career politicians, because the concept of a full-time legislature was foreign, and should still be for the most part. But they were people with years of experience in the jobs that were political, while also having private employment.
I know WHAT is meant by “career politician”, but my point was that it doesn’t actually mean “people with experience”, it means “people who made a career out of BEING a politician, rather than people who ran for office to make a career out of fixing government and making our country stronger.
Herman Cain has shown little cause to believe he is prepared to do the job of President. His time a Godfather’s is wholly unapplicable to being President, as was his time leading the NRA lobbying group, or his time as a talk show host. He’s a motivational speaker with a couple of ideas and the ability to say what he knows people want to hear. He might actually be someone who would DO what he says, but since he has zero experience in public office, we have no idea.
We’re long overdue to start running government like a business, not an endless black hole to dump taxpayers money into.
Newt has always been a Reagon supporter; and has championed his ideas.
Moreso than any other of our Candidates!)
Conservatism is NOT over; but yes; Reagan is gone; and we have no one replacing him. The other fact; often ignored; that if Reagan were running today; he certainly would meet with an abundance of criticism; from the very people who want the Reagan MO to endure. He was not an absolute Conservative; but did hold 'dear' where it mattered; and he; by and large, was certainly Conservative and a true Patriot.
Michael Reagn said this week; that his Father absolutely shared Newt's understanding of immigration; and that he would have shared same MO; and that he, Michael supported Newt.
Good enough for me; not that I needed it. . .
The Reagan agenda remains at the core of conservative policies for the GOP. Strong defense, lower taxes, less spending/limited govt and promoting the pro-life agenda. In the last 20 years opposition to amnesty has been added.
If Reagan were around today he would not be supporting amnesty for illegals like Newt wants. Back in 2005 when Bush was pushing passage of the McCain/Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate, Ed Meese wrote an opinion piece. In that article Meese stated that he was convinced Pres Reagan wouldn't make the same mistake he made with the IRCA of 1986. I agree.
Btw, over the years Michael Reagan has supported many conservatives. He's also supported many moderates and liberals like Schwarzennegger, Giuliani, Romney and Gingrich. I've always thought of Michael Reagan as more a libertarian, then a mainstream Reagan conservative.