Search Episodes (Sarah Palin for Senate )

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

Added 01/15/12
0 Views

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:06 01/15/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Poor Rick Perry. Back when he still had a chance, he couldn't string two coherent sentences together. And now that he's probably at the end of the line, he finally learns to play the game: Namely, to lie, exaggerate and deny with the best of them. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks for joining us this morning. PERRY: Good morning, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm doing well. Thank you. Less than a week to go in South Carolina, you're still lagging far behind. To borrow a metaphor from your home state, has South Carolina become your Alamo? PERRY: I don't think so. But we get out every day and go take our message of job creation, and, you know, we're the most consistent fiscal conservative and social conservative in the race, and that's our message, both on the airwaves and out on the campaign trail. The retail politics in South Carolina has been awesome. STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, Governor, that big group of social conservatives meeting in Texas yesterday, decided you're not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. They want Rick Santorum to have that mantle. You didn't even make the final ballot. PERRY: Well, that's what they said about Ronald Reagan as well, that, you know, he was unelectable, he was not the one that they wanted to pick. But South Carolina citizens said, you know what, he is. So we'll wait and see Saturday what the people of South Carolina say. STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your message this final week? PERRY: Well, it's all about jobs and getting this country back working again. I'm -- 11 years of executive governing experience that have created a million jobs in my home state , the 13th largest economy in the world. I keep the taxes low, the regulatory climate fair and predictable, a legal system that doesn't allow for oversuing. And in a state that's got quite a military history and a lot of veterans here, I think they're looking for a president who not only has worn the uniform of the country, but also has been the commander in chief of 20,000-plus National Guard troops that have been deployed multiple times. They know my commitment to the men and women of the military, and we'll stand with them and support them over the course of the years. As we already know, Texas has a "weak governor," one whose powers and responsibilities are few. We see how well that same "executive governing experience" prepared George W. Bush to be president. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor, as you know, you have taken some heat this week from many Republicans for your attacks on Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist during his time at Bain Capital. Want to read some of them here. Sean Hannity said, "it almost sounds like Occupy Wall Street." Rudy Giuliani, "it's ignorant and dumb." Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, "it really gives the Democrats a lot of fodder." Any regrets for using that phrase? PERRY: I think the issue -- it's not a new phrase. It was used by Stewart Stephens (ph), who was one of Mitt Romney's consultants, against Meg Whitman. I think the issue for everyone is, look, this is something that we knew wasn't going to come up. And it's better to be talking about it here in January in South Carolina than it is in September and October with a nominee. So if it's a fatal flaw, then we need to talk about it now. The issue has been about who's best prepared and who has the background of creating jobs, and that's what those comments were always about, was that, who is the job creator that's on that stage, and I will submit to you that my job creation record is incomparable when it comes to the other candidates on that stage. Oh yeah, there's the little fact that most of the jobs created in Texas were federal jobs. > STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't buy Mitt Romney's argument that at Bain he created more than 100,000 jobs? PERRY: I think, you know, the issue is, what is the total -- it's just like Sarah Palin, when Sarah asked that question, she said, you know, that's really what this issue is all about, not whether or not did the Bain Capital is a job creator or not, but did they really create that many jobs? So, yes, I think the question is out there, and it's a good conversation to have. We're going to get tested by Obama and his group. So, you better have all of these answers done early. No surprises in September and October. STEPHANOPOULOS: But I think what a lot of Republicans are worried about, is they're going to hear that phrase "vulture capitalism" coming out of your mouth, from President Obama and the Democrats in the fall? PERRY: Well, the issue is about job creation. And as I said, I think if this is a fatal flaw, it needs to be talked about now, rather than in September. So, you know, we're talking about it, and the people of South Carolina will decide whether or not that's a problem or not. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Governor Perry, what is your plan going forward? If you don't come in first or a close second in South Carolina, is that it for your campaign? PERRY: Well, we'll make that decision on Saturday. Our intention is to win South Carolina and go forward from there. But to try to plan out your campaign months in advance, I think is a little bit of a stretch. STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks very much for your time this morning. PERRY: So long, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Take care.

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

Added 01/15/12
0 Views

On This Week, The Long, Last Desperate Gasp of Gov. Rick Perry

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:06 01/15/12
video platform video management video solutions video player Poor Rick Perry. Back when he still had a chance, he couldn't string two coherent sentences together. And now that he's probably at the end of the line, he finally learns to play the game: Namely, to lie, exaggerate and deny with the best of them. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks for joining us this morning. PERRY: Good morning, George. How are you? STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm doing well. Thank you. Less than a week to go in South Carolina, you're still lagging far behind. To borrow a metaphor from your home state, has South Carolina become your Alamo? PERRY: I don't think so. But we get out every day and go take our message of job creation, and, you know, we're the most consistent fiscal conservative and social conservative in the race, and that's our message, both on the airwaves and out on the campaign trail. The retail politics in South Carolina has been awesome. STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, Governor, that big group of social conservatives meeting in Texas yesterday, decided you're not the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. They want Rick Santorum to have that mantle. You didn't even make the final ballot. PERRY: Well, that's what they said about Ronald Reagan as well, that, you know, he was unelectable, he was not the one that they wanted to pick. But South Carolina citizens said, you know what, he is. So we'll wait and see Saturday what the people of South Carolina say. STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your message this final week? PERRY: Well, it's all about jobs and getting this country back working again. I'm -- 11 years of executive governing experience that have created a million jobs in my home state , the 13th largest economy in the world. I keep the taxes low, the regulatory climate fair and predictable, a legal system that doesn't allow for oversuing. And in a state that's got quite a military history and a lot of veterans here, I think they're looking for a president who not only has worn the uniform of the country, but also has been the commander in chief of 20,000-plus National Guard troops that have been deployed multiple times. They know my commitment to the men and women of the military, and we'll stand with them and support them over the course of the years. As we already know, Texas has a "weak governor," one whose powers and responsibilities are few. We see how well that same "executive governing experience" prepared George W. Bush to be president. > STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor, as you know, you have taken some heat this week from many Republicans for your attacks on Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist during his time at Bain Capital. Want to read some of them here. Sean Hannity said, "it almost sounds like Occupy Wall Street." Rudy Giuliani, "it's ignorant and dumb." Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, "it really gives the Democrats a lot of fodder." Any regrets for using that phrase? PERRY: I think the issue -- it's not a new phrase. It was used by Stewart Stephens (ph), who was one of Mitt Romney's consultants, against Meg Whitman. I think the issue for everyone is, look, this is something that we knew wasn't going to come up. And it's better to be talking about it here in January in South Carolina than it is in September and October with a nominee. So if it's a fatal flaw, then we need to talk about it now. The issue has been about who's best prepared and who has the background of creating jobs, and that's what those comments were always about, was that, who is the job creator that's on that stage, and I will submit to you that my job creation record is incomparable when it comes to the other candidates on that stage. Oh yeah, there's the little fact that most of the jobs created in Texas were federal jobs. > STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't buy Mitt Romney's argument that at Bain he created more than 100,000 jobs? PERRY: I think, you know, the issue is, what is the total -- it's just like Sarah Palin, when Sarah asked that question, she said, you know, that's really what this issue is all about, not whether or not did the Bain Capital is a job creator or not, but did they really create that many jobs? So, yes, I think the question is out there, and it's a good conversation to have. We're going to get tested by Obama and his group. So, you better have all of these answers done early. No surprises in September and October. STEPHANOPOULOS: But I think what a lot of Republicans are worried about, is they're going to hear that phrase "vulture capitalism" coming out of your mouth, from President Obama and the Democrats in the fall? PERRY: Well, the issue is about job creation. And as I said, I think if this is a fatal flaw, it needs to be talked about now, rather than in September. So, you know, we're talking about it, and the people of South Carolina will decide whether or not that's a problem or not. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Governor Perry, what is your plan going forward? If you don't come in first or a close second in South Carolina, is that it for your campaign? PERRY: Well, we'll make that decision on Saturday. Our intention is to win South Carolina and go forward from there. But to try to plan out your campaign months in advance, I think is a little bit of a stretch. STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, thanks very much for your time this morning. PERRY: So long, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Take care.

C&L's Top 50 Videos of 2011: #8 Sarah Palin's Unconventional R...

Added 01/01/12
0 Views

Michele Bachmann's Dominionist Endorsement: Dr. George Grant

Added 12/01/11
8 Views

Michele Bachmann's Dominionist Endorsement: Dr. George Grant

[LESS INFO] 8 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:22 12/01/11
Even though Michele Bachmann's viability as a candidate is almost nil, what she stands for is important, since Rick Perry and Sarah Palin are also high-profile members of the dominionist movement . Dr. George Grant is the chancellor and founder of New College Franklin in Tennessee. New College Franklin is a small, private Christian university with big dreams. From the video, courtesy of RightWingWatch : > Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less. If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose. Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. Rarely have I seen such a straightforward statement of dominionism. By the way, it is such a radical theology and political stance that many politicians running for office run away from these types. John McCain embraced, then rejected John Hagee in 2008, and now Bachmann has removed the reference to Grant's endorsement from her campaign website, too. Grant's manifesto in that video is exactly what dominionists believe -- that they have a mandate to not simply participate, but have dominion over the world, politically and otherwise. There's plenty of debate about what to do about churches and cults who enjoy tax-exempt status and yet expect to have dominion over our political landscape, particularly in light of the Bill of Rights, which grants freedom of religion, no matter how bizarre, and freedom of speech. Would revocation of their tax-exempt status invite them to a higher profile in politics or a lower one? The thinking behind giving churches tax-exempt status is that it further separates church and state. This is the logic applied by the US Supreme Court in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York . However, I believe there should be some middle ground. Why, for example, don't churches have to file form 990 like other organizations? Why shouldn't they be accountable for their revenue and expenditures, and have to certify that those expenditures are not used for lobbying or political purposes like other tax-exempt organizations? Why don't they have to file an application for tax-exempt status? As taxpayers, we're subsidizing churches and colleges like this one, who are shameless about their involvement and goals in politics. When Michele Bachmann's campaign finally breathes its last, I'm sure Dr. Grant will endorse Rick Perry or possibly even Mitt Romney, depending on who Romney's running mate is. Of course, he will be doing it as an individual , not as the head of a tax-exempt organization, which will shield him from scrutiny by the IRS while subjecting us all to the insanity these people bring to the debate.

New Hampshire Haunted by Alinsky Ghost - BOO!

Added 10/31/11
11 Views

New Hampshire Haunted by Alinsky Ghost - BOO!

[LESS INFO] 11 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:16 10/31/11
Wow, keep it up tea partiers. This is really stunning. A 15-year old student asks a legitimate question about voting rights and is completely ripped on by Bill O'Brien, New Hampshire's Speaker of the House. Way to alienate young people from conservatism there, Billy-boy. Here's the backstory, from "michael" on Blue Hampshire : > However, this is when I lifted my hand and asked my question. I asked him about the aforementioned quote about students and whether or not he believed that there should be a litmus test based on ideology determining who gets to vote easily and conveniently. His response was not to answer the question I quite politely posed, but to start speaking in a rather untoward, declamatory manner about how I "demonized" him and how liberals "demonize" conservatives instead of talking about the important issues of the day- namely, supporting business, lowering taxes, cutting spending and family values. He then went on to distemperately rant about Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", bitterly implying that I, a flipping fifteen year old, am a Communist subversive, sandwiched between lines about me demonizing Republicans. I think it's worth reading the transcript of Michael's question: > First, you mentioned in a conversation with several Tea Party members at a Tea Party meeting that you wanted a law passed that would stop out-of-state students from voting in New Hampshire because, quote -- Students, when they're in college -- I'm paraphrasing here -- Students, when they're in college, they're sitting around, they're voting their feelings, they're being foolish, they're voting liberal. What is the threshold for when someone can actually exercise their Constitutional right to vote? Is someone's ideology supposed to be a litmus test? Or age, when it's Constitutionally allowed, intended on being a litmus test on who can vote? I mean -- OBRIEN: No, no, no. What's your second question? There's a series of questions. What's your second question? What do you think, C%L readers? Fair question? I think so, particularly in light of the ongoing war on voting happening around this country, courtesy of the Tea Party and conservatives. But the answer is just...well, it's like Glenn Beck's more-evil twin was sitting at the front of the room. > OBRIEN: You know there's a [unintelligible] thread in all of this. Namely Saul Alinsky. And Saul Alinsky realized that something -- you know, he was a Marxist back in the 40s, 50s and 60s. He realized something. He realized that the United States would never, never turn socialist. And so he thought to himself, how do I get socialism? And so he wrote this book that still [unintelligible]...he operated out of Chicago and he wrote this book and it's called "Rules for Radicals." And the Rules for Radical work never taught any substantive issues with conservative politicians. Try to demonize them, try to marginalize them, try to radicalize them, make them something strange and different and exotic. And so we see among conservative Republican leaders in this country a constant effort to try to marginalize them. You know, Sarah Palin's, not a leader, she's not educated well, and Newt Gingrich is kind of a fat guy, and Herman Cain is -- you know. What we find is that people want to talk about issues like that, rather than issues that are important to our state. In fact, I was joking around with some people talking about voter ID and voter laws and having a joke with people, and that's all they want to talk about. Marginalize this guy, make sure that his conservative agenda isn't being talked about. Let's not talk about the substantive issues of overtaxing. Let's not talk about the issues of bringing jobs and affordable government back here. Let's see if we can just marginalize him. And that's what you're doing. Yes, Alice, you've fallen down the conservative rabbit hole into that other place where they do what they say others do. That would be the conservative rabbit hole with the unending assault on anyone who disagrees, the turning-around of a substantive question by conjuring forth Saul Alinsky from the corridors of the dead to distract, deflect, and otherwise ignore a reasonable question by a soon-to-be voting citizen of this great country. Let me see if I can actually pull the substance away from the fiction. Evidently Mr. O'Brien was heard to say that he didn't think students should vote because they vote liberal. Mr. O'Brien doesn't like liberals very much. Therefore, he feels that it's his duty to remove their constitutionally guaranteed voting rights from them. Do watch the video past the transcription, where another student stands up, outraged that Mr. O'Brien is marginalizing him and his right to vote coming up in a few years. It will restore your faith in humanity, at least, a little bit. This video is a remarkable sleight-of-hand on Mr. O'Brien's part. Even when confronted with the vote in New Hampshire's House of Representatives which would have disenfranchised student voters there, O'Brien ducks the real question and chooses instead to launch an attack on the person asking it, as though the question itself were simply justification to trash liberals rather than actually address a legitimate concern. In fact, that concern is more than well-founded. The first version of New Hampshire's Voter ID bill was vetoed by the Governor, prompting a second version to be put forward in the House of Representatives. This is the bill michael is asking about. Via PeoplesWorld : > According to their detractors, New Hampshire Republican leaders are part of what is called a corporate-driven Republican national agenda. The American Legislative Exchange Council, which, according to the American Association for Justice, operates as " the ultimate smoke-filled back room ," is seen to have its hands in New Hampshire politics. In August, Granite State Progress called on New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O'Brien to release a list of state legislators who had attended ALEC's recent conference. The voter ID drive in New Hampshire is itself far from dead, however. Republicans in the state's House of Representatives plan to revive it, possibly entering a new bill as early as Weds. The original bill was drafted in the State Senate, more right leaning than the House, and did not include the provision allowing people those without photo ID to cast provisional ballots. However, the House, in passing its version of the bill, added the rule. Fortunately it sounds as though the Governor will backstop any bill that's more to the right than the one he already vetoed, but given the push by O'Brien and his House of Representatives, it sounds like Michael asked a question regarding a substantial and far-reaching policy issue, only to be demonized, Alinsky-style. Shame on Speaker O'Brien, and kudos to Michael and his friends for standing up for their rights and putting up with that barrage of verbal abuse. [h/t Daily Kos ]

New Hampshire Haunted by Alinsky Ghost - BOO!

Added 10/31/11
14 Views

New Hampshire Haunted by Alinsky Ghost - BOO!

[LESS INFO] 14 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:16 10/31/11
Wow, keep it up tea partiers. This is really stunning. A 15-year old student asks a legitimate question about voting rights and is completely ripped on by Bill O'Brien, New Hampshire's Speaker of the House. Way to alienate young people from conservatism there, Billy-boy. Here's the backstory, from "michael" on Blue Hampshire : > However, this is when I lifted my hand and asked my question. I asked him about the aforementioned quote about students and whether or not he believed that there should be a litmus test based on ideology determining who gets to vote easily and conveniently. His response was not to answer the question I quite politely posed, but to start speaking in a rather untoward, declamatory manner about how I "demonized" him and how liberals "demonize" conservatives instead of talking about the important issues of the day- namely, supporting business, lowering taxes, cutting spending and family values. He then went on to distemperately rant about Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", bitterly implying that I, a flipping fifteen year old, am a Communist subversive, sandwiched between lines about me demonizing Republicans. I think it's worth reading the transcript of Michael's question: > First, you mentioned in a conversation with several Tea Party members at a Tea Party meeting that you wanted a law passed that would stop out-of-state students from voting in New Hampshire because, quote -- Students, when they're in college -- I'm paraphrasing here -- Students, when they're in college, they're sitting around, they're voting their feelings, they're being foolish, they're voting liberal. What is the threshold for when someone can actually exercise their Constitutional right to vote? Is someone's ideology supposed to be a litmus test? Or age, when it's Constitutionally allowed, intended on being a litmus test on who can vote? I mean -- OBRIEN: No, no, no. What's your second question? There's a series of questions. What's your second question? What do you think, C%L readers? Fair question? I think so, particularly in light of the ongoing war on voting happening around this country, courtesy of the Tea Party and conservatives. But the answer is just...well, it's like Glenn Beck's more-evil twin was sitting at the front of the room. > OBRIEN: You know there's a [unintelligible] thread in all of this. Namely Saul Alinsky. And Saul Alinsky realized that something -- you know, he was a Marxist back in the 40s, 50s and 60s. He realized something. He realized that the United States would never, never turn socialist. And so he thought to himself, how do I get socialism? And so he wrote this book that still [unintelligible]...he operated out of Chicago and he wrote this book and it's called "Rules for Radicals." And the Rules for Radical work never taught any substantive issues with conservative politicians. Try to demonize them, try to marginalize them, try to radicalize them, make them something strange and different and exotic. And so we see among conservative Republican leaders in this country a constant effort to try to marginalize them. You know, Sarah Palin's, not a leader, she's not educated well, and Newt Gingrich is kind of a fat guy, and Herman Cain is -- you know. What we find is that people want to talk about issues like that, rather than issues that are important to our state. In fact, I was joking around with some people talking about voter ID and voter laws and having a joke with people, and that's all they want to talk about. Marginalize this guy, make sure that his conservative agenda isn't being talked about. Let's not talk about the substantive issues of overtaxing. Let's not talk about the issues of bringing jobs and affordable government back here. Let's see if we can just marginalize him. And that's what you're doing. Yes, Alice, you've fallen down the conservative rabbit hole into that other place where they do what they say others do. That would be the conservative rabbit hole with the unending assault on anyone who disagrees, the turning-around of a substantive question by conjuring forth Saul Alinsky from the corridors of the dead to distract, deflect, and otherwise ignore a reasonable question by a soon-to-be voting citizen of this great country. Let me see if I can actually pull the substance away from the fiction. Evidently Mr. O'Brien was heard to say that he didn't think students should vote because they vote liberal. Mr. O'Brien doesn't like liberals very much. Therefore, he feels that it's his duty to remove their constitutionally guaranteed voting rights from them. Do watch the video past the transcription, where another student stands up, outraged that Mr. O'Brien is marginalizing him and his right to vote coming up in a few years. It will restore your faith in humanity, at least, a little bit. This video is a remarkable sleight-of-hand on Mr. O'Brien's part. Even when confronted with the vote in New Hampshire's House of Representatives which would have disenfranchised student voters there, O'Brien ducks the real question and chooses instead to launch an attack on the person asking it, as though the question itself were simply justification to trash liberals rather than actually address a legitimate concern. In fact, that concern is more than well-founded. The first version of New Hampshire's Voter ID bill was vetoed by the Governor, prompting a second version to be put forward in the House of Representatives. This is the bill michael is asking about. Via PeoplesWorld : > According to their detractors, New Hampshire Republican leaders are part of what is called a corporate-driven Republican national agenda. The American Legislative Exchange Council, which, according to the American Association for Justice, operates as " the ultimate smoke-filled back room ," is seen to have its hands in New Hampshire politics. In August, Granite State Progress called on New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O'Brien to release a list of state legislators who had attended ALEC's recent conference. The voter ID drive in New Hampshire is itself far from dead, however. Republicans in the state's House of Representatives plan to revive it, possibly entering a new bill as early as Weds. The original bill was drafted in the State Senate, more right leaning than the House, and did not include the provision allowing people those without photo ID to cast provisional ballots. However, the House, in passing its version of the bill, added the rule. Fortunately it sounds as though the Governor will backstop any bill that's more to the right than the one he already vetoed, but given the push by O'Brien and his House of Representatives, it sounds like Michael asked a question regarding a substantial and far-reaching policy issue, only to be demonized, Alinsky-style. Shame on Speaker O'Brien, and kudos to Michael and his friends for standing up for their rights and putting up with that barrage of verbal abuse. [h/t Daily Kos ]