The Cain Scrutiny
[Posted by Karl]
Although Rick Perry currently remains in the lead in the RCP average for the GOP nomination, Nate Silver* is far from the only person noting that the prime beneficiary of Perry’s current slump is Herman Cain, not Mitt Romney. It appears the political discussion will continue to move back to a Romney vs Not Romney theme, although Silver adds the appropriate caveats:
Mr. Romney has emerged — or re-emerged — as the favorite; I’d give him roughly even odds of winning the nomination. But it’s unlikely to be a smooth and linear path, and the alternate hypothesis that Republican voters are determined to pick someone more conservative than him has some support in this data.
That’s not to paper over the problems of Mr. Perry, who entered the race in a strong strategic position and has failed to make much of it. It’s possible, moreover, that the fallout of the Sept. 22 debate is not yet fully realized in the surveys; Mr. Perry performed somewhat worse in the Fox News and YouGov polls than in the CNN poll, which postdated it by a couple of days.
In general, however, I’d caution against using terms like “momentum” when discussing the nomination race (or polling results under most other circumstances). We’ll be publishing a separate article on this shortly, but there’s not much evidence of serial correlation in polling data: candidates who decline from one period to the next are just as likely to rebound as to see their numbers continue falling.
That finding does not surprise me. As I noted previously, if Romney re-emerges as front-runner, there will be a renewed focus by his rivals and the media on Romney’s weaknesses as a candidate. Moreover, if Cain competes seriously with Perry in the Not Romney category, Cain also will get more scrutiny.
Herman Cain certainly has assets as a candidate. For starters, he’s well-liked (including by me, fwiw), although Gallup has a caveat:
Herman Cain’s image among Republicans familiar with him is more intensely positive than any other Republican presidential candidate’s, but his 51% name recognition continues to rank near the bottom of the field. Among the better-known candidates, Rick Perry has the strongest positive image.
The WSJ’s Daniel Henninger recounts Cain’s success in the business world and long-standing opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare system — noting Cain’s record in both respects compares favorably with that of Mitt Romney. However, Henninger goes further, musing:
Does a résumé like Herman Cain’s add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we’ve fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I’m rewriting my presidential-selection software.
However, the question is whether Cain can convince the electorate to do the same. Henninger’s reasoning seems flawed, even by its own standards. Having noted the lack of serial correlation in public opinion polling, theorizing that polls drive candidate selection is like arguing that thermometers cause fevers. As for slips of the tongue, Henninger seems to have missed that Cain has made his share, notably in foreign policy. Cain first tried to punt on foreign policy in general; since then, he’s given bad answers or made gaffes on Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program, and Taiwan, for starters. Although the 2012 election is unlikely to turn on foreign policy, voters probably would like more reassurance on that front — and the establishment media would undoubtedly play up this weakness in a matchup with Obama. Cain has also apologized to Muslims for comments about their faith. Muslims are a small voting bloc and likely not influential in the GOP primary process, but here again the media would play this sort of material big (much as some elements of the media have been doing with Perry).
Cain also tends to make comments that do not really rise to the level of a gaffe, but raise questions about his strength as a candidate. For example, Cain’s comment that he could not support Perry as the nominee may suggest that he does not understand the Romney vs Not Romney dynamic. If you are Not Romney, you should be trying to consolidate that bloc by going after Romney, not attacking other Not Romneys, whose supporters you want to attract. Tim Pawlenty decided to spend his time attacking Michelle Bachmann instead of Romney; it did not end well for him. Similarly, while many on the right like to point to Cain’s popularity as a rebuttal to the left’s tired resort to the race card, Cain’s comment that “African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view” (and others like this) may ultimately be counter-productive. First, some African-Americans may bristle at that sort of comment and harden their positions, undermining Cain’s appeal. Second, any minute spent in 2012 discussing race is a minute not spent our sluggish economic growth, high unemployment, exploding debt, rising health insurance costs and lost insurance coverage under Obamacare, and so on.
One major reason why parties tend to nominate people who have been governors or senators, as opposed to House members or people who have not held elective office, is that they have demonstrated at minimum a history of not imploding under the pressure of a large-scale campaign. Recent examples of pure businessmen running for president — Perot, Trump — underscore this point. Herman Cain has undeniable assets, but also undeniable liabilities. He may get his chance to unify the Not Romney bloc in the GOP caucuses and primaries; whether he can capitalize on that chance remains to be seen.
*Although Silver is keying off the Sept. 22 debate in Orlando, I’ll continue to be the contrarian here. Perry takes a much bigger hit in Florida polls from PPP and Survey USA, which is in line with what “Perry’s eggheads” would say about the importance of local coverage; Perry’s smaller fall outside Florida suggests that his problem is larger than the debates themselves.
Come and get it!Karl (f07e38) — 9/29/2011 @ 11:15 am
I like Cain. I give him a lot more slack for occasional gaffes because he, unlike Perry, is not a highly experienced politician.
Though I do worry about someone who thinks his first foray into politics should be to run for the highest office, we live in special times. Maybe we need a completely fresh perspective.
I think Perry is better prepared, given his long record of executive leadership like a conservative (he alone has this). But Cain is my second choice.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/29/2011 @ 11:18 am
Love the title. The post is just OK.Jim S. (d2b8f2) — 9/29/2011 @ 11:51 am
3. I like Cain too but find him as weak an offering as Bachmann overall.
He’s been a foreign policy naif, his prime qualification–former KC Reserve chair–isn’t what it used to be with Bernanke ignoring 3 dissenters on the last two policy calls.
He seems to have a temper and no powerbase in Congress, i.e., another outsider like Urkel and Carter.
I’ll still vote for him over Romamba and in the general election.gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/29/2011 @ 11:55 am
I like Cain but I’m not ready yet to say I want him to be president.
Strong arguments to be made against Obama are 1.that he was not ready for the office, 2. that Obama really does not understand practical political governance, 3. that Obama has made many serious, costly newbie mistakes, 4.that Obama has lacked quality relationships with experienced Washington hands to use as sounding boards for advice, and 5. that amidst all the crises Obama has melted rather than grown in the job. A Cain candidacy could considerably temper several of those arguments, since Cain is untried, too.
I want the next new guy in the WH to be ready to hit the ground running. I don’t want surprises.elissa (c0ee38) — 9/29/2011 @ 12:01 pm
4. “I’ll still vote for him over Romamba and in the general election.”
Poorly worded. If he were the best situated alternative, I would vote for him.gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/29/2011 @ 12:02 pm
I would vote for Cain if he gets the nomination, but would prefer Perry. Of course, I would vote for anybody or anything against Obama. My dog if she had the nomination.BarSinister (5a3146) — 9/29/2011 @ 12:07 pm
Here’s my DohBiden “off-topic, but I’m not really attempting to thread-jack” moment:
Congresswoman Jackie Speier of (SHOCKA!) California, speaking on Martin “Palin is anti-American” Bashir’s show just labeled Planned Parenthood a — and I quote — “federal program”.
Congresswoman Speier’s personal history as one of the survivors of the Jonestown massacre notwithstanding, watching her say that made me physically ill.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]Icy Texan (eafd99) — 9/29/2011 @ 12:34 pm
‘Cain’s comment that “African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open minded, not even considering a conservative point of view” (and others like this) may ultimately be counter-productive.’
Suspect Cain didn’t make use of the term ‘brainwashed’ by accident. Should be amusing if it gets play in a debate exchange between Romney and Cain, as the word was kryptonite to Mitt’s daddy, George, in his ’68 presidential bid.DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 9/29/2011 @ 12:57 pm
Eff you.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/29/2011 @ 1:39 pm
Show of hands …. Who suspects DSCSA is a pig ignert lying fabulist?
Raises handJD (6d8a47) — 9/29/2011 @ 1:48 pm
(and the idea Cain is laying a trap for Romney on Vietnam is simply stupid).
Brainwashing is a word. Cain’s right that black voters should reconsider Republicans.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/29/2011 @ 1:52 pm
Raising my handEricPWJohnson (ca4f54) — 9/29/2011 @ 1:52 pm
You teabaggers are racist for even reading this thread.Janeane Garofalo (298188) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:09 pm
Cain is a little too neurotically obsessed with immigration I think but I decided last night I could vote for himhappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:12 pm
IMP hates conservative black people.JD (68ff46) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:21 pm
I for one am tired of the bourgeois political class determining who and who doesn’t fit the presidential mold. We need to stop allowing the establishment from choosing our candidates.
I’m a fan of Chris Christie but I no longer think he’s viable because of the Republican beltway insiders trying to push him into the Presidential race.
The only way to defeat the progressive agenda is to go with the anti-establishment candidate. That’s why I choose Mr. Herman Cain.
CAIN V. UNABLE 2012dwalk (f0833b) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:30 pm
So is occupying Wall Street wrong?DohBiden (d54602) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:38 pm
I’am obsessed with illegal immigration too Crappyfeet.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:40 pm
SECOND LOOK AT ROMNEY-BOT!mojo (8096f2) — 9/29/2011 @ 2:49 pm
Excellent blogbost title.
The guy doesn’t have a chance in hell.Jones (a67e66) — 9/29/2011 @ 3:15 pm
Comment by Janeane Garofalo — 9/29/2011 @ 2:09 pm
‘There you go again’ no worthy argument so call others names and throw a temper tantrum. Mommy! Mommy! They said BOO!JohnFLob (35f37b) — 9/29/2011 @ 4:39 pm
It’d be awesome if they put Cain under the microscope, cause then perhaps people would get blinded by the brightness.
Lets see Cain vs Unable
Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan vs. Obama’s “Hope for another Chance”
Herman Can Cain.G (dd1df9) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:10 pm
A good executive knows what they don’t know and gets the necessary people who do. That said, Cain needs to have some good responses to what the “Cain Doctrine” would be. Who knows, he may have more experience making international business deals than Obama had in foreign affairs before elected. He could make a comment that he learned from Obama how important it is to get good advisors, as Obama has suffered for lack of them. 😉
I think the nomination and election will go to someone who captures the imagination and aspirations of the American people through unplanned and unanticipated events. I have no idea who that will be, but I hope it is not the one currently in office, and that the person will be a good president, whoever it is.
I think we should campaign for Stashiu3 and DRJ, whether they want to run or not (to quote Bill Crystal); your country needs you…MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:24 pm
If I say “No!” 87 times in a row, does that still leave the door open?Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:30 pm
87 is just a number…EricPWJohnson (ca4f54) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:43 pm
DCSCAColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:45 pm
the dren has hit the fan, brown
stain on yer mom’s leg
John she is parodying janeane godawfulturd.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:46 pm
peewee is The SageColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/29/2011 @ 5:47 pm
Johnsonville bratwurst da bomb
all pigs’ ____ and _____
I’ll put up with a lot, but don’t go insulting bratwurst from Wisconsin. I never did anything to you.
Stashiu3- even if you quote Sherman 87 times x 87, if there is no good candidate by the day before the Repub. convention, get your vacation in while you still can (because, as a responsible person, you will not try to break the one’s record).MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/29/2011 @ 6:25 pm
Isn’t she the main attraction at Charles Johnsons Culver City jazz palace?DohBiden (d54602) — 9/29/2011 @ 6:55 pm
I like Herman Cain, but had some reservations when he filled in for Dennis Prager and told a caller that the Federal Reserve should not be audited.
I also realize that being a CEO of a failing company only to pull its fat out of the fire is not anything like healing an unhealthy nation. When you are CEO, you can fire anyone who doesn’t work with you on common goals. Cain, as POTUS, is not going to be able to fire Sheila Jackson Lee, Bernie Sanders, or Barney Frank. Not even Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters, and that bunch of rat packers are NOT going to work with him. How long before Sheila Jackson Lee uses the term “uppity?”
Depending on a POTUS hiring intelligent advisors worrries me. We currently see how well that is working out. And while I think Cain would be a better judge of who would/or would not do a good job, I want a POTUS who understands the total responsibility of being POTUS, not just the jobs end of it, because it entails much, much more.
Question; has the U.S. ever voted in a president that had absolutely no experience in either governing or the military? If you want to clean up the sausage factory, you have to know how the sausage is made.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/29/2011 @ 7:30 pm
Well Cain did get his start in the Navy, doing calculations for ballistics, and there is his association with the Fed, Presidents can’t do anything about the opposition Congress, either,ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/29/2011 @ 7:34 pm
If you want to clean up the sausage factory, you have to know how the sausage is made.
You also need the ability to speak and share a coherent thought. Some (e.g., Cain) can… some (e.g., Perry) can’t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJWtSASmAAkColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/29/2011 @ 7:41 pm
Only one straight businessman has ever been nominated for President – Wendell Willkie in 1940. And that did not end well. (Though that was in part due to Willkie’s inexperience as a candidate; Cain at least has his previous campaign for Senate nomination.)
Some others have been nominated for Vice President: newspaper publisher Frank Knox in 1936, and newspaper editor Whitelaw Reid in 1892.
(Horace Greeley had served one term in the House.)
One important point: being a Senator or Representative wasn’t a full-time job until recently. The 73rd Congress of 1933-1935, which enacted FDR’s New Deal, only met for 266 days, barely 1/3 of its duration. The 84th Congress of 1955-1956 met for 436 days; one session ended 8/2/55, and the other 7/27/56, after which the members went home.
So Senators and Representatives had lives outside Congress, including “day jobs”. A lot more had businesses to see to.
(ISTM that limiting the years of service in legislatures is less important than limiting the length of legislative sessions.)Rich Rostrom (e84440) — 9/29/2011 @ 8:23 pm
35. I’m sure it’s as obvious to the Elites soaking Christie’s sleeve in tears as to any of us:
The electorate isn’t settling for an ‘electable moderate’.
As Rushbo was sayin today, if Christie did get his Edmonds wet he’d just sink Romamba’s ship and wallow at the same waterline.gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/29/2011 @ 8:50 pm
Obama just said that America has gotten a little bit soft.
Well if you want to blame someone for that, then you should blame the Democrats.AZ Bob (f67ff0) — 9/29/2011 @ 9:03 pm
JONAH GOLDBERG: Seriously, in 2008 we elected a community organizer, state senator, college instructor first term senator over a guy who spent five years in a Vietnamese prison. And now he’s lecturing us about how America’s gone “soft”? Really?
From InstapunditAZ Bob (f67ff0) — 9/29/2011 @ 9:05 pm
Obama’s idea that America’s gotten a little bit soft must be a new thread of its own, please.AZ Bob (f67ff0) — 9/29/2011 @ 9:06 pm
Obama just said that America has gotten a little bit soft.
yeah… a sizable number of its citizens did go soft… soft in the head, when they voted to elect the likes of him.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/29/2011 @ 9:13 pm
It reminds me of Carter’s malaise moment.AZ Bob (f67ff0) — 9/29/2011 @ 9:17 pm
And now he’s lecturing us about how America’s gone “soft”? Really?
Moreover, he sat in a church for almost 20 years presided over by a preacher full of vitriol for the US, a place whose chickens, he proclaimed, were coming home to roost. A preacher who nonetheless was chosen to be a close adviser to the current occupant of the White House until controversy ensued.
So in Obama’s case, and because of his history and ultra-liberal bent, I’d say his words are based not so much on his necessarily believing them — or because he really cares whether they’re applicable and legitimate or not — but because they can deflect some blame from himself to others, and because he may deepdown be snickering about the meaning of it all.
^ I don’t think anyone can say with certainty what was going through the minds (or lips) of those two fans of Jeremiah Wright as they stood on the podium a few weeks ago. But the body language and facial mannerisms of both (with the husband nodding in a way that I’d describe as condescending agreement) suggest something inappropriate was triggered in the First Couple. In this instance, and most importantly, given their history, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to theorize a small bit of unguarded moment from them does justify a negative interpretation. And such occasions are why the comment of the US has “gotten soft” can be considered sort of a Freudian slip more than anything sincere and constructive.Mark (411533) — 9/29/2011 @ 10:09 pm
Rick Perry went to the Left of the vast majority of American voters with his illegal immigration-related firebreathing. So the voters left him for someone more Conservative. It’s interesting that the Ruling Class Republicans saw that as a sign that they needed to push someone that is to the Left of Rick Perry.
And Rick Perry is too much Big Government mandate with the hint of crony capitalism for my taste.
That said, I will not vote for Obama, ever. If Ron Paul gets the nomination (an impossibility), I’ll vote 3rd party. If John McCain 2.0 gets the nomination, I’ll do what I did in 2008: wait to see who the VP nominee is and either vote Republican or 3rd party based on the VP nominee. The others, I’d vote for them over NObama.John Hitchcock (3dac1a) — 9/29/2011 @ 10:30 pm
BTW, Cain is being noticed…Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8e16f7) — 9/29/2011 @ 11:12 pm
It is too early for this to matter. Last time we were talking about Fred Thompson vs Giuliani, and McCain was “history.”Kevin M (563f77) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:00 am
The more garafalo opens her mouth about Mr. Cain, The better for him. The hollywood nitwits are going to help us win this election with there constant spew of old rhetoric and racist claims.sickofrinos (44de53) — 9/30/2011 @ 2:31 am
Americans have grown weary of hollywood.
Yeah, that’s a shame. I don’t even agree with the policy he was defending, but at least I could rationalize that. I can’t justify the rhetoric he used. I don’t think it’s the end of the world, but it’s a clear sign he’s a squish on this issue. Just is.
He still is the best candidate because he’s got the best record. In fact, Perry has by far the best record on securing the border. While he’s cutting spending in just about all agencies, and balancing budgets for over a decade, one of the few things he poured money into was very large sums to further secure the border.
He’s playing you straight on this. He really does intend to secure the border. He also will treat those here in a way that I think will encourage more illegal immigration. A completely mixed bag, but at least he’s telling you his true views and letting you vote accordingly. If you can’t support him, I respect that.
But consider his record on spending, which goes back far longer than his term as governor, all the way back to when he was in appropriations and considered on of the best few legislators in the state, or when he was a highly effective proponent of Texas agriculture. He’s got a very long record of actually being highly effective and leading as a fiscal conservative. It’s simply who he is.
Cain is a good candidate too, and even though he’s an outsider to DC, I think he can probably do the job if he has sufficient advisers, and I like his 9-9-9 taxation proposal a lot. His gaffes, unlike Perry’s, can be excused because he’s a a noob to politics. I disagree with Haiku’s claim that Perry can’t speak clearly. He just can’t spit out some memorized points in the debate. In some formats, Perry’s very effective, but I think he’s outclassed when it comes to having 99 focus grouped poll based opinions.
If Cain takes off, and is the best alternative to Romney, we all need to unify around him. It is too important that Romney not be the nominee, because of Romney’s actual record in MA, which he and his supporters are trying very hard to say isn’t Romney’s fault, compared to Perry, which they try very hard to say he doesn’t deserve credit for. I’ll take the guy who is actually proud of his record over the guy who is ashamed of it.
Immigration is a critical issue, but what we need most is someone who knows all about the appropriations process and is dedicated to cutting spending and not raising taxes. We need someone who is completely sincere about this, and not just saying it because he knows we want to hear it. That’s why I think Cain and Perry are the two best choices.
Cain’s preference of Romney to Perry is very disturbing. Romney’s got a record, and anyone can check it for themselves. It’s really my only hang up about him. Pundits and politicians preferring Romney are preferring a gun grabbing health care mandating tax and spend hardcore pro-choice liberal… who claims to be the opposite of most of those things only now that the polls tell him to.
I know there’s more to it than that. You have to make nice with Romney because he’s a brilliant fundraiser who is crucial to the GOP and very much helped John Mccain and would do the same for whoever the GOP nominates (I suspect). But his record speaks for itself.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:21 am
John Hitchcock, seems you want to beat up on Perry for the Gardasil thing, but you did not mention that when Michele Bachmann was a state representative, she did NOTHING to end the Hep B vaccine requirement in her state. Hep B is generally transmitted the same was HPV is.
Or did you mention that Texas is only one of 11 states that grant in-state tuition.
I guess you would rather have this happen since you who complain about Texas making a 10th Amendment decision have no answers to the problems border states are facing:
Yeah, it is soooo much better having kids act as mules than attending college.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:22 am
Sad story, retire.
That is exactly why many Texans prefer educating our kids even if their parents committed a crime coming here, while also wanting a secured border.
It’s hard to find the perfect solution for these kids,Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:33 am
Odd that Romney is bashing Perry over a 10th Amendment issue when Romney, himself, was using the 10th Amendment as an exuse for Romneycare. Only problem, in-state tuition in Texas is not costing other states any money, Romneycare is. $764 million, to be exact. That is how much the Stimulus Bill awarded to Massachussets to keep Romneycare solvent.
But this is not the first go-round with Romney bashing other candidates by claiming they are soft on illegal immigration. He did the same to Guiliani when Guiliani was the front-runner, and then went after Huckabee for the same thing, when Huckabee was gathering traction.
But it seems that Romney’s relationship with illegals is a bit more personal. In Dec., 2006, the Boston Globe reported that the lawn service Romney was using was hiring illegals. They brought it to Romney’s attention. In Dec. 2007, the day after Romney had slammed Guiliani over New York City being a sanctuary for illegals, the Globe discovered that Romney was using the same lawn service with at least two illegals.
When questioned about it, Romney first brushed the press off, but later came out and said that he had given the lawn service a “second chance.” Anyone hard on illegal immigration doesn’t give a company a second, third or fourth, chance. And Romney had a responsibility to turn the lawn service into ICE. He did not.
If Cain is really hard on illegal immigration, he should think twice before backing Romney, who is not. And maybe someone should ask Cain who he’ll vote for if Perry is the nominee. Obama?retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:34 am
Dustin, search: Texas Border Security; A strategic Military Assessment
You can find it on line, linked to the Tx. Ag Commissioner’s office. It is a lenthy read, but well worth it.
Texas, along with other border states, are under seige. And the administration is sending guns to the drug cartels.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:37 am
Retire, I will check that out.
It’s a tragedy, and Perry’s got a record doing a lot to try to remedy it. However, some of his solutions are forced to be realistic instead of pie in the sky solutions, because Perry actually is doing it instead of just talking about doing it.
It’s really easy for MA to secure its entire border with Mexico and use those few who make it up there to trim their lawns, but TX has a huge number of kids in our schools and communities growing up.
Personally, I think Perry’s approach to those here is too soft, but most Texans agree with him. I am very annoyed with Perry’s comment about ‘have a heart’. I understand it, and I know Perry tends to do what he feels is right even if it’s unpopular.
Regardless, what we need most is someone who will actually secure the border. Too many leaders have talked about it, and failed to do it. My guess is (and granted I have a huge bias) Romney will govern like George HW Bush, and fail to make it happen. I already know what Perry would do, because he’s already pouring precious resources and personnel into the border and raising a stink over Obama’s failure to do the same.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:45 am
Dustin, I understand how you feel about the “heart” comment, but as a Texan, you should understand that our relationship with Hispanics is not like, oh, say, southern California. We have had a good relationship with Mexicans since one signed our Texas Constitution and more than one fought for Texas freedom at the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto. Where do people think all those Spanish names, like Seguin, came from that we have named our counties and town after?
Texas patriots that were Tejanos.
How far have we come when the best line in a debate is about dogs providing “shovel ready” jobs?
Today Romney is releasing an ad slamming Perry again over in-state tuition comparing Perry to Obama, Pelosi and Reid. It is the same damn thing he did to Guiliani and Huckabee. Just a repeat of a failing tactic from the last time Romney ran.
I will not vote for Romney. I held my nose voting for McCain and swore I would never do that again. I am tired of having to pick the “lesser” of evils.
I know that Perry will be strong on border “security” and I also understand that Americans being killed by Mexican drug cartel members is a bigger threat than being killed by a Muslim terrorist. Now it is being reported that Obama “killed” Anwar al Awlaki. I wonder if Obama was holding the joy stick when the drone got him. Now, don’t get me wrong; I wanted the slug dead. But it is against U.S. law to assassinate an American citizen. I am tired of making excuses for violating American law.
No one cares if their 4th Amendment rights are violated just to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of travel, no one is demanding that Eric Holder be removed from office over Fast and Furious, no one is now complaining that Obama violates national sovereignty with nations that we have treaties with.
I’m sorry, but I will never again vote for a man who has never served his nation in uniform. And Ron Paul is out of the question.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 5:39 am
I think it is very important the President have military experience, Retire.
I would love to hear more debate discussion of Fast and Furious. If this were a GOP scandal, it would be a major topic at all debates.
I think you raise a good historical point I’ve seen Beldar make as well that many Texan heroes were Hispanic. I have absolutely no problem with Mexicans being successful in Texas, especially kids who wake up one day being here, and wanting to make something of themselves. I just don’t see any end to illegal immigration if Mexican nationals know we aren’t using E-verify but are dealing with the mess they are creating with so much compassion.
Does Romney have a good answer? Absolutely not. I have heard nothing from Romney on what to do with these people. I guess his answer is found in his lawn service using illegals. It’s to pretend the problem doesn’t exist while bashing those who actually want to fix it.
Romney’s demagoguery has been relentless. On the one hand, he wants his Romneycare model for Obamacare forgiven because of states rights. We are supposed to ignore that Romney forces people to buy health insurance when they don’t want to, which is what’s really wrong with Obamacare. The legal distinction is legit, but also an abstraction. What kind of jackass wants to mandate health insurance over people who don’t want it? Romney’s states rights excuse cannot be reconciled with his other commentary on Texas’s states rights. He says all this stuff with an intelligent tone, but it’s actually not intelligent commentary at all. It’s all the wisdom of George Clooney or some other dazzling prime time show. If you actually put all of Romney’s commentary together in one place, he’s just a smooth talking imbecile or a rank hypocrite.
Romney is playing to win, and frankly I have to respect Haiku’s good faith preference of Romney over Perry, which generally is over electability concerns. Beating Obama is too important.
The bottom line for me is that Perry should be able to easily beat a man who solemnly promised never to waver from the “good law” of Roe v Wade. In a TEA party climate, Perry should be able to easily defeat a man who repeatedly signed legislation increasing spending and taxation in boom years, not leading MA realistically the way Perry led Texas, which was prepared for the inevitable downturns.
Unless I’m totally crazy, Romney should be very easy to defeat in a GOP primary. These are the people who prefer Romney of our choices. So if Perry can’t beat Romney, I think Haiku’s good faith electability concerns are proven.
I honestly don’t understand Cain on this, but I also thought it was bizarre that Cain blurted out ‘case closed’ when Romney’s abortion flip flop was pointed out. That’s not his call, and it’s very disturbing because it shows us we can’t take Romney’s word (his word being that he will “never waver” in supporting Roe v Wade as good law).
Case open. I guess Romney has cultivated many allies in the party. There’s something fundamentally wrong with our party, and it’s going way back to allegiances forms in the Nixon administration (such as the Bush and Romney dynasties). I want a party of ideas, not ruling families.
Perry must fight back decisively, even though Romney’s fans keep condemning Perry for responding to Romney’s tactics in kind. Perry has to keep getting back on his feet after he’s knocked down by the latest demagogue about tardasil or abolishing social security or whatever the hell else we’ll hear. That he’s not already well ahead of Romney is entirely Perry’s fault, in my opinion.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:25 am
==I will never again vote for a man who has never served his nation in uniform==
How about a girl? Would you vote for a girl who has never served in uniform? What about a man with eyesight problems or other physical disability which might have kept him from being in the military? I think I understand what you were getting at, and agree that military service is a big plus for a number of reasons. But your line in the sand sounds a little extreme to me and might not even be a feasable position in some elections I should think.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:34 am
“It’s hard to find the perfect solution for these kids.”
No it isn’t.
It’s called a catapult.d. in c. (cae88c) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:44 am
elissa, what about a “girl?” Girls are not eligible to run for POTUS. There is an age requirement and I don’t consider any the age to run for POTUS a “girl.”
As to women, there are only two ever talked about on the GOP side and neigher one of them are acceptable to me.
Eyesight has been a problem for one president, but it didn’t stop him from memorizing the eyechart so he could join the Army. And with the one president who suffered from polio and was confined to a wheel chair, well, he helped institution some of the socialist plans we now are paying for that we can’t afford.
And we Texans understand that a line in the sand often leads to freedom.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:44 am
Elissa, it’s not really about ‘how dare they not have served… everyone should’. It’s about ‘people who served have learned something about this country’s military that is very important for a CinC to know.’
It’s an argument that can’t be rebutted by an appeal to be equal opportunity, because the stakes are life and death. Those who have some kind of disability that kept them from learning this essential skill are simply less qualified than those who were blessed otherwise. Fair or not.
I won’t go as far as Retire to be an absolutist about it, but it’s big, big factor for me that someone who is President have served.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:45 am
Military service is a piss-poor predictor performance in political office. McCain is a great example and his little dog Lindsey too. But really the list goes on and on.happyfeet (3c92a1) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:56 am
*of* performance I meanhappyfeet (3c92a1) — 9/30/2011 @ 6:57 am
They are the exception that proves the rule, pikachu, so is Carter btw.ian cormac (ed5f69) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:01 am
Maybe Hillary will switch sides and be the GOP nominee.
She’ll do anything, why not?
We just give her an instruction manual of what to do, and so long as she stays onside, she gets to be Historical and Important.
Which is all they ever really want, anyway.d. in c. (cae88c) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:04 am
Carter yes and Colin Powell was a douchebag Secretary of State and John Kerry is a strikingly unremarkable twit and also there are others but I need coffee
I hate it when I run out of diet mountain dew it makes mornings all ponderoushappyfeet (3c92a1) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:10 am
Note no one is saying we should just vote for any veteran with no analysis of his views.
It’s one of many critical qualifications.
Others are a record of fiscally conservative policy, a record of not flip flopping on core issues, and basic electability.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:11 am
Retire–I was not looking to start a fight. Rather, I hoped my question would be understood as a simple probe of whether you could possibly be willing (ever) to vote for a woman who had not served– but in contrast would you (always) refuse to vote for any otherwise qualified man who had not served? Gross generalizations are sort of a bugaboo with me, I admit. And I do like to challenge them.
I decided to do so in this case, especially because I saw that in the very same comment post (@5:39) you had just made clear your disgust for McCain–even though, as I seem to remember, he did serve his country at great sacrifice.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:15 am
sacrifice schmacrifice he’s a douchehappyfeet (3c92a1) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:19 am
Of course, Herman Cain did work for the Navy. He wasn’t enlisted or in uniform, but he was part of the team.
Is that enough? Since it’s a competition, for me it’s not really about whether they crossed the threshold, but about who has the best qualifications.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:27 am
Mr. Feets @66– you just did that so I’d be obligated to mention your tendency toward gross generalizations too, didn’t you? I’m afraid I’m going to be much too busy to monitor this all day, though.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:27 am
elissa, I considere John Kerry a traitor to this nation. John McCain served his nation honorably, but somewhere along the road he became a squish on domestic issues.
But there is no denying that McCain would have been better than the Green party, anti-war protest supporter than what we currently have.
We are in multiple wars; Iraq and Afghanistan and Mexico has become a failed narco-state that we should be at “war” against. If you have a POTUS that has never served, they have no empathy for those they send to fight wars, and die.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:33 am
John Mccain was actually pretty great on foreign policy issues and military issues. Insofar as his service in the military played a role in his career as Senator and RINO, it actually made him much better than he’d otherwise be.
Ideally we can have veterans who also worked in sales, worked on a farm, served on appropriations, and were reelected governors because of their conservative fiscal policies and highly effective administration.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:33 am
==It’s about ‘people who served have learned something about this country’s military that is very important for a CinC to know’. It’s an argument that can’t be rebutted by an appeal to be equal opportunity, because the stakes are life and death. Those who have some kind of disability that kept them from learning this essential skill are simply less qualified than those who were blessed otherwise.==
Dustin–Before I leave I’m calling you on this shocking gross generalization, too.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:43 am
Fair enough, Elissa.
I mean it, though.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:49 am
Comment by happyfeet — 9/30/2011 @ 6:56 am
Lindsey was a JAG lawyer; doesn’t count – and is probably a negative.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:53 am
Actually, what’s shocking about that?
A crippled may be as patriotic as a veteran, but the veteran obviously has more experience with the military and moreunderstanding.
I actually think this is the exact opposite of a generalization. It’s a specific evaluation based on a relevant metric.
It’s like saying mothers are more knowledgeable about bearing children than non mothers.
Read all about them military, battles, watch all the movies, and support your troops, but to best understand the military, you really do need to join. I think everyone who can, should seriously consider doing it. Those who can’t are at an unfair disadvantage, but that’s not a generalization. It’s just reality.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 7:56 am
Comment by retire05 — 9/30/2011 @ 5:39 am
al-Awlaki killed in convoy attack by SEAL Team-6 – no “joy-stick” involved.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 8:26 am
Drew, good link.
I have to concede Obama deserves some credit for this. I think it’s a hard choice to be that aggressive.
Unlike the Osama Bin Laden raid, this was a bit a gutsy call since Obama killed an American.
It’s worth noting that Awlaki had something to do with the Ft Hood attack. He had this coming. He was influential to psychos.
God bless those SEALs.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 8:38 am
Dustin, I doubt that there was any resistence to this mission anywhere up or down the chain-of-command within the military knowing Awlaki’s connection to Maj.Hassan.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 8:59 am
This was payback for the killing of unarmed soldiers and their dependents at that clinic.
A rabid-dog met it’s proper end.
Cain and unable.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:01 am
Amen. And it’s Obama’s job to do this. It’s just that I was expecting him to be so terrible at the war on terror that those times he actually runs the show effectively I have to concede I’m pleased.
In many ways, Obama really has abandoned his promise to follow the rule of law strictly, shut down gray area solutions like Gitmo, etc. I’m sure you’re right that Obama is merely listening to his military, but it could be worse.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:04 am
Awlaki was assassinated.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:13 am
I won’t go as far as Retire to be an absolutist about it, but it’s big, big factor for me that someone who is President have served.
It’s a “big, big factor for me” that someone who lies about the rational behind in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The Texas legislation states: “an affidavit stating that the person will apply to become a permanent resident of the United States as soon as the person becomes eligible to apply.”
This is nothing more than a contrivance meant to deceive naive folks into thinking that the people advancing this con game actually revere the privilege of American citizenship.
Sorry, Rick Perry… No Sale!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:39 am
ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:40 am
Illegal immigrants of all races need to be deported………..happy now?DohBiden (d54602) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:40 am
colonel was happyColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 9:59 am
before he was before sad
but happy before
awlaki was terminated with extreme prejudice and now ACLU will file suit because he was denied due process and his civil rightsColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:01 am
You think that is on the same level as serving your country in uniform? Seriously? Or is it just that you prefer Romney and this is the best you can do to come up with something akin to serving in uniform?
It is lame, I admit. But it’s not a lie. The point obviously is to have these Mexicans who stay in Texas become productive citizens. There’s absolutely no deception about that. What possible sense would it be otherwise? Why do you think the legislature nearly unanimously wanted these people to be able to get an education? So they could be productive Texans.
Yes or no: did Romney repeatedly employ illegals?
What has Romney done to secure the border? What is Romney’s plan for illegals in this country? That they have no future? That they be expelled?
It’s a serious issue, and I’d like to know Romney’s plan.
Like so many things, Romney is MIA on the part of the issue that is controversial, and will announce his position once we know what the easy thing for a politician to say is.
Everyone knows it’s not optimal to entice illegal immigration, but no one knows precisely what to do about those who are here and aren’t going away any time soon.
In my opinion, you’re right anyway, that this measure for citizenship is woefully implemented. there should be rigid requirements with verification. You score a point. But I really find it strange that you score this point in reference to military service. I don’t think so. I think Perry’s entire background speaks to character building, and Romney’s was so much easier and that’s why he’s taking the easy road on illegal immigration.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:06 am
Actually, I take that back. If someone wants to reject Perry for this, that’s their choice. It’s a legit issue. I think there are a host of issues, and this was a tough call in a long career of good calls and personal character, but I don’t get to tell people which things matter more.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:14 am
If I follow the argument, the children of illegal immigrants are here through no fault of their own and their education deserves to be subsidized by taxpayers. Why don’t we extend that same courtesy to the children of parents who are serving time incarcerated in prisons?
After all, they are in their situation through no fault of their own.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was a great general and a so-so president. Serving in the military has nothing to do with qualification for the office of POTUS… any more than daisies, apple pie, Mother, or puppy dogs do.
This ain’t the Parallax View.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:14 am
What is Perry’s plan for anything? When will he share that with the nation? When will he do more than smirk, talk in obnoxious platitudes about “what we done in Texas”, etc., ad nauseum?ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:17 am
Legally, no. But it helps one understand the severity of warfare. And it’s character building. And the kind of person I see truly dedicated to wielding the power of the presidency honorably will probably have felt tremendous personal interest in serving anyway.
It’s not an absolute thing, but I think for the most part, military service makes someone a better leader.
That is not the argument at all.
It’s about what citizens in Texas want. They want the people they live around to be invested in a law abiding and professional society. It’s much better for Texas if these children are doing something like going to school, instead of … fill in the blank.
The only ‘they deserve it’ argument I am familiar with is that these folks pay the same taxes I pay to support Texas schools. That’s true. And they are merely being treated the same as someone from a peer state. Move to Texas for a few years, and you get resident rates for tuition because you did pay sales and property tax (in some way).
Altogether though, I think the facts don’t support this, because it’s had such a minimal impact on who is attending Texas universities. It probably isn’t really improving the lives of many people, but it is probably an incentive to illegally immigrate.
As I said, you do score a point here.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:23 am
Re: al-Awlaki, we have dueling news accounts.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:28 am
CBS, in the link I posted above, said it was a hit by the “same team” (which is why I said ST-6) that got Osama; but now we have Fox saying it was a drone attack.
He needs to get all this stuff on his website, like yesterday.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:29 am
However, Rick Perry is more detailed on his plans for Obamacare. I have Romney’s agenda on my Kindle. Where does Romney explain where he’s committed to repealing Romneycare? Perry says as much on his campaign website.
You don’t need 160 pages to say “low taxes, reasonable regulations, a predictable civil litigation system and an educated workforce.” But I agree with Haiku that this (Perry’s plan) is not detailed.
In particular, I want to hear Perry promise to privatize social security and how he’ll position the USA to compete with a rising China. As pointless as this exercise sounds, I also need to know his specific path for Palestine.
Even if his agenda is functionally similar to what Paul Ryan and John Bolton have already said, he needs to lay it out in his own terms, simple as a matter of respect for his supporters and those considering voting for him.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:34 am
Having a plan is important for what reason, 13 months before th.e general, and less than a month after announcing? John Kerry had lots of plans. Barcky has lots of plans. Meh.JD (318f81) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:34 am
Educating the children of incarcerated felons…
This is tangentially the answer to the deportation question of what do you do with the U.S.born children of illegals who are deported.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:36 am
We don’t “do something” for the children of those incarcerated, except to assist them with “welfare” if they qualify;
why should we be concerned about the U.S.born children of illegals who are deported?
They should go with their parents back to those parents’ country of record;
and upon reaching the age of 18, they can apply for re-entry into their country of citizenship.
JD, I think you have a point that it’s so early. But at some point, the voters need to be able to check out Perry’s agenda. I don’t think it needs to be 160 pages of rambling poll tested insincerity, but I do think a set of specific ideas would be great.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:37 am
But Romney is blasting Perry for his actions as Texas governor. It is simply not possible for him to create this kind of solution.
These people are in Texas, and that is outside Perry’s control. The feds, some GOP some Dem, have screwed Texas with this mess, and Perry either cleans up one aspect of it by incentivizing being a good citizen, or treats them as second class (which is what I’d prefer), and absorbs the problems that will lead to while hopefully seeing lower illegal immigration (perhaps this is unrealistic).
He can’t just ship them away.
Granted, Perry’s ‘have a heart’ mentality means he wouldn’t do that even if he could, but what should Perry have done that he actually could have done?Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:40 am
Drew, your linked article says that al Awlaki was killed by an air strike carried out by joint military and CIA forces?
Where do you get it was Seal Team 6?retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:44 am
Having a plan is important for what reason, 13 months before th.e general, and less than a month after announcing? John Kerry had lots of plans. Barcky has lots of plans. Meh.
Well, heck… it’s worked well so far, why should Perry change now?ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:46 am
I realize that Perry does not have the power, as Gov of Texas, to deport illegals; I was making a point on the tear-jerk claim that we can’t deport illegals because of their U.S.born children.
That claim is BS, because they are no more deprived if left with relatives in the U.S. (who are legal residents), or deported with their parents, than if they were the children of incarcerated felons. In fact, as deportees with their parents, they are an intact family, unlike the family of a prisoner.
As to “in-state tuition”, I take the position that this is just another perk that is added to the “attractive nuisance” pile that draws people to cross the border illegally.
That which you reward/subsidize, you get more of;Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:49 am
That which you penalize/tax, you get less of.
I think that if a candidate does not submit a poll tested written plan for any contingency within 30 days of announcing their candidacy, they should be disqualified, and banned from seeking public office ever again.JD (0b8a2b) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:50 am
But Perry generally does have detailed plans as governor. I don’t think he actually plans to go all the way to Nov 2012 without a more detailed agenda.
It is interesting that in those few paragraphs he is promising, in no weasel out terms, something Romney isn’t promising to do in his 160 page agenda (which I admit is not a bad agenda otherwise).
Your concern will hopefully be alleviated before your vote is due. I hope you give Perry a fair shake.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:50 am
Comment by retire05 — 9/30/2011 @ 10:44 am
I got that from the wording of the CBS report I posted/linked earlier, and explained my “confusion” in the subsequent post.
And, does it really matter how this POS attained his “dirt nap”?Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:52 am
I should be more clear. I wasn’t criticizing you. I was whining about Romney in my typical unseemly fashion.
We are on the exact same page.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:52 am
Well, that explains everything.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:53 am
We can always count on you, Dustin, for the quality of your whining.
Drew, do you not support the 10th Amendment? Romney, who hires illegals to cut his grass and clean his tennis court, says that Romneycare was a 10th Amendment issue. Yet he denies that a bill, passed by the Texas legislature in veto proof numbers, and signed by Perry, is also a 10th Amendment issue. Perhaps you can tell me the part of the Constitution that deals with education issues.
Where was Romney on the sanctuary cities in his own state while he was governor? I can tell you, MIA. He is only doing what he did in the last election, playing on an issue that he himself was weak on. He bashed both Guiliani and Huckabee as being soft on illegal immigration, yet did nothing, not one damn thing to end it in his state. Why? He didn’t have that authority.
So your answer is to deport all those who are now considered U.S. citizens because they were born here and not let them back in until they reach 18? How is that Constitutional? Oh, wait, it’s not, but as long as it gets rid of the Mes-cans, it seems to be AOK with you.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:56 am
just a simple planColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:56 am
couldn’t be much simpler now
Gubner Rick, shazaam!
I aim to wheeze.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 10:57 am
I don’t think this is entirely about that. I personally care very much for these people, and have thought long and hard about it. I think some have a big picture POV that illegal immigration is fueled by these incentives, and without so much illegal immigration, Mexico would be forced to deal with some of its miseries.
The situation has become much more complicated lately with Fast and Furious. I doubt we will ever be able to engage Mexico in a way that reforms the country, which has always been my ultimate solution to illegal immigration.
Anyway, I doubt Romney or his followers have a problem with Mexicans.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:00 am
I think that if a candidate does not submit a poll tested written plan for any contingency within 30 days of announcing their candidacy, they should be disqualified, and banned from seeking public office ever again.
I think if a candidate ever repeats this sort of performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJWtSASmAAk he should dismiss himself just on general principles.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:00 am
Drew, good to know that you support Obama violating the U.S. Constitution to get al Awlaki and another U.S. citizen.
Just think, considering the report put out by the DHS instructing local and state law enforcement agencies to “monitor” those who belong to a militia, are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan, and those with right-to-life or Ron Paul bumper stickers, some group you belong to could be determined by the most currupt, out of control, Constitution violating POTUS in the history of our nation.
Hint: al Awlaki could have been tried in absentia, found guilty, had his citizenship revoked by the federal government and his assassination would have been legal. Instead, Obama usurped the U.S. Constitution again and you will sing his praises.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:03 am
Anyway, I doubt Romney or his followers have a problem with Mexicans.
Drat… the retired dude was on such a roll!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:03 am
He is on a roll. I think he’s making a very good point. It is not like this policy is evil or difficult to understand. It’s practical and it’s something Texans have good reason to support, even though I agree with drew’s reasoning instead.
I think his points about Romney sing a familiar chorus where it’s hard to know if he really means what he’s saying.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:07 am
Dustin, when people talk about illegal immigration, do you ever hear them talk about the Asians that come here illegally? No, it’s always about the Mexicans.
And if in-state tuition is a draw, then explain to me why Utah, Washington state, New Mexico and Oklahoma doesn’t have higher percentages of illegals than Arizona, California, Missouri or Massachussets who do not give in-state tuition.
Am I to believe that the under 35, unmarried, Hispanic male (the largest number of illegals according to Pew Hispanic Center) are all swimming the Rio Grand to get in-state tuition for kids they don’t have? Sorry, I ain’t buying that bull.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:07 am
al Awlaki was a citizen because—-he happened to be born in the U.S. (to non citizen parents).
A U.S. citizen, Mr. Awlaki was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents while his father was on a diplomatic posting from Yemen. Mr. Awlaki spent some of his childhood in Yemen but returned to study in the U.S., where he obtained an engineering degree from Colorado State University
He was technically and legally “a citizen” but is there any reason to beleive he ever considered himself to be “American”?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576602650116833800.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStorieselissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:13 am
now it’s a discohappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:13 am
Comment by retire05 — 9/30/2011 @ 10:56 am
Mitt is not my candidate of choice.
I thought that he would have been the better choice in ’08, due to his financial/management background, for responding to the economic crisis we faced.
As to the 10th-A:
I believe that RomneyCare, under the 10th-A, has the authority to impose mandates upon MA citizens (police power); I do not think that ObamaCare has that same authority (the Feds have no inherent “police power” under the Constitution).
Likewise, TX has the same “police power” to impose vaccination requirements upon school children.
As Gov, Romney was discovered using a landscape service that employed illegals to cut the grass at the Gov’s Mansion, and was roundly criticized for it.
A proper requirement to use e-Verify would obviate this problem.
In fact, Congress could – in its infinite wisdom – amend Simpson-Mazzoli to require that all employers, public and private, submit the names/SS#’s of all current, and future prospective, employees to e-Verify for confirmation of their employment eligibility status.
This was the striking non-feature of S-M, a complete lack of enforcement of the requirement that employment was restricted to citizens and those immigrants holding “Green Cards”.
As to deportation of U.S.citizens:
If you will re-read my comment, you will note that I stated the option of the children staying with legal residents, or they could go with their parents – to maintain family unity – and re-enter upon reaching 18 (adulthood).
It is also my point that when we incarcerate a felon, we don’t make any special consideration for the minor children of that felon; therefore, why should we be making special rules for the minor children of deportees?
Should we give the parents “a pass” just because they “popped-out” a few anchor-babies?
What is your plan?
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:17 am
elissa, perhaps you can point me to the part of the Constitution that allows the U.S. to violate your guaranteed right to due process because your parents were not born in the U.S. or because you don’t consider yourself an American?
Again, there were Constitutional/legal roads that would have allowed Obama to do this, but the constitutional “scholar” we have taking up space in the Oval Office did not go that route.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:22 am
Article I Section 8 gives congress the power to authorize warfare, which they have against terrorists. Article II section something or other, gives the US President the power to command the military in execution of that authorized force.
Alwaki was at war with the USA, conspiring to kill Americans. Successfully doing so sometimes.
It is legitimate warfare to blow his ass up.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:27 am
Am I to believe that the under 35, unmarried, Hispanic male (the largest number of illegals according to Pew Hispanic Center) are all swimming the Rio Grand to get in-state tuition for kids they don’t have? Sorry, I ain’t buying that bull.
Who gives a fig about their reasons. Don’t reward illegal behavior. We are either a nation of laws, or we’re not.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:30 am
Bottom line, tuition breaks encourage illegal immigration.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:34 am
Dustin, Article One, Section 8 “To declare War.”
Terrorism is not a war, in the legal sense. It doesn’t matter that al Awlaki was considered an illegal enemy combatant, that I wanted him DEAD, or that he was a terrorist supporter. It matters that he was a U.S. citizen, guaranteed due process by the same Constitution you quote.
Never before in the history of this nation have we assassinated a U.S. citizen.
If you are willing to bend the Constitution for this, what else are you willing to bend the Constitution for?retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:38 am
ColonelHaiku, if tuition “breaks” encourage illegal immigration, why aren’t there more illegals in Washington state, Utah and Oklahoma? Why is the illegal population so big in New Jersey?retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:39 am
I’m sick and tired of perryturds playing the race card because we protest illegal immigration.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:41 am
retire–I agree that he should have been tried and his citizenship should have been revoked first. That seems as though it would have been the legally proper way and I wish it had been handled that way. I don’t know why it was not. Do you?
But I also think that al Awlaki is a classic cautionary tale as to why the current law of “you’re a citizen by being born here” is problematic and should be reviewed with respect to the babies of temporary residents and illegals. Unless one parent is already a citizen what possible good reason is there to grant citizenship to a newborn in this arbitrary manner? This week there was a story about a wealthy Chinese couple whose full term baby just “happened” to be born while they were on vacation in the United States–and now that baby is instantly an American citizen. This is fair how to the Asians who’ve been waiting in line to become U.S. citizens for years?
Yemeni, Chinese, it’s not all about Mexicans as you seem to imply. It’s about the value we as a country place on citizenship and its obligations.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:41 am
Gubner Perry is runnin’ for president because his missus asked him to?!?!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8797753/Exclusive-Rick-Perry-My-wife-prodded-me-to-enter-presidential-race.htmlColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:42 am
I’ll answer your question, retired guy, when you respond to the dozen questions I’ve posed to you over the course of the last three weeks.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:44 am
Rick Perry heckled outside of a Mexican restaurant?
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Gov-Rick-Perry-greeted-by-protestors-in-Charlotte-130807303.htmlColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:46 am
I suspect we have in fact killed US Citizens in war repeatedly. In fact, we even fought a civil war.
That is not significant.
The congress can authorize force against terrorists, and has, and the CinC can employ authorized force for all sorts of things.
The President can use the military to deal with pirates or enemy armies. A whole range. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution limiting our use of force only to enemies who commit acts of war as nation-states, and in fact the opposite is the case.
There is nothing in the constitution limiting the use of warfare against citizens. There are civil rights pertaining to due process, but in fact, they apply equally to citizens and non citizens, and apply only where the USA has legal jurisdiction. Our war powers are legally regulated by congress, and those regulations can be found in US Laws and treaties. One of those laws specifically authorizes us to blow up terrorists.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:48 am
Perry’s stance is supported by the same sort of folks who want to force radio personalities John and Ken off the airwaves in SoCal:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-john-and-ken-20110930,0,6290281.storyColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:48 am
Old news. I heard that a month ago. His wife and kids are willing to put up with this hell because they know the nation is in trouble, and we do not have another experienced governor with a conservative record running.
BTW your link in 127 is a great summary of the issue and makes Rick Perry look good. I hope he can keep up this excellent performance, which I think some of his competitors would never manage before they flip flopped under the pressure.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:51 am
I wonder if he had tasty molehappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:52 am
What, are you just spamming the thread with nonsense now? What does that have to do with Rick Perry?
Rick Perry doesn’t support any kind of censorship of california radio hosts. This is asinine. His name doesn’t even occur on that page.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:53 am
ColonelHaiku, if tuition “breaks” encourage illegal immigration, why aren’t there more illegals in Washington state, Utah and Oklahoma? Why is the illegal population so big in New Jersey?
In the spirit of cooperation, here are your answers, retired guy:
Washington state? too cold and rainy for Mezicans
Utah? too many Mormons for Mezicans
Oklahoma? cuz Oklahoma ain’t OK for Mezicans
New Jersey? cuz it is historically a blue state with blue-statist-type bennies and cuz of the hotel/restaurant industry in NYC, Philly and northern New Jersey.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:54 am
don’t go away mad, retired guy… go away edumacated!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:55 am
Comment by retire05 — 9/30/2011 @ 11:03 am
Anwar al-Awlaki is a self-declared enemy of the United States, caught on “the field of battle” in the service of enemies of the United States.
As such, he deserves – and received – no protection by those statutes or authorities he was (and has) attempted to overthrow.
I would bring your attention to one of the saboteurs landed by submarine on Long Island in WW-2, who was a U.S.citizen – in the Wehrmacht – sent back to this country to engage in destructive activities against it.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:57 am
He was tried, convicted, and executed by the authority of the President of the United States, duly delegated to a Military Tribunal.
Perry’s stance on forest management is supported by the same sort of folks who formed the Nazi regime!Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:58 am
…more:Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 11:59 am
Has a U.S.citizen, native-born, ever had his citizenship revoked?
I doubt that is within the authority of the Judicial Branch, or even the Legislative.
you don’t skimp on the guacamole when Mr. Governor Perry comes round for some tasty enchiladashappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:00 pm
Well crap. Huckabee is considering running.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:04 pm
1. I assume Texas does offer in-state rates for college tuition to any prisoner’s child who attends a Texas college, as long as the prisoner and student are residents of Texas. Why shouldn’t we?
2. We aren’t subsidizing the student’s college education any more than we subsidize any Texas resident’s college education. All we’re doing is treating every Texas resident the same by offering in-state tuition rates to everyone who meets the residency requirements.
3. Texas isn’t paying for illegal immigrants’ college education. The student pays for his or her education — by working or through family money, scholarships or student loans — just like any other student. All this does is say that illegal immigrant students who reside in Texas will pay the same rate charged to other Texas resident students, as opposed to charging them the out-of-state rate charged to students from other states.
4. It’s reasonable to me to charge out-of-state students more than in-state students, in part because the in-state students have contributed to the Texas economy and in part because they are more likely to stay in Texas and put their education to good use contributing to our state’s economy. Someone from Pennsylvania or California who attends a Texas college may stay in Texas after they graduate, but chances are many will go home or elsewhere. The illegal immigrant who was raised in Texas will probably stay in Texas unless the federal government deports them — and odds are that isn’t going to happen.
5. The problem isn’t that Texas wants to treat all its residents the same. The problem is that some Texas residents shouldn’t be here, but as long as the federal government won’t let us deport them and is forcing us to educate and care for them when they are minors, we need to face that reality. If illegal immigrant minors are still here as adults and have the ability to get a college education, the only reason to charge them out-of-state tuition is to punish them for being illegal or to deter others from moving here. I don’t think it’s beneficial to punish children who were brought here illegally by their parents, and it probably will benefit our state to let Texas residents — whether they are legal or illegal — get a college education if they are intellectually able.
6. The last concern I think people have is they see in-state tuition as an incentive to come to America illegally, so they want to withhold that benefit to deter others from coming here. However, as I’ve pointed out before, I doubt in-state college tuition is the reason illegal immigrants come to America. It probably isn’t even on the radar of reasons people come here illegally — not when America also offers free K-12 education, emergency health care, a welfare net, jobs, opportunity, and freedom. But there are good reasons to want the thousands or perhaps millions of illegal immigrants who are going to be here anyway (as long as our borders aren’t secure and our immigration laws aren’t enforced) to maximize their education, not only to minimize the chances they end up on welfare but also so they can better contribute to Texas’ economy.DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:04 pm
I hope Christie and Palin jump in, too. I really do believe in competition and I know you do, too. The more, the merrier, and may the best candidate win.DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:06 pm
if Christie jumps in then for the love of god you DO NOT skimp on the guachappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:08 pm
DRJ, I recognize your points on in-state tuition as practiced in TX.
Unfortunately, I reside in the DPRK (Demokratik Peoples Republik of Kahleeforniah),
where our Legislative Geniuses have devised a more insideous scheme,
one that will actually subsidize the Post-K12 education of the illegal-alien children of illegal-aliens at a time of contracting budgets and rising tuition costs for legal residents.
What could go wrong?Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:11 pm
DRJ, you are a better person than I.
But yes, I generally do support more competition. Sigh. It’s challenging for me to apply that principle honesty to Huckabee. But competition is a good thing. Cynically, I do hope the competition is evenly spread in a way that also presents competition for the more moderate Republican candidate.
Succinct and perfect.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:11 pm
Christie v. Huckabee!
We could sell tickets to pay for the entire campaign for President.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:13 pm
DRJ, your post #140… all well and good, but when resources are limited – and not just in relation to education, but all of the social services and benefits that are extended to illegal immigrants – where and when do you draw the line?ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:16 pm
Post #143… damn straight, AD! I, too, reside in what was once paradise and has since become a productive, taxpaying citizen’s worse nightmare.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:19 pm
In this corner, Chris ‘Krispy Kreme” Christie… in the other corner, Mike “Jenny Craig” Huckleberry!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:20 pm
“The congress can authorize force against terrorists, and has, and the CinC can employ authorized force for all sorts of things.”
Dustin – Wasn’t the AUMF against Al Qaeda, wherever they were. Anwar al-Awlaki was a leader of Al Qaeda on the Arabian peninsula. Who cares if he was an American. He was covered by the AUMF.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:23 pm
I believe Mitt Romney had something to do with the success of Dunkin Donuts. And I believe so did Mike Huckabee.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:24 pm
I agree.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:24 pm
Dustin, I understand how you feel about the “heart” comment, but as a Texan, you should understand that our relationship with Hispanics is not like, oh, say, southern California. We have had a good relationship with Mexicans since one signed our Texas Constitution and more than one fought for Texas freedom at the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto. Where do people think all those Spanish names, like Seguin, came from that we have named our counties and town after?
Texas patriots that were Tejanos.
There is another major issue that is poorly understood.
California government and the welfare state is funded by the state income tax. Illegals do not pay state income tax. The Texas welfare state, far less generous than CA, is paid by sales taxes which EVERYBODY PAYS. Big difference.Mike K (8f3f19) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:27 pm
==Has a U.S.citizen, native-born, ever had his citizenship revoked?==
You have asked a good question, AD. I was under the impression (perhaps false) the answer is yes–that there are in fact a few circumstances under which a citizen’s status can legally be revoked. But no question it is easier for a naturalized citizen to be revoked than a “native born” one. That case, of course, further points to the inconsistency that a “native born” citizen such as al Awlaki, who arrived while his Yemeni diplomat parents were living in America and on duty for the government of Yemen, has greater rights of citizenship than one who passes tests, takes an oath, and is naturalized.
Gotta wonder how many baby “U.S. citizens” the United Nations diplomats (friend and foe) have spawned in New York over the years.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:27 pm
Perry’s stance is supported by the same sort of folks who want to force radio personalities John and Ken off the airwaves in SoCal:
What, are you just spamming the thread with nonsense now? What does that have to do with Rick Perry?
Rick Perry doesn’t support any kind of censorship of california radio hosts. This is asinine. His name doesn’t even occur on that page.
These pro-illegal immigration forces have also fought a successful battle for in-state tuition here in California, Dustin. I associate them with Perry, because I think Perry lacks true character and I will do anything I can to make sure he doesn’t win a primary.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:32 pm
Har har har.
But the reason I say that Romney lacks character is because he shamelessly flip flopped on matters he personally explained as his unwavering core principles. He has passionately explained them on both sides, very convincingly, and it’s just not honest.
I very much admit I will do what I can (which does not include being dishonest) to see someone beat him in the primary, because there are better candidates than him running.
But hey, by all means, do your best. As I’ve said a few times, if Perry isn’t capable of beating Romney in a GOP primary, he probably can’t beat Obama either, and so be it. I think Romney should be easy to beat, though I think those who oppose Romney are currently fractured. To some extent, I think Perry deserves blame for that.
It’s not so much that I support Perry (though I do). It’s much more that I oppose Romney for the various reasons I’ve explained. If Cain is the nominee, I will do a cartwheel.
Anyway, I think that Perry opposes the behavior you’re attempting to associate with him.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:38 pm
Where do people think all those Spanish names, like Seguin, came from that we have named our counties and towns after?
Does this also explain why Texas boasts cities/towns like London, Liverpool, Italy, Paris, Egypt, Dublin, Frisco, Athens, Troy, Miami, and Edinburgh?ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:38 pm
BTW, California’s taxation is far different from Texas’s, as is its implementation of policies.
I think Cali’s policy is far more misguided and far harder to justify than Perry’s misguided policy, which is to give the illegals something they are actually paying for anyway.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:40 pm
Texas is a world all of its own and it takes a lifetime to drive from Eastland to Van Horn.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:41 pm
Texas Ranger asked, “didn’t you hear my siren whine”
I been chasing yo ass since the Jim Hogg County line!”
And Bagdad! Well. Not anymore. But the town I’m in used to be named Bagdad. (no h).
It’s a fact that Mexicans earned Texas’s independence, Haiku. They were a huge part, and always have been, and always will be. That was the argument you are responding to, and I’m sure you agree.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:42 pm
Mr. Feets – I understand former Gov. Jim McGreevey is considering a run for president. He probably would not eat as much guac.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:42 pm
Har har har.
See! You do have a sense of humor wrapped within all that Romney hatin’!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:47 pm
McGreevey… now there’s a fellow who really led from behind!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:49 pm
Hate’s far too strong a word for it. I am dedicated to seeing the presidency go to the best option, because of love, not hate. In order to explain my rejection of Romney, I have to call a spade a spade on this simple conclusion I’ve reached about his tendency to say exactly the right thing at the right time.
I don’t hate the guy. He would be way better than Obama, and I think he’s smart. As far as I know, he’s not corrupt. But he lacks that essential thing one needs to stand up for something when it’s not easy.
My apologies for those comments of mine which do come across as rabid hatred. Sincerely.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 12:58 pm
daley–I see that Eugene Robinson and Michael Kinsley both managed to come up with an original column about “hey did you notice Chris Christie is too fat?” on the same day. They do make it awfully easy to track the “new journolist” approved daily themes, don’t they?elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:00 pm
“…who arrived while his Yemeni diplomat parents were living in America and on duty for the government of Yemen…”
If, in fact, his parents were here under Diplomatic Assignment, he would not normally be considered a citizen “…subject to the control of…” under current interpretations of the 14th-A. Now, if he elected to become a U.S.citizen upon attaining majority, that is something else – did his parents convert to “landed immigrant” (did they apply for assylum?) status upon the completion of their diplomatic assignment?Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:03 pm
But, this strikes at the argument currently underway in some circles as to whether or not the U.S.born children of illegal aliens are “subject to the control of” the United States, and are therefore, automatically, citizens
“…I think Cali’s policy…”
Dustin, who’s talking about Colombia?Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:05 pm
Texican: A wetback who got lost on his way to Oklahoma!Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:07 pm
I thought a Texican was a very very large Pelican.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:10 pm
AD– My info about al Awlaki came solely from the WSJ link I posted at #115. It may be incomplete (it is, after all the MSM) but it seemed to say that he became a citizen at birth and it did not menion any later extenuating circumstances. The article also said he spent part of his childhood in Yemen but returned to go to college in Colorado.elissa (b569d6) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:13 pm
college in CO…Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 1:16 pm
An interesting tidbit there:
It seems that he applied for a grant only available to foreign-exchange students at CO –
something that is alleged was done by a “foreign-exchange” student from Jakarta at Occidental in CA, who later went to Harvard-Law.
nothing says “I care” like having lots and lots of detailed planshappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/30/2011 @ 2:06 pm
take me home, desert road
to the place I call home
western Yemen, two-humped camel
take me home, desert road
– Colorado’s least-favorite son, Al AwlakiColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 2:19 pm
In an amazing coinkydink, songwriter Samir “Sammi” Cahn was also killed in the missile-strike.ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 2:26 pm
everyday Sammi’s shuffling
except not today cause of he’s not feeling ithappyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/30/2011 @ 2:36 pm
I give obama credit where it is due.
He sucks at everything else but killing terrorists.
He should have killed Osama the day he took office.DohBiden (d54602) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:05 pm
ColonelHaiku — 9/30/2011 @ 12:16 pm:
Ah, there’s the rub, isn’t it? That’s why I respect other opinions on this, because I don’t know the best place to draw the line. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t require that states educate (K-12) or provide routine health care for illegal immigrants, although I’d probably continue emergency health care because I don’t want ERs to decide whether to provide emergency care based on what kind of ID we’re carrying. I’d also reconsider the question of anchor babies.
But it’s not up to me, so in-state college tuition is probably my limit because it seems like something that will help illegal immigrants provide for themselves instead of relying on welfare. To me, it’s closer to teaching them to fish instead of giving them a fish.DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:07 pm
Yeah, it’s a good day. Sky seems a little bluer.Dustin (b2fb78) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:14 pm
ColonelHaiku, are you even aware that a legal U.S. citizen must continuously reside in the State of Texas for just ONE year to be eligible for in-state tuition?
Are you also aware that in Massachussets, unlike Texas, illegals are eligible for Romenycare under the Health Care Safety Net plan?
The instate tuition granted to the children of illegals (of which 77% are U.S. born) requires three years residency, unlike one year for U.S. citizens. It also does not cost the rest of the nation anything, unlike Romenycare that was saved from becoming insolvent due to an influx of Stimulus Funding, $764 million, to be exact.
And you forgot to mention No Trees and Cut N’ Shoot. The citizens are crushed.retire05 (ae4dc6) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:27 pm
He should have killed Osama the day he took office.
He was too busy killing the economy instead.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:30 pm
I give Obama credit for killing terrorists, too. The world is safer because of it but not everyone is happy:DRJ (a83b8b) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:31 pm
The usual bed-wetters are shopping for a new supply of Depends.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:43 pm
They’ll find they’re more absorbant if they’re not twisted.
who will be next? this is not fair.YasirAl-Sheed_MahDruers (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:52 pm
They got us on the run now. Better my brother than me, inshallah!HousbinFarteen (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 3:59 pm
You can run, but you’ll only die tired!Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:01 pm
The threat of a dirty bomb attack on the New York City sewer system is in the air!Apulmah-DiqAoud (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:02 pm
Ron Paul condemns drone strike on Awlaki
H/T- Hot Air
This headline alone is a sterling example of why this man is completely unqualified to be President of the United States, and should be shunned.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:05 pm
If you’ve ever been in an NYC sewer, you would know that setting off a “dirty bomb” there is redundant.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:06 pm
How come so manyApulmah-DiqAoud (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:07 pm
cranky old bastards come from
great state of Texas?
d’oh!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:08 pm
I’m cranky, I’m old; but I’m neither a bastard, or from Texas (but I might move there)!Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:14 pm
“Are you also aware that in Massachussets, unlike Texas, illegals are eligible for Romenycare under the Health Care Safety Net plan?”
retire05 – Are you aware that the Massachusetts Health Care Safety Net Plan is not an insurance plan? It’s just the new name for the old Uncompensated Care Plan that pays back hospitals and other providers for providing unreimbursed care to the poor and indigent. You have similar legal requirements in Texas I believe.
You and Dustin seriously need to check your Romney myths before airing them out.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:56 pm
I have had the opportunity to move to Texas, but after visiting while on business over the last 25 years (and I have many, many friends in Texas), the only place I could see my wife and I residing in would be Austin.
But we already live in California, so why move to the Texas version of same?ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:57 pm
Make that Uncompensated Care Pool. It is not RomneyCare.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:58 pm
C’mon daley! Once again someone puts the brakes on while the retired guy is on a roll!ColonelHaiku (a4b693) — 9/30/2011 @ 4:58 pm
Here is a nice piece from Heritage dated September 2010 about how bureaucrats and politicians post-Romney did so much to muck up the implementation of the Massachusetts health care reforms, since Dustin did not believe my claims of the other night.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 5:04 pm
“C’mon daley! Once again someone puts the brakes on while the retired guy is on a roll!”
Colonel – Far be it from me to let facts get in the way of a narrative. I loved him pulling out the lawn maintenance company story again. Mitt – OK all you beaners, I know your company said you were all legal, but I still need to see some ID!!!!
It doesn’t get any better than that!daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 5:10 pm
Comment by ColonelHaiku — 9/30/2011 @ 4:57 pm
Col, you should have visited The Hill Country to the West of Austin – think Fredericksburg, and move out in concentric circles.Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (652ab2) — 9/30/2011 @ 5:18 pm
AD – Is Austin contagious?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/30/2011 @ 5:41 pm