(Great catch from BOR community member Paul Rhea! - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Rick Perry's new ad in Iowa mocks Congressional Presidential candidates Santorum (google it!), Bachmann, Paul, and Gingrich for getting an annual salary of $174,000 paid for by American tax payers. However, the Texas Tribune points out that Perry him self is getting a gross annual salary of $240,000 paid for by Texas tax payers.
(Great piece from Democratic political consultant and former DNC Western States Political Director Ed Espinoza. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
For President: Governor Contradiction
There's an old saying, "never let the facts get in the way of a good story." And perhaps no other place is as famous for tall tales as the state of Texas. Rick Perry has carefully crafted a narrative telling his story with the swagger we've come to expect from a Texas Governor. And if the details don't always make sense, well then - that's just your problem!
Today Rick Perry declares his candidacy for President. This comes one year after he said he was not thinking about running for President. But it's more amusing that it comes two years after he suggested Texas should secede from the union. The man who was so fed up with this country now wants to run it.
Now, the statement came in the run-up to his 2010 re-election campaign, a time when Gov. Perry was railing against the largess of government and the endless supply of career government workers. Though, we might actually call it his re-re-election campaign, as he is in the midst of serving an unprecedented third term, which doesn't even include the ½ term he served when finishing out the term of George W. Bush. It's a lot of work fighting back all of that government ya know.
But the man from Paint Creek was born to run. He runs for office and wins. He runs for fitness - and wins. It was reported last year that Perry went for a run and shot a coyote that was about to eat his dog. Because apparently a good sportsman needs to take his pistol with him when he goes jogging. Not bad for a guy who got a "C" in physical education at Texas A&M.
In the coming months, we are more likely to hear about something folks here call the "Texas Miracle."
Some describe the Texas Miracle as a low-tax and low-regulatory economic climate that spurred job growth - primarily from high tech companies moving to the state. Even though population growth has outpaced that figure and the state unemployment rate is just one point lower than the national average.
Others describe the Texas Miracle as amazement that the state is still standing after a $27 billion budget deficit, among the worst in the nation. Or with the worst high school graduation rate in America, it'd be a miracle if any of the residents here could actually get some of those high tech jobs.
We'll hear about how Texas was successful in tackling air pollution, but not about the cities that had to sue the state for lying about the quality of the air. We'll hear about Perry the populist, but not about his inference that the people shouldn't elect US Senators. We'll hear how Perry rallied against federal stimulus funds for Texas in 2009, but not about his private acceptance of the funds to balance the state budget that year. And we'll undoubtedly hear about the evils of Obamacare, but not about how Texans have the worst access to healthcare in the nation.
But Rick Perry won't let a bunch of unfortunate contradictions ruin a good narrative.
Dan Rather, former CBS Evening News Anchor who spent over six decades as a working reporter, calls on President Barack Obama to launch a White House Commission on Public Media.
This was the message during a speech Rather delivered at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, CO on Tues., July 28th.
Quotes from Rather during his speech:
"I personally encourage the president to establish a White House Commission on Public Media".
"A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom".
"This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American Press' tradional role of being the watchdog on power".
At state, Rather argued, is the very survival of American Democracy.
Rather presently hosts "Dan Rather Reports" on HDNet a "high-definition" network.
My Take: This is awesome. It's time to inject respect, integrity and truth back to the media industry.
One aspect not totally clear yet is how much the loss of integrity and respect toward the mass media has caused the recent death-spiral media crisis. There's been a gradual new media eclipsing old media for a while, and this is also part of the picture that needs to be accounted. As well as our overall economy in the dumps. In any case, we need and deserve a respected media.
Rather has taken a great step forward in encouraging Obama to form this commission.
Gingrich looked ahead to the 2012 campaign and said he sees an open Republican field aiming to take Obama's job.
"If Sarah Palin seeks out a group of very sophisticated policy advisers and develops a fairly sophisticated platform, she will be very formidable," Gingrich said.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who made a strong run at the 2008 GOP nomination, "has got to figure out how to close the sale," he added. Gingrich also suggested Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) and John Cornyn (R) could position themselves for national candidacies in four years.
I suppose I can see a scenario where Hutchison (if she was willing to run) could find an opening in a weak GOP field but the thought of John Cornyn as a serious presidential candidate is pretty laughable.
Cornyn is less than two years away from becoming the NRSC Chair who allowed the Democrats to win over 60 seats. That is not the title a presidential candidate wants to have.
John Cornyn 2012 would be a repeat of Phil Gramm 1996, except Cornyn's run would probably be even less successful than Gramm's short-lived campaign for the GOP nomination in '96.
Why military command experience does not translate into Commander-in-Chief judgment.
When running for public office few things lift a candidate's standing in public perception as military experience. This is not unique to Republicans or Democrats, both parties tout military veterans as experienced leaders. So, the question can be asked if military experience translates to being Command-in-Chief?
Tonight, John McCain will say something like, "we need to invest in the health of America" blah blah blah as he appears with famous Austinite and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong at an event in Ohio.
I know Sen. McCain had skin cancer a few years ago, and helping fund cures for cancer is a necessary effort the government should invest in. But when Lance Armstrong leads his credibility and stature to the McCain campaign -- to a campaign that isn't at all interested in the health of all Americans -- then McCain is doing little more than using Armstrong and the cancer issue for political cover.
I was talking with some friends today about the Gas Tax Holiday and heard a very interesting comment. It was proposed that someone should call Clinton's (or McCain's) bluff and tell 'em to pony up.
Basically, the understanding was that as president you have no power to enact such a holiday but as senator you could at least propose legislation to begin a tax holiday.
So, senators, "I call." Show us your hand and begin some work on legislation that will do what you are saying. I want to see a new bill or amendment that proposes what you have been pandering, I want to see a Gas Tax Holiday. Not just the Gas Tax Holiday but I want to see all kinds of proposed legislation.
Clinton and Obama have talked about education ad nauseam, so ...
Obama, propose some legislation that "will streamline the financial aid process." Clinton, show me the work you have done to "(c)ut the minority dropout rate in half."
Caring for those who have given for our freedom has also been a discussion in this campaign, so ...
Clinton, do some legislative work to "increase funding for the Helmets to Hardhats program." Obama, talk with your legislative aides and see what can be done to "fully fund the VA so it has all the resources it needs."
I Call! Clinton, Obama put your money where your mouth is and find your way to the Capitol Building and into the Senate Chambers and do a little work. Don't get me wrong, I know you need to campaign, but actions can speak so much louder than any speech and doing some leg work is a lot better than pandering.
obama smiling during editorial meet of indianapolis star in indiana
Note: Next edition of This Week With Barack Obama, April 27-May 3, 2008 will be under the management of Al Rodgers, next Sunday, May 4, 2008. I am in Indiana from Friday through Wednesday, for the crucial Indiana Primary on Tuesday May 6, 2008. I will be working in NW Indiana between Gary, Valparaiso and South Bend. So, give Al the love you give me on this weekly. Peace.
In 2005, I worked for Bill Richardson in Florida for Moving America Forward his 527. Now why, you may ask, would Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, pay someone to work for him in Florida and at least four other swing states? Beyond his '08 political aspirations, I respected what Bill Richardson was attempting; doing what no other individual Hispanic or otherwise has been able to do, empower and unify various Hispanic cultures and the Native American communities. He would attempt to do this through voter registration, education and protection of their vote.
Unifying the Hispanic community is difficult. Beyond the obvious cultural and dialect differences, for years the Hispanic community has been unengaged politically in comparison to the size of their population. The easiest response is to say that the community has not realized their vote potential or that the majority are not eligible to vote because of their citizenship.
However, the reality is that campaigns and state parties have limited resources and they have to prioritize the allocation of those resources. A campaign can't be expected to spend all their resources on potential voting populations; they have to concentrate on those Hispanic that already vote. And while it might also be easy to blame state parties, without the right strategy , or a viable state wide race that needs the votes, smaller districts with large Hispanic populations already vote Democratic. So what Richardson was doing was great; he was creating a solution and attempting to do the difficult task of going after Hispanics that have not been engaged, eligible to vote, but not registered to vote.
My present day criticism of Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama comes assuming he has one of three simplified choices, does he remain neutral until the eventual nominee was more evident not attempting to expend what political collateral he has on either candidate, does he support Hillary, or does he support Obama?
Before anyone makes an argument that he picked the best candidate, I'll make the statement that all three choices are political decisions but with varying statements; and that Richardson made a decision as a superdelegate not as an elected governor and a presidential candidate who represent everyone's interest.
I will excuse the Democrats that like Hillary, but have polled their district, and see Hillary's negatives are too high to support, that's not the case with Richardson. The candidate that narrowly lost his home state of New Mexico is the candidate he endorsed. So he's not voting the interest of his state's Democratic popular vote.
State Representative Senfronia Thompson is an example of a superdelegate that changed her support from Hillary to advocate on behalf of her community and her district's interest. In states where Hispanics were a significant voting bloc, the Hispanic vote went for Hillary. So, Richardson is not making his decision on behalf of the people he has been working to empower by supporting their choice.
Unfortunately, I have to believe Richardson made his decision for his own personnel gain. He'll have a strong argument for the Vice-Presidential nomination. Richardson can help Obama attract Hispanic voters that Obama has not been able to persuade to vote for him; he's a very popular Governor of a swing state that he can help carry; his experience will counter Obama's lack of both internationally experience as a former diplomat and domestic experience in dealing with Congress as a former Congressman and presidential cabinet member.
I truly believe that even when a person chooses to vote Republican for a particular candidate as long as they're making an informed choice and it's not just a "because vote" I'll respect their choice. However, I took Richardson's endorsement of Obama personally disappointing. I perceived his endorsement as a "because endorsement". I'll say he endorsed Obama because he wants to be Vice-President.
Richardson's timing to endorse Obama, further alienated me from Richardson. If Richardson would like to be a voice for Hispanics he should be more sensitive to the racial oratory of Rev. Wright and Obama's judgment regarding his pastor.
Richardson is aware that he can potentially be a voice that is representative of Hispanics. Polling three years ago said the most recognizable and respected name among Hispanics was Edward James Olmos. Not a single Hispanic famous or politically was able to garner more than 20% as a potential political voice nationally, regionally or locally.
Richardson's decision puts me and should put other progressives in a dilemma. Hispanics do not have a national voice and African Americans have found a voice. However, do I continue to look the other way when Richardson or Obama justify their bad judgment because America needs change or because voices are needed in their respective communities?
Governor Bill Richardson has made his decision and for now I will be disappointed with his decision.
