Perry Stumbles, As Pressure Mounts
I've no desire to be unfair to Texas Governor Rick Perry, which is why I'm highlighting this paragraph below from a national Washington Post story about an unfortunate name for an old hunting camp of his. In 2008, Obama's associates, his college career, records, grades and even his thesis, well, I guess those things were just too far out of reach. But give the Post a painted, over-turned rock on some scrap of land owned by a Republican, wow! Stop the presses, surely there must be just dozens of people to talk to about that. Ugh! Unfortunately, pointing out the obvious bias doesn't make it go away. I don't know that it hurts Perry, so much as it would be used by the Obama camp to rally opposition to him among blacks. Last night, Obama did much the same thing by repeating a lie from the last GOP debate to gay activists.
This story is based on interviews with more than two dozen people, including residents, hunters, ranchers, government officials and others who live in Haskell County, where Perry’s boyhood home of Paint Creek is found; in neighboring Throckmorton County, where the hunting camp is located; and elsewhere in Texas. Ray Perry did not respond to numerous attempts to reach him for comment. The campaign declined a request to make him available.
So much for the pressure, this is actually Perry's stumble. As Justin Hart likes to invoke, don't hand your enemies a club with which to beat you. Perry most assuredly did that, likely to counter any soft on immigration meme. I bet Ron Paul can hardly wait to point to it as Perry now suggesting we invade Mexico, though it's far from that. I can only guess, but perhaps it's a bit of the shoot from the hip, insert foot in mouth stuff we've been hearing about. As I suspect there's little to no support across America for deploying troops to Mexico under any circumstances – and it would likely never happen in the first place – it was, in a word, dumb to even bring it up. Pssst, Rick, if you have to cross the border to deal with a problem, maybe the border IS the problem to stay focused upon if you're running for President of a, you know, sovereign nation? Imagine that. Suggesting sending troops into Mexico only reinforces the idea of a reluctance, or inability to deal with the core issue – sealing the border. It may even be somewhat honest on his part. But it's simply not good politics. Perry may not only be in Texas right now. But if this keeps up, he will be and will remain there after 2012.
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said on Saturday that as president, he would consider sending American troops into Mexico to help defeat drug cartels and improve border security. He indicated that any such action would be done “in concert” with the Mexican government.
“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their network,” Mr. Perry said during a campaign appearance here.
“As I suspect there’s little to no support across America for deploying troops to Mexico under any circumstances…”
Really, Dan, you should read what you write…or ask Sissy to…before pushing the “publish” button.
“…under ANY circumstances…”???
Read much history? The Union Army never “sealed” off any Southern city successfully.
“The border” isn’t the CORE issue. The core issue has been at least two powerful gradients…relative wealth and drugs. Now it is joined by a third…safety.
Perry is right. Instead of sending weapons across the border as Obama has done, we may need to send military assets to help stabilize a very dangerous situation in Mexico. Like joining our next-door neighbor in fighting a fire on his property, instead of “sealing off” our property line.
Before we send troops to Mexico to combat the drug cartels, we might consider strangling their ability to take all of those billions of American dollars (all all cash) that get laundered thanks to our “too big to fail” bankstas with the cooperation of our various government overseers and probably various big US companies.
The narco trade is among the biggest industries in the world rivaling oil and arms and there is only one dollar-based economy in the world capable of laundering so much US cash. It isn’t much of a stretch to conclude that those who take the big risks required to make those vast fortunes made in providing illegal narcotics to the many, many degenerates among us are doing so because it is enormously profitable. It is not profitable if all of this dirty cash ends up warehoused because of an inability to launder it. Is there anyone so stupid and obtuse to believe that money laundering is not a major economic activity among our biggest institutions?
This is a very fixable problem but it takes the political will to address it. That means shrinking the banks to pre-Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 levels when the Glass Steagall Act was still the law of the land. Breaking them up again would shrink the snakes back to a size that would make it impossible for them to swallow those dirty “narco money pigs” without seeing the contour of the pigs in their bodies. Our banks were much more efficient and dependable before they became “too big to fail”. Let’s go back to that.
Those drugs are being trucked over our borders often with the assistance of the Mexican military while our various governments are doing everything they can to frustrate enforcement at all levels. Why is that? Because we are a lot more like Mexico and the various corrupt banana republics than we dare admit. Our governments are horribly corrupt.
I wouldn’t be asking our open-borders/amnesty politicians whether they are taking drug money but rather how much they are taking. Any mayor of a sanctuary city should be assumed to be on the take. Any governor who refuses to go after sanctuary cities should be assumed to be on the take. Any politician who makes speeches in Mexico accusing Americans of being racists, bigots and xenophobes for advocating border control and enforcement of legal immigration should be assumed to be on the take. Guilty until proven innocent.
What would marching our troops into Mexico accomplish if corruption north of the border is not first eradicated so that the border will actually mean something again?
Yep. Filly LOVES him some BIG GOVERNMENT. Gotta have that to MAKE those banks and evil companies do right, doncha know…!!!
And note the totalitarian urge…”Guilty until proven innocent.”
Ever hear of the “war on drugs”, Filly…??? Been around a while…
Clingon troll. No traffic on your obnoxious Titanicberg these days Raggie? You have to pollute someone else’s blog with your childish rantings?
Name-calling, ad hominem, lies…
Vintage Filly.
This is where he characteristically runs off to momma.
Where to start? I oft gander this thing politic, a lil diff than y’all. And in such, for me, regards the Guv … t’was the way that he did it (enter the race proper). That spoke volumes to me. I told ya then, his metrics were vaporous fiction, and he would merely be a footnote (to the election).
Want your back covered Guv? Better foogin watch mine. Word up. We ain’ playin’ (no mo silly games). We’re playing … for keeps. The very life of these United States of America. The Wash Post? All the way up, with a (glowing) red hot poker (merely on regular everyday basic principles).
Me, got an idea for a “dream ticket” [as diff from what MY (known) preference is]. One that would produce a landslide. Never before seen in the U.S. [and I've been quite clear about the "electability" meme, since way back (fuggit!)]. No hints.
The war on drugs? Going to take some real brass a’danglin. To even begin an attempt … at some measure of change/improvement (though be certain, Buraq the Magic Islamist Sparkle Pony, won’t be any part thereof). Soon enough, it will just that much bigger, a problem. But by that time, hell surely will be a poppin.
Well, we deployed troops to Somalia. If the situation in Mexico degrades far enough, I’m not sure why Americans would be categorically opposed to deploying troops to Mexico as conditioned by Perry, “in concert” with the Mexican government. I mean, if operations in Grenada and Panama were okay (assuming), then why wouldn’t working in concert with the Mexican government in service of American interests be okay? This isn’t exactly like Obama proposing that we invade Pakistan (as he actually did propose).
I love reading the Clownselor’s pretzel-logic. His man-crush wants to invade Mexico, a sovereign country – good! The Kenyan whacks OBL in Pakistan, a sovereign country – investigation!! Impeach!! Tyranny!!
Also, too, I wonder why none of the rugged individualists are talking about the name of Rick Perry’s hunting lodge: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rick-perry-familys-hunting-camp-still-known-to-many-by-old-racially-charged-name/2011/10/01/gIQAOhY5DL_story.html?hpid=z1
But Robert Byrd was in the KKK in the 30s or something.
The Clownselor will dutifully defend his man-crush.
“Perry is right. Instead of sending weapons across the border as Obama has done, we may need to send military assets to help stabilize a very dangerous situation in Mexico. Like joining our next-door neighbor in fighting a fire on his property, instead of “sealing off” our property line.”
Hey, you sending your kids to do that? You facist, war mongering pig? A fence don’t kill nobody, and solves the problem, but No, you want BLOOD. Go to hell, go to hell and DIE. I don’t want my neighbors kid coming home in a box, so Perry can be a man!
“Read much history? The Union Army never “sealed” off any Southern city successfully.”
Not the stupidest comment ever, but definetly top ten!!
Lefty troll.
Between Dingy and UAssMORON, it is hard to figure who is the stupidest and most insane.
Call it a tie.
.
One would almost have to think that the U.S. is in collusion with Mexican government in this. The corruption in the elite class of both nations knows no bounds at this point. Shipping guns to Mexico is serving some undeclared end. When I consider it that way, I have to ask: why arm the Mexican populace with guns?
Well, why do we want our own guns? To remind the State that it rules by the consent of the governed and it needs to fear the people, not the other way around.
Mexican authorities have never feared their own populace. Only the drug cartels have amassed enough wealth to buy protection from the Feds. Now, protection has turned to aggression. We are abetting an overthrow of the Mexican government to move them from thievery to thuggery and hence, to make them an enemy we can justifiably invade.
Now class, this would make the real question, “Why would we ultimately wish to invade Mexico?”
.
Cmon, where else would a southern fried bible banger go huntin other than a place called Niggerhead? Buh bye Rick! May the Holy Spirit guide you in your future endeavors!
Amen!
Terry is a typical white moron*.
*(See Obama, Barrackah)
O.M.G.!!!!
Yet another thread moderated by ever-present know-it-all Raggie. Worst discussion threads in the blogosphere.
In defense of Bad Luck Barry, there is no way he’d have his own children christened by a “Reverend” who has preached racial hatred and anti-Americanism his whole career.
Oh…wait…!
Unrepeated…!!!
There aren’t enough moronic religious bigots to save Bad Luck Barry, Terry. Yours is a VERY small cadre.
In honor of your favorite position…Bottoms up!
I’m not sure who’s flailing harder at this point, Perry or Terry…
You’re all failing. At least Dan is trying to promote an intelligent debate about Perry. Hardly any of you have tried to take this and run with it. There was the straw man about encircled southern cities (though I agree with Ragspierre on the wall) and Phil’s interesting screed but that was about it. Instead of arguing and exchanging childish ad hominems with these (likely paid) trolls, who will not convert you and vice-versa, you should focus on Dan’s posts.
The story about Perry’s hunting camp is a non-issue. It’s not what you want to hear, but it’s old news and says nothing about him.
Perry mouthing off about sending troops across is pure campaign stupidity, and I agree with Dan. While I agree that for the purpose of defense there could always be some circumstance in which the US would want/need to cross the border, it is a really dumb thing to say when so many potentially conservative Hispanics are becoming an ever-increasingly powerful voting bloc.
I think the opposite is true, HTW.
Perry had the stones to openly bring SS into the public forum, and now that is being more openly debated. He has been demagoged over that issue by people on ALL sides of the issue, while Cain seems able (OK, that was a pun) to speak about it with impunity.
All to the good, IMNHO.
Now Perry has brought the issue of the instability of the nation we adjoin to our south into the public forum. Hispanics don’t think a certain way about that that is not common to the rest of us. Conservative and other Hispanics…especially those living in reach of the terror in Mexico…WANT to see that situation stabilized.
IF you want the border under control, that seems like a threshold issue. Remember those gradients.
And, for the sake of reality, Perry DID NOT suggest an “invasion” of Mexico. To his credit, Dan made that delineation.
Others seem to have missed that altogether.
Mr Riehl writes in part: “As I suspect there’s little to no support across America for deploying troops to Mexico under any circumstances – and it would likely never happen in the first place – …”
Mr Riehl, methinks you need to get out of your East Coast perch more often. The organized Mexican crime gangs currently control approximately 50% of Mexico and have ALREADY begun moving their operations into the US. Add to that, the bumbling DHS just admitted (something we already know) that they have “lost control” of parts of the border with Mexico.
Sounds like we are in a war already — one declared on us by the Mexican gangs, but one to which we have not properly responded. My guess is that you are under informed as to just how bad it is for those who live closer to the border than I do here in San Antonio, and — in part — I cannot blame you, as the MSM does its best to suppress the gravity of the situation.
Yes, we need to do both: Control the border AND invade Mexico. Please do not use the tired, old Liberal strategy we have followed in the wars we have not won (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan) of being afraid to cross borders when necessary to pursue the enemy.
Sir, it is much worse than you think. And, to be clear, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding Perry’s weak stance on illegal immigration. However, on this point — the need to invade Mexico — he is 100% correct. Man up, Sir. We are at war on our Southern Border. Let’s not whitewash the truth because we are so interested in winning the next election.
As is so often the case, speaking the truth does not lend itself to winning sound bites in a political campaign.
By the way, there is a historical precedent for invading Mexico: It was done with great success under President Polk (the Mexican War). War was declared against Mexico on May 13, 1846. In September 1847, American troops under the lead of General Winfield Scott marched victoriously into Mexico City. We did not stay in Mexico, nor did we intend to stay in Mexico (although we did, via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, annex huge amounts of Mexican territory — the part of the US that La Raza wants to take over and rename Aztlan). We just did what needed to be done.
And, I submit, it needs to be done again.
man, you omitted the Pershing expedition into Mexico to counter Poncho Villa’s raids into the U.S.
G.S. Patton is credited with leading the first mechanized assault during that little fracas.
Patton killed a couple of mexicans and tied them to the armored vehicles and delivered them to Gen. Pershing. Pershing titled Patton his “Bandido”. Seemed simple back then.
It was the first armored car attacks.
Herman Cain will not get the nominee in 2012 until I heard him interviewed with Chris Wallace on Fox News today. It came from Washington Post. I am still support Gov. Perry for President. I read an article other day that Gov. Perry spoke in West Virginia last week and raised $1 million dollar for his campaign. Romney, Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul and others are broke. It is time for them to get out of the race.
It’s idiotic to talk about sending troops into Mexico. In today’s world, their ROE and other terms would be dictated by the very same corrupt government in cahoots with the cartels within major portions of the country. And to do it while we are already looking at Defense cut-backs in an age of global terrorism only adds to the stupidity behind the notion. It also allows his critics to put Perry into the Pan-American-ist camp,so many cons disliked with Bush. Besides, the practicality of it is irrelevant. The politics of bringing it up now are inherently dumb. Serious campaigns don’t develop policies ad hoc, they present them. So far, all Perry has presented is a lot of talk. Clearly, he got in before he had even developed a set of broad policies upon which to run.
Huh.
So, before a national dialog is opened, you have to have everything all nailed down?
An interesting notion. Sounds like a wonk’s full employment paradise.
And one that Reagan never followed.
Mexico is unstable Holy cow, who would have thought?!!??!?!?!?!??!
Mexico has ALWAYS been unstable. But, I guess the retarded need a war too, so what the hell, let’s invade Mexico!
Imagine an invasion of a modern, cell phone camera equiped nation. Oh yeah, that’s going to go over REAL well!!
Let the elites of Mexico twist in the wind. Only a fool would even THINK of it. Troops for the border, sure. But Perry can go to hell. No blood for rich people!
Just curious Dan, Do you know anyone who has been effected by death, because of illegals who crossed the mexican border? Something needs to be done. Everyday these wetbacks get drunk and kill innocent Americans. I am beginning to think we should level the whole f-ing country. And then sell their body parts. Just like China. Enough with losing our citizens because the mexicans are lawless. I pray for the killed. Daily.
“Just curious Dan”
I’m not at all insensitive to that simply because I believe sending troops into Mexico is a bad idea and even worse political rhetoric. Put the Nat Guard and or troops on the border. But sending them in opens another can of worms we’re not at all prepared to deal with. It’s not our yob, man.And to the extent we make it so will only encourage even more illegal immigration.
“I think it was a very good strike. I think it was justified,” Cheney told CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union.” But “I’m waiting for the administration to go back and correct something they said two years ago when they criticized us for ‘overreacting’ to the events of 9/11.”
The Obama administration has “clearly … moved in the direction of taking robust action when they feel it is justified,” Cheney said.
Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, went a step further, saying Obama “in effect said that we had walked away from (America’s) ideals.”
“I think he did tremendous damage,” Liz Cheney said. “I think he slandered the nation and I think he owes an apology to the American people.”
When asked by Crowley if Dick Cheney also wants an apology, the former vice president replied, “Well, I would. I think that would be not for me, but I think for the Bush administration.”
Heh, heh, heh…
“But sending them in opens another can of worms we’re not at all prepared to deal with.”
1. sending who “in”? And to do what?
2. how do you get prepared to deal with a threat?
3. are you saying America can no longer deal with threats?
4. if there is a major instability in Mexico…and there is one growing…whose “yob” would it be to deal with if civil authority cannot be maintained? The UN? Really?
5. when, would you say, did we lose the ability to act in our own national interest?
Terry, you are an idiot.
Liz Cheney is married and the mother of five.
Actually, you are an embarrassment to idiots.
Thank you for helping with this demonstration.
Always fun making you my punk.
Punk.
Ban on women driving should be considered world wide…
I would never allow my wife driving my car.. 