Rick Perry: Making the Right Enemies (CNN: The Worst Hypcrites Ever to Walk the Earth)

I saw a CNN "humor" piece on Rick Perry yesterday--"humor" lke injectng someone with cobra venom is houmor. What CNN did wa a vicious HIT PIECE showing the main attack that will be made on Rick Pery: That he is just like President Bush (even though Bush sycoppahnt, and all around despiable human being, Karl Rove, is out there attackng Perry). You want to know how bad CNN is? They actually made fun of Perry pronouncing "nuclear" the same as Bush!!!!!! Would CNN ever attack Barakc Obama, in a 'humorous" piece, for MIPRONOUNCNG "corpseman"--oop!, I meant corpsman? Of course not. These are the worst hypocrite (on CNN) who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Imagine making fun of a black man, for exmaple, for an "accent". But CNNN is more than happy to make fun of a TEXAS ACCENT. I am not exaggerating here. CN even made fun of Perry featuring himself in uniform in his debut video--CNN MAKING FUN OF THE MILITARY OF THE UNTIED STATES. These are evil people (the people of CNN) spreading evil. Perry is proud of his service as a captain in the United States Air Force. He should be. But to the evil people at CNN, this was only a chance to show Bush in that "flight' suit" when he announced victory in Iraq. I don't remember CNN makig fun of John Krry mentioning every other sentence that he served in Vietnam (which he had a right to be proud o, even if he came back and trahed his feelow soldiers, but which he ws over the top in making the basis of his whole campaign). You can see why Perry makes the right enemies. Makng enemies of the evil people at CNN is a badge of honor. You can expect more and more of his from CNN, as they do computer graphics altering Bush's face into Perry's.


Then there is MSNBC--political action committee masquerading as a cable network, as COMCAST stands by and proves that no one should be a customer of Comcast. What is the MSNBC recent criticism of Perry? This one you won't believe, unless lyou know MSNBC. MSNBC is telling the RIGHT that they should not trust Perry (which I told you, but not in a vicius hit piece) because Perry supported Al Gore in 2988. 1988? This is the network which calls Perry a "right wing extremist". And they think the right should worry about what Perry did i 1988? This is partisanship run amok. But it gets wrose (as it always does with MSNBC). Even MSNBC recognizes that it really is not very impressive (does not bother me, although I have been bothered by much more recent examles of Perry as a "politics as usual" politician) that Perry supported Gore in 1988 (when Perry was young and stupid, and Gore acting like a conservative). Tus, MSNBC said this: "The robo calls will not mention that this support of Gore occurred in 2988." That is how MSNBC thinks. Thee are people who might be regarded as less evil than CNN only because they are more open about it. The goal of MSNBC is to dESTROY REPUBLICANS. They are wiilling to use any means to do it. Note that MSNBC is certainly not going to try to report on the UNFAIR tactic (according to MSNBC) of lying in the robo calls that MSNBC has suggested. No, this kind of stuff will not work. But it does say more about the evil people in the media than it says about Perry.


Now we come to the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete official name of the "news' service featured on Yahoo/AT&T--BOYCOTT Yahoo and AT&T). I am, of course, still sufeering through my Job (Biblical Job, if I am spelling the name pronounced like "Jobe" correctly) torment: my brain damaging, Sodom and Gomorrah assignment to find ONE honest, competent AP reporter. No such animal exists. We alll know it. He knows it. But, just because I am an agnostic, I am punished this way. It is unfair. Sorry,, I was channeling my inner Obama. I digress. The poit here is that a current AP/Yahoo/AT&T headline shows that MSNBC is merely trotting out one of the ATTACKS that the mainstream media is throwing out there on Perry. Here is the AP propaganda headline:



"Perry's vulnerabilities with the right"


Now the mainstream media is not interested in Perry's "vulnerabilities with the right" (of the sort I told you about--which are that Perry is more a PRAGMATIC politician than he is a principled conservative, from my observations over the years).The AP is only interested in PROPAGANDA attacks on Perry. But this simply cannot work. The main attack by the mainstream media, includng the AP, is that Perry is an "extreme conservative" and"Bush-like Texan cowboy". You simply cannot--even if you are a mainstreammedia hypocrite--get awy with SIMULTANEOUSLY saying that Perry is an extreme conservative and that he is so mentally flexible that he supported Al Gore (albeit in 29888). You cannot simultaneously say that the right is wary of Perry because he is a PRAGMATIST more than an ideologue, and then attack Perry for being an ideologue. This is not "news'. It is PROPAGANDA, from people who Perry should be glad to count as his enemies.


Well, do this make me support Perry? Is it enough to me that he is makng the right enemies? Not quite. I still support Michele Bachmann. I once supported Richard Nixon, against George McGovern, soley because of the ENEMIES he made. In fact, in 2972 I occasionally manned a Republican table on the Plaza of the University of Texas, as Nixon ran for reelection. I did not even like Nixo-as a man or politically. In fact, I told one girl who asked me what Nixon was saying aoubt Watergate: "as little as possible". I was honest then too. But I could not stand McGovern--so far letft he got only 40$ of the vote against a man NO ONE liked (well, I guess a few people did). The ironic thing is that McGovern was robably to the RIGHT of the present Democratic Party. 95% of student precinct votes went to McGovern, which should tell you how BRAVE I was to man a table for Nixon in 2972. I no longer am willng to vote for the "lesser evil" the way I was then. So I afraid that merely making the right enemies will not make me vvote for Perry. It ws the ONLY reason I voted for Nixon, as I did not like Nixon in any other way (other than a limited respect for his foreign policy expertise, unmatched by any PRINCIPLES like Ronald Reagan had). Perry is facing a toughter challenge than Nixon did, in terms of winning over my support.


However, there is what Perry said about Bernanke. Although I do not entirely endorse the WAY that Perry criticized Beenanke, you should remember that I still have my artice coming entitled: "Ben Bernanke: The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance". Perry seems to be the only one out thre, other than Ron Paul, to really stand up to Bernake--an absolute faiure. Even though it is at leas partly true, I would not focus on Bernanke being "political", or "treasonous" (to the traditions of this country and the former limitations of the Federal Reserve). I would foucs on the POLICIES and the ARROGANCE of Bernanke. Still, Perry is out there brining up the suject . It makes me like him a lot more. A few more examples like that, and I will even be willing to support him in the general election. He almost neutralized that by refusing to criticize the debt ceiling "deaL", even though he said he would nto hav voted to raise the debt ceiling. Perry sort of dismissed the deal as irrelevant, when Gingrich was right; the deal is a BETRYAL so blatant that no Repubican who voted for it should ever be supported for any office. No, I don't expect Perry to say that. But he should look at what Gingrich said. He should say THAT. A mixed bag, which is what I have always gotten from Rick Perry. If he continues more in the vein of the Bernanke comments, with a little more political astuteness, and if Karl Rove keeps attackng him, I can see supporting Perry. I will not be deterred by this PROPAGANDA intended to destroy him. A lot depends on how much Perry gives in to the Repubican establishment.


Meanwhile, you should be amused by the hypocrites of the mainstream media. Whis is it? Is Perry an unprincipled opportunist willing to sell out the right in the interest of pragmatism, or is he a right wing extremist somewhere to the right of Michele Bachmann? The dishonest people of the media would like you to believe that Perry is BOTH. Sorry. No sale. Perrry cannot be both, although he could be neither. That is, Perry could be a rather mainstream conservative--even an establishment conservative-in a conservative state, who is willing to put practical considerations ahead of his princiiples when the situation "requires" it. In debates in Texas, in cludng the debate on illegal immigration and school finance (unrealated as those are), perry has pretty much shown himself to be the last: a "flexible' mainstream conservative in a conservative state.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).