Image 01 Image 03

We are heading for a “not” nominee

We are heading for a “not” nominee

Looking at the Republican field, it’s hard to get very excited.

There is no one in the field who is more than “not Obama.”  Some are not “not Obama” more than others, but I’m not seeing someone to rally around.

Having it all may not be in the cards this year.

And the “conservative” media is no better.  What a sad joke that Erick Erickson and Tucker Carlson even are included on the list of cable TV-appointed spokespeople for conservatives.

That’s what happens when conservative is defined as “not” something, as in, not Keith Olbermann, not Wolf Blitzer, etc.

We are heading for a “not” nominee.

I have to wonder if being “not Obama” will be enough.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Buck up, Prof. Sarah Palin will be in the running.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Kitty. | October 1, 2011 at 10:30 am

    Obviously she has the ability to inspire people the way no other candidate could, but she also is hated by many Republicans more than Obama. So even if Palin were to run (which does not look likely to me), it would not change the situation; The Daily Caller would just run more bathroom talk about her, etc.

      “… but she also is hated by many Republicans more than Obama.”

      This is the part I just don’t get; it’s so self-destructive.

        “self-destructive” depends on how they define themselves. Are they GOP first or establishment, status-quo, diners-on-the-gravy train first?
        Palin would lead the GOP to victory, but defeat the status quo.

      Professor Jacobson, I don’t know how well you know Gov Palin’s background (whether you have read her books or seen “The Undefeated”) but many of us have researched this woman thoroughly. Personally, this enables me to judge her character with confidence and this is why I believe she will certainly declare her run for POTUS in this 2012 cycle. However, everything about her Candidacy will be ‘unconventional’, including the lead up to the announcement, as well as the timing and the manner of the announcement.

      Gov Palin has met with hundreds of O4P Americans who have been sacrificing their personal resources for many months now in order to fire up a grassroots Campaign for her once she declares. She has had several opportunities over these months to stand them down, but has not done so, in fact she has encouraged them and praised their work.

      I ask myself one Q – is this attitude in sync with what I know of this woman’s character if she does NOT intend to run for POTUS this cycle? …. the woman who recoils in disgust from ANY kind of SQUANDERING of resources of ANY kind?…. and my answer to that Q is a confident ‘no’.

      Some time ago you posed a rhetorical Q on your blog that I have thought about often since: “Is it time for a knock-down, drag-out fight with the Media?”

      I sense from your comment today that you have now dismissed this as an option because of disappointment with *conservative* writers like EE and TC who have dropped the ball and could not really be counted on, and we would need EVERY Conservative writer out there to be on board, in order to have the chance of being successful in this *fight*.

      I still believe that this fight must be had, if America is to be Restored and there is only one Leader who has the vision, experience and courage to even attempt to lead such an undertaking.

      We in Palin’s Army are waiting. We are waiting with confidence because we trust her character. She has a panoramic view of this Battlefield that we do not have … at the right time she will get in this thing and a humungous fight for America will begin.

      Horrors, they will only do that about Sarah, all the other Republican candidates will be treated like Obama.

    rightConcept in reply to Kitty. | October 1, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    I just can’t see her stringing everyone out for so long only to say no. It does not compute… but I guess we will know soon enough.

My personal feeling about this is that the Congress is more important than president, at this point. Obviously we need to replace Obama (this is essential) but getting a Congress willing to do what needs to be done to make same job friendly changes and reform the mess this bunch has made is even more essential. If the Congress can lay into place a structure, whoever’s president will have some moral decisions to make to go AGAINST a Congress that wants to make reforms.

My reasoning is, in a way, the reasoning you used about Obamacare facing the Supreme Court. These are tactical maneuvers.

So we need to pour our energies in electing Tea Party senators.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Tea Party at Perrysburg. | October 1, 2011 at 9:57 am

    I agree, the way things are heading I’ll probably focus on Congressional races, a point I’ve made before. Having “not Obama” in the White House is better than having Obama, but we’ll need Congress to keep “not Obama” on the straight and narrow.

      I hope our forces of energy begin to point in the right way. I think the Tea Partiers are already focusing on Congress, almost as much as defeating The One. Obama just keeps helping make our case that we need an overhaul in D.C. Let him keep on talkin’ about “soft” America and the fact that we haven’t sacrificed enough. Let him keep up the class warfare and petty slights; it only en(r)gages our base further.

      Tactically, they’re blowing it.

      I think the most important change we could make in government in the 2012 election would be to elect a strong leader as President. Obviously, any Republican would be better than Obama, but leadership qualities are so very important. Remember what Reagan got done with a Democratic House? That was because he knew how to lead. He went directly to the people on important issues and persuaded the Congress to do what he wanted.

      That said, it would certainly be nice to have 60 or more Republican Senators.

      Now, who among Republicans has the needed leadership qualities? It’s too early to tell for sure, but right now, I like Herman Cain. Chris Christy looks good too, if he runs. Can either win? It’s too early to tell that, too, but winning is the most important thing of all.

        Obviously in fiscal issues, Chris Christie is better than what we have now but he is a MODERATE, not a conservative, and is a global warming hoax believer, in addition to having immigration problems. Check him out on

        Also, he is so hard headed that I’m not sure sense could get through on this issues. This I both like about him and dislike.

          I share your concerns about Christy’s views on some things, especially global warming. But no candidate matches my views 100%; any candidate who completely matched my very conservative views would be unelectable.

          But I still believe we need a strong leader. It is still early to judge this, and it is difficult. But I think both Cain and Christy exhibit some promise in this regard. Others could stand out in the future, but I haven’t seem it yet.

    A Republican Not Obama would be a 100% improvement over Obama when it comes to proposing Supreme Court nominees. We need to win both the executive and legislative branches.

    Supposedly, the first rule of medicine is do no harm. It applies to governance too. Not Obama would improve government just by subtracting Obama’s willful and ignorant harm to our polity.

    Agree about the congress. I get slightly nervous when I hear people clamor for Marco Rubio (as one example) to get in the race. That would a terrible thing; he and other conservative senators and congressmen are so much more valuable where they are than they would be as candidates.

It was not enough for Kerry to be not-Bush.
The GOP needs to admit that it needs Sarah Palin.

    JohnInFlorida in reply to votermom. | October 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    The GOP does not need (or want) Sarah Palin … CONSERVATIVES and the United States NEED Sarah Palin.

    The leaders of the GOP are a big part of the problem and “we the people” must wrest control of the GOP from their grasp. Selecting Mrs. Palin as the nominee and then beating back the treachery of the GOP elites trying to sabotage her winning in the general election … along with boosting the number of conservative (tea party type) legislators, is the “short term” goal.

    Removal of: Czars, Obamacare, Obama executive orders, DOJ leftist hires, etc.
    Restoration of: 10th Amendment, balance between Federal branches, State sovereignty …
    THESE should be the long term goals.

Herman Cain is a possibility. Not all that excited about handing Congress a national sales tax, I admit, but at least he isn’t running as not Obama. I prefer Sarah Palin because I don’t believe there can be any substantive change in Washington until someone tackles all of the corruption.

    The national sales tax is a big no no. We do NOT need to give them more any additional access to our checking accounts. But I do have confidence that Herman Cain is sensible enough that a Paul Ryan and his ilk could knock some sense into him about that. I don’t see Herman Cain as as dangerous as the other candidates in the sense that he operates from a consumer and business based orientation. He’s older and not as politically voracious as some of the others.

[…] Are we…heading for a “not” nominee? […]

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 1, 2011 at 10:32 am

Among the front runners, the only one missing in action is Perry.

Romney released a sensible, detailed plan about how to restructure the economy. Newt is a fountain of ideas with his recently released new Contract with America. Herman Cain is talking about reforms that happen once in a lifetime — if not once in a century — with his 9-9-9 plan and to repeal the income tax, FICA tax and capital gains tax, as well as adopting the Chilean model for social security. These are all true reform candidates.

As for the presidential debates against Obama, Romney has demonstrated that while he doesn’t crush his opposition in debates, he never makes a stupid mistake, misspeaks, or otherwise does himself harm that causes him to lose the debate. He’ll hold his own against Obama. With Newt’s mastery of detail and history and fresh ideas, I’d bet money on him to beat Obama in most of the one-on-one debates if he’s the nominee. Cain will crush Obama on economic issues, but his real weakness will be having to debate Obama on foreign policy.

I like our field more all the time. Stay optimistic. We can win.

    I like your thinking. As for Cain’s weakness on foreign policy, I agree, but I think he’s a quick study and will have sufficient mastery very soon, if not already, to stand up to Obama.

“It ain’t over ’til it’s over”

Conservativeprof | October 1, 2011 at 10:46 am

But isn’t that always the case with a second-term election? It’s nearly always a referendum on the incumbent more than a coronation of America’s next great hope. And look where the “perfect,” brilliant, exciting candidate got the Democrats last time–major disillusionment and what is shaping up to be a one-term failed presidency. I’m thinking that NOT having unrealistic expectations may work out better for the GOP in the long run.

As President Obama was elected as the “not Bush” candidate, I agree with the sentiment that not being Obama is inadequate.

But there are some red lines that should be established by conservative voters concerning vital issues, full vetting of all candidates, and a “say anything” test to measure the credibility of each candidate.

An example of the “say anything” test would be a review of a candidate’s consistency. Individuals such as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, for example, have gone through vacillations of their beliefs over the years. Not just on one important issue but on several. Newt Gingrich very public support of man-caused global warming was vividly displayed when he joined Nancy Pelosi on that famous park bench. Mitt Romney’s sudden epiphanies on a series of issues in his mid-years is troublesome too.

I was taken by one report I received yesterday where Newt Gingrich praised Sarah Palin’s speech at Indianola. He was so impressed, he indicates he plans to co-opt its messages.

Not-Obama is definitely not enough. A positive set of proposed policy changes is necessary, and it must be explained as policy change, not something so personal. Although “not-Obama” is shorthand for any number of policies, if it is framed in that manner, it will be successfully re-characterized by the other side as race prejudice, and the conversation will be cut short.

Remember, Maxine Waters and the CBC have recognized a necessity to be “angry” with Obama and to “demand” — something. I think the point, that they have already gotten the “something” he had to give, and that it didn’t work, can be easily and clearly made. The next step is to say what comes next, and why.

The Solyndra scandal fits in well with this story, because the Solyndra scandal is not just about corruption, but about economic theory. The theory is that government spending — of any sort– will stimulate the economy. If that is the case, then it is only a short step to conferring all that money on somebody you know and trust to support you in the next election.

The lesson of the Solyndra scandal (like the BP oil spill) is that people with decision-making power in the government are vulnerable to political pressure, and must be protected by firm and transparent rules. To me, the Solyndra example is simply another case of government by waiver. In the BP case, the result was an oil spill; in Solyndra, it was a money spill. In each case, the companies were better at making presentations to high-level government employees than at doing their business, and lower-level government employee recommendations were overridden.

The solution to our economic problems is to take the resources diverted out of our economy by the government very recently, and return them to the hands of the people best-positioned to use them.

Herman Cain’s proposal does this.

The sales tax is a necessary part of this proposal, due to the changes in our economy. At one time, land taxes were a good approximation of wealth and economic activity. As the way people acquired wealth changed, the income tax was added. Now the sale tax makes sense. Will future Congresses manage to make a mess of things? Maybe. But it is probably a good time to change the source of our revenue stream.

    You can’t have both a national sales tax and income taxes. It just isn’t right and will only lead to disaster. More taxes. More regulations about how to spend the money. More graft. More control. Not both.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Tea Party at Perrysburg. | October 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm

      No criticism of your post -but it IS possible to have a national sales tax plus national income tax.

      Many state taxes would need to be redacted & an agreed quota of monies returned to states for x responsibilities.

      Not saying it is what ought happen in the US but it is the general model of most western states.

Perhaps pessimism is warranted considering the types of candidates the GOP has produced for a number of years now, but I believe that too many have listened too much to so called conservative pundits (and too many establishment types are called conservative) who tell us what we should think. We do have a couple of good conservatives with Santorum and Cain and it would be hasty to lump them in with the “not Obama” crowd the media has picked as front runners or electables for us.

“There is no one in the field who is more than “not Obama.” Some are not “not Obama” more than others, but I’m not seeing someone to rally around….

We all have very different opinions about who the nominee should be. But is it really a good idea for us to create a ‘Not-Obama nominee’ meme at this stage of the game? Strikes me as potentially self-defeating and advantageous to the Left’s propaganda machine.

Handing 2012 to Obama is not an option.

The establishment GOP is currently in a panic. Romney seems incapable of building on his “front runner” status beyond 24% in a very weak field and against a very weak and unpopular president. The Tea Party determination to not support another liberal Democrat GOP nominee has gelled into a very formidable wall preventing anyone to breakout from the RINO stampede. And now with Cain surging, the narrative is being systematically hijacked by the endless discussion about “will Sarah run?”, “will Christie run?”, “will Huckabee run?”… No. They are not running. Now let’s get back on topic and focus on what WE want.

I don’t believe any of the Rovian hopefuls will run because they know they will be vetted for being liberal Democrats like Bush by the Tea Party. Even if they could get past us, they will be running against Hillary not Obama. Let’s take a look at that.

For a Bush-backed candidate to run against Hillary means that we could look forward to a presidential race framed around the question of whether we prefer the a return to the balanced budget era of the Clinton 1990s or the job-killing runaway spending and deficits of the Bush 2000s. Even I would go with Hillary if I was forced to vote and those were my only two choices. Not out of spite but because Clinton was just a much better president than Bush. That’s not saying much but it’s true.

The GOP has to get it right and they have to get it right THIS YEAR. Unfortunately, they are on a path to orchestrating what may be its final presidential race. The big dirty globalist money doesn’t like Obama and they don’t like the idea that a conservative like Cain is the most viable GOP candidate, the only one with widespread grassroots support from the base. These are the same guys who insisted on foisting Meg Whitman to run against the most unpopular politician in CA and despite outspending Jerry Brown by a factor of 5-6, lost in a landslide. Selling cancer a very bad idea.

This is a big opportunity for conservatives if a significant but dwindling number of us would just stop signaling to the GOP establishment that we will vote for whatever liberal Democrat that foist upon us. “Anybody but Obama” is a dumb strategy. Surely we are capable of doing better than that.

Let’s fight for a real conservative. If we lose, at least we lose voting FOR something we believe in rather than again voting AGAINST something we despise but end up voting for it anyway because “our” side is at least as bad as “theirs”. But the path to victory is open and getting wider. Let’s go for it while we still have a shot.

    Pasadena Phil, You are very correct about this:

    “These are the same guys who insisted on foisting Meg Whitman to run against the most unpopular politician in CA and despite outspending Jerry Brown by a factor of 5-6, lost in a landslide. Selling cancer a very bad idea.”

    When I asked some liberal friends why they wouldn’t vote for Meg Whitman (besides the obvious fact that they were liberals and voted for liberals), the reply was, “Well she can probably manage a business but she’s too ‘corporate.'”

    This is why I also think Romney wouldn’t stand a chance against Obama. I already hear many liberals attacking him for his corporate ties, even though there are some Democrats who claim they like him because of his liberal governance of Massachusetts. Like Whitman, Romney could outspend Obama or match his fundraising, but in the end, Obama IMHO would win. Romney might gain some independents but would lose a larger share of conservatives.

    I agree that we should fight for a real conservative. No more Whitmans or Schwarzeneggers. Look what the RINO California GOP did to California and conservatives will see what will happen to the United States if we don’t start fighting for conservative candidates.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Pasadena Phil. | October 1, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Bill -Who are “the big dirty globalist money’ & then why do you say they don’t like Obama -& they don’t like a conservative such as Cain.

    Do you have any evidence ? Sorry but that is blocking my understanding of your premise.

aguyfromjersey | October 1, 2011 at 1:06 pm

With the exception of Herman Cain (and maybe Newt) no one is running against Obama, just each other. Perry attacks Mitt, Mitt hits back. It’s like kindergarten. Michelle jumps up and down shouting Me Too. Every body else, we love you, but now go home. At the debates, they play into the MSM narrative, even FOX. And the GOP is now talking about moving up the caucuses and primaries? I think the old guard wants to loose. (And if they loose, do they win?)

I’m holding out for Palin, but the field of battle is changing.

Professor, Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner tends to agree with you about looking to Congress as the solution for conservatives. In his article called “Conservatives Should Look to Congress If It’s Mitt” he states:

“Though it can’t make up for true presidential leadership, the one way conservatives could attempt to force Romney to govern as a conservative or temper his big government impulses, would be to pack Congress with as many conservative, or Tea Party, members as possible.”

Klein is specifically addressing Romney as our nominee but the same could hold true for any GOP nominee that is “not-Obama.” Conservatives are going to have to pack Congress with as many of their candidates as possible.

If the nominee isn’t Palin or Cain, it will be a “not” candidate; in essence, politicians who define their views based as an opposite of another politician, themselves “not” as well, the Durden-esque copy of a copy of a copy.

Palin, my first choice, and Cain, my second choice, are not copies of copies; the former is reviled, the latter ignored, but both of them have convictions that have been lived, not just orated: walks walked more than talks talked. The hour-by-hour publicity stunt that EE pulled yesterday is just another brick in the wall of digital “conservatives” whose skins are so thin they cannot brook the notion that a politician doesn’t do what they think is expedient. I expect more, not less, of such behavior.

Almost anyone but Obama is fine by me, but the question becomes whether or not we are playing not to lose, or are we playing to win the long game?

We’re all going to have to get over waiting for Prince Charming. There is no such thing. We’ve got eight or nine candidates: pick one.

Right now I’m taking a look at Herman Cain.

This is the most depressing lament I have read on your wonderful blog. Thank G-d, you followed it with the Ronald Reagan video and that buoyed me up again.
How much of your opinion of Rick Perry is based on the hostile msm with Brian Williams sound byte so-called presidential debates? Have you actually delved and discovered what the Governor has done in the last decade? Have you seen any of his interviews or attended his meeting with the Maryland state legislators? Here’s what they think:

BALTIMORE – Forty Maryland Republican legislators and party leaders today endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for president.

“Rick Perry is the candidate who not only can lead our party to victory in 2012 – he’s the candidate who will get America working again,” said State Senator Chris Shank. “With more than a million jobs gained in Texas on his watch, Gov. Perry’s record proves that the conservative philosophy works.”

“Rick Perry is a principled conservative who has signed 65 tax cuts, reduced state spending and stood up to the job-killing regulations of Washington bureaucrats,” said State Delegate Kelly Schulz. “Gov. Perry doesn’t just talk about conservative reform, he backs up his words with actions….” And from South Carolina:

“…21 GOP South Carolina General Assembly members’ endorsement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry for President at the grand opening event of the Perry Campaign’s South Carolina Headquarters office. The five Senators and 16 Representatives will serve on Perry’s State Legislative Steering Committee.

“Republicans across South Carolina want two things in our nominee: a proven conservative record of job creation and a plan to put America back on track,” said Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler. “Rick Perry is the candidate who meets both of those criteria. The number and the regional diversity represented by today’s endorsements are a clear indication of the strong support Gov. Perry has across the Palmetto State….”

Maybe my governor doesn’t have the bling that is expected of a law school applicant. Perry is a doer, not so much a talker. However, he does has the proven persuasive communication skills to bring corporations to invest their companies in Texas, his business communication skills have brought 20,000 doctors to open their practices in Texas over the last decade, he is one GOOD governor. No, he isn’t the Savior that Obama promised to become, but he knows His.
Son of Jacob, look at the Jewish history of antiquity. Their greatest leader could not say a whole sentence, had a terrible speech impediment. However, he wrote down five books of the Torah which billions of people over the centuries since have abided by. Do you doubt the wisdom of Moses? Give our governor a real chance to share his wisdom with y’all!

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to beloved2. | October 1, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Will we get a Give Perry a Chance million man (plus illegals ) march into Washington?

    There is nothing stopping you guys – just a permit.

      Why are so many ignorant of Rick Perry’s real immigration policies? They latch onto his instate tuition policy and mistakenly think he is soft on immigration. Get educated:
      Gov. Perry works with the 16-member Texas Border Sheriff’s Association to deter illegal immigration and prevent border-related crime – Creates ‘Operation Linebacker” – Awards $6 Million to Border Counties for Border Security (2005)


      Gov. Rick Perry today announced the award of $6 million in grants to strengthen security along the Texas-Mexico border. The funds will support Operation Linebacker, an initiative developed by the 16-member Texas Border Sheriff’s Association to deter illegal immigration and prevent border-related crime.


      “There can be no homeland security without border security,” Perry said. “Operation Linebacker makes sense because it gives new tools and resources to local law enforcement, the experts in the unique security challenges of the border.” The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition, which will receive $120,000 in grant funds, will coordinate the effort and develop specialized security plans for the unique needs of each county.


      In October Perry released a comprehensive, six-point border security plan that featured Operation Linebacker and also called for expedited efforts to achieve radio communications interoperability in the region, improved information technology, bilateral emergency response exercises, and legislative measures to enhance border security.

      (End of Excerpt)


      Gov. Perry Implements and Leads Operation Border Star

      Operation Border Star


      Operation Border Star is the most current iteration of Gov. Rick Perry’s state-led border security operations.
      Perry began awarding grants to border sheriffs in 2006 to help them buy equipment and pay officers overtime to patrol rural areas of the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. The goal of the program is to increase law enforcement presence and deter crime on the border.
      The first effort was called Operation Linebacker, and border deputies were assigned to serve as a second line of defense for U.S. Border Patrol agents on the Rio Grande.


      Operation Border Star was launched in 2007. Local and state agencies were provided grant funds to pay officers overtime to beef up border patrols and to coordinate intelligence gathering about crime on the border. The local and state agencies also coordinate and share information with federal agencies.

      (End of Excerpt)


      Gov. Perry Expanding Operation Border Star – Sends Rangers, Guard to the Border (2009)


      Gov. Rick Perry is expanding Operation Border Star, a multi-agency border security effort he launched in 2007, sending teams of Texas Rangers and National Guard troops to curb border crime and prevent spillover violence from Mexico.
      “This is the latest in a series of aggressive actions we’ve taken to fill the gap left by the federal government’s ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border,” Perry announced in Houston.
      He also reissued his call for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to send more National Guard troops to the border and said he has sunk another $2 million into his border Web camera program.


      Perry also briefly noted that he had awarded another $2 million grant to operate surveillance cameras on the border.
      The Tribune reported yesterday that Perry had made the $2 million award to the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition despite documents that showed the camera program failed to meet nearly all of its law enforcement goals during the first full year it was operational.

      Perry’s office argues that the camera program didn’t miss its goals but that the targets were improperly set at the outset of the first $2 million grant. The targets were revised after the first year; after the changes, they closely match that year’s actual results

      (End of Excerpt)


      Gov. Perry Announces Highly Skilled Ranger Recon Teams as Texas’ Latest Efforts to Enhance Border Security (2009)


      In the absence of adequate federal resources to secure the state’s southern border, Gov. Rick Perry today announced the state’s latest border security enhancement using highly-skilled Ranger Reconnaissance (Ranger Recon) Teams to address the ever evolving threat along the Texas-Mexico border. He also repeated his call for Washington to approve the 1,000 Title 32 National Guard troops he has been requesting since January. Additionally, the governor announced the award of $2 million in state criminal justice funds to the Border Sheriff’s Coalition for continued utilization of video surveillance technology along the border.

      “Texas’ proven border security strategy is based on putting boots on the ground and equipping those personnel with the technology, training and funding they need to stem the flow of contraband across our border. Deploying Ranger Recon Teams to high-traffic, high-crime areas along the border will enhance our efforts,” Gov. Perry said. “This is the latest in a series of aggressive actions we’ve taken to fill the gap left by the federal government’s ongoing failure to adequately secure our international border.”

      Comprised of Texas Rangers and Texas National Guard Counterdrug forces, the Ranger Recon Teams are supported by the Operation Border Star Unified Command, including Texas sheriffs, Highway Patrol strike teams and Department of Public Safety aviation resources. This effort was launched in early August to address the increased burglaries of rural homes, ranches and hunting camps in remote areas along the Texas-Mexico border.

      (End of Excerpt)


      Governor Perry’s Letter to Barack Obama (2010)


      Gov. Perry: Federal Government Must Take Action To Prevent Spillover Violence from Mexico Requests Predator Drones and National Guard Troops along Border (2010)


      Last week, Gov. Perry sent a letter to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting that the federal government utilize Unmanned Aircraft Systems, also known as predator drones, for missions over the Texas-Mexico border. This would provide an additional surveillance element, supplying valuable information to local, state and federal law enforcement along the border. Currently the three predator drones assigned to the southwest border are based in and operating exclusively in Arizona.


      Since January 2009, Gov. Perry has repeatedly urged the federal government, through letters to President Barack Obama, Secretary Janet Napolitano and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, to approve his request for 1,000 Title 32 National Guardsmen to support civilian law enforcement efforts to enhance border security in Texas. While Washington continues to review this request, more Americans are at risk of falling victim to the increasing violence.

      A porous border places Texas and the nation at risk from international terrorists, organized crime cartels and transnational gangs. Until the federal government fulfills its responsibility of securing our border, Texas will continue filling in the gaps by putting more boots on the ground, providing increased law enforcement resources and leveraging technology along the border.

      In the absence of adequate federal resources to secure the state’s southern border, Gov. Perry launched the state’s recent border security enhancement using highly-skilled Ranger Reconnaissance (Ranger Recon) Teams to address the ever evolving threat along the Texas-Mexico border. Additionally, under the governor’s leadership, and thanks to action taken by the Legislature, the state has dedicated more than $110 million to border security efforts in each of the last two legislative sessions.

SoCA Conservative Mom | October 1, 2011 at 2:04 pm

I know what you mean. I’m not excited about any of the current candidates. Do you vote for the R and hold your nose?

I’d not include Cain in the “not Obama” category. The more I look at him, the man is impressive not only in terms of accomplishments but even more in terms of personality, temperment, humility and sincerity. As we saw with Reagan, these are hugely important in terms of connecting with and wooing independents and conservative democrats.

I’ll gladly work through the national sales tax question/issue (ideally implemented through the states) in return for a competent, commanding, truthful and accessible candidate.

There’s been some speculation, at HillBuzz (most notably and readable), that Erik is now so-aligned with the GOP establishment that this is all manufactured. I can believe it, but not in the way we’re all accused of being “astroturf.” EE has, quite simply, exceeded his intelligence and is grasping for “more” (maybe HuffPo or an evening slot on Maddow?). We see this all the time in students. He’ll fumble, flail, and either recover and earn a “C” or all-out fail. I’m guessing he’ll fail.

“Not Obama” will not be good enough for me. It wasn’t good enough in 2008 and it won’t do in 2012. If the GOP candidate isn’t sufficiently conservative by my standards I’ll vote 3rd party AGAIN.

I am NOT voting for RINOs any longer. I voted for Bush I and then Dole. By 2004 I had to hold my nose to vote for Bush II and he spent like a drunken sailor and started this TARP nonsense and paved the way for Democrats to charge ahead with their Marxist agenda.

If the GOP won’t govern as conservatives then they won’t get my vote. LoTE gets conservatives nowhere except further along the Marxist path.

    People like you and me are the reason Romney simply can’t break 24% despite being the “front runner”. That is also why the Bush/Rove money is desperate to get Christie to run. It is also why the GOP establishment is determined to maintain the primary order even it FL advances their primary to late January. There is a report today the NH is considering moving theirs up to December!

    When combined to the fact that 20 Tea Party House Republicans stood the government on its head when the GOP leadership was protesting that Republicans were just 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, this is strong evidence that we Tea Party conservatives have gained substantial traction on the process. We have influence beyond our numbers because our arguments ring true and we are winning over more and more people.

    The GOP establishment depends on the nose holders in the end and if that voting bloc is now dwindling, they can’t win. By moving the primary calendar earlier by 2-3 months, what they are doing is opening up a huge gap in the schedule for an ambitious conservative to run an independent campaign against a known ticket. Someone like Cain or Palin could very well become a threat to the very survival of the GOP next year.

    If the GOP would embrace conservatives instead of joining hands with the Dems and liberal cultural elites to war against us, they would be marching to a historical victory next year. Instead, they may be put out of business. If people would just take the “no nose holding to vote for the LOTE Republican anymore!” pledge, victory would come soon. People want to vote For something, not AGAINST a LOTE.

I don’t see Sarah Palin or Herman Cain as “not Obama”; I see both of them as the anti-Obama, which is different.

Either of them would do. Sarah has the name recognition, though, and the political experience. And negative publicity is still publicity.

Whomever is elected as the Republican candidate and then to the presidency must be ready to absorb massive amounts of negative press, constant hostile media questioning, prog protests, and more. It will be a disaster right out of the box if the R’s don’t have a majority in both houses. Without significant improvements in the economy that can be claimed with new policies, more than one term will be difficult. R’s must put one or two reasonable changes in place to allow for improvements without overdoing it. Cuts to government encroachment would be helpful.

A second term must tackle entitlements to ensure a viable future.

    aguyfromjersey in reply to sammy small. | October 1, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    The job loses started right after Obama’s election. Bush got the blame (and maybe deserved some) but it was a reaction to the election.

    I’m hoping his lost will get the ball moving in the other direction.

Calm down Bill ( if I can call you Bill ) …you like music I have noted ….maybe this will help

aguyfromjersey | October 1, 2011 at 5:58 pm

It will be a long, long time between the primaries and the convention. And anything can happen at a convention. Why do they want one target out there for so long?

No. It is not enough to be “not Obama”.

Nominate Romney and I will not vote Republican, no matter who his running mate is.

Yes. That does mean 4 more years of Obama. I saw that the RNC was Obama’s greatest ally. They keep trying to pick someone who is totally unthreatening to liberals. That’s the mistake they made in 2008 with McCain.

It’s time to show the RNC that conservative voters won’t go along to get along. You can travel in our direction or go your own way.

I’m done with looking favorably on any “R”.

I think I have an awful lot of company in this opinion.

Kerrvillian, I can understand where you are coming from. If there isn’t a strong R leader who will start to turn around the spiraling downward trajectory NOW, then just give it up to the Dems to get it over with quickly, and prepare for the disaster which will take down the country the hard way.

    I don’t follow your reasoning. Voting Republican IS the same as voting Democrat. It IS surrender to a one-party system. If you don’t like the status quo, stop voting for it. The one-party system cannot survive continually warring against the voters. That is why the 20 House Tea Party Republicans prevailed even though they didn’t have the numbers. The survival of the one-party system is precarious, they know it and they are now about to create a humongous opportunity in the primary process for a conservative independent to take them to the wood shed. Public opinion counts. Elections have become torture sessions for politicians because they have wedded themselves to the dirty globalist money instead of the welfare of the American citizens. We better make good use our constitution while we still have it.

BannedbytheGuardian | October 1, 2011 at 8:53 pm

I am still reeling from the hillary pogrom of 2008. Even after Obama had won the nomination a Michigan Dem crowd booed Jennifer Graham even mentioning Hillary. She was forced to say ”hey guys Hillary is a patriot’. Still they booed.

These people are still out there . I studied the Hollywood Ranch restuarant /bar attack on Bristol Palin. One of the things that struck me was that this guy (& those he represents )were prepared to trash their hallowed icons just to destroy the Palins. . They called her “White Trash” yet Todd is indigenous . How much -enough to hold native title to fishing grounds!

A very scary situation even before she is running. . And then there are the Republican enemies!

I see it as a canary that Americans have descended into Rwandian mental psychosis territory.

Back in the 2008 campaign Conservatives shredded each other and we were left with the RINO establishment choice Mc Cain. Once again, Cain and Perry are splitting the vote and allowing Romney, the establishment RINO choice for President, to win the nomination.
If all the primary states move up their primaries Romney will romp to the nomination. Conservatives need to stop attacking each other and start attacking Romney on not wanting to repeal Obamacare. If he gives waivers for it, the infrastructure will still be in place for the next Democrat president to re-instate it.
I think Karl Rove and the establishment are very happy with Romney. They think they can control Romney. Rove hates Perry and it is obvious, from his appearances on Hannity, Greta,and his op-eds,he wants anyone but Perry.
I previously liked Herman Cain, but how can he pick Romney for VP of all the choices on stage with him? Of all the Conservatives left on the stage, Cain had to choose the RINO who doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare?
Okay, Cain doesn’t support Perry because of the in-state tuition and his immigration policies? But he can support Romney who wants to give America the opportunity to have Romneycare?
Also, I’m sure Cain knows that Marco Rubio brought a similar in-state tuition bill to the Florida legislature to the one the Texas legislature passed and gave to Perry to sign? Cain says he admires Marco Rubio. Rubio said in May 2011 that the AZ immigration law may unreasonably single out some citizens. Where is the consistency here?
Cain could help things by stating that if Perry is the nominee he will support him. Perry and Cain don’t need to be best buddies, but Cain needs to realize supporting Romney is a slap in the face to all Conservatives, including Bachmann, Santorum, Palin, Gingrich and Perry. For those who have suggested that Cain/Gingrich is the perfect combo. They are from the same state Georgia, constitutionally the VP and President cannot be from the same state.
If Cain had a recurrence of his cancer, I do not want Romney as my President. The Vice-presidential candidate matters a lot if Cain is the nominee.
I know that a lot of you are already sold on the Herminator, but if it comes down to it, would you vote strategically to keep Romney,the establishment choice’ from getting the nomination? Are we going to bite off our nose to spite our face? I am doing some real soul-searching about whether I can vote for Cain if he and Perry are splitting the vote enough to let Romney win. I guess I may have to vote for Cain, but if he chooses Romney as a running mate I don’t know if I could. I am truly wrestling with this decision and it seems to be very early to be thinking about it, but with the primaries being shifted so far ahead I think Conservatives may be running out of time to consolidate our vote. We may end up with another establishment choice.
Always beware the candidate the MSM want as the GOP nominee. Mc Cain was their perfect choice, he got foisted upon us while Huckabee,Thompson and other more Conservative choices fought amongst themselves. All I ask is that the people who are so adamantly anti-Perry because of the immigration issues, really listen to him in interviews when he has time to fully explain his positions.
Also, think of why the MSM keeps bringing up immigration and not the economy, because Perry is really good at growing the economy and making jobs. They want Conservatives to focus on immigration instead of jobs and the economy. That helps Obama. A lot of the MSM information on Texas jobs being low-paying and jobs being filled 40% illegal immigrants is false.
If Texas is so horrible, how come I see license plates everyday from all over Michigan, Connecticut, California, Idaho, all coming here for jobs? Remember when James Carville said “it’s the economy, stupid”.
If Perry is not your number one choice, fine. But could you at least consider him for your second choice, if it comes down to voting for him or Romney winning? Please consider it. I am willing to consider Cain, if he is Romney-free.

StephenMonteith | October 2, 2011 at 12:37 am

Okay, professor, now you’re just building your own narrative for the race. I can accept if you want to be part of the Anyone But Romney crowd, but pretending that he himself is simply another anti-incumbent is completely disingenuous. Here is a man who should have been nominated and elected four years ago, who actually could have averted the financial crisis in which we find ourselves, and who stands the best chance (yes, even greater than Rick Perry, Herman Cain, or Chris Christie) of restoring the economy. I’m not going to address whether or not the other candidates have their own identities in this race, because I’m sure their supporters can and will defend them; but I cannot believe I actually need to make the case for Mitt Romney as a candidate with an identity that exists independent of Barack Obama. You should know better.

    StephenMonteith in reply to StephenMonteith. | October 2, 2011 at 12:55 am

    Here are some reasons to be “excited” about Mitt Romney, as if they needed to be repeated:

    – His authorship of “RomneyCare” makes him the perfect president to repeal and replace ObamaCare. His waivers will keep the states (and the country) from going bankrupt while he works with Congress on a healthcare and insurance reform bill that actually has a chance of succeeding. For the first time, we could have a president put forward a plan for market-based, patient-oriented healthcare reforms that won’t have doctors threatening to close down their practices en masse. He’s been on record since 2006 as saying that he would never put mandates in place as president, so we can trust him when he says he’ll replace ObamaCare with the most conservative plan that has a chance of passing.

    – He’s an actual hardliner on China. The only other (potential) presidential candidate who made clear this time around that he recognized the threat China poses to us, financially and militarily, was Donald Trump. All Romney needs is an ambassador or Secretary of State who can play “good cop” while President Romney carries the big stick.

    – The economy, the economy, the economy. Should I say it a few more times? Governor Perry created jobs in Texas by poaching them from California (and his state still needed money from Washington to cover his budget shortfalls in recent years). Romney, on the other hand, specializes in turning around failing economies and enterprises, most notably the 2002 Winter Olympics (which he accomplished in just a few months). He laid off a bunch of people while at Bain? Great. He can do the same thing to the federal government, get rid of all the thousands of redundant agencies, programs, and employees. Get him to Washington before there’s no economy left to turn around.

On the Romney VP issue, the questioner limited the choices to those on the stage, and Cain made the point that it was just a game, which mitigates that somewhat.

As for a ‘not’ nominee, that’s pretty much all we could expect. The good candidates aren’t ready yet; guys like Rubio and Jindal all need time to build up the experience and abilities that might make them good presidential candidates in the future. So, what we need this election is someone who can keep the ship together until we have a new crop of good candidates to choose from. And until the Tea Party has a lot more people in Congress, of course.

At this point, I need to do a lot of reading about Perry and Cain, who are my two favorites. With Perry, allowing the children of illegals in-state tuition for the same reasons out of state citizens would get it isn’t a big deal for me. Those kids didn’t choose to come here and we shouldn’t make their lives harder than they need to be. But Perry’s got to stop bumbling around in the debates.

Either way, I’ll vote for the guy who is less statist and who I think will be competent.

Checking in on she who lives rent free in so many minds.

“We wish our friends in the Jewish community a shanah tovah u’metukah
Rosh Hashanah is the time for new beginnings and, for me personally, I’ve always considered the new season as providing an opportunity for clear thinking about priorities
May this new year be filled with manifestations of our respect for our ally Israel and our nation’s Judeo-Christian foundations.”
– Sarah Palin

[…] awarded to William Jacobson, Ringleader of the Legal Insurrection, for his expert capturing of the feelings of many conservatives like myself: Looking at the Republican field, it’s hard to […]