The Republican Party's political suicide

by Shirina Sun Dec 11, 2011 5:38 pm

As I'm sure many here know, Texas governor Rick Perry is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Fortunately he has fallen to subterranean levels as far as approval rates are concerned, but the Republicans as a whole are going to feel the sting of this political advertisement aired by Governor Perry. It's enough to make you blink and ask, "Did he really say that?" You might have to watch it more than once to verify that, yes, he really DID say that. Take a look:

It's not often that someone can squeeze in so many inaccurate statements into a 30 second soundbite, but Rick Perry managed to give it a good go. Let's start.

He begins by saying, "I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian." The implication here is that, despite Christians being the overwhelming majority in America, Christians are ashamed of their religion. Or, more accurately, that non-Christians are making Christians feel ashamed of being one. The evangelical and fundamentalist brand of Christianity are always looking for excuses to claim they are being persecuted since that is one of the tenants of their faith. Few things on earth are as noble as suffering in defense of Christ and Christianity, but it's pretty damned difficult to suffer and be persecuted when you're an 85% majority and pretty much call all of the shots (how many non-Christian presidents have there been?). As a result, whenever Christians don't get their own way (which is rare), they whine, stomp, and boohoo into their beers; more importantly, they scream of being persecuted against. "See, God? Look at me! I'm suffering for you! Are you watching this?" Rick Perry is grandstanding for the Christians, and it is thoroughly distasteful.

Moving on, he says, "You don't have to be in a pew every Sunday to know there is something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

There has always been a paradox with Republicans: They love our troops but hate gays. So how do they feel about gay troops? The question then becomes: Do they hate gays more than they love the troops? Rick Perry answers that question. For MOST people, regardless of political ideology, the fact that a person is a member of the armed forces putting themselves in harms way comes first. That is paramount. Whether they are gay, Christian, Muslim, straight, or whatever else they may be comes in at a very distant second. This is being perceived as an attack on the troops, for it matters more to Perry that a soldier is gay than it does a gay being a soldier. Iraqi insurgents and roadside IEDs do not inquire about their victims' sexual orientation before pulling the trigger or exploding, and the majority of Americans know that. If his message had been about gay marriage, he may have had more traction, but focusing on gays in the military, well, he blew it.

The second part is just absolute nonsense. Children can't openly celebrate Christmas? When did that happen? Republicans using fear and hyperbole to terrify the population into voting for them is nothing new, but these days they are well past hyperbole and into baldfaced lies. Some corporations (not the government) may be telling their employees to wish customers "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" but that's a long, LONG ways from kids having to open their presents in a secret room in the basement because Christmas can't be celebrated openly. If Perry is waiting for an American version of Anne Frank's Diary where a young girl is caught celebrating Christmas by Obama's gestapo, he better settle in for a very long wait, indeed.

The third part is just another lie. Kids can pray in school. There are no laws or rules saying they can't. What the Republicans want, however, is a teacher-led sermon and children chanting their prayers in unison as part of the daily school routine. There are no pulpits in a public school classroom, and there's a reason for that. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religion, and Christians are obviously not hoping for generic prayers ("Which God are we praying to, teacher?") or prayers to non-Christian gods. Gee, I wonder what's left?

Next, he says, "As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our Christian heritage."

First of all, there is no war on religion. This is Perry's third baldfaced lie uttered in a 30 second advertisement. There has not been one single piece of legislation - not a single one - out of Obama's office that can even be construed as a "war" on religion. No, Obama not mentioning God during his Thanksgiving speech doesn't count. It's amazing how a candidate for president can have the temerity to boldly proclaim something so utterly untrue on national television, but there it is. Anything to stir up Christians who are already looking for liberal persecution under every rock and behind every tree. What they should be looking for is truth and honesty from their leaders.

Finally, he concludes with, "Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again."

Every nation on the planet with the same degree of religiosity as America is essentially a Third World cesspool. America is an aberration, a statistical anomaly, for it would seem America is strong despite our faith, not because of it.

by Charlatan Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:17 pm

I think that having gay soldiers shows that even gays love america, and love from a source should be returned. This is not bribery or black mail, it is love for the nation, making it strong.

Then the kids should pray on sundays, not mondays. If a child wants to pray in texas, they could decide to pray in a exam - with the advert going the way it did, it is not hard to imagine this happening and the teachers being hard done by.

If they were to pray everyday at the office, it could be used in a way that they cannot finnish their work, and that would be a flop! This means that when work is concerned, people should be dissuaded from praying instead of working.

by jstnay Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:13 pm

He also had another brain freeze, he forgot it's "Guns, God and Gays.

I am older than Rick Perry the only time we ever prayed in school was when I went to a Parochial School for a short time.
When I was in school there was no God in the pledge of allegiance and by golly since I didn't learn it that way I always forget it.
They have not allowed Christmas in schools here for many years, they usually have winter celebration. There are way to many other religions and they can't do them all. Interestly most of the children believe in Santa Clause up to a certain age, no matter their religion.
While the majority of Americans are christians, the Pilgrims did not come here to escape the heathens.
It's a sad state of affairs when an adult man has no idea what his country is about and can get 9% of the support from his party.
Rick Perry is not qualified to be President

by dimsum Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:13 pm

Shirina and Jst , well said. I can not believe he actually said that about gays in the Military bs. He sounds llike a perfect person to join the Westboro Church. He is bigot and a racist and has no business being the Gov. either but it is Texas after all.

by Stox 16 Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:27 am

After watching all the Republican's on TV i have come to believe they are all quite mad and horribly pythonesque

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:08 am

Republicans appear not to notice the irony in self-parody.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:26 am

Perry was dead in the water as soon as he stepped into the national spotlight. He just didn't know it.

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:37 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Perry was dead in the water as soon as he stepped into the national spotlight. He just didn't know it.

God I do hope you are right

by Guest Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:43 am

I just wish we could remove him from the governor's mansion.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:05 am

Few candidates wait to start their campaign in Iowa, and some light relief has been available from the various utterances of Republican Hopefuls on their way there.
Rick Perry kicked off, telling a TV audience about the three Government Agencies he was going to close [when in Power], Commerce, Education and err, umm, the one so important he couldn't remember which it was.
In Miami, exiles were interested to learn from (since retired) candidate Herman Cain that the language spoken in their motherland is Cuban.
Mitt Romney got it wrong in challenging Mr Perry to a $10,000 bet on whether Romney's political memoir No apology contained inaccuracies.
That's a wager that only a comfortably rich man could risk, which doesn't play well to an audience experiencing austerity. If he had said "a Million Dollars" it would have been simple rhetoric.
Today in Iowa, some Republican candidate somewhere is likely to be asked the price of a loaf of bread there. They'd better be sure to know the answer.

by astra Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:36 pm

Please do not accuse me of supporting him, but - - - - - - - - - - -

Published on Tuesday 28 November 2006 16:50

Shoppers in Leamington are still being wished a happy Diwali - despite the holy feast ending six weeks ago.

The Hindu festival of light, which is also celebrated by Sikhs, fell on October 21 this year.
http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/news/local/should_diwali_banner_still_be_flying_1_1046302

Apparently happy diwali was still flying until recently!

Any reporters from the area??

by Guest Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:08 am

Rick Santorum ties for lead in Iowa caucus.

by Shirina Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:14 am

LOL! Now it's Santorum. Before that it was Romney, and before that it was Cain and before that it was Perry, etc. I think every Republican candidate has had the lead at some point. I can't recall ever seeing an election when the lead was swapped between 4 or 5 candidates. Usually by this point it comes down to two strong individuals for the nomination. I suppose in a few months, Huntsman will have the lead.

by Guest Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:53 am

The difference? During the early fall Republican debates, Mitt Romney said little of substance, Michelle Bachmann said "Obama" at least once pre three words, Perry, (ah, my dear governor) Rick Perry, spouted stupidity, Ron Paul advocated the destruction from within of the United States of America, and Rick Santorum was almost ignored. Every now and then, when Santorum could get a word in edge-wise amid the cacophonous clatter, the ex-United States Senator said something that made sense.

I think that, since these caucus and primary votes now mean something, Republican voters might begin to see and hear Santorum in spite of the fools masquerading as legitimate candidates with whom he is surrounded and vote with their minds fully engaged. If so, Rick Santorum has a good chance o becoming the Republican nominee. That would be a good thing; he is capable of engaging Obama in oppositional dialogue while respecting him as the superb geo-politicist (it ought to be a word) that he is, and that might make for a campaign based upon issues, a rarity in American politics these days.

As for me, as I promised my friends, if I see an opportunity to help bring about a general election with two decent candidates, I'll take that opportunity. If, by the time Texas' primaries roll around, Santorum is still a viable candidate and Obama, as expected, is locked in tight as the resident president seeking a second term, I'll "Stick With Rick" (Santorum, that is) and vote for him in the republican primary (and caucus, if there is one).

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:44 am

In Britain, ordinary voters never get to elect the Prime Minister.
In the USA, ordinary voters never get to elect their President.

Is that a satisfactory arrangement in a Democracy?

by Guest Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:04 am

oftenwrong wrote:
In the USA, ordinary voters never get to elect their President.

Actually, they do.

by Guest Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:09 am

GOP: Romney beats Santorum by 8 votes
AP – 2 hrs 26 mins ago

Story: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-romney-beats-santorum-8-votes-073941845.html

by **Ivan** Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:52 pm

Tactical voting USA-style: why David Blanchflower (Professor of Economics) is voting for Newt Gingrich:-

"I cannot bring myself to vote for Ron Paul, the libertarian crank who wants to abolish income tax and the Federal Reserve, return America to the gold standard and, ludicrously, cut $1trn of spending in a single year……of the other candidates, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum do not have credible economic plans and Jon Huntsman will not be in the race long. It may surprise you to learn that I am planning to vote for the ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich…….the man who was having an affair with a House staffer while he was trying to have President Bill Clinton impeached over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky…..he has no chance of becoming president. But the longer he remains in the primary race, the more money Mitt Romney will have to spend on destroying his opponents' credibility and the less money Romney will have to attack Obama."

For the full article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2012/01/obama-vote-republican-gingrich

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:58 am

I believe three pertinet things insofar as tactical US politics:

Rick Santorum is the sole credible candidate, which, given the rest of the field, is not a guarantee of excellence.
Republican Party power brokers will continue to fund Mitt Romney and starve out Santorum.
Republican Party power brokers' myopia will significantly contribute to Barack Obama's success on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November 2012.

As soon as Romney secures the nomination at the RNC, I'll lay a dollar to a dime that this goes viral.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:32 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:
In the USA, ordinary voters never get to elect their President.

Actually, they do.

You didn't tell us that you were a member of the Electoral College. Wow!

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:10 am

oftenwrong wrote:
In the USA, ordinary voters never get to elect their President.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Actually, they do.

oftenwrong wrote:
You didn't tell us…

I was speaking to you, not y’all (“us”).

oftenwrong wrote:
You didn't tell [me] that you were a member of the Electoral College.

That’s because I was not a member of the Electoral College.

oftenwrong wrote:
Wow!

I share your awe of my magnificence.

Normally, I’d be through, but temptation overwhelms me, and I cannot pass up this opportunity to teach.

The political history of the United States, short and relatively straightforward when compared to the political history of the United Kingdom (which I pray remains united), must of necessity include the sovereignty of the thirteen original states at the time that the United States Constitution was ordained and established, which deed can be argued to have been accomplished no later than 15 December 1791, the ratification date of the first ten amendments.

Each of the original signatories to the US Constitution signed on behalf of a sovereign state, an independent entity which declared its sovereignty in 1776 (4 July or thereabouts), and the sovereignty of which was declared by Britain in 1783 (not sue if y’all were the United Kingdom yet). Thee thirteen sovereign states, by ordaining and establishing this Constitution for the United States of America, did not agree to relinquish sovereignty, they agreed to share sovereignty, and to each share sovereignty with a common central government to which they would delegate a portion of their sovereignty.

Accordingly, the US Constitution originally mandated that the President of the United States be elected by the several sovereign states voting in an electoral college composed of electors selected by each state, the number of electors of each state determined by the combined number of US Senators and Representatives to the US House of Representatives of each state (details available in the United States Constitution, an easy read).

By amendment, the voters of each state (and the District of Columbia), by popular vote in each state (and the District of Columbia), now directly elect each state’s electors in fifty presidential/vice presidential elections (and one presidential/vice presidential election in the District of Columbia) held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every year divisible by four.

Accordingly, on 8 November 2008, in fifty-one simultaneous presidential/vice presidential elections held in each of the fifty sovereign states (as new states are added, they gain identical sovereignty as the original thirteen) and the District of Columbia, fifty-one sets of electors pledged to either John McCain/Sarah Palin or Barack Obama/Joe Biden were elected to the Electoral College. Although the Electoral College’s votes were not counted until January 2009, by 9 November 2008, Barack Hussein Obama Jr. had been elected forty-fourth President of the United States of America.

The process, although technically a bit complicated, clearly puts We the People of each sovereign state, and thereby We the People of the United States, in the drivers’ seats in electing our shared President of the United States.

My statement was, “Actually, they do.” My statement stands as originally posted.

Thank you for opening the door and providing an opportunity for me to teach.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:04 pm

My pleasure.

Have you heard of homeopathy? It almost corresponds to your description of the Presidential electoral process.

by blueturando Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:54 am

Why are American politicians so cheesey on Tv??

Watching the Primary speeches on the news made me vomit....all this I am holy & pure b*ll sh*t. Do Americans really fall for that fake crap? It's like watching a bad soap opera

PS....What kinda name is 'Mitt'???? Freaks!!!!!

by Shirina Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:14 am

Watching the Primary speeches on the news made me vomit....all this I am holy & pure b*ll sh*t. Do Americans really fall for that fake crap? It's like watching a bad soap opera

There was a documentary series that aired perhaps 5 or so years ago called Cronkite: That's the Way It Is. You've probably heard of Walter Cronkite even in Britain. One part of this documentary talked about presidential campaigns "then and now," and Mr. Cronkite lamented how they have changed. Before the advent of television, elections were serious business, but once television began circumventing the radio and print media, campaigns became more like circus shows filled with empty fluff and vacuous nothingness. Lots of glitz and glamour, but almost no substance.

Those of us who understand history do not fall for it. Unfortunately, there are still many who do.

PS....What kinda name is 'Mitt'????

For that matter, what kind of name is 'Newt'?

by blueturando Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:37 am

Lol...Shirina, yes Newt...what's that all about???? I'm sure Newt was the kid in Alien resurrection

It's a shame people fall for all the glitz, without really understanding the politics. I can just imagine the good ole folks at home 'Well he looks like a good man and he's god fearing so we will vote for him'. What are his policies 'Oh I dont know dear, but he's wearing a nice tie & and has his own teeth'.

It's a shame US politics has come down to this, but watching it makes me hope Obama is re-elected...Those Republicans are freaks!!!

by **Ivan** Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:20 pm

The names could be worse; the lovely Shania Twain's ex-husband is called Mutt Lange! Romney uses his middle name Mitt, and his first name isn't much better - that's Willard.

Incidentally, Romney has promised to "undo everything Barack Obama has done as President". So if Romney should by some accident (such as hanging chads in Florida) win the election, will Bin Laden be brought back to life?
:affraid:

by Guest Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:40 pm

Unless someone derails Romney soon, it’s over. I don’t believe anyone can stop him at this point.

Sad to say, that means that November 2012 will either see Barack Obama or an incompetent pretender elected President of the United States. Even with Sister Sarah trying to drag him into the gutter, John McCain was a viable choice, emphasis on choice. Mitt might be a viable choice for someone else’s dog catcher.

Ivan, I was thinking the same thing. “Undo everything Barack Obama has done?” In addition to Osama bin Laden’s resurrection, three Somali pirates will rise out of the sea to resume terrorizing international shipping.

by Shirina Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:30 pm

It also means that all of the troops have to go back to Iraq, we'll have to start up the recession again, the money spent over the last four years will have to be returned to the government, anyone who found a job during Obama's presidency will have to quit, Qadaffi will have to be put back in power, businesses that made a profit will have to give it all back ... I think it would just be easier to stuff the whole country into a De Lorean, fire up the flux capacitor, wait for a lightning strike, and get up to 88 miles per hour.

by Guest Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:42 pm

I hereby admit “sniping” from Jump Street:

Broadcast news media must also resume airing Jesse Jackson sound bites every time any non-Black American says “colored”, “negro”, or “Black”… as in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, United Negro College Fund, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and “beep beep, bang bang, ungawah, Black Powah!”

I ain’t heard Jesse in three years. The sound of silence is so refreshing.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:04 pm

Incidentally, Romney has promised to "undo everything Barack Obama has done as President".

So will he close Guantanamo, or re-establish it as an illegal hostage centre (center).

by Guest Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:15 am

Buffett to Republicans: if you pay, so will I
Reuters – 1 hour 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON/BOSTON (Reuters) - Warren Buffett is willing to put his money where his mouth is, if only congressional Republicans would join him.
The American billionaire investor, in the new issue of Time magazine, says he would donate $1 to paying down the national debt for every dollar donated by a Republican in Congress. The only exception is Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell - for whom Buffett said he would go $3-to-$1.

Full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-gop-pay-211046623.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Walk the talk. Now that’s what I’m talking ‘bout!

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:28 am

Speaking of "Donations", two years have now passed since the disastrous earthquake in Haiti, where thousands still live in tents.

Only HALF of the aid money promised two years ago has actually materialised. Promises are cheap.

by Stox 16 Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:56 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Buffett to Republicans: if you pay, so will I
Reuters – 1 hour 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON/BOSTON (Reuters) - Warren Buffett is willing to put his money where his mouth is, if only congressional Republicans would join him.
The American billionaire investor, in the new issue of Time magazine, says he would donate $1 to paying down the national debt for every dollar donated by a Republican in Congress. The only exception is Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell - for whom Buffett said he would go $3-to-$1.

Full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-gop-pay-211046623.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Walk the talk. Now that’s what I’m talking ‘bout!

Well I cannot see that happening every soon.

by **Ivan** Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Read the thoughts of a disillusioned Republican:-
http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:43 pm

This choice quote from today's Sunday Times fits here because it's America, but could equally figure in the Economics or NHS British threads:

"John Hammergren, Chief Executive Office of the healthcare firm McKesson took home $145million in salary and options."

Are you salivating, Messrs. Cameron, Clegg and Lansley?

by Shirina Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:17 pm

Read the thoughts of a disillusioned Republican:-

This guy could be writing my forum posts. Almost every last criticism I've made against conservatism has been addressed and verified by Mr. Frum. For me, it is a personal vindication. When writing a lot of political commentary - which I certainly do - it is sometimes necessary to turn that unforgiving microscope upon yourself. I try to avoid getting trapped in a little liberal bubble, and I have wondered and worried if my own views were not just as radical as theirs; perhaps I was only seeing the absolute worst of conservative Republicanism and painting with too large a brush.

When I read this article by David Frum, it dawned on me then that ... no, my views are not radical nor have my accusations against conservative Republicanism been unfounded. In fact, I couldn't have hit the bullseye any more accurately if I had walked up to the target and placed the arrow there by hand.

This part actually sent me into a peal of little girlish giggles:

"But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside this alternative reality ..."

Mkitty and I have been aware of this "alternative reality" for a good number of years now, and we frequently reference it in our forum posts and in our personal conversations (we usually phone each other at least once a week).

The only difference is ... Mr. Frum is diplomatic enough to merely call it an "alternative reality." Mkitty and I have been calling it "Wackyland" for at least three years and counting. Hearing an actual conservative describe the same "alternative reality" that Mkitty and I have been joking about for years means that neither of us is very far off the mark - if we're off at all.

It is actually a relief in many respects knowing that my commentary and my distaste with conservatism really IS based on reality and not political brainwashing.

by Guest Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:55 pm

Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church
By MATTHEW MOSK and BRIAN ROSS | ABC News – Tue, Jan 17, 2012
(ABC News)

… the prominent… role that Mitt Romney played as a Mormon leader, the private equity giant once run by the GOP presidential frontrunner carved his church a slice of several of its most lucrative business deals… providing it with millions of dollars worth of stock in some of Bain Capital's most well-known holdings.

… the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… requires that members "tithe," or give 10 percent of their income to the church.

… stock contributions made during Romney's Bain days suggest there is another dimension to Romney's support for the church… that could involve millions more than has been previously disclosed.

As part of just one Bain transaction in 2008, involving its investment in Burger King Holdings… an unnamed Bain partner donated 65,326 shares of Burger King stock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, holdings then worth nearly $1.9 million… there were numerous others, giving the church a stake in… Domino's Pizza, the electronics manufacturer DDi, the phosphates company Innophos Holdings, and Marquee Holdings, the parent to AMC Theaters.

Full story:http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-sent-millions-mormon-church-193106008--abc-news.html

by Guest Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:02 am

'Impressed' and 'Delighted' Warren Buffett Matches GOP Rep's Deficit Donations
CNBC – 11 hours ago
3:11

Warren Buffett will be writing a check made out to the United States Treasury for just over $49,000 to help pay down the national debt.

He's matching voluntary contributions made this year and last year by Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican representing Virginia.

In a letter to Rep. Rigell released today by Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett writes he's "particularly impressed that you took this action before my challenge."

Full story: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/impressed-delighted-warren-buffett-matches-204656439.html

by Guest Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:57 pm

Rick Perry to end presidential campaign
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – 32 mins ago

BLUFFTON, S.C. -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry plans to announce an end to his presidential campaign Thursday, Yahoo News has confirmed.

The announcement was first reported by CNN.

Perry will make the announcement at a press conference in Charleston, South Carolina at 11 a.m. and will endorse former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Politico reports.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-rick-perry-end-campaign-141912141.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh Happy Day!

by Stox 16 Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:17 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Rick Perry to end presidential campaign
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – 32 mins ago

BLUFFTON, S.C. -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry plans to announce an end to his presidential campaign Thursday, Yahoo News has confirmed.

The announcement was first reported by CNN.

Perry will make the announcement at a press conference in Charleston, South Carolina at 11 a.m. and will endorse former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Politico reports.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-rick-perry-end-campaign-141912141.html
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Oh Happy Day!

yep happy days indeed. just hope the rest of them lose as well in the big one. God they are so backward looking

by Sponsored content