What kind of catastrophe?  Seems like anything in Perry’s past would have come out during his long career…  The guy has been under the microscope for longer than any other Texas governor, and if you know anything about Texas you know that says something.  Texans love kicking the incumbent out of the mansion.

So what is it to which you allude?

exactly!
Burnt Orange, -I once had a pair of briefs turn that color, forgot I wasn’t sposed to drink the water in Mexico.  Doh!

Perry’s problems are threefold: working for Gore, secession talk, and the GOP primary process, which will produce questions for  the general that will derail any GOP candidate at this point.  The insistence on increasingly unreasonable litmus tests for membership combined with the creation of multiple sets of facts in place of our shared reality dooms the GOP in general as presently constituted.   

The GOP must now play defense against both the economy and their coming demographic wall.  Soon, races will turn toward the math, and again  the GOP will be playing defense, esp. in the House.

Watch WI tonight.  Waves are built of such stuff.

By sheer coincidence, the day after Perry showed interest in running for Prez, the EPA rolled out an economy-destroying set of rules.

Only coincidence mind you…

There have been a few little things — including one source who says Perry has been on the wrong side of the eminent-domain issue — that lead me to think Perry is a lot less certain ultimately to win the nomination than some people seem to think. What I fear will happen is that Perry will spend several months sucking up media oxygen and burning through GOP donor cash, only to collapse early next year. This will have the effect of suffocating other conservative candidates, and thereby lead to … Romney 2012.

Understand, Steve: I’m not exactly anti-Perry.  I got nothing against him personally or ideologically, and many of my Texas friends swear by the guy. But in my experience, when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. And there is a too-good-to-be-true vibe to this idea of “Perry to the Rescue.” Maybe my Jedi senses are wrong this time, but I’ve got a spooky bad feeling and I just can’t shake it.

The Trans-Texas Corridor

That’s what I’d heard about, and I accept your defense of it. But my point is that the governor was once in favor of a policy that was anathema to small-government conservatives. And then there’s that “Governor Gardasil” thing . . .

I thought that you might be having some fun there.

Btw, I’ve enjoyed reading your (as usual) excellent work on the trail in Iowa.

And I agree, it seems like the Perry campaign is taking a weird approach up there (and in general). 

In re: GOP’s “coming demographic wall.” Please explain this to me how this will play out, projecting 2-3 generations into the future.

Specifically, which demographic groups will support what party/ideological trends and so forth, and why?

For example, any implications with the urban (especially east/west coast) “progressives” having low birth rates, transgendered values, etc.?

Or, will such factors be more than offset by other demographic groups? And, if so, how will those rising demographic groups interact with the future political-economic system?   

Ha! Ha! You think CNN is a reliable news source!
*falls over laughing*

Then why hasn’t the GOP put forth any job creation measures?  Dems are sitting on a $500 billion transportation bill  that could put millions to work by next summer.  Oh, that’s right.  Right afterward is the election, and jobs means recovery means Obama gets re-elected.

The point is, the GOP won’t even try, and everyone knows it.  The people CNN interviewed certainly did.

There are no news sources any longer.  Just pointers along the way.  CNN’s is not the only measure.  I invite you to broaden your intake.

Wow, that transpo bill sounds  . . . shovel ready!

Sensible Republicans understand that Washington cannot create jobs, in the end it is only a consumer of wealth, not a creator.

Shouldn’t he be called: Governor Dippity-Do?

http://youtu.be/CxTunPvi5pY

I asked about 2-3 generations because “demographic walls” are not formed overnight, right?

In the short-term, several factors working against the Democrats, as compared to the recent past:

1. Voter ID laws might reduce some of the usual Democrat fraud, especially from illegals, plus the sluggish economy sent some of them back home, anyway. Obviously, it will decades for the U.S.-born Latino segment to grow in proportion to the total voting population.

2. African Americans have voted over 90-percent for Democrats for years now (and, wow, look at how far that’s gotten them!); thus, that segment doesn’t figure to retain much untapped “material” (or voting strength) for building the “demographic wall” in the short-term, unless you count the Obama turnout factor, which might not be helped by 20+ percent unemployment among Afr Am males. According to social justice experts, though, voter ID laws will infringe on low-income Afr Am voting, even though ID requirements never seem to infringe on social welfare demands.

3. Do you really expect young voters to turn out even MORE strongly in support of Obama/Democrats as they did during the apex of Hopey Changey? (btw, young adults are usually more ignorant about political matters than are older age segments). Anway, I don’t think this segment grew much the last 4 years, do you?

In other words, I don’t see any ”coming demographic wall” on the immediate radar screen, which is why I suggested that you look into your crystal ball. I’m all ears.        

I do not regard voter fraud as an issue that actually affects the outcome of elections.  It’s largely made up B.S.  But if you have to have people show their papers for your satisfaction, so be it.  I guess.  It won’t affect turn-out.

As for the black vote, the GOP could earn it back.  But not with policies that continue, say, the drug war, or the state of poverty and missing education.  Where is the GOP proposal to rebuild inner city schools and rid neighborhoods of gangs?  So spare me the “untapped market” B.S. These are actual people we are discussing, and their vote counts the same as yours.

As for the hispanic vote, the GOP could earn it back but not with a focus on fences, but on making as many people as possible legal to broaden the tax base.  The drug war must also come to an end.  But these are things the GOP could do.  Obama, it turns out, has deported far more illgals than W.  Work with him on it.

As for turn-out, watch WI tonight.  It will answer your question better than any prophesy.  I do know that both Gov. Perry and Rep. Bachmann will be a much stronger motivator to vote among the folks close to me than Obama.

Hope and change is one thing.  The theocratic oligarchy the presently constituted GOP would like to usher in is much more dangerous to the Union, and therefore, all of us.

Rick Perry’s play is for VP. I suspect the idea is to replace Romney-Pawlenty with Romney-Perry as the establishment dream ticket. Cain will be promised the Commerce Department. Bachmann will be consoled with money for a 2014 run in Minnesota against Mark Dayton for Governor or against Al Franken for U.S. Senate.

Romney-Cain is also possible. That was probably the point of the mosque apology, which Cain flubbed but not in a way that would stop his Commerce confirmation.

Of course, it will embarrass the Perry effort if fellow Texan Ron Paul outpolls him at Ames, much as Pawlenty had been embarassed by the Bachmann surge. More phantom than menace I suspect.

It seems like you’re tacitly backing away from your comment about the “coming demographic wall.” No sweat, I make plenty of flimsy claims, myself, and have to walk them back.

As for how the GOP could win more support from the above segments:

I don’t quite accept your premises. The Democrats have repeatedly introduced new government policies, programs, projects (oftentimes with support of some Republicans) to “end poverty,” improve education, revitalize inner cities, rid neighborhoods of gangs, and so forth. The Democrats/progressives delivered high-sounding  promises, but woeful, counterproductive results. And yet minorities have consistently supported Democrats.

Are Republicans supposed to become Social Democrats-lite, by making similar promises as the Democrats, except promising to save an extra five percent at the margins, or something? Well, in some respects, they’ve tried that already, and the results – both electorally and policywise – were not encouraging.

Progressive corporatism is a “kinder, gentler” means of impoverishing people’s lives, so why should the GOP repackage more of approach as a means of pushing political buttons?

The best means of empowering the least advantaged is to unleash people’s creative energies. The ”progressives”/Democrats believe that their policies do that – as well as increasing “equity,” social justice, and so forth - yet look at their results.

Maybe you, James Knauer, have some brilliant new policy ideas for unleasing people’s creative energies while simultaneously enhancing social justice. If so, shouldn’t you tell us what those are? Perhaps you don’t want the GOP to unfairly benefit from those ideas, but you have to consider the greater good.               

Why is secession talk such a problem? You’re going to be hearing a lot more of it if things keep going at their current rate.

Sample CNN pole question-

“Do you like President Obama, or are you a racist bigot?”

PGlenn requested, “Maybe you, James Knauer, have some brilliant new policy ideas for unleasing people’s creative energies while simultaneously enhancing social justice. ”

Brilliant?  Subjective.  New?  No.  For guidance, I look to the Constitution in matters of politics, and the document seems geared towards cooperation.  50% + 1 vote is easy to attain, if folks were in an agreeing mood.  But they aren’t, so much so the GOP has issued a record number of filibusters.  

Government, like it or not, has to function. It cannot be sustained by belief, much as some of the current GOP candidates would like to suggest.  Whether or not you think it can create jobs (I think it can with the right investments), it has to function.  Grover Norquist wants to drown it, leaving what in its place exactly?  It appears to be a theocratic oligarchy, given the comments of the current GOP candidates.

Let me put it another way: in my youth I heard this statement a LOT:  ”I disagree with you, and I will defend within the extant of my own rights your right to say so.”  I have not heard that in a long, long time.  People don’t want to hear it.  They want to pick fights, most often for ratings and ad hits.  Cure that, and get back on the path to governance.

I am glad we agree there is need of social justice.  Many people are suffering, and so much can be done with so little.  Rebuilding every inner city school would cost $150 billion.  The benefit would last 2-3 generations, at least.

My solution is to work together.  No one is going anywhere, so let’s get our name-calling over with, and let’s get to work.  Jobs first.

For over 100 years, supporters of an activist government have complained that the American political system is prone to gridlock and yet the fed and state governments managed to pass enough legislation to fill a hundred libraries. Thus we’ve inherited bewildering webs of regulation upon regulation, socioeconomic ”fix” atop socioeconomic fix, and so on. Do you really believe that we arrived at this troubled state of affairs as a result of politicians failing to cooperate?

Government finds it increasing difficult to “function,” as you plead, when it attempts to solve all social problems in a hyper-complex world, while being handicapped/overwhelmed by thousands of other (often competing) government “fixes” that came before.

Btw, a google search of the Voltaire quote, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” generates over 677,000 hits , and that’s using a “” limited search.

Yes, we need to work together, but that does not mean that we should expect the government to lead, fund, and micromanage much of our cooperative efforts, especially when we’re working on things concerning which the government is poorly suited to participate. Government is good at some things, and very poor at other things.

How would you characterize the effectiveness of ”progressive” social policy over the last 50+ years? I don’t mean whether politicians were able to “work together” to pass some legislation and then just assume that their well-intended programs would “do some good.” No, I mean what have been the long-term policy RESULTS of their social welfare ”projects”?  

In my mind, the ”progressives” who’ve preached the loudest in the past, and made the most ambitious demands on government too often inadvertantly sowed more social destruction and dysfunction than they promoted “social justice.” In short, the long-term results of the social justice industry, which originally was conceived to ”solve the social problem,” has been to create more social problems, poverty, inequality, and strife.

So, no, I don’t want more “progressive” devastation, even if someone has new ideas for how to put lipstick on that pig, as a means of netting the GOP a few extra votes. Sorry!  

If GOP donors were smart, they’d be directing that cash towards right wing bloggers instead of wasting it on candidates! Imagine how many road trips Stacy could make if he had Romney money!

You are perhaps too cynical, and coming from a hard-boiled cynic like me, that’s saying something.