motherjones:

If we had to identify the moment at which this year’s Values Voter Summit officially went off the rails, we’d probably go with the time the pastor who endorsed Rick Perry accused Mitt Romney of belonging to a “cult.”

You mean Mormonism isn’t a cult — a very big, rich cult, but really, what else would you call it?

The seat once held by Anthony Wiener was lost to the Democrats to a social conservative Republican who didn’t even live in the very liberal district. The main issue? Israel. The GOP fielded someone who said that he would support – and told this to the majority Jewish district – Israel strongly. Rick Perry has essentially said the same thing – and used the Christian faith to support his dilettantish view.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said during a New York press conference Tuesday that his Christian faith requires his strong support of Israel.

“I also as a Christian have a clear directive to support Israel, so from my perspective it’s pretty easy,” Perry said when a reporter asked if Perry’s faith was driving his views, according to the Associated Press. “Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel.” (HERE)

First, the Christian faith requires no such thing. Second, a public official elected to any Federal office has the sole obligation to defend the United States – not Israel who has caused many, many American deaths and will continue to cause them until we have a President actually brave enough to side with the cause of Justice. Christians stand for the oppressed, for justice, and against the things that the State of Israel has done and continues to do to the Palestinian people. A man who would defend Israel over the United States does not deserve to be President, but should look heavily at the word treason in a dictionary.

(Republicans, not all of you, but you know who I mean. Please don’t make me vote for this guy. Please nominate the smart, experienced business guy. Please keep all this religious shit to yourselves. Please understand bragging about teaching creationism in public schools is as offensive as liberals making Howard Zinn part of the history curriculum or brainwashing kids about climate change. Remember, we have to send the charismatic empty suit back to Chicago. We can’t do that with another heavy dose of Texas macho. Eye on the prize, guys. Nominate somebody who can win and get us back on track.)

shortformblog:

In 1981, a professor at American University developed a forecasting model for presidential elections. Based on thirteen different metrics, or “keys,” the model has never been wrong. In 1992, it spotted George H.W. Bush’s vulnerability when everybody assumed he was invincible; that prediction was instrumental in convincing Bill Clinton to enter the race. Which is to say, were it not for Allan Lichtman and his “Thirteen Keys,” we may have never had a President Clinton. Now, Lichtman has applied his model to 2012. Here’s how Obama stacks up:

  • Reelection Working in the president’s favor are his significant domestic policy accomplishments, a lack of scandals, a weak Republican field, generally successful foreign policy, no significant third party candidates, no primary challenger and a lack of sustained social unrest.
  • Defeat So why might Obama have reason to worry? Well, the long-term economy, a lack of personal charisma, the results of the last House election and, if it comes to fruition, an upcoming recession could all spell trouble for his reelection campaign.

Conclusion: “Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” Lichtman says. The President wins 9 out of the 13 keys, two more than needed. Now, there’s lots of room for debate here—for example, is it really true that Obama lacks personal charisma? Lichtman’s rational is that the president has “lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election, but that’s debatable. And do we know for certain that Rick Perry won’t prove to be a dazzling candidate, charming voters across the nation? Furthermore, a lot can happen between now and 2012: a surprise rebound of the economy, an unforeseen international crisis, or some other black swan event. But as it stands, this metric is some of the best reelection news Obama’s had in months (Photo: Reuters/Jim Young). source

Follow ShortFormBlog

This is a sad prospect, but all I can do is vote.

(Source: shortformblog)

I am relieved to hear that. It seems a clear violation of the separation of church and state, and it’s offensive.

kileyrae:

other-stuff:

whiporwill:

Rick Perry wants to put a moratorium on every regulation, ever, for everything

Today, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) issued the first policy position of his presidential campaign by asking the White House to issue a “moratorium on regulations across this country”:

We’re calling today on the president of the United States to put a moratorium on regulations across this country, because his regulations, his EPA regulations are killing jobs all across America.

“We’re sending out a request today asking President Obama to put a moratorium on all regulations,” Perry said on WHO radio in Iowa, recorded live by ThinkProgress.

Under such a moratorium, the Food and Drug Administration would stop approving new drugs and preventing human experimentation; the USDA would stop checking for food safety; the EPA would stop monitoring for poisons in drinking water; the Library of Congress would stop loaning materials to blind people; the NTSB would stop investigating airplane accidents; HHS would end Medicare payments; no more patents, copyrights, or trademarks would be issued; DHS would stop protecting chemical facilities from terrorist attacks; the Treasury would stop printing currency; financial sanctions on hostile nations like North Korea and Iran would end; and the Federal Reserve System would shut down.

Perry’s “moratorium on regulations” would mean a literal end to the rules of law in the United States. At least it would also mean that all of President George W. Bush’s midnight regulations favoring polluters and industry abuses would also be lifted.

And let’s not forget all the jobs related to regulation and regulation compliance that would be lost.

Oh Rick, you just keep digging yourself into that hole.

Rick is so right on this one. We need better and fewer regulators and many fewer regulations. ASAP.