With our apologies for once again talking about Perry, this is, in our opinion, exactly how you should answer this question:

In response to a question about whether there should be a national right-to-work law to prevent actions such as the recent National Labor Relations Board attempt to prevent Boeing from building a plant in right-to-work South Carolina, Governor Perry responded, “States compete against each other. … States that say, … ‘We don’t want to be a right-to-work state.’ Well, places like Texas or places like Florida or Virginia or Oklahoma, they are going to be more competitive with their tax policy and with their regulatory policy and with their legal policy. That’s how you make America more competitive. Get the federal government out of making one size fits all. Even if it’s for things that we think that we would like, there may be some states out there that say, we don’t want that. And then people can vote with their feet.”

Given a big slab of red meat in the form of a federal law mandating right-to-work status of all states, he didn’t bite. Which proves, to us at least, that he actually understands the idea of States’ Rights, which is really no surprise, seeing as how he hails from a State that didn’t choose to lick Lincoln’s balls, natch.

When you believe strongly in something, such as right-to-work, it can be bloody hard to resist the urge to say “hell yeah” if asked a question like that. It is, after all, something that is an undeniably Good Thing™. If you don’t believe us, look up economic growth statistics for right-to-work States as opposed to union fascist States. Also please make a note that corporations aren’t fleeing right-to-work states to hide under the shelter of States run almost entirely by unions. The trend is rather convincingly going in the opposite direction. Much like you don’t see very many Floridians (meaning “none”) jumping on jury-rigged rubber rafts to escape to Cuba.

It’s easy to agree with something that gives you what you want, even when it might not pass the smell test. People with principles are able to resist the temptation. Liberals, on the other hand, are not. To them, the ends always justify the means.

How about this for a slogan?: Perry in 2012. For States’ Rights.

It would be sure to give liberals and Beltway Republicans (but we repeat ourself) the vapors, wouldn’t it?

In other news, and lest this site becomes “All Perry, All The Time”, Newt continues to beat the snot out of MittRack ObamNey, but the most hilarious example of it wasn’t even something he has done. It’s MittRack ObamNey’s choice of proxies to do the dirty work for him because, Heaven forbid, he can’t get his hands dirty! He’s running for president, for Pete’s sake! Yes, he’s a coward, but anybody with any observational skills knows that already. Hmmm… Always having somebody else do all the mud-slinging while pretending to have nothing to do with it in order to remain above it all… Who does that remind us of? Oh yes, Il Douche. That’s who. We swear, Mittens and Obongo were separated at birth. But we digress…

Mittens’ stupid choice of proxies? Sununununununu-lalalala, as his designated “Gingrich is not really a rock-ribbed, consistent conservative (tell us something we don’t know, O Master of the Bleeding Obvious) hit man in New Hampshire. That would be the same Sununu who was all in when Bush 41 fell for the NSDWP’s obvious “we’ll gladly cut spending some day for massive tax hikes today” scam. Guess who was against that? Guess who warned time and time again that the NSDWP weren’t going to cut a damn thing once 41 had broken his “read my lips” pledge, but instead ride the disgust of the Republican base all the way to victory in ’92?

Gingrich, that’s who.

Not that you have to be particularly brilliant to see through that particular ploy, so we’re certainly not going to use it as evidence of Newt’s “crushing intellect”. All any sentient being needs is one afternoon in the company of a history book to note that liberals, in all of their history, have never, ever, not once kept their word in a deal and, furthermore, the only deal they’ll enter into is one in which they get all that they want now and the other side is promised their bite at some point in the future. And they always lie. Just ask the South Vietnamese. Oh wait, you can’t… How about the vigorous border control Reagan was promised in return for amnesty? Never mind.

It’s blindingly obvious to anybody with a brain and therefore way above Sununununununu’s pay grade, which means that Newt now gets to talk about how he was alone in being right about the liberals’ obvious “taxes for no spending cuts” scam, whereas his detractors, Sunununununu among them, were wrong. Thanks, Mittens ObamneyCare for being such a blithering, buttfuckingly incompetent buffoon as to choose a sub-retarded twat for your gopher. That is exactly what this nation needs. Another intellectually under-endowed imbecilic coward with a penchant for shooting himself in both feet, because Heaven knows we haven’t had enough of that over the last three years.

Finally, on a general note about Gingrich and the inevitable “he’s not a real conservative” outcries whenever somebody says something nice about him:

Tell us something we don’t know. We really have two discussions here, and it tends to become rather annoying when they get mixed up: Newt vs. Mittens or Newt vs. some other NotRomney. In the latter case Newt loses spectacularly, if you ask us. Except if we’re talking about Huntsman, but why waste time on a joke candidate? In the former case, well… We rest our case. Seriously, does anybody in their right mind prefer ObamneyCare over Newt?

Between the two of them, at least Newt has the advantage of not having been spectacularly wrong every single time he’s ever opened his mouth. Not to mention that Newt has actually managed to accomplish something, which is more than you can say for Mittens. Unless designing and implementing The Father of ObamaCare counts as an “accomplishment” in your book, in which case you ought to vote for El Zero in ’12 since he managed to push Mittens’ plan through on a national scale.

If the choice comes down to Newt or Mittens, the choice ought to be pretty damn clear to anybody calling his or her own self a conservative. Yes, it’s the lesser of two evils, but it oughtn’t be too hard to figure out which one is the lesser one.

HOWEVER. We’re not at that point yet. Call His Imperial Majesty a hopeless optimist, but the show is not really over until the fat lady sings, and said show hasn’t even started yet. Who says Newt is “inevitable?” Bachmann, Perry and Cain all shared that dubious honor at some point and, again, the show is not over. There are still other fish in the sea and, as we’ve said in the past, we don’t care all that much about polls generally. Bugger us, if there was some way of declaring the Departments of State and Defense off-limits to the president we’d vote for Ron Paul. Screw that. If that was a possibility, we’d bloody well BEG him to become president.

Anyway: Have faith. IF it comes down to the wire between Mittens ObamneyCare and just about anybody else in the primaries, we’ll vote for his opponent, because we really, really don’t need a spineless coward in love with himself as president. We’ve tried that already.

It ain’t over yet. The primaries haven’t even started. Let’s see what it looks like as that race gets started.

1) Anybody but Mittens in the primaries.
2) Anybody but Obama in the general.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

By Emperor Misha I

Ruler of all I survey -- and then some.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments