This is Rick Perry.

He was just re-elected as the governor of Texas. He makes me want to vomit. The strut, the cockiness—vintage George W. Bush. But he’s actually dumber than Bush, which many probably thought not possible.

Seriously, do me the honor of watching his speech. I consider it the worst, least-classy victory speech I’ve ever heard. Am I wrong?

28 thoughts on “This is Rick Perry.”

  1. The best thing about tonight is watching delusional left-liberals devolve into petty whining and sore-loserdom.

    Kind of funny how voters were “brilliant” and “mature” in 2008 but now, just 2 years later, they’re a bunch of drooling idiots.

    Ha ha ha ha … Hope you enjoyed 2008-09.

    1. Joe, how’d that whole George W. Bush thing work out?
      This is what I REALLY love—your pathetic president uses eight years to ruin much of this country. Obama comes in for two years, with Republicans determined for him to fail. Two years to clean up an insane mess … and he’s a failure? Really?
      Also, funny to hear Republicans bemoan wild spending. Ironic, too. Considering what they inherited in 2000 …

  2. More left-liberal nonsense. First of all, for someone who has been railing against being “classness” tonight, here’s a quick reminder: Bush was also *your* president.

    That aside, I didn’t do any defending of Bush in my first comment above, so your straw-man argument/rebuttal is kind of lame.

    Anyway, Republicans didn’t elect Obama in 2008, so it’s unclear why you’re blaming them for the Dem slaughter tonight. Obama was elected by dim “independents” and “moderates” who were dazzled by his godlike aura and actually believed he could move mountains. If Obama is even half as brilliant as you seem to believe, he should have known that by making promises he couldn’t keep, he was setting himself up for the historic dubbing he took tonight.

  3. Joe,

    So you’re arguing the country would be in better shape today with President McCain? Who promised to continue the policies of George Bush?

  4. Jeff, your 8/12/10 blog about Greg Ball inspired me to become a volunteer for his quest to be elected to the NY State Senate. I worked long nights and weekends spreading Greg Balls vison. Sometimes when I got very tired I would pull out a wrinkled copy of your 8/12/10 blog that I printed out and kept in my wallet. Reading that blog would get my adrenaline flowing…. I’d be good for another 3-4 hours of relentless campaigning…who needs Red Bull when you have Jeff Pearlman !!! So as the sun rises on this beautiful Nov 3rd morning and Greg Ball has in fact been elected to the NYS Senate I salute you Jeff Pearlman…. you made the differnce !! It looks like Greg has won by only a few thousand votes….votes that I helped sway in his direction….Cheers Jeff and thank you for providing me with the inspiration to get involved..You are a great American Jeff Pearlman !!!!!

    1. Mike, oddly, I’m happy to hear that. You’re surely being sarcastic, but I still think political involvement—even for a race-baiting asswipe like Greg Ball—is better than indifference. So mazel tov—your guy won. And, if nothing else, he’s passionate.

  5. Rick Perry is an accessory to murder. Bold statement, I know. But if you read about some of the inmates he has executed in Texas, there are serious doubts that they were guilty and that his office took the necessary steps to investigate before rejecting clemency. Moreover, he impeded the investigation of his office’s conduct by firing three of the committee members on the week they were supposed to reveal their findings. This is not a good governor, and not a good man.

  6. Jim (#5) — As with Jeff, nice try with the straw man argument. The choice in 2008 wasn’t “more Bush” or “most liberal administration in American history.” As should be PLAINLY obvious to even the most ardent Obama supporters today, Obama massively overestimated his mandate, and yesterday he paid the price for his miscalculation. End of story.

    1. Joe, walk with your chest out. It was a big win. And, with that big win, Republicans:

      A. Only hold one of three branches.
      B. Have yet to propose anything beyond “across the board tax cuts.” Which, if I remember correctly, was the entire Bush governing principle.

  7. After all the ads, questions, articles, etc. I still do not understand what politicans mean when they speak of “taking America back.” Back from what or whom? Is it just a desire to take it back from the other guy? In which case I have to ask, is a one party system the objective?

    Or is it a time thing? Back to a different age? Like a time when segregation was cool? Minorities knew their place? Women were simple housewives, and white guys ruled? Children were literally taught to hide under their school desk from the bogey man?

    I just don’t see how either of these goals is desirable or why people would fall for ridiculous rhetoric.

  8. DG (#10) — Wow. You should step away from the Kool-Aid for a few minutes. If you think Obama’s approval is in the tank because he hasn’t been liberal ENOUGH, you really, truly are delusional. (Seriously, you think Obama’s vaunted “independents” overwhelming voted for GOP candidates because they wanted MORE liberalism than they’ve gotten? How does that make sense?)

    Jeff (#11) — Once again, you seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. I haven’t said anything about Bush being a great POTUS or that the GOP has put forth a great agenda or anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that Obama overreached in 2009-10, and, in his own words, took a “shellacking” yesterday as a result.

    Tina (#12) — Obama also campaigned on “taking America back,” so please spare us the nonsense. That phrase has been used in politics since time immemorial.

  9. Joe, based on your condescending comments, I can only surmise that you are a douche. Please accept my condolences for this ailment.

    I think liberals think Obama hasn’t done enough and conservatives think he has done far too much. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. You can’t tell me that he did not win election by a large margin based on a platform of sweeping change. While he has certainly exacted some vast, liberal policies, he has not produced sweeping change. Herein lies the problem. He couldn’t have done so because conservatives would have a) blocked it and b) ran against it, which is what happened anyway. He should have just said “This is what I believe, this is what we are doing, and if you don’t like it then beat me next time.” The only President who has had the guts to do that in the last number of years has been George Bush.

  10. Lets face it Democrats are weenies who refuse to fight what they believe in. Republicans are not interested in governing. They really don’t give a shit about anything except money. What exactly was so liberal about legislation in the the last two years? Ledbetter bill? Credit card reform? Giving the biggest tax break than even Reagan or Bush.

    While the health care bill was not everything it could be, what is wrong with being able to keep your kids on your health care until they are 26? Not having the insurance companies drop you when they feel like it?

    Are you pissed off because Obama wants to let the tax cuts for the rich expire?

    Republicans are not exactly great when it comes to finances. Our two works ecomonic times have occured under Republican presidents. Do you really want to continue that come 2012.

    Why do people continually vote against their own economic interests?

  11. I just want to add one more thing, Check out where the dow is now compared to when Bush left office. If you invested any money in the last two years you would have made some money

  12. DG, I think you’re correct, the truth is in between, but not by much. Joe does seem to be drunk on our sense of accomplishment, and this is no time for trash talking. Healthcare, bailouts and stimulus were rammed down most of Americans throats, and Joes condesention is matched only by the condesention of the liberal elite. They think anyone who doesn’t think these were good things are too stipid to know better. Jeffs “rural whites” post shows the thought process of the elites. Anyone who doesn’t want the government to spend more money on THEM, is an idiot dolt. If you are worried about how we can possibly pay for all the crap “empathetic” liberals like Jeff want to buy, well your simply too simple to understand. My wife doesn’t pay the bills either, and bless her democratic heart, she doesn’t understand how the real world works any better than Jeff. BTW, how have republicans blocked anything the last two years? Back when people were smart they voted in every dem in sight, there’s been no blocking other than by the dems themselves. Also, W did what he thought was right, and has more class in his little finger than President Obama or Congresswoman Pelosi have in their entire body.

    1. Doug, I wrote a lengthy response. Then I erased it. Obviously I disagree strongly with what you say. STRONGLY. But I also think posters such as yourself, whose visits I greatly appreciate, deserve the final word (Since I write the initial posts). So, while I disagree, I thank you for posting and keeping the dialogue going …

  13. Sanford, you are a better typer than I. My 401k has made money, but I’m a republican and have inside info because of it:)
    also, insurance companies are businesses, if they can’t make a profit they’ll just stop the business, and we’ll all end up on the government dole. This is the main problem, we can’t afford this. Medicare, social security, we can’t keep digging a bigger hole and expect to dig our way out. This is why the dems lost yesterday, people are afraid of becoming eastern China.

  14. Jeff, I prefer to think of it as “chumming the waters”, like Roy Sheider in Jaws. At any rate I enjoy your blog and the dialog with the “intellectual liberals”, although I’m sure you’ll agree I’m no intellectual.

  15. DG (#15) — I thought acting like a douche was how I’d fit in around here.

    As for conservatives blocking Obama’s agenda, nice revisionist history. Obama had a huge majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until Scott Brown won in Jan. 2010. If Obama “didn’t do enough,” it was 100% his own fault and 0% conservatives’ fault.

  16. Doug (#18) — I agree with most of your comments but was disappointed to see you share the same problem as Jeff and some others — i.e., you’re attributing comments to me that I never made.

    I never said Bush 43 was a great president, I’m not impressed with the GOP’s current agenda, last night’s GOP win was underwhelming compared to what it could/should have been (esp. in the Senate), and the only mandate the GOP got on Tuesday was to stop Obama, which is hardly a ringing endorsement from voters.

    As for my condescending attitude, I apologize for being snide. I just happened to stop by here last night and saw about 12 different anti-GOP posts by our host, and I guess it set me off a little. This is Jeff’s site and he’s obviously free to write what he pleases, but the tone here is as schizophrenic as it comes. Jeff calls for civility on a regular basis but then often follows up, one post later, by assailing conservatives with ad hominem attacks and talking about “wanting to vomit” and all that.

    Bottom line, conservatives undoubtedly think liberals are wrong, while liberals seem to think conservatives are heartless Nazis. If liberals really want a more civil political dialogue in the U.S., they need to take a good, hard look in the mirror. It’s hard to have a civil discussion when liberals constantly argue from the standpoint that conservatives want children to die in the streets, don’t care about HIV/AIDS, etc.

    1. Joe, of course I’m schizophrenic—I’m a nervous liberal (and a Jewish one, to boot). Mental illness comes with the turf.

      Being serious—as I said to Doug, bottom line is I appreciate you posting here. And while we probably disagree on everything, your opinions are welcomed here on any/all topics.


  17. Doug you are wrong about insurance companies not making any money. They are making such good profits that the CEO’s are raking in billions of dollars in salary and bonus. They can make plenty of money insuring cars, homes, etc. And if people want to buy extra health insurance they could still do it. I don’t begrudge doctors making money. But there is something wrong about health for profit when it comes to insurance companies. As far as social security, it is kind of a canard that it is going broke. And if there is a problem they should get rid of the cap. Once your earnings reach 106,000 dollars in a year you don’t pay into social security. Talk about a regressive tax. Bill Gates and other rich people are paying a miniscule percentage compared to us little people. Lif the cap and social security will be fine.

    Getting back to insurance companies if they go out of business it won’t matter to the 40 million people who don’t have insurance. And if they did maybe we could all get into the medicare program.

    As far as China goes they seem to be getting more capitalistic than us. Not to mention that they basically own us anyway.

  18. Sanford (#26) – Social Security is not, and was never intended to be, a wealth redistribution program. The whole concept revolves around people getting back from it what they paid in — i.e., by paying into the system while working, people will have “security” in old age/retirement. It was never intended to be a program whereby Bill Gates gets the crap taxed out of him (again) so that thousands of people can get a free ride in retirement.

Leave a Reply