Dewhurst for president! Or is it Perry for senate?
Every idea that comes out of the Dewhurst campaign these days is a Rick Perry retread. Dewhurst has been reduced to reciting Perry’s lines. The latest effort to make Dewhurst sound like he is saying something new is a variation on Perry’s “take a sledgehammer to the ways of Washington” proposal during his presidential race.
Perry’s proposal to “uproot the federal government” included a part-time Congress whose salaries and office budgets would be reduced by half. Dewhurst’s plan is to reduce congressional pay and benefits, impose term limits on members of Congress, and impose restrictions on lobbying after they leave office.
I’m not surprised that the Dewhurst/Perry campaign is recycling Perry’s arguments, but it might stop to reflect that the Perry proposals amounted to a one-day story in the National Journal and then disappeared. There was no constituency for Perry’s ideas then, and there is no constituency for them now.
The Dewhurst/Perry campaign is trying to reprise its success in labeling Kay Bailey Hutchison as a creature of Washington in 2010 by hanging the same label on Cruz. It worked with Hutchison because she had been a senator since 1993. But Cruz hasn’t served a day in public office, nor has he fed at the public trough except as a state employee in the attorney general’s office. Not a rich source of perks.
I sympathize with the Dewhurst/Perry team in a way. They can’t find an opening to attack Cruz. He hasn’t left a lot of fingerprints. He’s a cipher with no public record. The only opening they have found is a lawsuit Cruz handled in private practice in which he unsuccessfully defended a Chinese company that lost a $26 million jury verdict, which went in favor of an American businessman. But recycling Rick Perry’s forgotten arguments is not the path to victory.
Anonymous says:
Back to perverts and birth control..
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 3:25 pm
There is a debate tonight between Cruz and Dewhurst. I doubt it changes much. Cruz will win the race on July 31st by around 55-45.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Texian, you are so WRONG. Dewhurst will find something on Cruz and use it in a TV like Perry did to Sanchez in 2002 by using coded words to attack him.
Dewhurst-56
Cruz-40
*once the Dew pulls a Willie Horton or a Ross Barnett on Cruz, it’s over.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
I think there are a lot of “ifs” in the runoff. One is whether the Ron Paul voters come back to vote in the runoff. They were mainly interested voting for Paul for president. I doubt that they will come out for the Senate race. On the other hand, I think the Leppert voters will come back out. They are primarily establishment voters. They won’t go for Cruz at all. I see this as advantage Dewhurst.
Reply »
Arturo Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Or illegal Mexican perverts and sonograms. Funny. Seems the creepiest of the sexually weird are on the right….
Reply »
Truthseeker says:
Wrong Burka, Cruz was at the Federal Trade Commission ask that is another story that is about to unfold…
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Do tell.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Enrique,
Cruz was Policy Planning Director at the FTC, and Associate Deputy AG at the Justice. Both positions were under President Bush, which we all know meant that he served in a hotbed of liberalism (sarcasm). This only strengthens his bonafides.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Bush was a liberal. Both of them.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Compared to who?
Enrique Marquez Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 5:02 pm
My phony names are much more creative than “truthseeker”.
Reply »
Simon Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Compared to who? Everyone who votes July 29.
paulburka Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Yes, he was at the FTC. Haven’t seen much on his record there.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
I have no sympathy for the Perry/Dewhurst team. I hope they crater and burn.
Dewhurst’s grandstanding about killing people only *convicted* of child molestation tells me everything about this pasty, nothing man.
A man just got freed in Williamson County of murder – can you imagine how many innocent people would be murdered by the state based on phony child molestation convictions?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 3:32 pm
The new Tarrant County Delegation, for one.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I’m going with the Dew, Morrow hasn’t missed being wrong yet….
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Aren’t you the one hyping a Perry/Gingrich ticket for about 1/2 year?
Reply »
framer says:
Boy, Morrow sure is a whole lot less entertaining lately.
Since Perry lost the presidential primary and supposedly has no power now that he is a lame duck and nobody is afeared of him anymore–why haven’t all of Morrow’s drug-addled hooker/strippers come out to substantiate their claims about the Governor?
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:32 pm
If Rick Perry were the GOP nominee, this summer would be epic. One of Gloria Alred’s clients was a gay prostitute who claimed Perry and his entourage hired several times/year at the Driskill. Then there was the hilarious Craigslist adventure. And countless other stuff I have heard about.
Not to mention that former gay state rep who would be promoting his blockbuster book deal (re: Perry) for the fall general election.
Glen Maxey would be Rachel Maddow’s new best friend.
Once people have been castrated, no one cares to talk about them any more. But if Slick Perry had been the GOP nominee, the mortar shells would be coming in left and right.
Here is book I am going to nominate for a Pulitzer: http://www.amazon.com/Head-Figure-Glen-Maxey/dp/1468025988/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340425906&sr=8-1&keywords=head+figure+head+the+search+for+the+hidden+life+of+rick+perry
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Morrow, if Perry was the GOP nominee for Prez, you know Obama will unleash HOLY HELL on Perry’s personal life and secret lifestyle with TV ads showing a reenactment of Perry doing crack cocaine with the late Whitney Houston with a voiceover saying, “Do you want a crackhead in the White House ?”
Reply »
John Johnson says:
If you ask yourself only one question to determine who you will vote for, make it this one?
Do we need another attorney in D.C. who has shown that he will represent anyone, charged with any crime, if the money is right… or an already wealthy guy, who made it one his own, who is as about as dynamic and motovational as a rosin bag. Give me Mr. Rosin Bag. I can trust him. I can’t trust the money chaser.
This being said…what’s the deal with Dewhurts’s wanting to cut congressional salaries? So a commonbred teacher or small businessman, with no large accumulated wealth, is removed from even considering running for public office? Do you know how much it costs to live in D.C.? To send your kids to a decent school? I have always said that we need to pay them big money….say $250K a year, but pass laws that prohibit them receiving anything from lobbyists or special interests…nada, zilch, squat. If they do, both the giver and receiver face many years in a cell. If we propose huge salary increass go into affect at the same time firm restricitions on buying votes and restrictions on campaign contributions go into a affect, we might stand a chance of getting some like this passed It would save us billions of dollars a year and there is a much bigger chance of the guy you elected doing your bidding instead of the Big’s.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 11:36 am
Well said, John.
Reply »
Willie James says:
Rick Perry’s recent foray into national politics showed the nation what thinking Texans have known for years: all hat, no cattle.
Why Dewhurst, who has more on the ball than Perry would copy anything from him seems wrong headed and lazy.
This is a lesser of two evils choice, and with Perry helping Dewhurst a lot of folks are going to stay home and then look what we’ll get.
Reply »
Dave Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Yup. I’ve just about decided to sit out the runoff. Not sure there is a ‘lesser’ in this race.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Willie, I seem to think Dewhurst is either wishing he was running for governor in 2014 against Abbott or regretting his decision to jump in the Senate race.
Reply »
Endangered Moderate says:
I don’t know why I’m bothering with this, and I’m not voting for Cruz, but what’s with the lawyer bashing? I don’t think it is a prerequisite to public service, but it strikes me that if you’re going to be in the business of making laws it could be handy to have a couple of guys around with legal training. And when did the ideas of free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit cease to apply to attorneys. Doctors get paid to treat patients. Mechanics get paid to fix cars. Lawyers get paid to represent clients. It works out better it the client has money. Again, I’m not voting for the guy, but I don’t understand the notion that he is disqualified by virtue of having attended a good law school and, God forbid, accepting a fee from a client in exchange for his services.
Reply »
60% is plenty Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 7:32 pm
60% of the US Senate are attorneys. I think they have exceeded their quota, EM.
Do we need SOME attorneys? Sure. Do we need A MAJORITY of attorneys? Probably not.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
If you look at the Top 25 most influential lobbyists in Texas, most of the them have law degrees. If they don’t, they’re probably former members turned lobbyists. The same could be said for House and Senate staffers.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 4:46 pm
You make my point for me, Anny. Thank you. We’re overloaded up with attorneys. We have too many. As a whole, I do not respect them; As a whole, I do not trust them.
And to your comments, Endangered Moderate…A doctor with strong feelings might chose not to perform an abortion. A CPA might choose not to cook the books for a drug dealer. When was the last time you heard of an attorney declining to represent a client for any reason except the inability to pay what they demand? Mr. Cruz represented a Chinese company that anyone unright and taking nourishment could see had stolen proprietary info and treated it as their own. No problem. Let me use my award winning verbal skills to stem the court imposed hit to your bottomline. We need more of these people in D.C.? I don’t think so. Give me the college professor, the businessman, the rancher. The attorneys would make much better staffers.
Quid pro quo is a legal term. Everyone in D.C. understands what it means.
Reply »
Jim Sirbasku Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 9:19 pm
JJ, I am an attorney, and I regularly decline to represent people and companies in spite of their ability and/or willingness to pay large sums of money for my representation. I do this because I don’t have to take any client I don’t want to take, and because I won’t represent people on the “wrong” side of a civil legal dispute. My reasons for that are too long to list here, but the short version is that it is way more satisfying to be “right” than to make my fee representing the wrong side. Ted Cruz doesn’t have the luxury of saying “no” to the clients that Morgan Lewis tells him to represent. He takes orders, because regardless of his accomplishments, he is still just the help. Always has been, always will be.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Jim, you are one of the ones I have maligned by painting with a very large brush, and for that I apologize. It is obvious to me, by your comments, that you yourself know that there are bad apples in your chosen profession that give the rest a bad name. It would appear to me that you are in the minority.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 6:05 am
JJ the poster posing as Jim Sirbasku is neither a lawyer or Jim Sirbasku.
They are however a democrat and may know a lawyer.
Lawyers do not make the best lawmakers and or judges. Honest ethical people do and a large % of lawyers lack one or both traits.
Jim Sirbasku Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 8:02 am
Ahhh, JBB, but I am a lawyer. And neither a Democrat nor a Republican. And I am an individual, not a “they” as you put it. Do “they” not speak English in Missouri City?
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 8:40 am
I would imagine they speak english in Missouri City. Why are you denying you’re a democrat, are you ashamed for the public to know?
A democrat claiming to be lawyer using some else’s name to post under only adds to your credibility.
Eyeswideopen Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 10:28 am
Are you communicating with us from the grave, Jim?Didn’t you croak a few years back? I see where you gave $ to both R and D’s over the years and thought a lot of Chet Edwards. How are things up/down there?
Anonymous says:
So we’re overrun with attorneys but they should be staffers..? That makes no sense to me. Further, most of the good staffers become *SHOCK* lobbyists..with law degrees. Let me illustrate:
JD + staffer—-> lobbyist + JD
Reply »
Cheick Kongo says:
When it’s all said and done, Mr. Cruz will fade into the darkness while Mr. Dewhurst will go to the Senate and eventually ride off into the sunset– leaving a conservative legacy second to none.
Reply »
TexRusk Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Ha! That’s too funny. This is Dewhurst we’re talking about. Do you even know the guy? He’s got the backbone of a chocolate eclair.
He won’t even vote “present” like Obama did, because that would be lying, given his tenure of not showing in the Senate working under de-facto Lt. Gov. Kevin Eltife.
Reply »
J. Jesus Angleton says:
Know why I won’t support Dewcrist? Because he worked for the CIA. Never trust anyone that worked for the CIA.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 11:55 pm
James Angleton, the CIA’s notorious head of counter-intelligence, was probably the one running fake defector and US intelligence agent Lee Harvey Oswald when he went to Russia.
See John Newman’s “Oswald and the CIA”: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Oswald-CIA-Documented-Relationship-Government/dp/1602392536/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340513720&sr=1-2
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
George HW Bush was CIA Director: the only one who held the post to go on to the Presidency.
Reply »
FLPD says:
Intrade currently has Dewhurst 63% to Cruz 37%.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:34 pm
That is a lightly traded market and it does not mean much.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I have always thought Dewhurst would win this race. The Ron Paul for president voters will not come back out, which knocks a lot of conservatives out of the voting pool. (Morrow may have a different take.) Leppert’s establishment voters WILL come back out to take out Cruz. Name ID will prevail, in the end. Not that debates mean a lot, but I thought Dewhurst clearly won the debate yesterday. He was able to talk about his record and his service in Viet Nam and the CIA. Only the diehard R voters know much about Cruz. He remains a cipher.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 11:57 pm
If I had to guess Dewhurst and his money will win this run-off. The Ron Paulers mostly just care about the liberty movement – note I did not say “Ron Paul.”
I am telling them to vote for Cruz, but no one is jumping up and down.
Reply »
Simon says:
“But recycling Rick Perry’s forgotten arguments is not the path to victory.”
Why not Paul? They’ve worked for Perry in Texas ever since 1991, and that’s where Dewhurst is running.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Because they didn’t work for Perry in the presidential race, and, as I said, there is no constituency that cares about congressional reform.
Reply »
TexRusk Reply:
June 22nd, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Oh, everyone cares about it Paul. If you ask Americans to name their top 30 issues, I bet everyone has it at 28 or 29.
But among conservative primary voters, the number one issue is kicking Obama in the teeth, and Dewhurst has all the fight of droopy dog.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Burka, I think Perry got cocky and arrogant (see Russell Westbrook of the OKC Thunder) into thinking he was going to steamroll his way to the White House and it backfired on him big time.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Again, never trust anyone that worked for the CIA
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I trust Bob Gates.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 24th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Why trust him? The next time you talk to Bob Gates ask him if Jeb Bush was up to his ears in the Iran-contra scandal, back in the early mid 1980′s and head of the Dade County Republican party.
Ask Gates about “Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider” by Al Martin. Then ask him if the CIA and Oliver North were running drugs in the 1980′s to fund the Nicaraguan contras.
Then ask Gates what he knows about the 1980′s Republican deal with the Iranians NOT to release the American hostages before the election. Admiral Bobby Inman told me personally that he had “no doubt” the Republicans made such a deal but he pinned it on William Casey, leaving GHW Bush out of it (I don’t).
Then ask Bob Gates about Felix Rodriguez, the anti Castro CIA agent and his relationship with the Bushes. Then ask Bob Gates to google “Chip Tatum Pegasus” and ask for his take on that.
Then ask Bob Gates what the CIA or DIA knew about the Franklin Scandal, Lawrence E. King and who was being provided young boys – Jerry Sandusky style – in the 1980′s.
Then ask Bob Gates for his theories on the JFK assassination – was LBJ involved? CIA? GHW Bush?
Ask Gates the “tough” questions not the cotton candy questions and see what he says.
Another question to ask Gates is what is the real reason Bobby Inman withdrew his name as a candidate for Defense Secretary in 1994 (Clinton had nominated him). Was it Israeli reasons or personal reasons relating to Inman – or both?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 24th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Robert…. Do you consider yourself different from everyone else? More intelligent than most? More commonsense? More intuitive? In the right place at the right time more than most? More “connected” to movers and shakers? Are the rest of us naive? Blind? Dunces?
It appears that you accept as truth any conspiracy theory that gets put into print yet you never, ever come up with any hard evidence. You quote unnamed, unknown, unconnected people as the foundation for your theories. Have I misspoke thus far?
Where’s the smoking gun, Robert? Where’s the beef? After all these years based on all I know to be true with regard to human nature someone would have come forward with credible, verifiable evidence. Someone would show up on 60 Minutes.
Since you seem to have a proclivity for sharing secrets why would anyone confide in you? Did Bobby Inman share with you in confidence?
Do you really expect us to jump onboard with you? Expect us to swallow what you’re scattershooting? I am truly trying to keep from coming across as rude, but I don’t think I’d be wrong in saying that there is not one person who is buying the seedy, nefarious stuff you’re pushing. Why do you do it?
John Johnson Reply:
June 24th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Sorry, Robert… didn’t load my name on post above.
longleaf says:
The CIA knows how to rig elections, though. I couldn’t care less who wins this race, but if I were a betting man, I’d go with the Dew. Maybe Intrade factors that into its calculation.
I think the Teatards are about to find out (again) who really runs this country.
I remember the first time they got a clue. It was
during the initial bankster bailout called TARP initiated by Bush and Paulson just before the 2008 election; the then-incipient Tea Party movement (who were at that point mainly Ron Paul types as the movement had not yet been hijacked by the right-wing evangelicals) lit up the Congressional switchboards telling their critters to vote “Not just ‘no’, but HELL, NO!”
They did this for weeks on end, ultimately to no avail, as Paulson intimated in a closed-door session that Darth and Dubya would eventually deploy tanks on the streets if they didn’t get their way.
Of course, Cruz has familial ties to Goldman Sachs, so this makes predicting this race a bit dicier. It’s very difficult to believe it will be an honest election, though. I think the majority of the elections that really matter (i.e., those leading to federal offices) are either rigged or capable of being rigged, if the powers that be want to go down that route (as they obviously have on numerous occasions already).
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Ted Cruz won that debate hands down. It almost made me cry watching Dew try to defend himself. My money would go to a Cruz victory
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:19 pm
I didn’t think Cruz scored a single point against Dewhurst in that debate, except maybe something about Dewhurst being for a wage tax.
Reply »
Robert Concord says:
When someone above mentioned Cruz might have to defend himself over his service at the Federal Trade Commission, an early responder inquired: “Do tell.”
Here’s a hint. Did Cruz take any legal actions or rulings at the FTC that benefited his largest campaign benefactor, gay rights activist Peter Thiel? Paypal?
The debate, by the way, was a non-event. The news media is seemingly incapable of knocking modern candidates off their prepared talking points.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I agree with the last sentence here. The debate was pretty lame. Very few follow-up questions. Glad I wasn’t on the panel.
Reply »
Tom Barry Reply:
June 23rd, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Paul, I wish to hell you had been on the panel. I turned the thing off early on.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Dewhurst will win on name id alone. His campaign has been less than stellar, but in Texas, that doesn’t matter. Just say “Do it the Texas way!” and the Texascentric voter will jump on the bandwagon. The merits of the Texas way don’t matter – it doesn’t even matter if anyone cares about the subject matter of “the Texas way.” And the fact that the National Journal only went with “the story” for one day is completely irrelevant. Wrong nation.
Reply »
Blue Dogs Reply:
June 25th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Dewhurst will also win on MILITARY EXPERIENCE.
Reply »
Charlie Adaway says:
JBB, those of us that eschew partisan labels prefer to be called “job creators”
You wouldn’t know anything about that. You too have always been the help.
Reply »
SuzyQBankston says:
I’m a democrat and a not very bright one but I have a crush on JBB and when he’s around I’m giddy like a schoolgirl.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
My wife is the typical not paying attention, uninformed Texas Republican voter. She said during the 1st debate that she thought Cruz too agressive and couldn’t be trusted, and that Dewhurst was narcoleptic. She is an intuitive woman.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 24th, 2012 at 6:00 am
Dewhurst has overcome a problem with stuttering when he was younger. Sometimes he takes a few seconds before speaking.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Dewhurst eats milquetoast for breakfast
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Give me a slow, plodding, contemplative, inclusive, experienced, wealthy elected official every time over the loud, yipping, yapping, go for you pants leg, talking out of both sides of his mouth, I can be anything you want me to be, my ears slam shut when your mouth opens, aspiring to be wealthy one.
Reply »
Blue Dogs says:
John Bernard Books, I didn’t know Dewhurst had a severe stuttering problem, but watching last week’s debate, I can see why it took him a bit longer to get it together before speaking.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Now understand Perry crew’s involvement with Dewhurst campaign. Cruz’s clipped words used out of context to totally contort what he was saying. Not cool, but par for the course. It’s lying. It is knowingly twisting the truth. I might just stay home on election day.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Nick Bryant wrote a book called the “Franklin Scandal” (2009) which was about a homosexual pedophile ring servicing the elites of the Republican party in the 1980′s.
CIA connected Lawrence E. King and Wash DC lobbyist Craig Spence (the Jack Abramoff of his times) were running this ring, flying kids around the country for elite pederasts.
Lawrence E. King sang the national anthem at the 1984 Republican national convention in Dallas. At that time rising GOP star Lawrence E. King was a prolific pedophile pimp, was making child porn, had murdered and tortured children & was a satanist. Kings “friends” were extremely high level GOP players, politicians and donors.
Lawrence E. King also was friends with Warren Buffet and the political/business elite of Omaha, NE.
Google the video “Conspiracy of Silence” on YouTube. King later went to jail for embezzling $40 million from a bank, but the blockbuster scandal was he was being protected from prosecution by the US, Nebraska and Omaha law enforcement for his pedophile ring.
This ring involved people who you still see on TV today – prominent mainly Republican closeted homosexual pedophiles. Barney Frank was also a client (no surprise; google Barney Frank/Paul Bonacci).
Here is Nick Bryant article written in response to the Jerry Sandusky case:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WbQSxoBkDuGXvvsiA5FBn4q5LdYVRMiEwxLTnjW0buY/edit?pli=1
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
As for “John Johnson” whoever you are – I am a political researcher and a political activist. My views are well-researched and well sourced.
George Herbert Walker Bush has been a LIFETIME involved in “seedy, nefarious stuff.” Bill Gates with his longtime CIA and defense background is well versed in much of that “stuff.”
Much of this “stuff” does not appear in the MSM or on “60 Minutes” because the MSM and 60 Minutes are controlled by organizations that participate in “seedy, nefarious stuff” such as the JFK assassination, CIA drug smuggling and elite pedophilia. Not to mention the Republican’s dirty, treasonous 1980 deal with the Iranians to not release the American hostages until after the election. Bobby Inman told me that there was “no doubt” such a deal had been made, but he pinned the blame on William Casey.
Just one example, Lyndon Johnson was close personal friends with Richard Stanton the longtime president of CBS News. GHW Bush is a close personal friend of Roger Ailes, the man who runs FOX. NBC News employs both Chelsea Clinton and Jenna Bush. You will only get puff pieces from NBC on the Bushes and the Clintons.
Much of the “seedy, nefarious stuff” is documented in books from non-major non-CIA controlled publishing houses, the internet, and alternative media.
Jeb Bush once told Al Martin who he was involved in Iran-contra with, “Al, there is no constituency for the truth.”
The reason for that is the truth is so discrediting to the elites of both major political parties, the government and the media.
John Johnson, you would do well to branch out your reading habits from the MSM. A good book to start with is “Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed” by Russell S. Bowen, a military and intelligence operative who had close dealings with GHW Bush. The book was written in 1992.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Immaculate-Deception-Family-Exposed/dp/0922356807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340728020&sr=8-1&keywords=immaculate+deception+russell+bowen
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 26th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
I’m Mr. Commonbred, Robert. That’s who I am. I don’t have time for hearsay bullshit, that even if true, is not going to make life better for my children or grandchildren.
I know who you are without asking. You’re a poor soul who is obsessed with looking backwards…not to learn from it, but to find the dirtiest, most repulsive hearsay you can, written by people of like mind, so that you can devour it and garner pleasure from it. You need it like a Dracula character needs blood. I truly don’t care. I just wish that you would keep it to yourself and quit using this site as your publishing house.
I find your poltical comments interesting…this crap, not so much. I feel that I am not alone.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
June 26th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
I do look for the “dirtiest, most repulsive stuff” out there because some of the folks you see on TV, who are cheered and lauded by the hacks and flacks in their respective parties are literally getting away with murder. Literally, and that is because they control the reins of prosecution, the halls of Congress and the media.
The JFK assassination – A Texas murder arranged by Texas politicians and Texas CIA/military assets by folks of both major parties is Exhibit #1. It only occurred 48 years ago. That is almost contemporary in the scheme of things. The criminals and CIA murderers of the highest level get presidential libraries.
Look at how shamefully the JFK assassination is presented in the media and academia today! Robert Caro and Chris Matthews takes from their very privileged platforms on the JFK assassination is like David Duke educating us on the Holocaust.
As for the CIA drug dealing and elite pedophilia – Jerry Sandusky is going to prison for life, but I assure you there are household names you know who have done the same or worse. And the Republican party has a small bucket full of them – grasping homosexual pedophiles.
John Johnson:
“I don’t have time for hearsay bullshit, that even if true, is not going to make life better for my children or grandchildren.”
Note the key phrase “even if true.” Ignorance is bliss.
Sorry, that is not how I roll. I think the truth is important even if it comes out 50 or 100 or 1,000 years later. Accountabilty is also important, even if it is delayed accountability.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 27th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
We are being controlled, but not by individuals. Corporate money rules and they can buy what they want. Case in point is the most important and far reaching decision that will be made by the Supreme Court this month. Hint – it is not the Obamacare case. It is the ruling yesterday that went against WY and the states’ rights to limit corporate campaign contributions. This is where evil lies. This will affect future generations. LBJ’s pecker won’t.
John Johnson says:
Truth is important. Very important. What makes the allegations you, and others, spit out the truth? “Just because I say so”? You always arrive without one scintilla of proof. You expect me to believe it is as you say because someone wrote a book saying it is so? Because you say it is so? Not going to happen, Robert. Rational people want concrete proof. You don’t ever deliver it.
Enough of this. My words addressed to you are a waste. I hope at some point in time your devils are exorcised.
Reply »