Rick Perry Can't Remember Which Agency He Would Get Rid Of

Rick Perry has done horribly in every debate he's been in so far. In tonight's debate, Rick Perry couldn't remember which federal agencies he'd like to cut and some of the candidates had to help him out. Watch the cringe worthy video below:

Here's an article that captures the exchange:

Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: "And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what's the third one there? Let's see."

Perry then paused and there was audible laughter in the room. Texas Rep. Ron Paul then chimed in "You need five," to which Perry responded, "Oh, five, OK. So Commerce, Education, and the..."

Romney then suggested, "EPA?" to which Perry responded, "EPA, there you go, no..." with laughter from the candidate and the audience.

Moderator John Harwood from CNBC then asked, "Seriously, is the EPA the one you were talking about?"

"No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government -- the EPA needs to be rebuilt. There's no doubt about that," Perry responded.

"But you can't name the third one?" Harwood asked.

"The third agency of government I would, I would do away with, the Education, the... Commerce and, let's see," Perry said, as his brain freeze continued.

Finally, Perry gave up, saying:  "I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."  (Watch the whole exchange above at left)

However, a few minutes later in the debate, Perry remembered that the third department was the Energy Department. "By the way that was the Department of Energy I was reaching for a while ago," he said with a chuckle when he was asked another question.

Just for kicks, I'm posting Rick Perry's two of Perry's gaffes from previous debates. Here's Perry struggling to form a coherent attack on Mitt:

Here's Rick Perry telling conservatives that they don't have a heart if they oppose tuition for illegals: 

ObamaCare Will Not Help The Poor

While the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld ObamaCare, voters in Ohio rejected ObamaCare by a wide margin. When the Supreme Court takes up the question of whether or not ObamaCare is constitutional, the nine justices would be wise to listen to the American people who reject President Obama's health care law. 

The American people know a bad law when they see one. Not only is the law unconstitutional, but it doesn't live up to any of the promises that the President made about the law. Obama promised that this law would "bend the cost curve down". It doesn't. 

He also promised that this law would help poor people get health insurance. Yet, we learned yesterday that millions of low income Americans will not get subsidized health care under ObamaCare:

At yesterday's hearing of the health subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Cornell University economics professor Richard Burkhauser showed that in 2014, millions of low-income Americans may be unable to get subsidized health insurance through the new health care exchanges.

It's true that under Obamacare, firms with more than 49 workers have to offer affordable health insurance coverage to full-time employees or pay a penalty. But the coverage only has to be for an individual policy, not a family policy.

And what most people don't know is that if a worker receives coverage for a single person from his employer, his family will not be able to get subsidized health insurance coverage under the exchange.

This is because, if one member of a family receives employer-sponsored health insurance, other members of the family cannot receive subsidized coverage under the exchange.

Other family members would have to purchase full-price health insurance, which would be prohibitively expensive for those at low incomes, those who are supposed to be protected.

Burkhauser testified that, for a four-person family at 133 percent of the poverty line earning $28,000, purchasing a family health insurance plan would cost 43 percent of family income, without government subsidies.

If that family earned $53,000, reaching 250 percent of the poverty line, the plan would cost 23 percent of their income.

About 13 million dependents of workers with single coverage would potentially be affected, according to Burkhauser. That's 26 percent of the estimated 50 million uninsured workers.

This perverse incentive has a number of consequences, none of them foreseen by Obamacare architects.

Workers with families will prefer to work for firms that do not offer health insurance. In that way, they can qualify to purchase family coverage through the exchange, using government subsidies. For a family at 133 percent of the poverty line, premiums will be capped at 2 percent of income.

If the firm does offer health insurance, the worker with dependents will prefer that the coverage is unaffordable. That's not a typo -- if the coverage is unaffordable, then the employee will be able to buy health insurance for his family on the exchange.

A firm that offers unaffordable coverage will have to pay a penalty of $3,000 per worker. But workers would prefer to receive a lower salary, have the employer pay the $3,000 penalty, and be able to buy subsidized health insurance on the exchange.

This causes substantial disincentives to marriage. Say that Jeff, who receives health insurance from his employer, wants to marry Jane, who is buying her health insurance from the exchange. If they married, then Jane would no longer be able to buy subsidized coverage from the exchange.

Or, take Sally and Steve, married with two children, earning below 400 percent of the poverty line (about $90,000 for a family of four). Sally is a stay-at-home mom.

Come 2014, Steve's employer will only be required to provide affordable coverage for him. If they were to get divorced, Sally could buy subsidized family coverage through the exchange.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2019 another 3 million people will be covered by the health exchanges because of employers dropping coverage.

But with employer affordable health coverage only applying to singles, this number will be far greater, resulting in higher costs for the new law and higher federal budget deficits.

Yes, health care will be affordable for low-income Americans -- but only if they're unmarried.

Obama claims that he used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare but that claim is untrue. This explains why RomneyCare and ObamaCare are not the same because he didn't care to understand the intent of the law, how the law works and why the law was not meant to be applied at the national level.  The fact ObamaCare will not help the poor get insured is new example to add to the list of differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Unlike ObamaCare, RomneyCare in Massachusetts has the highest health care coverage in the nation with 98% of the citizens and 99% of the children covered under his plan. 

Newt Gingrich: The GOP Race Will Be Down To Me and Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich makes a surprising prediction about who will be the remaining two candidates vying for the Republican nomination:

Newt Gingrich predicts the race for the GOP nomination will come down to two weary candidates: "This will end up being Mitt and Newt."

Gingrich, the former Georgia congressman and speaker of the U.S. House, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday that his campaign is now where it needs to be and that by December he'll have the resources to compete head to head with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"And Romney is the real competitor," Gingrich said in his Buckhead campaign headquarters, where he rallied two dozen volunteers before heading to Duluth for a town hall meeting sponsored by the 7th District Republican Party.

I have made my own predictions about who will win the Republican nomination. I made the prediction a long time ago and e-mailed it certain people. I told them to hold on to the e-mail because I'm fairly confident in my prediction. I've only been wrong in my political predictions once and I don't think I'll be wrong again.

I won't publicly state my prediction of who I think will win the GOP nomination. However, I will predict that Newt will not become the GOP nominee nor will he be one of the two left standing to duke it out for the Republican nomination.

Vice President Joe Biden: Mitt Romney's Faith Should Not Be An Issue In 2012

Joe Biden gave a speech at the University of Pittsburgh and had a question and answer session afterwards. One of the questions that Vice President Biden recieved was a question about how religion and politics have shaped his life and came to a surprising defense of Mitt Romney's faith:

The last question was about how Biden's own faith plays a role in his public life and he noted he's Catholic and his family was proud when John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 despite questions about his Catholic faith.

Biden said on Friday afternoon "it's embarrassing and we should be ashamed" that these types of questions are still coming up about Romney in 2012.

Earlier in the day, the Obama campaign put out a memo attacking Romney's plan to balance the federal budget by charging it "proposes spending cut that would devastate key middle class programs to pay for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy."

Despite their policy differences, Biden has been a consistent defender of Romney's faith being left out of the campaign prism. In a 2007 interview with CNN during his own presidential campaign, Biden was asked about Romney giving a speech about his religion in order to tamp down controversy.

"I thought it was a shame he had to make that speech," Biden said of Romney, before referring again to Kennedy's own efforts to deal with the issue in 1960.

"I thought that speech [Kennedy] gave to the Baptist ministers in Texas would end the need for any presidential candidate in the future ever [to] have to speak about or defend their religion. And I think it's a shame."

It is not surprising that Catholics frown on people who refuse to vote for a cadidate becaues of his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Early in American history, there were laws that were passed that excluded Catholics from political office because many people believed that Catholics were not Christians. While laws have not been passed to exclude Mormons from office, the rationale behind these anti-Catholic laws are still being used today because many people are saying that Christians shouldn't vote for a Mormon because Mormons aren't Christians. 

Joe Biden isn't the first Catholic to come to the defense of Mitt Romney's religion. During the 2008 Presidential election, Bill Donohue, President of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had this to say about politicians who use their own religion to attract voters to their campaign or use another candidate's religion as a reason not to vote for that candidate:

"You know what, sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is."

Senator Rick Santorum, who is also a Catholic has stated that Mitt Romney's religion shouldn't be an issue in the 2012 election.

Catholics aren't the only people who have defended Mitt Romney's faith. Religious leaders from different faiths have objected to people who think Mitt Romney shouldn't be President because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Many politicians, from many different religious backgrounds, have also raised their voices against people who think it is acceptable to vote or not vote for a candidate because of their religion. Many 2012 candidates have blasted Pastor Robert Jeffress for spewing religious bigotry across America by telling people they shouldn't vote for a candidate because Mitt belongs to theological cult and is not a Christian. Jim DeMint, a Protestant, has stated that he doesn't think Mitt's religion will be an issue in this election.

Jews have also come to Mitt Romney's defense. Senator Joe Lieberman has spoken out against religious bigotry in an address he gave at Brigham Young University. Michael Medved went on the offensive against Pastor Robert Jeffress for his comments about Mitt's faith.  

It is surprising yet refreshing to see someone like Joe Biden who disagrees with Mitt Romney on political and theological issues come to defend Mitt Romney's faith. I suspect that Vice President Biden, like so many other people who have come to defend Romney's religion, understand that it is a candidate's values and not his religion that voters should be concerned about. A candidate's positions on a wide range of issues have a bigger impact on the direction and success of American than their religion does.

What A Difference 2008 and 2012 Makes For Conservatives

Rachel Alexander has written a great article for TownHall in which she points out that while many Republicans have been accusing Mitt Romney of being a flip flopper, they conveniently forget that they have flip flopped in their support for Mitt Romney: 

Three years ago, conservative Republicans were falling all over themselves to support Mitt Romney in the Republican primary over John McCain. McCain was considered too moderate, and by the time the Republican primary came around, many conservatives had soured on Mike Huckabee, having heard rumors he was staying in the race as a spoiler purposely to help McCain win.

Fast forward to 2011. What has changed since then? Romney left office as governor of Massachusetts in 2007, choosing not to seek reelection. Other than writing a book and assisting with a couple of political campaigns, he has not done much. Yet now that Romney is the GOP frontrunner, many conservatives are speaking up against him.

Popular conservative websites like Free Republic and Red State have taken a noticeable slant against Romney. National Tea Party leader Lloyd Marcus, chairman of the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, has made it a campaign priority to stop Romney from getting the GOP nomination. In response to this onslaught of new attacks from the right, a website entitled WhyRomney.com was set up to debunk accusations that Romney is too liberal.

Romney is accused of flip-flopping on issues, and has come under especially heavy criticism for signing healthcare legislation as Massachusetts governor implementing an individual mandate. As Massachusetts governor, Romney was forced to work with a state legislature that was 84 percent Democrat. In order to getting anything passed in one of the most liberal states in the country, Romney was forced to make a few compromises. Romneycare was a bipartisan plan directed at insuring the uninsured, using the private sector to provide those services. The main goal was to cut down on the costs of emergency room services used by the uninsured. In contrast, Obamacare is a federal government takeover of everyone’s healthcare which also includes a public option. Leading conservative thinkers like Newt Gingrich support individual healthcare mandates, which Gingrich distinguishes from the draconian requirements of Obamacare mandates.

Romney worked with the conservative Heritage Foundation to craft the legislation. One Heritage writer thought it was one of the best healthcare solutions out there, “In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there.” Another Heritage author encouraged other states to adopt the Massachusetts model. Three years ago, the most conservative Senator in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint, praised the Massachusetts healthcare plan, which he later said was hijacked by the Democrat legislature. The Democrat-controlled legislature overrode eight of Romney’s vetoes on parts of the legislation, including a provision forcing small businesses participate.

Romney has become more conservative over the years, much like Ronald Reagan who used to be a Democrat. Romney became pro-life in 2005 when he became aware of the atrocity of embryonic stem cell research. Reagan also switched from pro-choice to pro-life. While Governor of California, Reagan signed a bill into law relaxing restrictions on abortions. Both former presidents Bush switched to a pro-life position on abortion, as has Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey. Many conservatives who are quick to criticize Romney for changing his position on abortion will in the same breath say they support pro-choice Condoleezza Rice for president.

Many of the actions Romney took while governor have been characterized as more liberal than they really were. Romney has consistently opposed gay marriage. He opposed civil unions except for once in an effort to get the Massachusetts Supreme Court to back off from legalizing gay marriage. When the court insisted on legalizing gay marriage anyway, Romney attempted to hold a Constitutional Convention to stop it. The one controversial area he has expressed support for in the past is domestic partner benefits. However, at the same time in 2004 and 2006 Romney expressed support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Romney has been accused of supporting gun control and expanding the Assault Weapons ban in Massachusetts. The reality is every year he was governor he worked with the NRA on legislation making small reforms to Massachusetts’ existing draconian gun control laws, considered a step forward for gunowners by the NRA. In 2005, he issued a proclamation declaring May 7 “Right to Bear Arms Day.” Gun Owners Action League, the Massachusetts gun organization, issued these statements about Romney’s record, “During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law.”

Rachel Alexander argues that Mitt Romney should not be viewed as a flip flopper but a convert to the conservative cause who is steadily moving to the right: 

The true test of whether Romney can be trusted as a real conservative will be whether he stays to the right. While he has moved to the right on most issues, his positions on environmental issues and the Wall Street bailouts are troubling. He still needs to convince conservatives that he has also moved to the right on those issues.

So far while running for president Romney has generally stuck to conservative positions and has not flopped back to the left. There has been some quibbling over some of the language he uses at times, but generally there is little indication that he intends to return to his prior liberal positions. This is unlike Rick Perry who still defends his liberal position on illegal immigration, labeling conservatives “heartless” in September who do not support his bill that granted in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.

Mitt Romney is no John McCain. His record is that of an elected official who has become more conservative over the years, not one that has consistently waffled back and forth. Instead of labeling Romney a flip-flopper, why not see him as a convert?

It never ceases to amaze me that Mitt Romney was the true conservative over the moderate John McCain in the 2008 election. Yet, somehow Romney become the moderate and conservatives are scrambling to find a true conservative to defeat Mitt in this election.

The truth is that Mitt Romney hasn't changed. Conservatives have. 

Mitt Romney:I've Been Consistent On My Political Views

Mitt Romney sat down with an unnamed New Hampshire editorial board and was peppered with questions on a wide range of issues. One issue that Romney was asked about was the perception that he was inconsistent in his political views. Mitt Romney boldly responded to that question by explaining that he's always been consistent. Watch the short clip below: 

Here's the key quote from the clip above: 

“You can see in my record as governor what I believe and what I’d do,” he said. “I cannot state every single issue in exactly the same words every single time. And so there are some folks who obviously for various political and campaign purposes will try and find some change and draw great attention to something which looks like a change which in fact is entirely consistent.” 

There are good places to learn about Mitt Romney's positions and how consistent he has been throughout the years. I highly recommend either visiting WhyRomney.com or Mitt Romney Central or Myclob's Mitt Romney Encyclopedia.  

Rep. Paul Ryan Says He Has Confidence Romney Will Repeal ObamaCare If Elected As President

Representative Paul Ryan, well loved by many conservatives, has stated that he is confident that Mitt Romney will repeal ObamaCare if he's becomes President of the United States: 

"I’ve talked to all of these candidates, and I’m convinced that they want it, that they know we’ve got to do this fast. We’ve got to do entitlement reform," he says. 

Even Mitt Romney, who has attacked Rick Perry for his rough rhetoric about Social Security? “I spent an hour with Romney on Thursday,” Ryan says. The two talked about entitlements on Capitol Hill. “I think he gets the situation, and I think he’s serious about fixing it if elected. I think Perry’s the same way. I know Herman’s the same way.”

But what about Romneycare? Ryan has said Romneycare is "not that dissimilar to Obamacare." Is Ryan "intellectually dishonest," as New Jersey governor Chris Christie said of those who claim the two programs are similar?  

“Well, I guess from a federalism standpoint, I understand that point,” Ryan says with a laugh. He doesn't back off of his judgment about Romneycare, but says the issue is irrelevant. “I don’t think this question matters that much anymore because Romney’s been very clear that he’s against Obamacare and he’s going to repeal it. So I for a second don’t worry about whether he’s going to shy away from repealing the president’s health care law."

There you have it, folks. If Paul Ryan believes Romney's promise that he will repeal ObamaCare, you can trust that Romney will do it.