Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Is this Why the Establishment is Looking Beyond Rick Perry for a Republican Candidate?

If any of the allegations Robert Morrow is making about Rick Perry are true, it puts Perry into the Eliot Spitzer hypocrite camp. Perry's campaign are denying the allegations.

(Via Andre Grillon)


  1. (See final page - Schedule F):-


  2. The Skull & Bones homosexual allegations are high comedy. Dana Milbank! I never knew - but it explains so much.

  3. AJ: "I'm gonna be honest with you" Does that mean he usually isn't honest.

    Robert Morrow voted for Rick Perry in 1998, 2002, and 2006. Given all his sources are strippers and hookers that doesn't seem like a guy who votes for Rick Perry.

    As George Carlin would say, this guy is full of shit. Someone will take all the emails and pay off anybody who responds or worse.

    "Low Plains Perspective"

  4. RP has wisely distanced himself from this kind of irrelevant dumpster diving.

    Leave it to Gawker and other ethical beacons...


  5. The stripper/hooker connection to Perry is common knowledge in Austin.

    Ask any working girl at Expose on Congress. Daddy Warbuck$ Perry has a reputation.

    When the Christian Right finds out about this all the supporters he got for hosting the prayer day in Houston will evaporate like the Rapture.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. Lets hope Ron Paul fills it.

  6. http://www.dailypaul.com/175198/just-got-off-the-phone-with-austin-ad-guy-robert-morrow

    Daily Paul comments show that this guy made a one-time contribution to Paul, which is not more than his contribution to Bush in 2004.

    So you could as well call him a Bush supporter.

    Playing up the RP connection is simply a way for the media to turn conservatives against RP.

    Why is everyone so obsessed with strangers' sex lives in a "liberated" society anyway?

    "Liberated" from puritanism to voyeurism?

    Too stupid and flighty to pay attention to serious stories, but always ready to poke bored, perverted, emotionally-starved, spiritually bankrupt noses into other people's lives.

    If we don't value each others' privacy in the private sphere, on what grounds do we value it when the FBI comes poking around?

  7. 'Why is everyone so obsessed with strangers' sex lives in a "liberated" society anyway?'

    Sorry, that question wore out its welcome back in the 90's. This a public figure, not a mere private citizen. This is also not about sex, this is about credibility. Sex is merely the tool, ahem, to discover if this man is fit for office.

    When an individual portrays himself as an evangelical christian, prays publicly with 30,000 people for the current resident of the White House, he ought to be examined. If it turns out this individual is running around with strippers (and then some), it allows the nation to judge if he is fit to be a candidate, let alone be in office. It is self-evident.

    If you want to hide behind 'everyone deserves privacy', go ahead. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to examine public officials so we can see how credible they truly are.

  8. @Silver Bully

    You just shot yourself in the foot.

    It's since the 90s' that we've had some of the worst political figures and public policies.
    Showing you that all this outing has nothing to do with "credibility" or competence at all.

    All this has to do with is is prurience, mob thinking and nastiness.

    Bush DIDN'T run around on his wife. Clinton did. But both did manage to run around on the the constitution, Bush worse than Clinton in some ways.

    Knowing their sexual histories hardly predicted their performances.

    And there's nothing for me to "hide" since I'm not voting for Perry, and likely, not for anyone else, much as I like Paul and cheer him on.

    The whole political process is a hundred times more immoral than anything you could dig up on any candidate.

  9. It's not Perry's associations with drag queens we should be worrying about, it's his association with conservatives-in-drag ( i.e. neocons):

    Quoting from Justin Raimondo:

    "This is in radical juxtaposition to the views of SeƱor Perry, who has been characterized by one of his top aides as a "hawk internationalist." This is a good indication that the much-ballyhooed Perry bandwagon began going off the rails before it ever got started. Do the Perryites really believe they can sell their candidate to crusty conservative Republicans as an "internationalist"? Does Phyllis Schlafly know about this?

    Just look at who’s been giving him foreign policy advice: according to Josh Rogin, over at Foreignpolicy.com, he’s been in meetings "sometimes for hours" with the likes of former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, former NSC "strategy guru" William Luti, and a host of other neocons from the last administration, many of whom were instrumental in lying us into war in Iraq. Feith and Luti were the nexus of a disinformation network which fed false "intelligence" to the Congress, the White House, and the public to justify a disastrous invasion which we are still paying for in lives and treasure.

    Oh, and what a surprise: it turns out the Perry-neocon lash-up was brokered by disgraced former Defense Secretary Donald "Known Unknowns" Rumsfeld.

    Another clueless Texas Governor surrounded by the same Praetorian Guard of conniving neocons who led us down the road to imperial overstretch and fiscal ruin last time around – isn’t that just what the GOP needs right now? "

  10. And at least a few people on the left are getting it HALF right about Ron Paul (once you get past the usual babble about jobs programs)

    This is the ONLY antiwar, anti-police state candidate and the only one who has a clue about the economy.