ADVERTISEMENT

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry has set June 4 as an announcement date to kickoff his 2016 presidential campaign. Perry ran unsuccessfully in 2012, but has spent time retooling his message and is back for another shot this time around. The kickoff event will take place in Dallas.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from the Dallas Morning News:

Former Gov. Rick Perry has chosen Dallas to officially declare his second run for the Republican presidential nomination in three weeks.

For months Perry has said that he would announce his decision in May or June. But his constant travel to the early contest states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida has left little doubt of his intentions.

Perry joins a burgeoning field of contenders, including fellow Texan Sen. Ted Cruz.

The announcement was made via the Twitter account of his wife, Anita.

Unlike four years ago, when he rushed into the contest after seeing he could raise quick money and was leading in polls, Perry enters this contest as an underdog.

He is polling in single digits, but again unlike his last run, he has spent more than a year in preparation. He has consulted weekly with conservative experts on foreign relations and economic policy. He has assembled advisers and campaign teams in the early states and has even taken tutoring in public speaking.

As noted, Perry is polling quite low in most national and early state primary polls. He will be looking for debate access where, I’m assuming, he’ll be showcasing his seriousness as a candidate and acknowledgment of his mistakes in 2012.

The pool is getting pretty crowded. There has been a lot of discussion over just how Fox News and the Republican National Committee will set the rules for participation in the first sanctioned debate on August 6. The most likely suggestion is a mixture of rules which will ensure the serious candidates are given a slot, but that could still lead to 12 people on stage. There will be some unhappy candidates who will be left off the docket and I’m certain it will become a point of contention.

19 COMMENTS

      • Yeah. That strikes me as insane. The guy was not just a pal of Clinton. He was his campaign manager, for cryssake. Then he was part of his administration. How could he possibly not have a viewpoint??

        Anyone who expects him to completely objective would probably think the same of a Fox “reporter.” If your job in life is to “prove something,” you can’t be objective if you try.

        • Can you list the Fox reporters who were top aides in a presidential administration, now prominent anchors posing as objective journalists?

          It’s funny.. because you equate Stephy’s intrinsic involvement with Democratic politics the same as someone who is merely employed by Fox News, though without prior involvement in politics..

          Oh that is rich..

          • I probably should have said “Fox or MSNBC,” because both of those “news” services state that their mission in life is to promote an ideology.

            That’s the “equation.”

            • Right.. which is totally unlike CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC.. etc.. those are the pinnacle of objectivity..

              Do you know how many current journalists employed by the big three networks are former Democrat hill staffers? Stephy is just 1 of many.. he’s just a big fish..

            • We have already discussed the difference between intentional slanting and just seeing things differently.

              The difference between CNN , ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. vs Fox and MSNBC, is that the former state that they are trying to present an objective viewpoint. Fox and MSNBC state that they have a mission.

              There’s a difference between having one’s personal viewpoint slip out, and having a stated goal to push an ideology.

              When ABC hired Stephanopolous, I thought they were insane. I suspect they felt they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t, so they might as well get the ratings of a well-known name. But I still think it was a mistake, because it feeds the myth.

              Likewise, I think it’s a major mistake for NBC to air a person who has ever hosted an MSNBC show. I don’t know if Fox Entertainment ever has “news” programs other than local news (I don’t watch TV), but if they did/do, they shouldn’t let anyone from Fox News on air, either.

            • Since you don’t watch TV, I don’t think you can be considered as a reputable source in this matter.

              Do you know how many “reporters” cross between MSNBC and NBC News all the time? It’s constant! See Chuck Todd, former Democrat staffer, frequent MSNBC commenatator, now host of Meet the Press on NBC.

              It’s rampant.. and you complain about one network you admit to never watching.

              “I don’t watch TV, but Fox News is the devil..”

              See how ridiculous it sounds?

            • Nate, Nate, Nate (sigh). . .

              You don’t have to “watch” TV to know what’s ON tv. Your most recent link was what was said on Channel 7, for instance. Remember? I didn’t have to “watch TV” to see that. Links to TV video are all over the net, as well as transcripts.

              Also, of course, you can’t go to a restaurant or bar or gym; or bank, medical, insurance, or other office, without having a TV blasted at you. When I said I don’t “watch TV,” I meant I am not plugged into it for hours at a time, but it doesn’t take hours to notice reporters sneer.

              I used to have a lot of respect for Megyn Kelly, but she has really drank the Kool-Aid® over the past year.

              This is interesting. Mediaite has two stories–one about Joe Scarborough ON msnbc DEFENDING Fox:

              http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-on-obamas-fox-swipe-when-has-fox-ever-called-the-poor-lazy/

              Another, ALSO on Mediaite, with the opposite view:

              http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-shreds-fox-bullsht-obamas-right-you-have-such-contempt-for-the-poor/

              Oh, wait, I don’t “watch TV.” I couldn’t possibly know about this. . .

            • By the way, just out of curiosity, how did you make the leap of logic from a Perry pun to a Stephanopolous slam?

              Reminds me of the last scene of the old movie, “Outrageous Fortune,” when Shelley Long leaps from one geological stack to another, and as the bad guy (who is chasing her) falls to his death, not being able to make the same leap, she shouts, “nine years of ballet, *sshole!”

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsXP0x5nRM

              Lighten up, Dude. It’s Friday.

            • I finished your sentence for you.. it was a natural fit.

              So you don’t watch TV, you only watch it in a way that counts as not watching it.

              Make up your mind…

              Based on snippets at the doctor’s office and opinions from competing channels, you have drawn a conclusion about a network. Furthermore, while not “watching TV,” you have exonerated every other network (short MSNBC) of intentional or implicit bias based on .. what exactly?

              No faulty logic there..

              Yeah, it’s Friday. But your logic is clouded by your own bias disguised as an objective opinion marinated in the opinions of others.

              Enjoy the weekend!

            • Sigh. Haters gonna hate.

              Don’t mess with a former English teacher.

              You’re confusing “watch” with “see.” You can “see” without “watching.”

              WATCH (transitive verb)
              1. To look at steadily; observe carefully or continuously: watch a parade.

              No, I don’t “watch” but, as I say, a “snippet” is more than what’s needed to see sneers.

              Also, I know you have servants to do such tasks for you, but we commoners are in restaurants, bars, and gyms–and especially, bank lines, and insurance, medical, and other waiting rooms WAY longer than a “snippet.”

              SNIPPET (noun):
              a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage

              I have not “exonerated” anybody. In other places, I have said that human beings are incapable of pure objectivity. But again, there’s a big difference between TRYING to be objective, and MSNBC/Fox blatantly filling their schedules with blatant propaganda, from which their news folks are obviously tainted.

              But, yes, I agree that Todd was a terrible choice for Meet the Press. Not primarily because he was on MSNBC, but because he has no gravitas. He also doesn’t have the childlike (not childish) curiosity that Russert had. As much as I’m sure you hate him, Chris Matthews is such a twerp that he asks the questions that other people would be embarrassed to ask. I am NOT calling him “objective,” but I think he would have been a better choice than Todd, who asks predictable questions.

              Go home and put your feet up. Geez.

            • If I had servants, they would be tasked with posting comments on political websites in my stead to save me the irritation of doing so.

              This site needs a summer intern.

            • Hi, this is Joe, the intern. Nate can’t come to the discussion right now but I’ve taken your comment and will get his response as soon as possible. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance in the meantime.

              – Joe (a.k.a the Coffee Wizard)

      • Stephanopoulos’ contribution cannot be defined as criminal or even bad taste. When an employer can tell an employee how to vote or who they can donate money to or what they can say, the
        United States Constitution has become a worthless piece of paper. Sniveling and apologizing as Stephanopoulos did has become the norm instead of reminding critic that choices, good or bad, are the choices allowed by freedom.

        Yet nothing big in print, tv, or radio questioning how a man under indictment is running for president, or how Peter Schweizer became an Ethics Czar when he is a known falsifier, or cheap threats by Conn Caroll, saying he would not let his boss, Senator Mike Lee, go on ABC until Stephanopoulos recluses himself from all 2016 coverage, or why no one questions the morals of presidential candidates who line up for money from an established Gambling Czar, or why Charles Krauthammer aired comments that Baltimore does not rise to the level of an outside review. Or John Boehner’s blatantly political trip to Israel, intentionally or not, heightening the silent but simmering racial tensions that divide Americans.
        George Stephanopoulos doesn’t have a lock on faults. There’s plenty going around.

        • The way I see it, Stephanopolous’ error was not in making a donation to a charity, nor in not disclosing that he made a donation to a charity.

          His “crime” was that he interviewed Peter Schweizer about his book about the Clinton Foundation. Steph should be expected to have FEELINGS for the Clintons, since he’s a long-time CLOSE friend. But this was a case of his having a personal vested interest in the TOPIC of the book.

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/15/a-weak-apology-won-t-end-george-stephanopoulos-clinton-problem.html

          As I said elsewhere, I groaned when ABC hired Steph. What were they thinking? It would be as if Fox hired Palin or Huckabee–except that ABC claims to be a legitimate news department. Hiring him gave the APPEARANCE of impropriety, and worse, from my view–gave a “news” job to someone who was just another Kardashian. That’s well ahead of the current controversy.

          Steph should have begun his interview by saying that he is a long-time Clinton friend, AND has donated generously to their foundation. Better yet, ABC should have kept him out of the building if they knew Schweitzer was coming.

          • Better yet, ABC should not have given Peter Schweizer the legitimacy of being interviewed. What law says you must disclose who you contribute to? Not even the IRS unless you want a deduction. If there is any American that does not know that Stephanopolous was Clinton’s press secretary and left on unfavorable terms then they are still under a rock. Stephanopolous’ crime was that he didn’t have the backbone to just reply that he contributed to several charities and his charge was unworthy of discussion.

Comments are closed.