Why Rick Perry Cannot and Also Can’t Win Being the President

Editor’s Note: This post by Totally Megan McKane was originally published on September 17 at RedState.Com. After legal pressure, Red State removed this and another Totally Megan McKane post (that post is now available at PJLifestyle here.)   On Monday PJLifestyle published Totally Megan McKane’s response and her lawyer’s reply.

I would like, to thank the editors of Red, for inviting me back! It would seeming that my latest column (for which I was paid), has, in the hearts and minds of many people, questions been raising, in the ways that thoughtful pieces sometimes do, after all this time. So you can see that I was grateful that Erick was inviting me back to clear some of them up, although it seems that most of the answers were evident from the piece allready to those who were willing to open their eyes and see the truth.

Firstly in the first place, some people had a question about my very obvious statement, “I don’t necessarily agree that Rick Perry is George Bush on crack, but he could definitely be described as George Bush 2.0.” The question, I have most often, been asked, is why I did not include literally anything in the piece to back up this claim or point out, the places where Perry and Bush are similar, the reason for that being simple. Hello? They are both from Texas. I guess I should apologize for, assuming that most people knew that already, but I guess they don’t. Well I am here to tell you in case you didn’t know: both George W. Bush and Rick Perry are from Texas. Now, in the entire time I have been paying attention to politics, there has only been one President of the United States elected from Texas. And if electing someone, from Texas was a winning strategy, then obviously, there would have been more.

Some ignorant jerk, clearly who doesn’t know about the young people, pointed out that George W. Bush 1.0 won, two elections, which is two more than my dad did. Let me just respond to that jerk by saying that George W. Bush only won those elections because he didn’t have to go against my dad either time. FACE!

Secondly, look, at this ridiculous email I got from, some right-wing extremist:

From: “mbecker” <[email protected]>
Subject: You are an idiot
Date: September 16, 2011 7:35:12 PM PDT
To: Totally Megan McKane <[email protected]>

In your stupid article, you claimed, “I feel like a character in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” but instead of pointing out that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes, I am pointing out that this person is in every way unelectable on a national scale.”
Do you have any evidence at all to back up this asinine claim or are you just pulling it out of your [I removed a dirty

word here]? I mean, any polls, any analysis, anything insightful? Anything other than your say so?

Die in a fire you twit.


Apparently, this “mbecker” whoever, he thinks he is, does not know that I used to be a campaign blogger for the most successful campaign that has ever been run (which was even able to overcome the horrible mistake of firing me!) – my dad’s. And also that I wrote a book, which sold dozens and, dozens of copies. Does this “mbecker” have a rich and famous father such that people would publish a book, which he, spent less than 5 hours on? I doubt it.

I, did get a more positive email, which allowed me to help someone with their vocabularity!

From: Tbone <[email protected]>
Subject: I am confused
Date: September 16, 2011 6:14:10 PM PDT
To: Totally Megan McKane <[email protected]>

You said in your post: “Among the litany of things that could be listed to showcase Perry’s extreme views, his comments that Social Security is nothing more than a ‘Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained’ is reactive.”

I have read this sentence three times, and as God is my witness, I have no idea what the hell it means. It’s worse than the tripe my lawyers write when they’re trying to get me to wear my socks properly. Maybe you should lay off the crack you claim George W. Bush was smoking. Just a thought.


I do not hold against this person, that, not everyone could go to a prestigious university such as Colombia, where I went, we you may have been hearing. He must not know that “reactive” means specifically conservative, like the people in Iowa. If you just plugged that definition in, it makes total sense, I read it three times myself, and it was brilliant.

One final email I am happy to clear up:

From: Scope <[email protected]>
Subject: Spoiled brats
Date: September 16, 2011 5:12:10 PM PDT
To: Totally Megan McKane <[email protected]>

You wrote in your most recent post the following: “Many conservative bloggers and pundits accuse me and people like me of being bastard Republicans, the unwanted moderate Republicans within the party. As if being a moderate Republican is some kind of freak mutation from the original conservative design. Well, here’s a little reality check. We will need moderate Republicans, we will need independents, and we will need blue-dog Democrats to win 2012 and unseat Obama. There is no media strategist anywhere who would debate that fact. So why nominate someone who will only alienate the very people that will help get a Republican president back into office? I have never understood this and I never will.”

All conservatives were asked to and did vote for the moderate Republican, your father in the last election. Don’t you think that suggesting that moderates would sit out the 2012 elections if a conservative is nominated makes all moderates sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats who are bad team players?

Your posts should really stick to fashion analysis and celebrity gossip because you are very bad at political analysis.


This, is the kind of one-track thinking that will continue, to doom the Republican party, just like it did in the 2010 elections when we again failed to take back the Presidencity. If Republicans like this “Scope” cannot be open minded and accept, that only – the moderates – are correct, every political analyst in the country will agree that it will be George W. Bush and losing Presidential elections all over again.

Lastly, one more email (where do these people come from?):

From: Kowalski <[email protected]@[email protected]>
Subject: Which is it?
Date: September 16, 2011 4:10:44 PM PDT
To: Totally Megan McKane <[email protected]>

In your book you said that the American public would reject Mitt Romney because he was Mormon, too conservative, and he had five weirdly clean-cut kids. Now you are endorsing Mitt Romney for President, and saying that the American public will reject Perry because he is too conservative, and weirdly evangelical. Does this mean you will be endorsing Rick Perry in 2016 and telling us that the American public will ultimately reject the probable nominee that year?

Just curious,

I have no, idea what this person, is even saying. My book came out literally months ago. How can, I be expected to remember all the things that were in it containing.

Anyways, I hope this clears, up any confusion. And remember, everyone agrees and it is obvious, that if Rick Perry wins the nomination, I am not wearing any clothes.