People get inflamed because they are motivated. It will work itself out. Anger is one of the steps in grieving a loss. They know their candidate won’t be the nominee. Just give them time and space.

It is always good when one explains themselves a little better; good move, right move, and well articulated. The “palin thing” …because of its oddity…left a lot of folks scratching the ol’ proverbial noggin, and suspicions naturally arose. We all want Obama gone, and are passionate about it…so, its not surprising the “back and forth” amongst all of us who are concerned about just settling for the “same ol’”.

to air your opinions. I read thembut I don’t always share therm. Case in point: Your hourly comments on Sarah’s non-decision. At best, your effort was childish and at worst it was… well, childish.

You managed to make me (at least) lose some respect for your efforst. My opinions are every bit as good as yours and I have almost NO respect for any of the presently declared Republican candidates. Unless there is a sea-change of some sort I will vote for Sarah WETHER OR NOT SHE IS ON THE BALLOT!

Have a nice day.

It’s not a very impressive field. I still haven’t decided on a candidate.

At this point I’ll probably end up with Romney, as I think only he and Perry are electable, and Perry’s immigration comments are a deal breaker for me.

nt

with Sarah, we should now draw the conclusion that you’re supporting her.

I really miss Franz. At six inches tall he was head and shoulders better and smarter than the lot of our candidates. All of whom are better than The Won.

And that’s what Ron Paul is selling.

You think we had a lot of people falling behind on their mortgages before? Wait until you see the Ron Paul Gold Standard.

You post sequence was simply childish. If you want to be taken seriously, then act like a grownup. The hourly updates got old after 2 posts, foolish after 6 an simply fell off the chart by the end of the day.

I could give a crap who you support, I come here because the posts I read are usually thoughtful, detailed and informative. Once that stops, I’ll move on.

As for the candidates this year – heavy sigh. I see Perry, Romney and Bachman as the final 3. (of course, I realize my opinion doesn’t mean a damn thing either) Of those, I could support Perry the most and Bachman the least – but all would be far superior to the “man in the chair” today.

I expect more from you Eric than what was produced by the Palin countdown, and you certainly are capable of much more. So bring your “A” game, leave the rest of the crap in the closet.

my own conundrum during this election

I’ve been hating *myself* this past month. I’ve begun to morph into an icy blooded, seemingly principle-less poll watcher, not a conservative candidate’s cheerleader; a reflection of this immensely frustrating (heartbreaking) field in such a critical election. I’ve felt I’ve had to justify my lack of zeal for any players on my beloved rightwing team in my posts here, but thank you Erick… for taking all the heat and articulating for me so well all the reasons why – a very important post.

You said it exactly, EE.

Perry needs to stop talking about his record and start talking about his optimistic vision. Perry also needs to be himself.

Cain has the optimism and the vision, but needs to be himself, and he needs to let some of these softballs go by… All publicity is not good, at least not in the short term. (Quick.. anyone up to a vacation in Love Canal or Three Mile Island?)

Both are also devolving into the same over-messaged caricature of themselves, doing SNL’s work for ‘em.

Mew

p.s. Romney also needs to be hit on personnel fumbles…

I guess I am a little disappointed that so many of Palin’s supporters were unable to laugh at the satirical nature of your posts on Friday. I’m tiring of everyone reading ulterior motives into every word spoken and thinking the worst of each other. Hopefully, we will reunite after the primaries and work together to defeat the O no matter who wins.

With respect to who I support, disappointed as I am in Perry–and I share your criticism that he is naively focusing on Texas too much–I still see him as the strongest choice in the race and I think he will get his bearings soon. He simply must address the immigration issue from a federal viewpoint and put to rest peoples’ concerns on that front. He has too many strengths to throw him out at this stage and I think his reputation as a fierce campaigner will begin to be seen soon. We shall see.

You had me until the gratuitous slam against Objectivism from compassionate conservative Gerson, which neither you nor he understands well enough to intelligently criticize.

Objectivism advocates reason, rational self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism — all three philosophically unassailable and views you share. It also advocates, by extension, adherence to and respect for the U.S. Constitution, and many traditional American values – individualism, self-reliance, honesty, productiveness, live and let live, and others — all of which you also hold dear.

If you want to argue against Objectivism, fine. I can do that pretty well, too. But you should know what you’re objecting too, first.

Now back to discussing the candidates…

I do agree with some that the Palin stuff was, at the very least, boring after a while.

Can you please hate Chris Christie for me since he’s my favorite today after Cain’s stupid comment.

My list right now:

Daniels (obligatroy)
Christie
Cain
Gingrich
Perry
Romney
Bachmann
The Rest

is why some who bash Perry for Texas policy on college tuition and see that as enough to write him off would then be clamoring for Christie. As I understand his positions, Christie’s positions on many issues fall to the left of Perry, esp on immigration matters.

And the same with Romney

There are definitely some I have written off, but I want to keep my options open. Too many people give their hearts to a candidate only to get it broken. There is still plenty of campaign left and plenty of time to more thoroughly vet the candidates. I don’t want us coalescing around someone only to find out at the last minute about some ugly revelation. Obama is extremely weak and beatable by most of the top candidates. All of the current GOP candidates have their warts but most of them would be stellar presidents compared to the current one.

to be the Republican Nominee.

Either way?
No, I don’t really care. Sure, if she got in, won the nomination, I would line up.
I saw that Cain interview, and it was actually quite non-challant sp?
Something I can overlook, not a Bachmann rant.
Erick, did you catch that MSNBC Perry interview along with Rick Scott? There were topics touched on including job creation and bporder enforcement that were pure common sense, it was the best interview of Perry I have seen to date. Here it is again…I highly recommend looking at it.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/29/perry-its-the-federal-governments-fault-i-had-to-implement-in-state-tuition/

I hope Christie gets in, even though they all say he is a moderate, 2nd amendment soft, etc. etc. He is tough. He is reasonable, in the end, he can bring consensus through sound principles, at least I like to think so.
I am an EOH. Equal opportunity hater. I hate all races, creeds and colors equally and nobody get’s the prize of being first. This presents a nice even field.
BTW, you are doing just fine. Keep up the good work!
I been thrown outta here what, two or three times…( For dumb stuff I said that were either not allowed or just mis-understood ) I always come crawling back. And you guys explained my error, and allowed me. This is a great site.
Some people take themselves so seriously they can’t take a playful jab. We can’t take those people seriously…seriously.

the candidates. They are not weak, per se. But they are not perfect, which may turn out to be a good thing. Here is why: Obama was elected out of an emotion and grandiose speeches. He was a messiah-like figure for many, a notion that is not compatible with a republican form of government.

I do not want someone who is perfect our drummed up as the one who can “save” the country. Because then people will get comfortable again and cease being engaged as they are now. I want someone who can articulate the conservative message well and who is not heck-bent on undermining the greatness of this country and what it is founded upon. If we elect solid conservativses for Senate and the House and a conservative on 90% of the issues, we will be able to roll back the destruction Obama and his ilk have wreaked upon the country.

Now if Demint would run for President, then all petty squabbles would cease . He is a true American hero with a solid dose of humility to boot, which would innoculate him from the hero-worship. But since he is not running, I will settle for him being Senate Majority Leader.

That would be ” elect a PRESIDENT who is a conservative on 90% of the issues”.

And I think the reason this primary season has become especially nasty is that we have a great shot at winning the general election no matter who the nominee is (even Ron Paul, nuts as he is on foreign policy).

were extraordinarily insightful.

It gives me a new perspective especially of Cain.

Having said that I don’t follow your assesment of Huntsman and Newt. I sense that you don’t like them but I am not sure why.

I agree with everything Erick stated. But, please, dont’ go Governor Christie on us next week. As a resident of NJ, I can confirm that taxes went up, jobs have disappeared, there are more freebies for the welfare recipients, our elderly are swept under the rug, more and more money for “special interest” education at the risk our brightest and most likely to succeed, wasted monies on gambling and entertainment centers, illegal immigration is at its highest, poltiicans who go home to NYC at the end of the day,,,,,and the wrongs can go on and on and on. Why are we allowing campaign donators to decide who will run this crooked “gubmint”.

Ol’ Double E got in to a snit with me for having the temerity to support Gary Johnson, but the truth remains that Governor Johnson is the best candidate the GOP has. His record as Governor is vastly superior to Romney, Perry and Huntsman. Growth rate: Higher, Budget Surplus: Check, Tax Cuts: Check, Popularity in his Home State: Check. He has better business experience than Cain in that he started his own business and grew it to be the largest construction employer in NM, plus unlike Cain he’s actually won elected office, and did so (twice) in a 2-1 Democrat state. He can win the swing states, unlike Santorum. He’s focused on balancing the budget immediately, not in 10, 20 or 30 years like Bachman. His ideology comes from the perspective of Cost/ Benefit not the ramblings of Murray Rothbard like Ron Paul. Oh that’s right he’s pro-choice, but that didn’t stop the NRLC from endorsing him in both Gubernatorial elections, and he’s against late-term abortions and is for parental consent. Yes, he’s a long shot but no more so than Santorum, Bachman, Gingrich, Cain or Huntsman.

Erick said, “below the fold, I’ll tell you precisely what it is about each of the candidates that I don’t much care for” and Erick had nothing bad to say about Gary Johnson. Does that mean that Erick is now “Gary Johnson’s Guy”?

Bachmann is the candidate who has most disappointed me. The problem is the lack of substance in her campaign. Other candidates — Cain, Gingrich, Romney and Huntsman — have released detailed economic plans and are prepared to discuss and debate them. Bachmann actually has a command of policy and procedure that is impressive — in one of the debates she pointed out that repealing Obamacare is not quite as simple as the stroke of a pen — yet she persists in merely repeating slogans and talking points. She is running as if it’s 2010 and she’s the sweetheart of the Tea Party, rousing the populace.

Santorum is also in a time warp. In his case it’s the 2008 Republican primary, in which all the candidates, except Paul, were strong supporters of the interventionist, international foreign policy of GW Bush (yes even Mittens, sort of). The support for this has waned even (or especially) among Republicans under Obama, partly because the results are less successful than they were in Iraq, and partly because Obama, while continuing and expanding Bush’s policies, has not supported them rhetorically.

In 2008, many of the candidates in both parties were Senators — reflecting the salience of foreign policy and the high profile of Senators in debates on foreign policy. This is the tradition Santorum is working in. Unfortunately for him, the issues have changed, people have moved on.

Cain and Gingrich have gained some traction through their skills, but the lack of discipline and the inability to plan and execute a long term strategy dooms their campaigns. Cain is an adept marketer, but marketing is not enough in promoting an economic plan. Simply put, consumption taxes never produce the income they are supposed to, and the shortfall is made up by raising the income tax portion.

Cain’s support for TARP merely underlines my basic disappointment in both Cain and Gingrich, that while they are adept critics of Obama and excellent communicators, they are both big government conservatives, and hence the opposite of what we need.

I actually agree with Erick that Huntsman entered the 2012 race because he saw this as his only chance to win the Presidency. The odds are actually good for whoever the nominee is against Obama, while by 2016 a large number of viable candidates will appear, or the 2012 winner will be pursuing a second term. I don’t find this reprehensible, merely shrewd. A similar thinking is motivating Chris Christie, and probably Rick Perry as well.

lastly, the issues favor Romney and Paul more than last time. The experience of running for the Presidency and losing can be the basis for a successful campaign. Yet for some reason Romney has corrected many of his flaws while Ron Paul is actually doing worse.

Some of us just want the best candidate. I am not a huge supporter of Palin and would not vote for her – however, I respect what she’s done for the conservative movement in the country. So count me among the “Palin fans” who were annoyed with the fraternity house posts and comments that took place the other day – it was juvenile and did nothing to advance the cause. In fact your final post “I told you she was not going to run” told me a lot – it started with “I” – this is not about you Eric…it’s about finding a candidate to get our country back. I have great respect for you and watch you everytime I can – but you took a huge crediblity hit over the petty posts – and not just with Palin supporters—with conservatives. Having said that, keep up the great work you’ve done educating the masses….you’re one of the best out there and an important cog in getting the conservative message out.

stop. I usually cut off the radio after Rush goes off but I am glad to here that Hannity has at least criticized WaPo although he did not criticize Wallace or Cain. Cutting off the radio now.

Great post; love the analysis. But for my own understanding, your problems with the candidates are as follows:

Perry: Regional
Romney: Flip Flopper
Cain: Second-Tier Campaign Organization
Bachmann: No Substance
Paul: Crazy Foreign Policy
Huntsman: Unprincipled
Gingrich: Not Conservative
Santorum: Angry Guy

If that’s the more-or-less basic criticism, then it seems to me that we really have only three choices: Perry, Cain, and Bachmann.

All three have issues that are related to messaging and campaigning, rather than issues related to who they are and what they actually believe.

Huntsman, Romney, and Gingrich all have issues on principles — we don’t quite know where each gentleman is coming from, whether they really mean what they’re saying this time around, and there are reasons to doubt their sincerity.

Paul is consistent, but to your point, his foreign policy stance is worrisome. I’d have some real issues with supporting Paul, while granting that the guy has been consistent.

Santorum is consistent, we know who he is, where he’s coming from, and I don’t think we can say he’s just running on the basis of ambition. But to your point, Erick, he’s too much the Angry Guy and he’s not doing well in his home state. That’s a problem. I suspect he drops out of the race soon.

So at this early stage of the contest, seems to me the principled conservative’s choices are as above: Perry, Cain, and Bachmann.

Here’s what I’d like to see from each of them (and this is speaking as a Cain Guy For Now):

- Perry needs to show me some real communication skills. I’ve been floored by his personal lack of communication ability (something he’s admitted on record with Fox News, saying “Everybody knows I’m not the best debater up there”). For a lifelong politician, I’d have expected something better.

- Perry also needs to start talking more about what he would do as President of the United States, and less about what he’s done as the Governor of Texas. Yes, run on your record, but really, start telling us what you would DO once in office.

- Cain needs to upgrade his campaign staff immediately. I saw that his Communications Director resigned, to be replaced by an old hand from the DoD. Maybe we’d see similar shakeups in the campaign now that Cain is no longer a Who Dat candidate and one of the top tier contenders.

- Cain needs to stop following the MSM script, and dancing to the MSM tune. I hope he’d take a page out of Palin’s effective use of social media and freezing out the MSM to understand that every single time he’s in front of a camera with some “journalist”, he’s being setup to fail, that they’re trying to play a “gotcha” game with him. They’re not interested in his answers or what he really thinks or anything; they’re just trying to find something they can use to bury him and make him unacceptable.

- Cain needs to start putting some heavyweights together for his advisory boards. Especially on foreign policy; he’d do very well to show us that he has the ability to recruit and retain some real serious men and women who really know their stuff. That’s what I’m banking on with Cain; that he himself may not know, but he has the leadership chops to find and recruit those who do. Show me.

- Bachmann needs to back off of all the distractions. HPV thing hurt. I’d like to see a plan from Bachmann, leveraging her expertise, that lays out exactly what President Bachmann would do.

- Bachmann also needs to find a way to be more likable. I’m sorry, but there’s something really chilly and offputting about the woman on TV. Maybe that’s something she can’t fix, maybe that’s just how she comes across on TV, but… sorry, Michele… need to see if you can project that sunny confident image.

and this is my first Redstate post so please be kind as I attempt to run with the big dogs!

I’ve tried very hard to be realistic and keep an open mind about every candidate. They’re not making it easy! I’ve been disappointed with all of them at some point.

I agree with Erick that Perry’s debate performances have been very disappointing. Bachmann was good when she wasn’t hammering away with her numerous kids and titanium spine but then she went off the HPV deep end. I think Romney is a smart business man who has a lot to offer but I don’t trust him to hold the conservative line. Paul is right on many issues but then he goes crazy Uncle Ron on foreign policy. Newt is nothing short of brilliant but he lost me with the Pelosi global warming thing. Santorum seems like a nice enough guy but he’s trying way too hard. Huntsman does absolutely nothing for me.

I’m so glad Herman is finally getting some attention but I’m afraid he may blow it he keeps playing to the media or whatever he’s doing.

As for Christie, Palin and now I hear maybe Huckabee again, either get in or go away! Maybe Erick’s Palin posts were a little excessive but I certainly understand his frustration. I am so sick of the will he/she or won’t he/she game I want to scream!

Bottom line…I do not want another 4 years of Obama. I will strongly support any of the above when they get the nod…..but I hope it’s Herman!

I am sorry this is some what off the specific topic:

I am confused by these two different polls, both released after the last debate and not much difference in the time frame that they were conducted on:

Released on Monday September 26th is the:
CNN/ORC International Poll during September 23-25th (that would be after the last debate):
Perry 28%, Romney 21%, Gingrich 10%, Cain 7%
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/26/rel16a-1a.pdf

Then released on Wednesday September 28th out comes the Fox poll taken during September 25-27 time frame:
Romney 23%, Perry 19%, Cain 17%, Gingrich 7%
http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2011/09/28/fox-news-poll-gop-race-top-tier/

I am having a very difficult time understanding how in a short period of time these numbers could be changed so drastically (keeping in mind that each poll was conducted after the last debate on Thursday September 22).

Does anyone have any idea why these two polls are so different in there results?

And I think that poor old Perry has to formulate a response to all the questions… translate from Texan to English ( In his halting manner ) and somehow spit it out.
It is funny to watch.
But when he is on-game, he does ok.
Cain is just the same…he struggles to communicate and it takes patience to just sit back and wait for it to come. In the interviews, they crowd him, he needs to give himself 30 seconds to delay any response to let it congeal. I have personally utilized this method when in rough water…no matter the answer..30 seconds ( or something ) in consideration prior to responding.
I suspect that it comes out wrong or mis-understood at times.
We shall all await clarification to the latest.
I try to look at the big picture, and MSM is concentrating on sound bites.

I feel very out of sorts in this election: while I can’t say that the field is any worse than any given years, I have to wonder how a population many times the size of early America can offer up such truly terrible and/or flawed candidates. “Better than Barack Obama” still holds true for most of them, but is a phrase that is increasingly starting to claw at my throat the more I say it.

In general I agree with Erick’s summary of the candidates. Not that my opinion much matters but…

Before Perry got in the race I was closely watching Cain and I was also excited to see Bachmann get in the race. I was inspired by both Bachmann and Cain initially.

I took a hard look at Cain. Something about him kept coming back to me. Cain’s asset is also his liability, he isn’t a politician. In the end I could not see any path for Cain to win the general. The country already went with the optimistic, the hope the unknown un-experienced candidate in 2008. I really am not fond of someone without any governing experience at this point.

After Perry entered the race I saw Bachmann’s real faults (as Erick has already mentioned).
Now I have seen Cain’s faults. Between Cain’s not willing to support Perry if he were the nominee and now the slander fest in which Cain had to step into I have written him off completely.

I am still with Perry but like so many have already stated: Perry needs to improve his debating skills, his vision and be able to articulate his positions. If Perry could do that, I think he would do very well. We will see.

I’ve seen this phenomenon quite a bit, with Romney being the ” movement conservative” being endorsed by outlets like National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Erick at RedState, etc., AFTER he signed RomneyCare in 2008.

Now, in 2012, Romney is suddenly Obama’s evil twin. It’s simply not intellectually honest since the main problem with Romney’s candidacy that we hear over and over is RomneyCare=socialized medicine, yet not a peep about it in 2008 from conservatives when it was already signed into law.

The stuff about the flip flopping can be said about any candidate. Perry wrote a letter praising Hillary’s work regarding healthcare (which really was socialized medicine). Do I think he’s a closet liberal that secretly supports universal health care? No, and at the end of the day, every GOP candidate will repeal ObamaCare if it gets to his desk.

I have my toe in Cain’s camp right now, but already I’m seeing some bad stumbles that make me want to buy the “Toyota Camry” of the GOP, Mitt Romney. We simply have a poor field with fatally flawed candidates, so I’m now starting to just look for the guy that I know can close the deal.

I was very high on Perry until the last debate but if Perry can’t even beat Mitt in a debate, there is no way he can beat Hillary. Newt would wipe BO or Hillary off the stage regardless of how biased the moderators were.

by his late entry into the race. The other candidates have been preparing for years in some cases. Perry has only recently begun the process of comprehensively applying his political philosophy to formulate national policy views. Until a few months ago he had a full time job governing Texas.

Some people may take this as a plus, saying his performance will improve with time as his platform solidifies. I think that is misguided. First, synthesizing a coherent platform for governing the US is not something that can be done quickly. That intellectual process will take a great deal of hard effort over time, with inevitable backtracking on issues. This process will manifest itself as continued bumps and gaffes that will carry over into the general election and will be a signficant headwind if he is the nominee.

Second, we are essentially being asked to take his national platform on faith. Because he has an appealing philosophy and record at Texas, we are being asked to believe that philosophy and record will produce an appealing national platform and campaign. We are not actually given either, just asked to trust that they will materialize. The burden of proof should be on the candidate.

Reagan ran unsuccessfully for the party nomination in 1968 and 1976. By the time he won the nomination in 1980, he had 12 full years of preparation for the Presidential Campaign. That was 12 years to think hard about national issues, test his positions with audiences, and articulate them in thousands of forums. It took time to make Reagan into the Reagan he was in 1980. Yet Perry jumps into the race and thinks he can cobble something together in six months.

And now we have Christie pondering whether he can do it in 3 months?

Show today, nor did he criticize the WaPo story. He stuck with his defamatory remarks about the Perry Family.

Cain meets his Bachmann moment. I’m sure that by polling done before yesterday will have Cain up quite a bit, but, by the next round of polling he will be back down to second tier status or less. No Republican likes a race baiter, or a Republican presidential candidate that refuses to say that he would support the eventual nominee whoever it is. I’m safe to say that as Ron Paul will not be the nominee.

If I don’t agree with you and YOU don’t agree with me all it means is that WE don’t agree.

After all the years you spent in politics in Macon you’re bound to have a pretty thick hide by now. And after all the time you’ve spent here, you surely have come to expect that you are supposed to be the cheerleader for Everyone’s Favorite Candidate.

Reagan raised taxes and spending in California, never promised to cut federal spending and didn’t, allowed huge domestic increases in a deal with O’Neill to get his defense buildup approved, raised taxes twice after cutting rates, imposed import quotas on Japan, ran huge (for the time) deficits, granted amnesty to illegals, and appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the SCOTUS. Today he would be mocked as a RINO and wouldn’t have a prayer in the primaries.

There aren’t any perfect conservative candidates, and if there were they would fare about as well as Goldwater did in the general election.

Whine all you like about “settling” for a candidate, but that’s your choice – unless you are willing to let Obama win.

Can you or anyone post the latest Red State Poll?

been able to win a debate with Romney and the ankle biters.

So far I have had little difficulty separating your commentary from your analysis. Your analytical pieces always seem to be unbiased, well reasoned, supported by facts and generally track with what I would expect from an informed political observer. Your commentary is good but sometimes a little too knee jerk populist. But you have never claimed to be anything other than a populist. All in all I think you play it straight.

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/total-dominance-red-state-straw-poll-sarah-palin-52-4-herman-cain-21-4-ron-paul-10-2-rick-perry-7-3/

obviously Cain is not a big man. I expected no less. He is under the same delusion Bachman was. Keep attacking a non issue against Perry and you will move ahead. Bachman did and look what happened to her. Keep it up Cain, conservatives don’t like race baiters and liars. You will be over in a matter of days.

Perry apologized for fan less egregious remarks.

nt….

I mean, to what other candidate does that rule apply?

out of a tailspin

Sarah Palin may well be the only candidate to stop Mitt Romney that is true to real conservative issues. Not just fiscal issues but social and moral issues as well. Should she enter the race, and I am all but certain she will in the next few days, she will be a formidable candidate who CAN beat POTUS Obama in November 2012. No vetting issues here for her. She is seasoned and experienced with the press now. I like Cain the best right now but he will stumble often and that is not a winning strategy.

I missed that news flash, Sorry! When did she tell you she was not running? Just curious.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-slips-herman-cain-rises-in-bid-for-gop-nomination-poll-finds/2011/10/03/gIQASiJiJL_story.html