What should Rick do, in response to this announcement?

http://www.politico.com/morningscore/

ROMNEY TO BLAST PERRY ON IMMIGRATION?PREVIEW: The Romney camp knows that continuing to hit Perry?s Texas immigration record is a real winner for them. So as Perry returns, they plan to ratchet up criticisms. A release going out later highlights Boston?s favorite 60% statistic: ?Over the past decade, the number of illegal immigrants in Texas is estimated to have grown by 60%,? spokesman Ryan Williams says in a forthcoming release, shared exclusively with Score. ?Governor Perry should explain to the people of New Hampshire why he thinks their opposition to his liberal immigration policies means they ?don?t have a heart.??

*

“Romney is the flip-flopper [play tape of his "amnesty" advocacy]. And, with regard to sheer numbers, has anyone looked at a map of the United States lately? Generally, to get to Massachusetts, people need to drive through Texas. I have tremendous real-life experience dealing aggressively with this issue, addressed in ways that fellow-Texans like. Throughout, I also have discussed how the Federal Government has failed to secure the 1225-mile Texas-Mexico border. Because Mitt knows I discounted the “heartless” quote, his constant reference to it only impugns the credibility and ethics of his campaign.”

That’s the long-version, consuming approximately a minute to articulate.

The short-version simply repeats the positive/assertive comments and moves on to Rick’s discussion of this issue in “Fed Up!” [pp. 116-125].

{am i hired?}

Rick must NOT deviate from the specificity/generality of the above script!

*

“Governor, you are accusing Mr. Romney of not being credible or ethical; is that c/w Reagan’s 11th Amendment?”

“I mean what I say and I say what I mean. I document everything I assert with facts. Read my book and my website for further information.”

“Governor, aren’t you attacking a fellow-Republican?”

“Let the information I provided you speak for itself.”

“Governor, please, answer the question, aren’t you being divisive?”

“I stick with the truth. Go ask Mitt to explain-away his support for amnesty…and how he has flip-flopped on this position [and others, despite the fact that he's been doing this only during the past few years].”

“Governor,I’m not asking about Mitt, I’m asking about you.”

“Go ask Mitt to explain why he hasn’t documented what he said he did the first time he hired an illegal; he released a letter when he fired the company a year hence, but where is the memo that shows he warned them, as he repeatedly asserts he did?”

“Governor, you are diverting attention from your own policies.”

“No, I’m not. I’m providing you a homework assignment that, sadly, you haven’t pursued yourself. And, furthermore, if he indeed warned the company after the first infraction, what did he do to monitor their compliance with his alleged-admonition?”

“Governor, this is a side-show.”

“No, it isn’t, because it directly impacts how he would govern. Remember, Reagan said “Trust, but Verify!” What did Mitt do to show he had warned the wrongdoers under his administrative control, and what did he do to ensure they complied with what he claims they promised? These are legitimate concerns when choosing a POTUS.”

“Governor, please answer the question. Why don’t you support a physical fence?”

“Because it is unworkable, knowing what I know about the border. We need to apply smart technology and enforce it with boots on the ground. This is how I would attack all national security concerns. One does not simply toss money at problems. One strategizes to ensure the most cost-effective approach is applied definitively.”

…but reference to “Fed Up!” is hardly idle; it is replete with details that have yet to be widely disseminated…and which Rick undoubtedly could rattle-off!

Bullet-point topics include [reshuffling content, a bit]:

Emphasize repeatedly support for LEGAL immigration [administered by D.C.]
Texans uniquely aware of need to address comprehensive issue [experientially]
Above-all, compliance with current law must be ensured [including employers]
Sub-points need clarity/validation [e-verify, Arizona-approach, etc.]
Need for Feds to control drug-cartel violence [attack BHO on "F&F"]
Need for Feds to uphold law [SCAAP-$, a "most basic constitutional duty"]
Need for Feds to deputize locals [and to defund sanctuary-cities]
Need for Feds to deport already-ID’ed 600K lawbreakers [even if they have not committed felonies]
Implications regarding national security [al qaeda, etc., recently in-the-news]
Reagan in ’86 didn’t solve problem because of lax enforcement and job-magnet for illegals/undocumenteds [can't make same mistake twice]
Problem’s profundity illustrated by facts such as “10% of Mexican-born people live in America” [ref: Pew]
Texan-budget stretched by SCOTUS-mandated provision of state-services [which FAR outweigh any potential contribution to economy, for example, by SS-withholding, noting that $ is routinely trans-shipped back-home]
{*This last point is reminiscent of how Krauthammer nailed Paul on FNC”}

These dozen-points were easily gleaned from his succinct text…and could easily be amplified by awareness of day-to-day gubernatorial activities.

…if we are to prevail.

Rick can do it, for he has done it and has the support system [particularly his wife] to stay-the course.

When I advocate, it is routinely based on a binary decision [liking a candidate AND disliking the others]; for reasons aforementioned, Rick fits-the-bill.

Rick can recognize this dynamic [from experience, remote and refreshed] and pivot accordingly; he wins on the key-issues and can easily explain-away the others.

1. To state explicitly a consensus perspective, drawing upon all quotes on RedState as a priority [and rectifying pseudo-conflict when necessary].

2. To subject these views/articulations to quality-critique, all in the public-eye, to ensure that Rick’s advocates have viewed [and have had an opportunity to assess] these observations/suggestions.

…is reflected in such postings as this:

GEORGE WILL SLAMS MITT – Sunday’s column : “Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ … Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?”

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

“No Dissent Allowed Zone!” is mischaracterization.

I daresay critique is aggressively invited.

[we'll chew-it-up and spit-it-out, be forewarned!]

He was unapproachable in Charleston, but the fact he’d even attended was pivotal.

EE said, I believe, that there were 100+ media-types present; he sat in the middle-section whereas the rest of us lined the sides [and the walls].

Let’s read the entire column on Sunday [and listen to the discussion on ABC], however, before we allow ourselves to get too excited…

…and/or that someone @ RedState would be forwarding them to the “right” people.

I have expended a LOT of time preparing my input, for I do not perceive this as merely a blogging site @ which people can ventilate attitudes.

Rather, it is a virtual “gathering” site @ which we can hone ideas for export to others [web-sites, people, etc.].

Rereading and pondering the evolution of events [and the levity provided by some], a few observations are in-order.

An underlying thread running through the anti-Romney world is illustrated by how Lt. Colombo [Peter Falk] solved mysteries. “The audience observes the criminal’s reaction to the ongoing investigation, and to the increasingly intrusive presence of Columbo….” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo] I remember, when Peter Falk died, that this was amplified as the major method of problem-solving that constituted his modus-operandi. Specifically, he observed CHANGES in behavior, and then drew appropriate conclusions regarding the guilt that had prompted them.

Apply this to Romney. There is a definable component of the GOP that he has almost totally ignored – the TPM; indeed, when he attended one TPM event recently, he actually was picketed for not having promoted its values. Thus, there is no question that he has generally shunned this driving-force when strategizing, and has made no bones about it. Inasmuch as the TPM has many components ["leaderless, but not rudderless"],it is therefore a shock that none of them have warmed to his front-runner candidacy.

What is the take-home-message, here? Does this not animate much of the disdain for his candidacy manifest on RedState? What would be the customary reaction of political campaign strategists to this volatile mix of unabashed-passion and perceived-neglect?

“Attention must be paid” to the Willy Lomans of the world, but moreso to those who indubitably enjoy political clout. That is, perhaps, why I advised earlier that the TPM must become activated ASAP.

The prior incremental-observations may appear not to be worth 5-’graph prodromes ["activate the TPM" ... "ASAP"] but there is another dimension to the timing that must be appreciated. Today, I attended an event @ which I held “chats” with Zionists who are seemingly unaware of Rick’s unique commitment to the prioritized preservation of Eretz Yisrael.

[Rather than recapitulate my references/hyperlinks, they are aggregated inter alia @ http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy. Perhaps a repository of such data is needed, for only belatedly have I tried to double-post @ that site...to provide ready-reference. Indeed, others who would want a particular citation not to be buried in the ethernet, you are encouraged to employ this locale.]

One, a long-time Romney-supporter, was touting his upcoming visit to Philly [next week, if memory serves] and brushed-off the customary flip-flop attacks [including endorsement of the Individual Mandate] that were tossed his way. The rejoinder was, however, annoying: Rick is “arrogant and stupid.” The former was manifest when he attacked Rick on Mitt’s Illegals and the latter was said to have been aggregated from conversations with those in-the-know. The cherry-on-top was that Rick is an Aggie [a comment delivered with a knowing-wink that wasn't returned].

The other, who lionized but one politician [Elizabeth Warren] even when he was reminded of her cooky-quotes of a few weeks ago [people owe success to their country, in-essence, due to provision of infrastructure, etc.], is a radiologist. When pressed about why he rejects all POTUS-GOP candidates, he reverted to attacking generically [the party is inflexible on social issues]. When pressed further, it turns out he had volunteered @ 19-years-old @ Planned Parenthood. Any suggestion that anyone else could provide primary care of comparable quality was kabashed; any suggestion that $ from the D’s for PP would be justly dwarfed by BHO’s $$$ for the Islamists [the theme of the lecture we were hearing @ the Middle East Forum] was sidestepped.

Thus, the challenge is framed [both intra-party and when Indies are to be approached] as follows: We are thoroughly thought-through, but we contend with those who harbor the view that they are thoroughly felt-through. How to penetrate the latter [which serves as the culmination of passions that have accumulated over lifetimes] is unclear. Already discarded are both BHO and Rick’s competitors; essentially, they cannot match the classic characteristics of the expert-witness [knowledge, training, experience...and;achievement]. Rick must re-educate people about the Constitution and how it should be applied [as discussed supra, in myriad lingos]…and we must aggressively spread that message far-and-wide.