« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

‘The Most Volatile Republican Race in Decades’ Is Actually Well Settled

“The race for the GOP nomination is well settled at this point. It is settled in ‘Not Romney’s’ favor. The reason the race is so volatile is that ‘Not Romney’ is not on the ballot”

I keep hearing from the Washington Chattering Classes, Team Romney, and the White House that the race is over and Romney’s the nominee. To be fair, I think Romney will, at present, be the nominee. But as I’m starting to see stronger signs that he is not going to be the nominee, the White House, Team Romney, etc. are building more expectations that he will be the nominee.

But occasionally we hear views from those living in reality. On Wolf Blitzer’s show yesterday, Gloria Borger, Mary Matalin, and Joe Johns were in agreement with reality — this is the most volatile Republican race in decades.

The only thing constant in the race has been Mitt Romney stuck in second place. Everyone else has bounced up above him, fallen back, and seen another bounce above him.

For normal people in fly over country that is a troubling sign. For folks in Washington, many of whom on the Republican side have a financial interest in MItt Romney being the nominee because of a potential appointment, consulting contract, etc., it is just the precursor to settling for Romney.

Notwithstanding the beltway conventional wisdom, however, I am beginning to see the beginning of the end of Romney as the viable nominee and, more importantly, for people wondering why the Republican primary seems so volatile this year the answer is staring at everyone in the Real Clear Politics polling average.

The race is so volatile because seventy-five percent of the Republican base does not want Mitt Romney as the nominee.

Consider that most people did not start paying attention to the race until the end of summer, around Labor Day. Now look at the RCP polling average since that point.

Rcpaverage

Romney has been in the lead three times: before Perry’s rise, between the Perry fall and Cain rise, and between the Cain fall and Gingrich rise. That’s it. Each time, the non-Romney candidate gets ahead of him.

But what’s more, consider how Romney has never, since November 3, 2010, gotten more than 25.5% of the polling average. And he only recently broke above 25.0% of the polling average only to fall back down to 21.3% within weeks.

The race is so volatile because the race is well settled as we get 38 days from Iowa. The race is settled against Mitt Romney. The question, however, is who the alternative is going to be. And if one does not hold up, it will fall to Mitt Romney.

This may cheer Romney’s supporters, and it is likely, but I fear there will be sever damage to the GOP down ballot with a Romney nomination. If voters are not excited about their guy — and 75% of them are not excited by Mitt Romney — that lack of excitement will trickle down ballot limiting any coat tails.

The Washington GOP establishment may have fallen for Mitt Romney, but they are both foolish and naive to think they can beat something with nothing. Mitt Romney is, in fact, a great big nothing — malleable into any shape you want, a void into which you can place any policy position. That’s a problem nationally, but it is also a problem down ballot with coat tails.

The race for the GOP nomination is well settled at this point. It is settled in ‘Not Romney’s’ favor. The reason the race is so volatile is that “Not Romney” is not on the ballot making a Romney nomination not just possible, but probable.

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • irishgirl

    Concise, mired in reality and to the point.

  • donald_24

    I see Romney as the nominee because the 2nd place winner in the last primary is generally the nominee the next time around. And Romney can win delegate rich states liek CA and NY. None of the other candidates are comeptitive in the really big states. Plus Romney was a governor and governors have a major advantage in presidential politics. Gingirch was a congressman. To find the last presidnt who was elected after being only a congressman, you would have to go back to the mid 1800s.

  • DaveWT4

    Now there’s an idea. Can we get a Gallup or RCP to do a poll of Romney vs Generic Republican?

  • Darin_H

    not to vote (because the base usually does go vote, we did even in 2006), but to provide the manpower of volunteers.

  • bzip

    I said this earlier, that Romney may not make it. He isn’t polling over 25%, he isn’t gaining support but losing it.

    I tend to think it will come down to two anti-Romney candidates, not sure they will be though but pray Perry will be among the tops. I have great faith it will be Perry

    Now, I am wondering if we could please get some coverage at RD in regards to Perry’s endorsement by Sheriff Joe.

    Perry revisits immigration debate
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/29/perry-revisits-immigration-debate/

    You would think we could cover this endorsement rather then all these sex scandals of Cain.

  • rec0n

    “The reason the race is so volatile is that ?Not Romney? is not on the ballot?

    I’d say the the not-Romney is on the ballot, but the small section of the population actually paying attention is led out into the weeds with the greatest of ease.

  • oldlady

    wouldn’t run as VP. That he wanted to finish his work as Senator from Florida before he would even consider taking on something else.

  • Tbone

    and Santorum points,(about 15%) to edge up ahead of Romney forcing even the shallow thinking Republicans(the debate groupies) to compare Perry and Newt head to head on past, policy and potential and the smart ones will then migrate over to Perry.

    Then, you have 2guys at about 30 and Romney in the mid 20s and the 3 way delegate split gets interesting.

  • aesthete

    it would be winning by a large margin.

  • rkcurtin

    conservative as his running mate for a chance to bring out the Republican base.

    Who would that be?

    I suspect Romney though, would go with someone who also has no core beliefs – or they change according to the ‘target market’, is a perpetual candidate for something, runs because of ego and not for love of country, but would know his place as 2nd ego.

    What lousy choices to defeat Obama.

    Folks are looking for another great communicator, which I suspect is Gingrich’s appeal.

    They were looking for a likeable guy, which is Cain’s appeal.

    They were looking for someone with moral integrity, which is Bachmann’s appeal.

    Paul is a whack job which is actually, his appeal.

    They are not looking for a head of hair, which is Romney’s appeal.

    If only Rick Perry could debate. I hope he picks up the pace, please!

  • NeoKong

    Cain is the Hindenburg of politics right now.
    Oh the humanity.

    I like Perry as many do but his poor performances on TV are hard to overlook as superficial as that may be. It doesn’t bother people who like him but there are millions who will only ever see him on TV.
    It matters.

    If it’s Newt or Mitt I’ll choose Newt.
    It seems that Romney only shows up at election time while Newt has been keeping a hand in things.
    He stays involved.
    He ain’t my dream date but who is at this point…..?

    Nobody new is going to come along as as Donald Rumsfeld once said you go to elections with the candidates you have.

  • acat

    New York and California and Illinois vote *late*.

    The Southern States, where even you acknowledge Perry has an advantage, vote *early*.

    All Perry needs to be the nominee is to be “Not Romney” to enough of those Southern State voters… and he’ll become “the one most likely to win” to the NY and CA (and IL) crowd ..

    You could just as easily replace Perry with Gingrich in the above two paragraphs, by the way.

    In short, what matters right now is where the Cainiacs go.

    Mew

  • bonnman

    Rubio is a young guy and would be fine to finish his term gaining experience and preparing himself for a Presidential run in 2016.

    Rubio in 2016 is far better than Romney in 2012.

  • snowshooze

    You are spot on, Erick.
    Romney has his following which have been fairly consistent through it all… the “ceiling” that has been spoken of so many times.
    I never considered those points which you brought up concerning those who have a stake in the game and are rallying for positions, appointments and financial interests more than the candidate.
    This make a lot of sense. Romney has been running for President for years… and that is no secret. Those with long term interests would be attracted to that organized machine which has been in place for so very long, and with a Candidate who is electable…
    ” Hey.. the party is over here! ” Hmmmm.
    While the rest of us.. the 75% wandering in the desert..
    We are trying to determine exactly who will be the best selection for our country on merit alone.
    This explains to me why ( At least in part ) he has never hit the big time. Even with the table stakes being unimaginally high… a second coming of ” The One ” … We continue to wander the desert rather than drink from the poison wells.
    I think Romney IS the spoiler in this election.
    I wonder… if he fails to land the nomination…would he this time fracture and go 3rd party?
    He has money. I have always suspected that the party machine wants to endorse the money man so they can save what they have gathered for their personal fifedoms.
    And he has the machine… would they jump ship with him? I think so. There I see the potential salvage of the long term investments you referred to.
    After that..what about Romney’s Ego? Would he be willing to give up? Could he?
    If I had invested in him over a period of years, and he failed to produce the nomination… I think I might just go to him and put the push on.
    ” Look Mitt… I have been with you for years, you are the Man for the job..we can’t let the Country down over this bump in the road..”
    Hmmm.

  • carolynr

    Every day…I look at the NYSE…it goes up 300 points and we know that the EURO is done and Merkle is out of money…or at the very least…won’t support Europe any longer. Yet..here we are invested in the EURO, bail out banks (secretly) by the Fed and the stock market still goes up. I sometimes wonder if the Fed is bolstering the stock market to make the people keep buying. Just a thought.

    Anyway…When the hero of the American people came along, the TPM, everyone held them up for their beliefs. Smaller government, less spending, back to the Constitution. Yet…here we are with a candidate that espouses all of this…and he falls behind…Mitty Flip Flopper who was made to do it because of Liberal Mass., Newtie…who has a whole new set of criteria to justify his flip flops…and Cain…who, imo…just got caught…good.

    Who is the Conservative. It is Perry. Where is the TPM concerning the evidence, the facts, the proof. Doesn’t that count? Would you buy European stocks now? I wouldn’t. Why are we buying Newtie or Romney…why. I don’t care about articulation…not really…I want…shoot from the hip..straight answers and policies that help our countrY. I don’t want a grandstander…AND YOU WATCH…both Romney and Newt will be vying for that position…in fact…that’s has already started.

    TPM/Real Americans…you admire courage…right? integrity…right? Why are you backing people who have none. Are we not done with backing people who lack character? OK…we have a great debate…Newtie mops the floor with Obama…but…behind closed doors…after the election…where does he go with the BROKEN WASHINGTON DC SYSTEM..more money from or to Freddie Mac. Newt…I don’t trust. Romney likes to spend. Either way…America…YOU LOSE.

  • Common_Cents

    the Newt Hampshire UL endorsement will mark the peak of the Romney campaign.

    Polls are confirming. Newt will take some, repeat, some, support from Romney.

    Intrade shows Romney falling below 50% for first time in quite some time.

    At the point when everyone is saying Romney vs. Anti-Romney exactly marks the peak of the paradigm.

    It’s over. they just don’t know it yet.

    Romney will now have to come out and attack gingrich and romney will get a smack down on Dec 10. romney revealed he cannot handle direct confrontation well, evidenced by his barbs w/ Perry.

  • takeourcountryback

    If we don’t we might get 4 more years of Obamanation! Who are we allowed to support now that Cain has been dragged down by liberal lies?

  • izoneguy

    By hitching his wagon to Romney

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    The Romney campaign is in serious trouble in Iowa, and the road to the nomination begins and often ends in Iowa. The latest Insider Advantage poll has Romney in third place at 12% and in a statistical tie with Bachmann and Cain (at 10% each). In addition 14% of the voters are undecided and they aren’t likely to decide for Romney. The RealClear average for Romney is 15%, with movement within the last two months only within the margin of error. There is a real possibility that Romney may end up in 4th or even 5th place in Iowa, which would virtually put an end to his campaign. There is a real chance that Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann and even Perry will finish ahead of him in Iowa. (I’m assuming Cain’t continued collapse.) But even a third place finish would be a body blow to his campaign, because voters will rally around the anti-Romney winners.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    I’m to the point where I will work for Romney against Obama, but not lift a finger to get him into that position unless my last remianing alternatives are Laup Nor and Buddy Roemer. If I’m there, that’s pretty much where most GOP Primary Voters are as well. Look for Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, or, in a worst case, Perry to hang it up in the next five weeks. After that,

  • mrmises

    Mr. Perry will not rebound in the polls. Voters abandoned him once he became an actual flesh-and-blood candidate instead of the hoped for GOP savior. Most of his ?bold? positions?including the flat tax and part-time congress?do not appeal to the majority of the primary electorate. His foreign policy credentials are non-existent. His stated positions lack nuance and thoughtfulness.

    Also, let?s not forgot a major reason President Obama is in the White House: the country did not want another term of Bush or Bush-lite. Perry looks and sounds like Bush. He carried on the Bush legacy in Texas. That connection, valid or not, will be trouble in the general election.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    they get nailed with a negative media blitz that Stalin would envy.

    Nobody trusts Romney. Except his stalwart 23% or so. That’s not enough to win the nomination and he won’t be the nominee.

  • reggie182

    I believe a sizeable majority of the Republican electorate are determined to nominate someone who is articulate, thinks well on their feet, and know how to take on the media.

    Newt is superior to the rest of the candidates in all those fields.

  • snowshooze

    I still, for the life of me…fail to understand why Perry is not polling better.
    Everything I have seen from me is on target.
    He sure isn’t a salesman.
    But some of the finest Machinist’s I have known, the best craftsmen.. well.. they aren’t very exiting to talk to. Unless you are very patient and draw them into technical conversation on a more than passing level.
    Otherwise… they don’t have a lot to say sometimes.
    What they do though.. is work at a level that could be considered art in it’s purest form.
    The point being it is better to look at the Man’s work sometimes.
    I cannot help but notice he STILL has a job..

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    See Katt Williams on 20 years of Michael Jackson. Maybe they are lies, but I highly doubt it. Even if they are, Cain handled this terribly. He’s done.

    I hate seeing that Newt has emphasized “a pathway to citizenship” over securing the borders! Quotes used for paraphrasing purposes only.

    When we get down to Newt v. Mitt (Hey, they are both four letter words!), we’ll get to see if Mitt has the mettle to mangle a master-debater.

    Either way, I’m voting for the Republican nominee: Obama hates this country and all that we symbolize, ya know, freedom and economic self-determination.

  • acat

    I do have to correct you, though. Cain knew about the harassment issues. He obviously knew about the affair.* He certainly knew about the roto-rooter exams given to Palin, Joe the Plumber, and every other GOPer who ever stood up to Obama.

    He got into the race anyway, knowing he’d be roto-rooted, and that these issues would come up.

    Cain was not finished by liberal lies, but by Herman Cain.

    If you want someone with a clean record, look at Perry.

    Mew

    * unless you’re prepared to argue multiple personality disorder…?

  • Matthew Morris

    I keep seeing (or hoping) for the same thing. I have been thinking that when people in Iowa get serious in the final 4 weeks or so, that they will realize Perry is the best choice, even considering their fears about his ability to communicate no better than W. And hopefully he will be all over the state doing townhalls alleviating those concerns. And four weeks worth of sunshine on Newt as the new non-Romney frontrunner is probably going to give rise to newfound concerns about Newt’s past positions and extravagant quotes and ideas.

    Now if only some others would step aside for the good of the free world. Cain exiting (as I am just this minute hearing talk of for the first time) has got to help Perry…. surely.

  • Common_Cents

    Any one of our candidates would be vastly superior to the golfer in chief.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    He’s done himself in–with a great deal of help from his staff and his attorney. And stop making excuses for him. We are the party of personal responsibility.

  • avagreen

    Perry to hang it up in the next five weeks.
    Heh.

    Many a man has made that same mistake.

  • Wubbies World

    …. to the Republican Party and Conservatives in particular than the John McCain nomination did in 2008. However, sad as it is to say, the establishment republicans will be glad to have it happen because it will leave them still in charge of the party. Then like Bob Micheal, the Republican minority leader who was glad to have his tee times with Tip O Neal, the establishment Republicans will be happy to have the normal state of affairs restored again.

    That is what a Mitt Romney nomination means to all of us and we know it.

  • clowngirl

    1. Rasmussen Reports on the New Hampshire Primary: Romney 34, Gingrich 24, Paul 14, Huntsman 11

    I believe this is the first time in months Romney’s been below 40%. This suggests that Newt is not only consolidating some of the anti Romney vote, he’s taking support directly from Romney and he has plenty of time to close the gap.

    Would it be overstating it to say that a loss in New Hampshire would effectively end Romney’s campaign?

    2. Insider advantage on Iowa: Gingrich 28, Paul 13, Romney12, Bachman 10, Cain 10, Perry 7, Santorum, 3

    Not only is Romney in third place but he’ s only 2 points ahead of Bachman and Cain and just 5 ahead of Perry. It looks like a Cain exit is very likely in the near future – meaning that 10% of Iowa voters will be freed up to support another non Romney candidate — meaning that Romney could conceivably drop to fourth or even fifth place. (We don’t really know what his floor would be if Newt starts looking more and more viable )

    The conventional wisdom seems to be that Newt will very likely flame out and plunge back down as the other frontrunners have done — but there’s really no solid grounds for such an assumption. The other candidates didn’t randomly lose support because of the fickleness of the base. They all made fairly large mistakes. Michelle Bachman came out — making a very good impression in the first debate — which was her debut for a lot of people. Then she said a number of dumb and less than truthful things. Rick Perry performed very poorly in a number of debates and alienated much of the party on immigration.
    Cain utterly botched his handling of the harassment allegations.

    Newt’s rise was not some fluke. His debate performance has been consistently excellent and his past achievements near legendary. He’s developed some genuine momentum even with increased scrutiny.

    It’s utterly ludicrous at this point for the Romney campaign and the DNC to be acting as though he’s already the nominee when, as Erick points out, he’s never really even been the front runner.

  • bonnman

    Any current Cain supporters, in the event that he does withdraw, want to chime in?

  • Christian_Reppie

    Romney under any circumstances. I think he will set conservatism back for a long time.

    I will vote for Newt but, I too am hoping for Perry. He is the only one that I know is a true conservative besides Bachman, who I feel does not stand a chance. But she is a good mother:))

  • serpounce

    Cain is dead, Newt has all the problems of Cain and Romney combined. Perry is IMO fine, but people seem to have bought the “he’s dumb” line and I don’t see them going back to him.

    Personally I’m for Huntsman, but I get that he’s probably not socially conservative enough for most Republicans and he’s not getting any traction.

    So either Perry gets a second shot or it has to be Romney. Maybe Newt or Cain could slip in, but it would be a disaster. I”m not even convinced those guys really want to be president. I don’t see how anyone who’s lived through the last half dozen election cycles can say with a straight face that Gingrich is up for a modern presidential campaign.

  • snowshooze

    You saw that Romney thing… ( I assume so )
    And why the Democrats would attack their preferred competition at this earl point is a mystery to me. Was that, in fact, from the Democrats?
    Are they shopping for an easier target? Than Mitt?
    I would think they would do everything they can to make sure he is the opposition.. ( Well, careful not to over do it though )

  • snowshooze

    He will go the distance… all the way to the nomination where he will either be nominated, or will gracefully concede.
    It isn’t like he needs the work.

  • clowngirl

    n/t

  • avagreen

    About Perry and Bush’s similarities.No guessing, no surmisings. Just the fact, Sir?

    It’s a given that they both live (more or less) in Texas, breathe the same air, drink the same water, etc.

  • septembergurl

    He restricted abortion and expanded gun rights as Governor of Utah. His record on abortion is one of the strongest in the country. His support for gay civil unions (not marriage) is not exactly out of the mainstream.

    On social issues his record (which he does not walk back on) is more conservative than any candidate except Bachmann and Santorum.

  • avagreen

    His foreign policy credentials are non-existent. His stated positions lack nuance and thoughtfulness.

    Explain, please?

  • acat

    Cain’s done, but some hardcore Cainiacs will hang on until he does hang it up.

    Bachmann and Santorum are running out of time and money. The really sad part is, while Santorum could pivot and go after Casey Junior for his old PA Senate seat, Bachmann may have damaged herself badly enough to preclude any attempt to replace Klobuchar, who has damaged herself quite a bit in the MN Senate seat.

    Once they and Cain exit the field, it boils down to Newt and Rick.

    What I think today is that the second look at Rick hasn’t really started. I expect Newt’s numbers to drop after Thanksgiving, so once polling from this week starts flowing in, we’ll see.

    Mew

  • hls87

    Sarah Palin isn’t on the ballot. Everyone who rises to challenge the establishment’s candidate is weighed in the balance against the phantom, fantasy candidate that never was. Reality can’t match fantasy. Each real candidate in turn is found wanting and a significant part of the electorate sulks.

    Cain was a preposterous candidate, but few could see it until he imploded. Gingrich is a preposterous candidate and he too will implode before the voting starts. When people have to cast real votes (or attend genuine caucuses) they’ll have to come to grips with bitter reality. This year there are only about half a dozen Republicans in a position to make a serious run for the White House. Only three members of that select group chose to run — Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry. Now we’re down to two.

    Voters can pick either of those two. Voting for anyone else is an empty gesture of protest. People take voting seriously and very few of them waste their vote strking a pose.

    Gingrich is 2012′s Howard Dean. Cain is 2012′s Wesley Clark. They’ve made a splash but they never were and never could be contenders.

    The truth is that the Republican primary race isn’t volatile. The polling is volatile. The race is right where it has been since Perry decided to join and Palin decided not to. Republicans can pick Romney or Perry and nobody knows for sure which it will be.

  • tyman

    I realized that might like to face Newt as well.

    Why? Just think back to when he was speaker.

    There are so many ways they can trash Newt. Regardless of his debate skills. Romney can be considered a good debater, I guess, so I don’t think they’re afraid of that.

    An old white man who was run out of the Speaker’s chair who’s made money as a speaker and semi-lobbyist? Yep, they beat an old white man last time, what’s another one?
    A rich, white pseudo Republican? Sure, why not.

    A successful governor of a large economic powerhouse that’s defied Obama’s economy? No way.

    I think the Dems are fine with Newt or Romney, but Perry is the one they don’t want to face. Besides, Perry has a bone to pick with Obama after what he’s done to the energy sector, etc. in Texas.

    Everyone talks about letting Newt debate Obama. I’d love to unleash Perry on the national stage and go after what Obama has done to kill the jobs in this country. Perry has experienced it firsthand.

  • Rhampton

    would he really energize Conservatives? Would his coat tails be significantly larger than Mitts? Frankly, I’m skeptical.

  • supergirl2911

    Was completely surprised Romney got the support of pawlenty Christie and pretty much Cain Bachman and Gingrich. Very strange considering the 75% percent of people don’t want Romney. It has been alluded to that he offers to pay their bills. To that I say money makes very strange bedfellows. Can anyone tell me why any of those would prefer Romney to perry?

  • mrmises

    I don’t think that Perry is Bush redux, but I think he would come across that way to left-leaning and moderate voters that still carry their irrational Bush hate from last decade.

    They are both ardent Christians and social conservatives. They both served as governor of Texas. Both place substantial emphasis on expanding domestic energy production and ending the reliance on foreign oil. Both dislike Social Security. Both see an active interventionist role for America in global affairs. Perry (gaffe or not) has expressed some of Bush’s compassionate conservativism.

    Also, though it is not fair, voters (especially the less informed) will see a similar cowboy-aura. Gov. Perry’s Bushisms during debates don’t help either.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    No truce on abortion; don’t trade life for economic life. (Jun 2011)
    Disallow hotter levels of nuclear waste in Utah. (Nov 2003)
    Supported individual mandate in 2007; opposes it now. (Jun 2011)
    Truly affordable insurance: pathway to coverage for everyone. (Jan 2009)
    Vetoed repeal of college tuition for illegal immigrants. (May 2011)
    Border fence repulses me; inconsistent with America’s image. (May 2011)
    2008: GOP should tack to the middle on immigration. (Jan 2011)
    If you love your country, you serve her. (Aug 2011)
    Cyber intrusion is the new battlefield, and an act of war. (Aug 2011)
    Prevent Chinese manufacturers from selling patented products. (Jan 2011)
    Fund desperately needed road expansions. (Jan 2007)
    After 10 years, Americans are ready to exit Afghanistan. (Sep 2011)
    Time has come for us to get out of Afghanistan. (Sep 2011)
    Bring troops home from Afghanistan. (Sep 2011)
    Playing Afghan traffic cop doesn’t serve strategic interest. (Jun 2011)
    Boots on the ground: expensive & not critical for security. (Jun 2011)
    We can’t afford the NATO operation in Libya. (Jun 2011)
    No denial of coverage because of minor ailments
    Replace coal & oil with alternatives
    Energy subsidies don’t work & we can no longer afford them: Opposes topic 18
    Make Utah the premier destination for renewable energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
    Congress should cap greenhouse-gas pollution: Strongly Favors topic 18
    Lead US in alternative sources for energy and efficiency: Strongly Favors topic 18
    Disallow hotter levels of nuclear waste in Utah: Favors topic 18
    Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
    Make taxes more progressive
    Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
    Border fence repulses me; inconsistent with America’s image
    The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
    US out of Iraq & Afghanistan

    http://www.issues2000.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm

  • sethellis

    Newt has done a good job of showing he has a chance. To say Romney will win assumes that Gingrich support will fade, or that Gingrich screws up like the others. At least that’s what I gather from the points Erick makes on the polls.

    However, Erick’s words are not those of one who is consigned to the fate of the primary. If we believe Romney will win we should be doing all we can to start laying the groundwork to unify the party. We should be arguing for how we can enthusiastically support any of the candidates. This post is still trying to sew even more Romney dissention. Meaning that Erick still thinks there is a good chance at defeating Romney.

    What concerns me is how we are playing right into the Democrat narrative. If Romney wins it’s because the weak front runner was the best we had. If Newt wins it’s because the insane far right rejected the only plausible candidates. This antagonism is putting us in a no win situation.

  • supergirl2911

    Very true! Think about this: some people believe thy are immune to the power of suggestion. Most people hate ads. Yet advertising is a billion dollar industry.

  • septembergurl

    starting to climb. Romney’s 40% has been pretty stable through all the ups and downs. Now, post UL endorsements, Newt is beginning to chip away at the last bastion of Romney’s “inevitability”. Romney is already well behind in Iowa and SC.

    The latest Rasmussen poll of New Hampshire, out today, has

    Romney – 34%
    Newt – 24%
    Paul-14%
    Huntsman-11%

    All others in low single digits – Herb 5%, Bachmann & Perry 2% and Santorum 1%.

    Given Paul’s 14% is pretty steady, this means that as Romney starts to slip below 30, which I expect to happen over the next month, raises the possibility of one or more not Romney candidates coming in at over 20. Add in anything other than first or second finishes for Mitt in Iowa (very likely at this point) and he could lose NH. We’ll know more after Cain drops out. He wasn’t really a factor in NH but he still polls well in Iowa and SC.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and puh=leeze, don’t try to entice me to support him because of the prospect of Historical” [hysterical?] Debates!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …he opposes enhanced interrogation due to alleged damage done to America’s image, worldwide.

    And when he allegedly opposed BHO’s foreign policies, did he resign in protest…or prep his self-financed campaign?

  • exitsfunnel

    It’s been a two man race since Perry announced. I would add though that the nomination was essentially served up to Perry on a silver platter. All he had to do was demonstrate some minimal baseline competency as a candidate but even that proved to be too high a hurtle for him to get over. He may pull it off yet, though.

    -exits

  • red_oakster

    Until yesterday, Cain was holding on to 15-20% in Iowa and other early states. That was enough to keep the Romney campaign far away from inevitable. And if Romney can’t wrap it up by Florida, someone other than Romney is going to be the nominee (and that “someone other” may not be in the race currently).

    We’ll see if Cain is out or not. His resilience thus far has been notable.

    If Perry did enjoy a boomlet at the expense of Cain and managed to do well in Iowa, we’d have a 3-way race plus Paul spoiling 10% or so of the votes. But I am not prepared to write Cain off unless he actually leaves the race.

  • Tbone

    convenient, isn’t it NeoKong. It removes the element of actually having to think, or have convictions. It allows one to be expedient, don’t you agree?

  • acat

    Just take Erick at face value. If Newt’s support lasts about as Cain and Perry’s support did, it’ll fade just before Iowa… and that means Romney will win Iowa and appear just as inevitable as ever.

    Romney could well be the nominee, and – as I’ve said before – I’ve got my pro-Romney lines memorized. I’m just disgusted at the thought of having to use them in public.

    If Romney wins, I will have to put my mirrors up on freecycle, I don’t think I’ll be able to look at myself in them.

    Mew

  • supergirl2911

    I prefer huntsman to Romney maybe he comes across as more real

  • sethellis

    I doubt this is about trying to get us to nominate the guy they want to run against. It’s about defining the race. They want to demoralize the party no matter who wins. If Newt wins they won’t be saying the nomination process produced a well vetted candidate that the whole party can agree on. They’ll say that the lunatic far right base bullied the party into nominating another wingnut.

  • serpounce

    but he’s against energy subsidies of all types, which is the right policy. It’s not fair to lump him with people like Obama that want to subsidize (and even directly invest in) “alternative” energy.

    And yeah, we toppled the Taliban, and killed Bin Laden, so why am I paying to build schools in Afghanistan?

    And yeah, paying for tuition for illegal aliens still sounds insane to me, but who is the strong conservative on immigration in the race?

  • donald_24

    McCain came in 4th place in Iowa. On top of that, the candidate who wins Iowa almost always goes on to lose New Hampshire. Hucakbee won Iowa, lost NH. Bush won Iowa, lost NH. Bob Dole won Iowa, lost NH.

  • adamcarralejo

    But it seems to me like we really haven’t started the Republican primary, but rather had two ‘quasi-primaries:’

    First, the moderate/establishment wing has clearly ‘nominated’ Mitt Romney with Huntsman as their “break-in-case-of-emergency” candidate;

    Second, and the movement/conservative/tea party wing is working through their candidates. Is is “volitile?” – maybe, but I think it’s a feature not a bug. The big takeaway is that the clear plurality, if not majority, of Republican primary voters are engaged in the “Conservative Primary” and disengaged with the “RINO Primary.”

    Once conservatives settle on a candidate, whether its Gingrich, or someone else; I think you’ll see the gloves come off and the real primary will result. Essentially, were just waiting for the run-off …

  • donald_24

    1. They were promised something in return, like cabinet jobs
    OR
    2. They want the GOP candiate to lose so they can run in 2016. Don’t think for a second that there are not Republicans who secrelty want Obama to win so that they can run in 2016.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Newt 1st, Mitt 2nd and Perry 3rd would end the competitive phase of Romney’s run for the 2012 nomination.

  • supergirl2911

    5 nt

  • Whacker77

    The more I read about the race, the more I want to cry. I can’t believe this is the best we have to offer after such a resounding win in 2010. What the heck happened that we find ourselves being forced to choose from Newt or Mitt?

    I know the Perry supporters still believe, but it reminds me of the Fred! supporters in 2008. I know because I was one. Perry may make up some ground now that Herman Cain has splattered all over the sidewalk, but it won’t be enough to make up for his terrible debate performances.

    At this point, conservatives have two options. First, we can find a way to drag a white knight into the race. Second, we can hope for a brokered convention. Otherwise, we’re going to end up with Newt or Mitt.

    As Mark Steyn said on Rush’s show today, if he had known it would come down to the two of them, he would have poked out his eyes and campaigned for Colonel Kaddafi.

  • donald_24

    I don’t see how all those comments are problem matic. I agree with the one regarding cyber terror. If a foriegn govt. hacks into the power grid and shuts the power off and people die, is that not an act of war? What if they hack into the FAA computers and planes crash into each other? That is not an act of war?

  • Whacker77

    Newt is a fraud who will drag down the entire party. He would be a disaster worse than McCain because this race is winnable.

  • mrmises

    Gov. Perry doesn’t have foreign policy experience. Yes, he is the governor of Texas. Yes, it shares a border with Mexico. Yes, he has dealt with illegal immigration issues. Yes, this counts for more than Palin’s “Russia from my window” experience. Handling illegal immigration doesn’t mean much as far as foreign policy when the President has to handle relationships with all of the countries around the world.

    As far as his positions are concerned, he is a hawk. He holds a generally conservative view of international affairs, but he lacks the depth of knowledge that Romney, Gingrich, and Hunstman have. There is also a bit of doubletalk on Perry’s part. While he says we shouldn’t “fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism” he also argues “we must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home.”

  • rkcurtin

    and not ‘plastic’ from some mold that is what the ideal candidate should look or talk like for our superficial/plastic world.

    Abe Lincoln probably wouldn’t get the nomination today because of his appearance….but, I would love to have heard him debate!

  • donald_24

    Romny’s biggest opponent in NH is Huntsman. If Huntsman keeps rising in NH, then he will steal votes from Romney. Of course Huntsman will not win NH. But he can serve as a firewall to stop him.

  • Tbone

    Those were something akin to joint press conferences with gotcha type questions. Only shallow minded voters would make up their minds on a candidate’s qualifications to lead this Country based on what, 5 total minutes of answering nonsense questions.

  • donald_24

    Regardless of who the nominee is, my dream VP is Kris Kobach. You want someone tough on immigration with no amnesty skeletons in his closet? Kobach is your man!

  • Whacker77

    Let’s not buy into the Newt notion that any tough question is a gotcha question. Would you have rather them been asked what their favorites colors were? Perry stunk up the joint and won’t be the nominee. If he is, Obama and crew will chew him up.

  • acat

    Kobach does not help in the general election in any way.

    About the only recent parallel, where a GOP candidate picked someone with so short a resume is J. Danforth Quayle…. and to be blunt, the 1988 election was not nearly as close as the 2012 will be.

    Mew

  • donald_24

    of Huntsman. Why do you think he sent him to China? He did not get sent to China because hs is fluent in Mandrian.

  • donald_24

    As someone who is relatively new here, what is 5555? Is that some sort of new tax proposal?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Huntsman winning 10% would probably give you the outcome I hypothesized as detrimental to Mitt Romney.

  • acat

    would have happened eventually anyway…

    I don’t think Perry counted on Iowa and New Hampshire holding elections while most folk still have their Christmas trees up…

    Mew

  • Marcus_Traianus

    NT

  • wacowboy

    who is he?

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Now that would showcase our parties ideas and give the electorate a substantive glimpse of our candidates.

  • donald_24

    of nearly every anti immigration law in the country. He is one of the smartest legal scholars in America. He was formerly a high ranking official in the Bush DOJ and now he is Sec. of State of Kansas. He graduated from Oxford, Yale, and Harvard.

    http://blog.al.com/live/2011/10/kris_kobach_the_kansas_lawyer_1.html

  • tomatin

    He’ll probably have a handful of majority wins in a few states but will win pluralities in many more thanks to your moderate conservatives listening to Fox News and the LSM.

    Folks the fix is in for Romney because he won’t challenge the establishment Republicans. If it was up to Boehner and McConnell they would have sold us out by now dealing with Obama and the “grand bargain” which was just a scheme to raise taxes. Under Romney they will have the cover to raise taxes.

  • tomatin

    Because McCain picked Palin and face it we liked her much better than McCain, Romney will never pick someone who will upstage him.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    There is talent in the current crop of candidates. I personally believe it has not been adequately showcased. One also has to push aside some of the superfluous people on the stage, senseless prognostication on the alleged front-runner and sensationalized headlines to find it.

    The right candidate teamed with a strong VP and an iron-willed campaign focused on issues and ideas will persevere over the worst President in history.

  • texabama

    but what they really show is the vapidness of the average voter. We have a majority of voters who expect everything on their television to be entertainment…and most of it of the reality TV kind. Also they claim to be concerned about the economy and the debt, but nothing in the actual polling seems to indicate this. The quickest way to get the economy rebounding and produce jobs is to utilize our own abundant energy. Right now I only hear Perry saying this.

  • mrmises

    President Obama was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 4 years. He was also exposed to foreign relations issues to the extent that any other Senator would be.

    I don’t understand your point. Candidate Obama had limited foreign policy experience. Candidate Perry has less.

  • jgge

    the nominee. It would be either Perry or Gingrich.

  • texabama

    in all the wrong ways. He endorses candidates he shouldn’t. He provides “history lessons” to entities we’d prefer conservatives shun. He makes political ads with the other Speaker of the House least liked by the public and goes on “tour” with someone who by his speech patterns needs education every bit as much as the disadvantaged youth they claim to serve.

  • logicalpositivist

    I keep hearing this meme perpetrated here and by the Gingrich campaign that “Romney has never been above 25%”.

    This is pure propaganda and it is inaccurate. There are several polls that have had Romney between 26% and 30% in the last two months. In that sense, Romney is comparable to every other GOP front-runner who has had trouble getting to 35%. In 2007, it was also difficult for any candidate to get to 35% before the Iowa caucuses.

    The Rasmussen Reports poll on 10-12-11 had Romney at 29% and this result was consistent with an Associated Press poll taken at that time: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

    I realize that Romney will not get above 40% until some of the other candidates start dropping out and endorsing him. But do we really have to repeat the Gingrich spin that 75% of the Republican Party will eventually consolidate around a “not Romney” candidate? It’s just Gingrich-spin.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    [e.g., 5-star rating]

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    “5555″ means “I really, really, really agree.”

    There’s a whole history behind it, having to do with the ability to rate comments in an older incarnation. But you’ll find a lot of little things like that here. Things like “Kowalski” (posting another comment right underneath your own, because you forgot to mention something the first time), “Hinz Rule” (the decision to purposely ignore somebody, no matter how ignorant they happen to be) and more., I’m sure there’s a helpful RS dictionary around here somewhere…

  • logicalpositivist

    He’s got to go back to September and re-do a bunch of stuff.

    The media hit him hard. But no harder than the White House is currently hitting Romney in a desperate attempt to keep Romney from being the nominee.

    Perry is virtually unelectable at this time simply because of things that he said in the last 2 months. His record as Texas governor is pretty good. But he will not be president.

  • texabama

    because I actually want a candidate with a proven record of governance, a plan to use our domestic energy and a strong belief in smaller government.

  • donald_24

    nt

  • Tbone

    It would seem that is pretty much your intellectual depth. Obama couldn’t even beat mush mouth McCain in a debate. Perry would piss on Obama’s leg and tell him it’s raining.

  • bush_built

    Allowing for instate tuition rates to certain children of long term illegals that are on a pathway (whatever that is…not sure it exists) to citizenship if a far cru from ‘paying for tuition for illegal aliens’. Please do your research before you parrot crazy statements that are totally unfounded.

  • logicalpositivist

    And a healthy 10% lead at that. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary

    The poll was taken on 11-28-11 of over 700 likely voters. What’s more, Cain grabbed only 5% of the vote and Perry grabbed only 2%. Even if Gingrich somehow convinces all of the Cain/Perry voters in New Hampshire to vote for him, it still won’t be enough to catch Romney there.

    Romney has spent years campaigning in New Hampshire. As McCain showed us in 2000 and 2008, retail politics count there. New Hampshire voters won’t be swayed by the “stop the Mormon” tactics which were employed in Iowa in 2008 and again this year.

  • mrmises

    Every President since Eisenhower has argued the importance of domestic energy production for the American economy and national security. While Gov. Perry puts this at the center of his jobs proposal, most of the other candidates have a similar set of policy goals for opening exploration, reducing EPA regulations, and therefore creating jobs and stability. ( Even Jon Hunstman’s energy plan contains policy proposals that are almost identical to Gov. Perry’s.) The last 50 years suggest that energy reform is not silver bullet. (It is also loathed on the left so Democrats in Congress would make a strong effort to quash change.)

    Perry has a solid energy plan, but it is not unique among his rivals. He simply places more emphasis on it in his stump speech.

  • exitsfunnel

    But it didn’t seem like that to me. When he got in the race, it really felt like, of the available options, he was the guy. To be clear, I don’t particularly like him (or anyone else still in the field). I was a Pawlenty guy. So I think that I’m looking at this situation pretty objectively.

    -exits

  • logicalpositivist

    Quite to the contrary. Romney has been the subject of coordinated attacks by the White House and the DNC.

    Is that what incumbents do when they want the opposing party to select a specific candidate? Attack him?

    The fact that the White House is ignoring Gingrich throughout his campaign says a lot about how not scared of Gingrich it is. It was scared of Perry til Perry’s series of gaffes. Now, it only fears Romney.

  • acat

    but .. Perry’s got the best jacket of those who remain.

    Mew

  • logicalpositivist

    But Rubio or Jim DeMint would also work. As would Tom Coburn, Jon Cornyn, or Nikki Haley.

  • pj2012

    Why not mention that Perry was being highly considered by UL? I think that was newsworthy for Perry and his supporters. Don’t you?

    “In an interview on CNN, Union Leader editor page editor Andrew Cline said the paper narrowed down the candidates to a choice between Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Cline said the paper picked Gingrich because he had the political experience to enact much of his platform.” Read full article here… http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/27/n-h-union-leader-backs-gingrich/?iref=allsearch

    UL should have gone with Rick… I watched the c-span videos of all the candidates interviews and It was clear Rick was closely favored by UL… Newt not so much in the interview… however, they gave their reasoning for going with Newt. But I feel they made an error in their choice. Newt has too much baggage. The UL will still be favorable to Rick in their paper. Which is good for Rick Perry… not so much for Romney… if UL’s 08 attacks on Romney are repeated in 2012.

  • logicalpositivist

    He had the media behind him 100%. No Republican can count on that type of media support. Besides, in 2008, we learned that calling Obama “inexperienced” or “a rookie” was tantamount to declaring oneself a racist.

    No Republican, not even Herman Cain, can expect that type of support from the media.

    We need candidates who are virtually teflon in debates. The George W. Bush of 2000 could not survive in today’s environment. The spotlight is far brighter now and the attacks are far more coordinated.

    We need someone who is strong and non-stick during debates. Perry does not fit that description. Newt does. But Newt has a lot of personal and political baggage that I don’t like.

  • aesthete

    However, as the race stands today, I would say that the voters don’t see this talent (or at least, see the flaws as outweighing the talents).

  • NeoKong

    Get used to it stupid a(ss.
    Now go get your shine box.

  • carolynr

    Why he is not polling better…try that they have misquoted him or left him completely out of the competition. This is a blacklisted way of getting Perry out of the Race. Like he said…the politicians no more want to see me in DC than the devil wants to drink holy water.

  • logicalpositivist

    You say the same thing over and over again. You never find anything not to like about Perry and you explain away all of his gaffes as being “liberal lies”.

    How about you wake up to the fact that Perry is currently stuck in a tie for fourth-place with Ron Paul? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

    Admittedly, McCain overcame a similar deficit in 2008 but that was largely because he won New Hampshire and secured a huge endorsement from Charlie Crist, the RINO governor of Florida. Do you see Perry winning either Iowa or New Hampshire? Because I don’t.

  • tomatin

    Fox News and the LSM hit Perry hard but treat Romney with kit gloves.

    If this had been a normal election and Perry had months to define himself before the first debate it ould be quite different.

    Who had the bright idea to have all these debates anyway like the Dumbocrat party?

  • center77

    Romney has major problems with trust. Perry has the superior. Record. Polls mean nothing right now for the general election. Perry would have been the most electable but establishment types want to keep their power.

  • logicalpositivist

    How much money are we talking about?

  • Tbone

    He was actually a senator in session for 143 days, less than a first grader attends school. So haw many hearing did he Foreign Relations Committee meeting did he attend?

    Answer that.

    Candidate Perry, as Governor of Texas, bordered by Mexico, has far more experience than Obama had.

  • Bill S

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    :breathe:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Damn. That’s the best laugh I’ve had in weeks.

  • logicalpositivist

    If Newt were to win, it would decrease the chance of us re-taking the Senate from the Democrats. Many polls show that if Newt is the nominee, suddenly, states like Arizona are in play for Obama.

    States like Michigan and Florida become out of reach for the GOP. Some incumbent Republicans would lose re-election as Newt is forced to explain political flip-flops and personal indiscretions.

    I’d be willing to vote for either Romney or some other “not Gingrich” candidate.

  • tomatin

    They just know the fix is in for Romney too.

    Now when Romney comes out of a battering GOP nomination he will already be defined as damaged goods.

    Face it people like candidates with conviction and Romney has none. American people hate candidates that will say anything to win and that’s the guy we are about to nominate. All Dumbocrats have to do is pound the flip flopper message over and over again to win against Romney.

    The most idiodic thing is Obama’s biggest weakness is working class voters and we are going to nominate a Wall Street elitist. Romney simply plays poorly to every Dumbocrat weakness.

  • center77

    If they are making it look like their afraid of Romney it means their not. They would not be attacking him if they did not want to face him. His countless. Flip flops are on tape. They only help him by looking afraid.

  • logicalpositivist

    I’ll vote for any Republican against Barack Obama. My first choice is Jon Huntsman. But I’ll take Romney, Perry, or even three-timing Gingrich if it keeps Obama from getting re-elected.

  • circlegranch

    and Perry and Sheriff Joe just completed a radio interview w/ Hannity. Bachmann is on w/ Wolf the “Blitz” and actually did a little Romney/Gingrich bashing. Nothing hurtful, mind you, but she at least acknowledged both are inconsistent, to be kind.

  • logicalpositivist

    Huntsman is campaigning in a Tea Party environment that sees him as unqualified to be the next “not Romney” candidate.

    Why is that? I don’t know. It could be the fact that Huntsman, like Romney, is Mormon.

    As governor of Utah, Huntsman maintained a fairly conservative record on taxes, education, abortion, and many other issues.

    I don’t know why the anti-Romney GOP voters haven’t given Huntsman a serious look yet.

  • center77

    And has more experience than any of the candidates. Just because Perry seem to not understand he has the record does not mean he doesn’t.

  • tomatin

    Huntsman and Gingrich have the most on the GOP side by far.

  • logicalpositivist

    Which is probably why Obama cut Huntsman off at the knees by inviting him to be Ambassador to China. But Huntsman, like a champ, took the bait.

    Now, he can’t get a head of steam together to save his life.

  • logicalpositivist

    endorsed Romney. Either because he saw Romney as most likely to get the nomination or because he saw Romney as being sufficiently conservative. Perhaps both.

  • center77

    And its a different time period. Perry can point to his record and say look it works. Bush was east coast Harvard which is more Romney than anything.

  • logicalpositivist

    But there’s a chance that no one would get the joke.

  • logicalpositivist

    And a “10″ for good measure.

  • snowshooze

    So a chunk of them would be headed over to the establishment camp. Or the trout camp..
    But there would be half of them that would reject Romney…

  • maribeth

    He/she has a scathing wit and very often some killer logic. Just a friendly warning.
    ______________________________________________________________
    Formerly known as “changeforrickperry”

  • logicalpositivist

    As it is, Newt is down by 10% and even if all of the Cainiacs and Perry-sites switch to Newt, it would not be enough. Newt needs more than just the UL endorsement. He needs a big endorsement, like from Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or someone like that.

  • tomatin

    Say what you will about Newt but he’s a political mastermind when it comes to governing. We all know he was the reason the budget was balanced because he ended one tier of the Welfare State. Newt will simply be the most effective at getting conservative legislation passed.

    Perry could pass conservative legislation too but he needs a much stronger leader than Boehner in congress.

    I don’t think Romney knows what conservative legislation is.

    What is Romney’s plan for the economy and other things anyway. He’s so concerned with winning that he hasn’t even come up with plans even though he’s been running for 6 years.

  • logicalpositivist

    Perry was asked a fair question about how to help the U.S. avoid the economic collapse encircling Italy and Greece.

    Perry quickly moved to his talking points on government reduction. Then forgot those talking points and stumbled. He can’t blame anyone but himself for that.

  • Michael_Handley

    Out here on the left coast, most conservatives want to see Newt in a knock down drag out with Obama. He will shine and show Obama as the light weight that he is. The media can’t spin it far enough to save him.

  • pj2012

    It’s clear they will attack anyone not Newt… so the heck with UL…

    Albeit, some of what they say in this new editorial about Rick is true, it still feels a bit brutal… see for yourself…
    http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111129/LOCALVOICES03/111129910

  • maribeth

    “The moves make Joe Allbaugh campaign manager, Tony Fabrizio the main strategist and move Dave Carney to focusing on New Hampshire, the sources said.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69306.html#ixzz1f8N5ClDx

    (Don’t mind quoting from Politico this time since it’s nothing but cold hard facts, no spin whatsoever :) )
    ______________________________________________________________
    Formerly known as “changeforrickperry”

  • tomatin

    Obama is toast this election and cannot win if we choose a conservative.

    In fact the only way he can win is if we pick a candidate like Romney that cannot offer a clear contrast.

    This is not a year we need to settle over the lame electability argument. The only reason Romney looks better in national polls against Obama is because he’s been running for 6 years.

    It’s time to reset and reconsider the more conservative candidates.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    How much of that he actively served and what he did on those committees (most of which I believe was as a “Europe specialist” and a few trips to Africa) is more relevant.

    Texas has over 2,000 foreign corporations operating within its borders. Perry has constantly dealt with foreign governments such as Mexico, et al as governor.

    In my mind, that is the type of preparatory work for contemporary Presidential foreign policy situations I am interested in.

    Furthermore, your statement on Perry’s energy policy and experience is laughable. GoodLord, nobody on that podium has more hands-on experience than him on that issue.

  • acat

    Perry is in the same position McCain was in last time around. So that’s something positive.

    The rest, though, is just typical talking-points-based garbage. I’d challenge logicalpositivist to show me where I’ve ever said “liberal lies”, but it’d be a waste of breath.

    Instead, I’m going to go turn the pie pumpkin that I used as a halloween decoration into pie. If it turns out well, I’ll post the recipe the next time logicalpositivist says something remarkably stupid.

    Mew

  • tomatin

    but if Romney is the nominee he better hope the weather isn’t bad in GA election day.

  • acat

    Perry seriously tried to shift blame off himself.

    No, the Letterman bit doesn’t count.

    Mew

  • determinedconservative

    I just hope we can unite behind a single “Not Romney”. If Cain gets out of the race soon, that will help.

  • tomatin

    I absolutely understand why a principled conservative could not vote for Romney. It has nothing to do with Obama. I for one think you need someone or something to vote for before casting your vote.

  • Scope

    Our greatest upcoming conservatives want Obama to win in 2012, so they can run in 2016? WOW

  • tomatin

    Partly because they are behind it. For all the talk of electability even Dumbocrats know Romney is the easiest candidate to attack because he has taken both positions on about everything. They even know that the American people are conservative. Why do you see Obama adopting so many Bush policies and even tax cut policies.

  • streiff

    the governors of any southern border state, FL, and CA have more foreign policy experience than Obama who was AWOL for his entire tenure.

    To refresh your memory, his subcommittee oversaw Afghanistan. Number of hearings: 0.

  • acat

    Let alone V.P.

    I could see a good place for him in the Justice Department, but .. your suggestion is more than a little premature, and turns on an issue that will not be nearly as important in the general as it is in the primary.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    that shoe fits you. I was just making a general statement and you just self identified with it. Interesting.

    BTW spelling “ass” “a(ss” is kind of childish.

    However, telling a person of color like myself to “go get your shine box” is pretty racist, isn’t it? Why don’t you just call me a nigger, like you really want to? Gee man, buck up and show a little honesty.

  • http://chuckdevore.com chuckdevore

    n/t

  • Scope

    Geez, I remember you being one that knocked everyone here saying anything against Cain, including calling out the frontpagers and EE because they weren’t on his page a while ago. How does crow taste?

  • septembergurl

    After they make the endorsement they editorialize against the endorsee’s opponents pretty much on a daily basis. In 2008 they beat up Romney pretty much every day after they endorsed McCain.

  • NeoKong

    Did I spell it just right for you….?
    You pick a fight, whine like a little girl and then you pull the race card and try to put words in my mouth.

    Why don’t you go paint your toenails and brush up on some contemporary pop culture ?

  • tomatin

    What conservative would tie his name to Romney?

  • acat

    Pawlenty had bills to pay, and Romney offered to pay them.

    There were also rumors during the Ames straw poll saying Romney had purchased a block of ballots on behalf of Bachmann, with the intent of forcing Pawlenty out.

    Mew

  • Scope

    and continue a run for the WH if he doesn’t get the R nod, the most likely scenario would be for him to run on a Democrat leaning party ticket. Maybe the Green Party?

  • tomatin

    The last thing they want is a authentic conservative running.

  • tomatin

    But the hatched job in the LSM will do him in.

  • Scope

    by S&P. This comes shortly after Obama tells the Europeans that the US will be there to prop them up whatever it takes, in order for the Euro to not fail.

  • tomatin

    Romney will destroy conservatism. If he wins he’ll be the face of the GOP and it will be that of a two-faced pol who only cares about polls and is a weak leader. He will lead in every way like a Dumbocrat. Being a conservative is not just about issues, it’s about character and sticking with your convictions even when they are not popular sometimes. Worse we are on the brink of fully overturning the Welfare State. Romney will never ever do that because it’s not politically popular YET. His whole term in office will concentrate not on passing a conservative agenda but getting elected the next time.

  • Tbone

    site profanity rules, but that is pretty funny.

    I see you have some homophobic issues that you are working out.

    I’ll have you know that I don’t paint my toenails I just “shine” them up.

    If you can learn to confront your own inadequacies, perhaps you seem so angry, at least superficially.

  • tomatin

    I’m not saying it’s 1994 anymore but Gingrich is a strong conservative leader. I know he’s been out to pasture for a while but when those political instincts kick in watch out.

    You could already see him up his game in the last debate when he got momentum before that. I expect him to be stronger and stronger in debates and Perry will be stronger too but the ceiling is higher with Newt.

    Frankly I want a Gingrich/Perry ticket and who’s on top is less important.

  • tomatin

    It’s his back yard and it’s tough for candidates from te south up there. But if it’s not a blowout, it’s a huge lose for Romney.

  • Scope

    Perry doesn’t need the work. So true. Speaking of work, my husband is also a machinist, from way back, and can do so much more than CNC button pushing. Those people who can run mills and lathes are truly a dying breed. His company, knock on wood, is very busy.

    Perry’s early money, $17 million, will go a long way into the primary season. I have to believe those in the energy industry, other than the greenies, will stay with him all the way. The big bundler’s haven’t gone with Mitt, and even less so to Newt. Perry can regain their confidence.

  • NeoKong

    Was Listerine already taken….?

    I jumped on streiff because he was acting like a little kid with his childish ranting and gloating against Herman Cain.
    He was implying that he was some sort of predator or criminal.
    His personal attacks were unprofessional and uncalled for in the context of this site and I called him on it.
    I would hardly call that “everyone”.

    If you got a beef with any candidate then say your peace.
    There was no need for his name calling.
    Herman Cain may not make the cut but he is a good guy and has always tried his best to help the team.

    Since you seem to be such a fan of my writings maybe you would like to dig up some quotes where I said that if Cain falls then he falls and I would get behind someone else.
    I also said before that I was less than impressed with the way he was handling his first crisis and also said he should fire Mark Block as weak staff reflects on the candidate.

    I don’t put politicians on pedestals scope.
    If I don’t like someone I will tell you why but I will try to keep it to the facts.
    I have supported and defended Cain but if he can’t cut the mustard then I will say so.

    Also I don’t come here to get into little snark fights with certain commenters but if that is where things go then I say giddy up.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Will you vote for him then?

    I’m taking your comment to mean you won’t vote for Romney in the PRIMARIES under any circumstance – with which I agree.

    However, in the event that he winds up winning the nomination (at this point, it’s still not possible to say he won’t), what then?

    “Setting Conservatism back” is one thing, but Willingly allowing Obama to destroy our country over such a silly notion as a political “brand” isn’t principal; it is stupidity and it is treachery.

    Just saying, you should clarify your remarks, lest people like logicalpositivist misunderstand your intentions.

  • pj2012

    They liked Perry enough to narrow it to him and Newt… but now they will brutalize him because Newt won out… that’s being hypocritical. Their choice was hypocritical… Newt is not that conservative, and his poll numbers will drop once conservatives take (another) closer look.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The harder you work to try to eliminate it, the stronger it gets.

  • Whacker77

    Rick Perry couldn’t answer a simple question on what agencies he would like to eliminate. Considering he mentions them everyday in his stump speech, he really screwed up.

  • acat

    An A-, a victory that’s less than total is as good as losing for Romney.

    Hypothetical:
    40% Romney
    10% Perry
    10% Huntsman
    10% Gingrich
    7% Paul
    5% Cain
    5% Bachmann
    5% McCotter
    5% Roemer
    3% Mickey Mouse

    This hypothetical leaves Romney very damaged going into South Carolina/Florida, i.e. unfavorable ground.

    Mew

  • Whacker77

    Please find me a conservative in this race who is not totally compromised. Some people act as if all we need to do is nominate someone with a pulse and we’ll win. It doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you hate Obama.

    Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Paul, Santourm, and Newt are goofballs, dingbats, and frauds. None of them can win. I’m not saying Mitt or Huntsman can win either, but the notion we need only find a conservative is not realistic. We must find a real candidate and we have none.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    nt.

  • Scope

    with a new name. Good to see it. acat likes to describe himself as of the Tom variety, I think he said that at some point.

    logicalpositivist wandered into landmine territory, but hasn’t stepped on the landmine yet. He will, have faith.

  • Scope

    They wait until they have the clear shot at the kill, so to speak.

  • streiff

    and move on.

  • Scope

    He pushed him hard on the immigration issue. Romney said that the illegals should have to go to the back of the line to be granted citizenship. Baier asked him if the illegals should be deported, and Romney refused to say that they should. Carl Cameron comes on later talking about the Romney interview, and erroneously states that Romney wants the illegals “expelled” from the country. It is amazing how far some will go to destroy their careers to stick up for Romney. Then again, it was Carl Cameron who shortly after the 08 election knocked Palin, and preferred to use the McCain campaign team statements as gospel. This little no eyes creep is so dishonest, and so willing to toe the line for McCain, and now Romney, he stinks of moderateisim.

  • 1bunny

    at www.rickperry.org he and sherriff Joe having a NH Q&A

  • lucasblack

    Yep, they are all in for Newt and I think they wanted to respond to those who were trying to turn their comment that Rick Perry had been the #2 into more than it was. I doubt they’ll waste any more time slamming Perry because his polling in the state is in the basement; that was just to set the record straight.
    Now if they had that to say about Perry, you can just imagine what they will be saying about Romney…

  • Scope

    as he has been know to do when he only has eyes for Romney. The show is a must watch.

  • donald_24

    So if Kobach is unqualified to be VP, Herman Cain is qualified because….?

  • omegamale

    I don’t care what the polls say, Gingrich is not going to be the GOP nominee.

    You’re going to see sharpened knives come out from every corner over the next few weeks. There’s far too much ammunition to use against him, both ideologically (global warming, Freddie Mac, individual mandate, amnesty, etc) to his incredibly messy personal life. And EVERY candidate is going to be coming at him, and he’ll be fighting with a non-existent campaign staff/structure that has no money (and is actually in about a million dollars in debt).

    This whole “Not Romney” conundrum is easy, GOP voters wanted a VIABLE alternative to Romney, but no one ever showed up. Perry would have easily won this thing, but he’s fumbled the ball about 18 times too many, and is at the back of the pack with Bachmann and Ron Paul.

  • federalfarmer1

    To me, that is absurd. But if you are losing to bachman anywhere at this point, you are toast. Republicans outside tje south do not wajt anotjer texas evangelical cowboy. look at perrys likability ratings. Its terrible. If even repunlicans dont like him, he jas no chance against obama.

  • bzip

    Thanks so much for letting me know. I caught the last 15 minutes of the town hall meeting – Perry was great during that time.

    Too bad I learned about it late but I enjoyed what I saw. Thanks.

  • texanlady

    Ron Paul is going to finish way ahead of Perry in Iowa and New Hampshire. Right now he is polling better than Perry in SC. Perry made another mistake today. Newt is the only viable one.

  • Scope

    Just as your comments were vile, nasty, and disparaging to those that jumped off the Cain train long ago, if they ever boarded that train, you prove to be equally as vile and nasty to those that now call you out on your prior Cain botness.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    nt

  • tricianc

    Dear Mr. Vander Plaats:

    We are aware that you are preparing to endorse a candidate for President of the United States in the coming weeks. This will undoubtedly be an important decision considering you have the ear of many Christians throughout our state of Iowa. Our group believes that we must select leaders who not only espouse our values, but who live them each and every day.

    With that being said, we have serious concerns that your endorsement may be guided, not by prayer and conviction, but by personal benefit and prior relationships. Of which, would seem to lead you toward Newt Gingrich and, needless to say, he is not an acceptable choice among Christians.

    These concerns of an imminent Newt Gingrich endorsement stem from the following:

    1. Your prior connection to Mr. Gingrich via Congressman Jim Nussle.

    2. Your ill-advised track record as it pertains to supporting candidates that lack common moral fiber.

    3. Your acceptance of $200,000 which Mr. Gingrich secured for your organizations.

    YOU AND MR. GINGRICH SHARE A MUTUAL FRIEND IN JIM NUSSLE

    In 2006, Mr. Nussle ran for Governor and asked that you serve as his running mate; an offer your willfully accepted.

    In the nineties, Mr. Nussle?s current wife was working for Mr. Gingrich; while Mr. Gingrich?s current wife was working for a committee which Mr. Nussle served on in the House of Representatives.

    Furthermore, both men were married when they began affairs with each other?s staff members ? all while Mr. Gingrich was leading the investigation into Bill Clinton?s extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. This is an unfortunate irony.

    More importantly, it points to a willful disregard of personal behavior and you are forever linked to both of these candidates in a way that is unacceptable for many of us who demand Christian leadership.

    Which brings us to our next concern.

    YOU CAMPAIGNED FOR MR. NUSSLE

    As previously mentioned, you joined Mr. Nussle?s gubernatorial ticket in 2006.

    During that cycle, you travelled to every corner of Iowa trumpeting Mr. Nussle?s character and his ability to represent the values of Iowans. You did this all the while you knew he betrayed the bond he made to God upon proclaiming his vows to his first wife.

    We do not blame you for Mr. Nussle?s indiscretion; however, we do worry that if you went as far as to vigorously campaign for and place your name beside his on the ballot that an endorsement of Mr. Gingrich would not be out of the realm of possibility.

    With that said, we fully recognize that you do deserve some credit. Iowa voting records have since shown that you did not vote for Mr. Nussle or in the 2006 election ? an indication that even you did not truly believe his values were adequate for higher office.

    YOU RECEIVED $200,000 FROM MR. GINGRICH?S EFFORTS

    In 2010, Mr. Gingrich helped you secure $200,000 in seed money for one of your efforts.

    This is a great deal of money, but we trust that this will not have an impact on your decision as an endorsement which will represent our Christian values.

    We do believe hope still resides that you may reconsider your endorsement. You lead an organization that encompasses an affiliate group called ?Marriage Matters? and not only did Mr. Gingrich fail to sign your Marriage Vow, he failed to live his life in accordance with the values we hold so dear.

    It is by now public knowledge that Mr. Gingrich has been unfaithful to two of his previous spouses, even delivering divorce papers to one as she lay in the hospital from a condition surrounding her cancer. We pray that marriage truly does matter as much as you represent, and not as little as it has meant to the candidates you have supported in the past.

    Mr. Vander Plaats, all of our concerns derive from a larger one that your endorsement may be for sale, either for money or for status. Please don?t sell Iowa?s values to the highest bidder. These 30 pieces of silver are simply not worth the weight your conscience will bear as you consider misleading thousands of Christian voters in Iowa into believe Mr. Gingrich represents their values.

    If you take nothing else from our letter please remember that ?whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live? (Proverbs 15:27).

    May your decision be guided by the Lord.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69334.html#ixzz1f8taNZOQ

  • izoneguy

    You know Romney won’t go there – that is why he is McCain the 2nd.

    Newt thinks he is too smart to have to actually show people why Obama was a liar.


    BUSTED: AYERS ADMITS TO OBAMA FUNDRAISER THAT OBAMA CAMPAIGN CALLED ?MYTH?


    Exclusive: Obama in 2006: I ?stole? book title ?Audacity of Hope? from Rev. Wright, ?my pastor? [VIDEO

  • donald_24

    Today Mitt Romney lied to Bret Baier when he said that George W. Bush was once pro-choice before becoming pro-life. That is not true. Romeny is a flip flopping LIAR.

  • Common_Cents

    I recall you rudely asking what I was smoking when I predicted Gingrich would get the Newt Hampshire Union Leader endorsement.

    But go ahead and cast that stone if you wish.

  • streiff

    keep on with your revisionist history. It wasn’t me defending a moronic economic plan and a serial sexual predator. I ignored your flaming sycophancy because it was embarrassing to watch.

  • bzip

    Thanks much for the information.

    This is a really good letter that hits Newt right where he should be and why he should never even be considered for the endorsement.

    I don’t see Newt getting this endorsement, if he does then this groups creditability is done for – I am sure they know this.

  • mrmises

    As honorable as Gov. Perry’s service in the military is, it is not a meaningful foreign policy credential. His service demonstrates love of country and the ability to follow orders, but those skills do not directly bear on the capacity to define and carry out our country’s role in the world.

  • Christian_Reppie

    I will not vote for Romney under ANY circumstances,,

    He is runnung as a conservative, which he is not, and he is no different than Obama and that is what I meant when I said he will set Conservatism back. People will judge conservatism by what Romney does.

    .I am not having any part of that.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    ?Setting Conservatism back? is one thing, but Willingly allowing Obama to destroy our country over such a silly notion as a political ?brand? isn?t principal; it is stupidity and it is treachery.

  • Common_Cents

    Anything come about the interviews w/ EE?

  • bzip

    My opinion:

    Romney:
    After seeing Romney’s interview today on Fox and seeing how Romney can not gain support (if fact seem to be slowly losing it) I don’t see Romney being a major force in this race in a few months.

    Cain:
    I don’t see Cain coming back and in fact I am sure he is done for.

    Newt:
    Assuming the conservative base can get their heads back on again and realize Newt is the most liberal and assuming Newt gets the full force of vetting – I don’t think Newt is going to be te nominee. In fact I think a very good case could be made that Newt would be one of the worst to go against Obama because Newt supported so much of what Obama does (mandate, global warming, etc).

    I think the race will come down to:
    Perry as the strongest. If Santorum and Bachmann actually hang on beyond Iowa then they might be the competition to Perry.

    That si where I think it is going. My 2 cents worth

  • streiff

    of the people in the GOP race, two have measurable foreign policy credentials: Perry and Huntsman.

  • Scope

    Who would have known that the UL has such an animosity against Romney. The interesting thing with the UL endorsement is the fact that they put it out there with caveats. They acknowledge that Gingrich has many bags of baggage to overcome if he is to be the nominee. Love when anyone endorses someone, but also brings up their negatives at the same time. Have they done that in the past? Have they endorsed in the past with acknowledgment that someone they have endorsed has some hills to climb to get the nomination? Yup, Gingrich got their endorsement, but they don’t seem to be really committed to that endorsement. Huh, Perry was their second choice. That is very funny, as the two are worlds apart.

    So what does that have to do with my comment about NeoCongs prior warrior attitude for Cain, while knoocking everyone at RS that wasn’t on the Cain bandwagon. Not many don’t know that NeoKong’s support of Cain was over the top.

  • ghostship

    I remember polls showing how Obama would lose to a generic republican.

    The sad thing is if a poll of republican voters were to choose between any of the republican presidential primary candidates or a generic republican I think the generic republican could possibly win. That’s not a good omen for the future.

    How does one expect the Republican Party to win the general with a candidate that even the rank and file of the Party can’t get excited about?

  • Common_Cents

    When Brett pressed Romney to clarify he would not say he’d deport anyone. Only that they’d go to the back of the line. But stay in country.. big whoop.

    Romney can not attack Perry or Gingrich as his plan is probably similar in not mass deportation.

    The editing of the interview and takeaway was disingenuous by Campaign Carl and Fox.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    He seems to have the inside scoop, and would appear to have written off every other major candidate. So I’m just asking him to say who, if not Newt or Perry, IS going to be the nominee.

  • Common_Cents

    anonymous letters aren’t going to cut it and could backfire easily.

    “Steve Scheffler, another prominent Iowa social conservative who heads the Iowa Faith & Freedom organization, blasted the letter?s authors.

    ?Anybody who doesn?t have the guts and manhood to say ?This is who I am? ought to be discounted,? he said. ?It?s despicable. … Have the manhood or womanhood to put your name to it. It?s just gutless, whoever did that.?

    Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa Republican Party, said the group?s membership is a mystery, but that some prominent social conservatives have reservations about Gingrich and have lobbied Vander Plaats against endorsing him.

    But Robinson agreed that Vander Plaats is not someone likely to be swayed by an anonymous letter.

    ?I don?t think he?s going to respond to bullying at all,? Robinson said of Vander Plaats.”

    However, Gingrich has not signed the marriage pledge and would probably have to, to get the endorsement.

  • Scope

    which is exactly why he has refused to do interviews with Fox and any other TV hosts. Every time the guy speaks he is on another page with his views. He has had so many different positions he can’t keep them all straight. This interview should put another nail in the Romney candidacy. Baier finally didn’t take any prisoners.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    manager

  • snowshooze

    They should save their best stuff for after the nomination… then let it rip.
    You wouldn’t want to blast a perfectly good sitting duck and have to roll the dice.. you might wind up with a real chore.
    I think swapping out Romney for Newt would be a mistake for them. Romney is a good talker when the fair winds blow… but I watched him in debate, and if you put him under pressure, he stammers and fumbles. Pieca cake.
    Newt is a lot faster on his feet.

  • greyeagle

    Newt has no executive experience running anything, except the House. That certainly does NOT translate to running the country. Thank about it.

  • snowshooze

    He’s been every other color.

  • greyeagle

    Actually none of the GOP candidates have any foreign policy credentials. Perry actually comes closer. He has had trade with numerous countries serving as the Agriculture Commissioner forward, which covers a lot of years. In regards to your other comments, Bush and Perry are actually nothing alike. You are actually using Democratic talking points.

  • NeoKong

    Did you say something….?

  • tricianc

    That’s what matters and if Newt gets the endorsement after buying it and with the cronyism then the credibility is shot. Plain and simple.

    Not to mention his infidelity. Newt went to visit the Pope while he had his wife sharing his hotel room and his mistress in another. He cheated with Callista for 6 years on his 2nd wife. Then he had the audacity to get the Catholic diocese to annul his marriage to his 2nd wife on the grounds that she had been married before him Uh duh, Newt…it was your 2nd marriage too. And YOU were the one who cheated on both of your wives.

  • greyeagle

    Wow! You are really anti-Perry. Correction: None of the other GOP candidates have an exact plan to Perry’s. Go back and look at them. Perry’s is instant and aggressive. He knows what he is doing MUCH better than the other candidates, after all TX is a huge energy state.

  • greyeagle

    Joe Allbaugh is one tough guy. So is Tony Fabrizio. It will be interesting.

  • greyeagle

    He had three bad ones, but the three recent ones have been good to excellent. His speeches have all been excellent. He is running under the radar, which is his usual MOP. However, he can NOT get a fair deal from the media including FOX. I have been especially disappointed in FOX. They have been in the tank for Romney.

  • changeforrickperry

    You mean Baier gave Romney a hard time? I’ll bet that was a sight to see.

    (fyi, I’m still working on getting a satisfactory alternative name. Please don’t be too surprised to see me as “change” for now ;) )

  • Scope

    is the one that told the CNN host that asked who came in second in their board decision, and he said Perry. Now he is doing the obligatory walk-back from that admission. Here he is now bashing Perry. This only makes Larry Sabato’s statements from yesterday all the more valid. He said that no newspaper is more brutal and slamming than the UL, if you are not their chosen candidate. Sabato predicted that everyone other than Gingrich will be brutalized by the UL more than any other newspaper. He was correct. Cline didn’t have to name any second choice when asked at all, yet he offered up Perry. I guess he has been taken to the woodshed for his admission, and is responding accordingly.

  • Scope

    why did he admit that he was the second choice. After all, there are plenty of other candidates that the UL could have chosen as their second choice. It’s not exactly as though the UL has been correct on choosing the candidate for the GOP anyway. Not by a long shot.

  • nathanalbright

    ….you can say 999 to agree :B.

  • nathanalbright

    That’s what I see too. We’ll see what happens when the two primaries go head-to-head.

  • nathanalbright

    Not me–Newt may have said that, Romney may have said that, but a lot of us here didn’t believe it. At this point Cain isn’t even qualified to serve as my wingman when I’m going out to the bar, or even as my pizza guy. I’ll stick with Papa John’s, thanks :B.

  • ajdx3

    when he supports Obamacare’s central tenant: the individual mandate?

  • acat

    And Papa John’s is good stuff. Of course, one of the advantages of being in the shadow of Chicago is I can walk into any neighborhood pizza place and be assured of a decent slice….

    Mew

  • nathanalbright

    …so I’m with you there. At least the pizza is good in your city :B.

  • avagreen

    ^^

  • donald_24

    My favorite was, when during the last debate, Romney lied in his introduction when he said “I’m Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that’s also my first name.” No, his first name is Willard. Another lie.

    If Romney can’t even tell the truth about his first name, how can anyone trust him?

    Another thing I disliked about Romney’s interview with Bret Baier was that he was very quick to plug his book when Baier started to ask questions about flip flopping. Was that an interview or a book tour?

  • omegamale

    I don’t have an “inside scoop”, just common sense. Romney is the smart bet to win the nomination, regardless of how you feel about him. It’s not a lock, but I’d say it’s 80% likely.

    Gingrich simply has too many fatal flaws, and it’s come down to a two man race, there isn’t enough time for another “rise and fall” of another candidate. If a stronger candidate (like say Pawlenty had stayed in) were pulling these numbers, I would say Romney would eventually lose. Gingrich though was an asterisk a few weeks ago, usually a quick rise means a quick fall. He has no real campaign structure or fund raising, it’s just him showing up at debates.

    Also, the “dirt” on Gingrich is astounding, the GOP has NEVER nominated someone with so many scandals:

    http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

    According to IntraTrade, the people that are actually putting their money where their mouth is, are overwhelmingly betting on Romney.

  • donald_24

    Polls like that are completely useless since there is no such thing as a generic Republican. I never get why they ask that in polls.

  • Tbone

    fury than a lover scorned.

  • donald_24

    Right now Romeny is at 55% on IntraTrade. Surprisingly, Intrtrade has the chances of SCOTUS repealing ObamaCare at only 38%. I thought it would be higher than that…

  • heraklios

    I will tell you this: we’re Romney to win the GOP nomination (which I don’t think he will), there is no chance he is elected President. 10-15% of the GOP/conservative vote will split off and either vote third-party or sit out 2012 if Romney is the candidate. BANK ON IT!

  • donald_24

    Another reason why I think Romney will be the nominee is because that is where Wall St. is putting all their money. Wall St. is not stupid. They are not going to invest their money behind a canddiate who will not get the nomination. If you look at the money going into the camapaigns, most of Romney’s donors are giving the legal maximum, while the others are getting smaller amounts.

  • heraklios

    If they are voting Romney, then just assume most southerners, midwesterners and mountain westerners will be voting for someone else. America is tired of Wall Street and all the crooked insider trading/Hank Paulson inside info crap. Romney represents all that to a T

  • mrmises

    Jon Hunstman was our ambassador to China. How does that not qualify as foreign policy experience? He was engaged with diplomacy at the highest level and offers a coherent vision of this nation’s role in the world.

  • donald_24

    For all intensive purposes, Romney is Mr. Wall St. While Romney can say he never actually worked on the physical Wall Street in downtown Manhattan, the fact is that he formed partnerships with several major Wall St. players while at Bain, such as Goldman Sachs.

  • heraklios

    laud him in more recent posts? What’s going on? He is a scumbag pure and simple, no ambiguity there.

  • gherkin

    At this point, Newt would be my next choice. If I had my druthers I’d want Perry, but his numbers are dismal, and he has not presented himself well at all in debates (to put it nicely). That said, Newt simply dominates the stage everytime he shows up. I for one would love to have a nominee who can wipe the floor with both Obama and the nitwits in the media.

    Also on the topic at hand, I think you only have to go back to Newt and Herman’s “Lincoln-Douglas” debate, where they spent the lion’s share of their time agreeing with one another. I don’t they (or their supporters) are as far apart as some seem to believe.

  • donald_24

    Yes, your right. I should have said WAS afraid. In 2008 and 2009, Huntsman was on Obama’s radar and he had to stop him from being the 2012 GOP nominee at all costs.

  • heraklios

    until he gets to 10% in the polls, no one will pay attention to him

  • avagreen

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/index.html#/v/1301527875001/romney-laying-groundwork-in-florida/?playlist_id=86927

    When confronted by Baier by his flip-flopping on stance on illegals, he just said it wasn’t true. Baier pushed again with the same question. Romney dodged and weaved again, saying it wasn’t true. In fact, his answer about what to do with the 11+M illegals “already here” was rambling, with no answer given……just like in the debate.

    When confronted on his saying that his plan for for health care would be good for a national program, Romney said he’d never said that. When Baier again said there were tapes where Romney had said it would, he said it just wasn’t true.

    It did get testy.

    A lot of superlatives and talking points when asked what 2016 would look like under a President Romney. Nothing of substance of HOW to make it happen.

  • heraklios

    has really hurt him. Were it not for that, he would be in the top tier. No one trusts him now

  • heraklios

    .

  • donald_24

    Romney in a speech in Baltimore in Feb. 2007:

    “?I?m proud of what we?ve done… If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.??

    Romney wrote in the hardcover edition of No Apologies:

    “From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford?.We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country?.?

    Meet the Press, 2007:

    TIM RUSSERT, FORMER HOST, “MEET THE PRESS”: Why if it’s good for Massachusetts and it’s working in Massachusetts, would you apply it to the rest of the country?

    ROMNEY: I would.

  • Xasteius

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69355.html

  • donald_24

    On top of this, the MIT economist who wrote both ObamaCare and RomneyCare recently came out and said that both are the same f***ing bill. No really, that is what he said.

  • avagreen

    …like here. *snicker*

    Well, Jonathan Gruber would know, wouldn?t he? After all, he advised both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on health-care reform. In an interview yesterday with Capital New York, Gruber vented his frustration with Romney, claiming that he?s lying about the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare:

    He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney?s attempt to distinguish between Obama?s bill and his own is disingenuous.

    ?The problem is there is no way to say that,? Gruber said. ?Because they?re the same [expletive] bill. He just can?t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it?s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he?s just lying. The only big difference is he didn?t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.?….

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/17/romneycare-architect-of-course-its-the-same-as-obamacare/

  • mrmises

    It seems shortsighted to dismiss Huntsman without a thorough vetting. Each candidate, after rising to the (near) top, has been summarily dismissed. This includes Rep. Bachmann, Mr. Cain, Gov. Perry, and the footnote (Santorum). Rep. Paul’s followers will not abandon him. Mr. Gingrich’s ascendancy will probably follow the same path. (Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.) Newt is basically Mitt Romney with more personal baggage, clever rhetorical devices, and occasional historical references.

    Mitt Romney is the “inevitable” R, and potentially destructive to the conservative cause. Mr. Hunstman’s credentials are unimpeachable, and it remains to be seen where Cain’s flock will flee to after he inevitably and (dis)honorably withdraws from his ongoing book tour.

  • avagreen

    Not that Gruber is much happier with Newt Gingrich, either. He claims that Gingrich backed the same kind of system in the past, as did the Heritage Foundation, only to abandon it for political reasons: …

  • clowngirl

    It’s possibly they are just (foolishly) assuming he’ll be the nominee

    In answer to the question below:

    “Is that what incumbents do when they want the opposing party to select a specific candidate? Attack him?”

    well….yeah. I think it could be.. Singling out any one candidate to directly engage with is mostly a compliment. But I’m not assuming that’s their motive. It’s also quite possible they are mainly engaging with Romney because he’s been trying to engage Obama — running ads attacking his which his administration has called misleading,etc. .

    LP, do you really see them as going for the jugular right now? Trying to take Romney out? AFAIK, all they’ve done is complain about an ad he ran and repeatedly called him a flip flopper — which is hardly news. I’ve seen tougher attacks on Romney lately from Republicans.

    Do I think Romney would be their ideal nominee and their idea of THE most beatable Republican? No, read something the other day that said the largest number of Democrats would like Cain to be the nominee. I think they’d consider him and most of the field easier to beat than Romney (in some cases IMO they’d be wrong) Do I think they’d prefer to face Romney or Gingrich? hmmm.. Now THAT is an interesting question.

    Another question is: Does it matter who the Democrats think would be easier to beat? When Barney Frank says Newt would be an dream General Election candidate to run against,,, it’s possible it’s a clever tactic to undermine Newt’s candidacy I guess. But I’m actually inclined to believe he does think it’d be easy to run against Newt *because he projects his own reactions onto the electorate *

    Newt’s got a fair amount of zing to his rhetoric — he doesn’t make the sort of cautious, carefully phrased “safe” remarks we’ve come to expect from Romney.

    This makes him open to perhaps more attacks — but it also makes him *interesting*.

    just a few reasons I think Newt’s more dangerous to the Democrats

    - Romney recites whereas Gingrich persuades.

    - Newt’s bold, Willard plays it safe

    - the Speaker has spent decades on the National Stage and is extremely comfortable talking to the media, Romney ducks Fox News and has yet to be subjected to a really hostile press.

    - Newt can fire up a crowd the way Romney can’t

    - Speaker Gingrich respects voters intelligence and gives the impression that he holds American people in general in very high regard – I don’t see that in Governor Romney.

    - a good debate or speech for Romney means coming across as well briefed, maybe getting in a few digs at opponents and not making any definite mistakes, for Newt it means cheering and standing ovations.

    The polls are tight and Obama still has a relatively high number of voters who still see him as personally likable. We can’t coast to the Presidency with a competent but boring, play-it-safe nominee. we need someone with a lot of political savvy whose very comfortable on the National stage and can wow the electorate with vision, guts and charisma. That’d be Newt.

  • Common_Cents

    Hoping he’d just go away.

    I guarantee you they are very very afraid of Gingrich now.

    Obama will be crapping his pants when Gingrich keeps calling him out for no holds barred debates.

  • acat

    “Some men converted against their will .. believe the same way still…” and it’s still a secret ballot.

    Mew

  • donald_24

    I am not a Romney fan. I think he is a horrible candidate. However, I do think he will be the nominee. You can be against someone and still think they will win.

    I did say earlier that I thought *MAYBE* Romney was not as unelectable as some say on the basis that the DNC ran that 4 minute attack ad. However, after that disasterous interview with Bret Baier, he can’t win. I was shocked by that interview because Romney generally does well in one-on-one interviews. Romney will get destroyed when he debates Obama.

  • texasref

    Id rather have a poor debater who isn’t establishment cozy lobbyist-ish than Gingrich. Having said that, I really do like Newt. Sigh.

    Undecided.

  • malachi45

    the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas State Guard with a compliment of two air wings in addition to ground forces, and the Texas Air National Guard operating with three air wings. He commanded these forces during crisis such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, This meant briefings with generals and the responsibility that comes with command. This is isn’t specifically foreign diplomacy, but it is certainly job experience for a president who will have to be Commander in Chief should the there be a necessity of “diplomacy by other means” in the foreign policy arena. He has been CinC of the Texas military for 10 years. Who can touch that in the Republican field? Obviously Romney and Huntsman commanded their state forces, but those states obviously do not have the robust forces of Texas nor did either men serve as long as CinCs. Perry also served as a Captain in the Air Force. Only Paul who served as a flight surgeon has any military service. Romney and Gingrich BOTH took Vietnam war deferments; Romney did so while supporting the war.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Remember: people said the same thing about McCain. And maybe a few people DID sit out, but not nearly as many as people thought. And Romney was a better candidate than McCain in ’08, and I’m having a hard time trying to think of anything he’s done since that would change that.

    Not only is Romney better than McCain was, but we now understand the stakes a little better. In 2008, we figured Obama would be, at worst, incompetent. Since then, we’ve come to understand that not only is he NOT incompetent, but actively and effectively working to tear down the very foundations of this nation we’ve built.

    Sitting out this year would be stupid.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    and for good reason. Sadly, he was the beneficiary of a split vote between the front runners.

    As for Newt, “common sense” would apparently have you believe that once Newt’s scandals are out in the open, people won’t vote for him. Newt’s scandals have BEEN out in the open. He’s still polling well. Does “Common sense” explain it? Not really, for a couple of reasons.

    First, “common sense” is a poor predictor of what people in groups will do, because common sense is decidedly NOT a defining characteristic OF people in groups.

    Second, it’s possible that, while people understand Newt’s flaws, they also recognize his strengths, and are wiling to put transgressions of years past behind them.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Look, I prefer having a candidate to vote FOR as well. But sometimes, voting against is what you have.

    I’m AGAINST what Obama is doing to this country. I’m AGAINST what his administration is doing in the way of new regulations. I’m AGAINST an “economic” plan that kills jobs. A multi-trillion-dollar debt. Higher taxes and fees levied against working Americans.

    I’m FOR having a country left for m y children to be able to rebuild and perhaps, one day, even enjoy.

    Sitting this one out is a vote against your fellow Americans.

  • nathanalbright

    ….and that we will shortly. Just my two cents.

  • repubnut

    Anyone will be better than Romney–He lies almost as good as the “O”..Mitt will look like a joke if he appears before “O” in a debate !! Republicans better wake-up and not let the Liberal News Media choose Mitt…

  • gunsrus

    The Williams/Romney RINO dynasty was built on voters having not choice on election day.
    As a Democrat could not get elected in a largely rural state the RINO was created to provide liberal control over the Governors office. Much of this orchestrated by Canadian interests.
    Now where is this Massachusetts place again??
    And why does it seem O’Bama sooo want to run against Romney?

  • docnick

    I am confused ….No one seems to see the obvious leader… It looks as IF we are about to shoot ourselves in the foot… (again) Ron

  • rcastonjr

    every single Republican candidate is a vast improvement over the current Marxist in the White House and his anti-American regime. We must rally behind whichever candidate ends up with the Republican nomination. To do otherwise is suicidal for our country. Fight like hell for your guy or gal now but after the dust settles we rally behind the winner, whoever that may be.

  • Xasteius

    He should take Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul with him.

  • Xasteius

    That would basically settle the GOP nomination instead of these soundbite wars.= with the wacko candidates.

  • Common_Cents

    Except I doubt any other campaign wants their candidate to debate Gingrich in an open 1 on 1 forum for an hour or two.

    gingrich is already challenging Obama to debates, nobody else is.

    Gingrich is on Hannity tonight for the hour. I think romney was on last week.

    Problem is, its hard for people to compare side by side w/ separate interviews. 1 on 1 debates would be much better.

    Erick should promote a series of 1 on 1 debates with Gingrich, Romney, Perry for sure.

  • annie54

    predominately males right now. Women are fast becoming disenchanted by him. Niger Innis, his Senior Advisor just now stated on FOX that Herman is in the race to stay.

    If he sticks it out, the American public will hear more testimonials from other women which will dominate the conversation. That is exactly what the Dems want.

    The Tea Party is a huge disappointment.

    Perry needs to re-introduce himself through past videos. People don’t completely know him and his fantastic humanistic qualities.

    The December 10 debate (without Huntsman) could be very good for Perry IF he is given any time.

  • annie54

    Jeb Bush? Heaven forbid. And none of your other suggestions would get that close to Romney.

  • logicalpositivist

    nt

  • kipling

    The VP has only as much power and influence as the President allows. If Romney picked a true conservative as his VP, then he would simply sit on the sidelines for the next 4 years – if Romney gets elected. I would rather have Rubio and the others on the frontlines – not the sidelines.

  • gwbramhall

    Do you really think so? Judging from the number of comments you seem to have hit a hot button issue. I, for one, have no problem with Romney. I have
    made a donation to his campaign and I have recently donated to Newt’s as
    his prospects seemed to have improved. Any of them, even RP, would be
    an improvement over what we got. But remember how we got in this place.
    We let the MSM appoint our candidate and voila, got steam rolled by a
    candidate with too many flaws to mention, left unchallenged by a weak
    candidate that did not want to risk his favor with the press and thus let Obama
    go on unchallenged. We all know how qiuickly the press turned on McCain.
    We cannot let that happen again. I believe we are headed for a deadlocked
    convention and we may be in for a big surprise with how it turns out. The
    fact that our primaries are not winner takes all almost guarantees it. Whatever
    the outcome we cannot as a country aford another 4 years of Obama and must
    stand firmly behind our noninee, whoever he is..

  • gwbramhall

    Do you really think so? Judging from the number of comments you seem to have hit a hot button issue. I, for one, have no problem with Romney. I have
    made a donation to his campaign and I have recently donated to Newt’s as
    his prospects seemed to have improved. Any of them, even RP, would be
    an improvement over what we got. But remember how we got in this place.
    We let the MSM appoint our candidate and voila, got steam rolled by a
    candidate with too many flaws to mention, left unchallenged by a weak
    candidate that did not want to risk his favor with the press and thus let Obama
    go on unchallenged. We all know how qiuickly the press turned on McCain.
    We cannot let that happen again. I believe we are headed for a deadlocked
    convention and we may be in for a big surprise with how it turns out. The
    fact that our primaries are not winner takes all almost guarantees it. Whatever
    the outcome we cannot as a country aford another 4 years of Obama and must
    stand firmly behind our noninee, whoever he is..

  • clowngirl

    The White House may not be engaging with Gingrich but the liberal media has certainly been attacking him.– I’d imagine they’re desperately hoping Republicans won’t nominate him.

    Or, if some of them aren’t afraid, they should be. Gingrich has been criticized for being unpredictable — but this is also one of his strengths. Democrats won’t know what to expect from him and won’t be able to prepare, while he’ll see them coming a mile away. Romney for all his squeaky clean family life (the main reason I find a way not to wholly dislike him) and safe, efficient, methodical campaigning. is far too predictable.

    Except that we don’t really know how he would respond to a relentless liberal press unleashing it’s full power against the Republican Nominee. I don’t think he really knows what he’d be getting into. Newt does.

    And I certainly agree with you about Obama being terrified at the thought of 7 Lincoln Douglas style debates. He couldn’t handle Joe the Plumber!

  • acat

    Newt stair-stepping up, or Newt plateauing?

    We’ll know by Thursday, methinks.

    Mew

  • gladimoutwest

    What is your basis for calling Romney a liar? I worked with Mitt during the 2002 Olympics. The very last thing I would call Romney is a liar. The man was an amazing leader with integrity. There are other reasons why people are unwilling to stand behind him and its not because he is a liar or a so called flip flopper. I call it religous intolerance and uneducated speculation.

  • audax

    Just made my first contribution

  • arthurjake

    but he has more in his plan for the economy then that. Should really go to newt.org or his youtube page. Although drill here drill now is part of the solution it is only part. I would pick Perry after Newt but I have serious reservations about him.

  • arthurjake

    The sheeple will here the talking points. With all the Bush hatred still about it would be a hurdle for Perry to have to jump.

  • gizmo

    Liar?
    Abortion
    Healthcare
    Gay Marriage
    Tax cuts/spending control

    He’s a North Eastern RINO, born & raised in government, will do ANYTHING say ANYTHING to get elected. The Olympics didn’t take getting elected – so, ok, he can handle money to be spent – lots of it – and make sure tasks are done… Given the same scenerio, what would he have done if he was asked to cut budget, slash spending, control labor costs….

    Big difference… I understand he’s a “fine man”, but we need a principled leader who has the gonads to stand firm & stay strong to conservative issues.

  • ladisney

    Both California and New York are going to go for Obama. Why do we care what anyone from either state thinks about the race?

  • olds88er

    How come you people don’t realize that a hard core Conservative Republican candidate will not attract the moderate Republicans and the Independents we need in order to defeat Obama? We are in the minority. we need to hold on to or even strengthen the House. And also take the Senate. Look at how much trouble Obama is having with the House. Surround Romney with a Conservative Congress an he’ll have to comply.

  • cbartlett

    Yeah – Perry cannot get away from that fact. BUT I think most Bush-ites are actually working against Perry, although possibly in a sort of underhanded way. A lot of us Texans have reason to believe that the Bush people have not ever forgiven Perry for running against Kay Bailey for Governor, after sort-of saying that he wouldn’t. I would not be surprised to find that Bush cronies are supporting Romney – like the rest of the big Washington GOP establishment crowd. I think Perry would probably carry Texas in the primary but it might not be as run-away as some people might think, simply because of the Bush supporters here. Not sure it’ll matter anyway – seems like the primary is usually already decided before we ever get to vote here. I’d sure like to see Perry be the nominee because I think he, hands-down, has the most conservative values and principles in the list and is not afraid of bucking up to “establishment” politics in Washington. He’s been fighting the Dept of Education and the EPA for years!

  • cbartlett

    Well said!

  • galileopaine

    “Mitt Romney is, in fact, a great big nothing ? malleable into any shape you want, a void into which you can place any policy position”

    Which is why Romney as President (assuming he gets there) would end up doing the will of a Senate/House GOP majority that will be decidedly more conservative than him.

    The current Anti-Romney candidate (Newt) has just as many, if not more transgressions from conservative orthodoxy than Romney. Yet that seems to be OK for the anti-Romney’s.

    I must say that I find it interesting that among those rooting for an anti-Romney nominee and doing all they can to tank Romney’s candidacy is Obama’s campaign team. I never thought I would see the interests of conservative GOPers so neatly aligned with those of Obama