« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Nancy Pelosi and David Axelrod Open Their Mouths and We Make It Too Complex

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 6th, 2011 at 04:47 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t want to offend any of my friends or colleagues, all of whom I have a great deal of respect for, who are positing various theories on why Nancy Pelosi or David Axelrod are saying things about Romney or Newt.

Everyone seems intend on making it a conspiracy or about reverse psychology or something.

I don’t see it that way. I am perfectly happy to admit I could be wrong, but I don’t see it that way. I do not think the Democrats are intentionally trying to bait us into picking their preferred candidate by attacking that candidate now and I do not think Nancy Pelosi is bashing Newt with gnostic knowledge of prior bad deeds because she fears him as the nominee.

For starters, Republicans have largely concluded that America’s Mother-In-Law is a bit daft. Consistency requires that we not now view her as machiavellian enough to suddenly angle the GOP nomination in Newt’s favor or let slip some level of fear about him by attacking him.

The simple answer seems to me to be the right one — Nancy Pelosi just can’t help but run her mouth on stuff like that. It also fits a long recurring pattern about Nancy Pelosi mouthing off about various matters when asked by reporters. For the first time this year she finds herself the center of attention. Additionally, because the events must be kept confidential and because the events are long forgotten, raising it now gives it time to start percolating with the press.

As for the Democrats continuing to bash Mitt Romney above all others, I really and truly do not think it means they are scared of Romney. I really and truly do not believe it means that they really want Mitt Romney as the nominee and think bashing him will make the GOP support him. If anything, that sure has not worked yet.

No, I think again the simple answer is the right answer. The Democrats are convinced Romney is the nominee and they are going to go on now and define him, consistent with how his Republicans rivals are defining him, so when he gets to the general they can shift their attacks on him and any backtrack will be viewed through the prism of a known flip-flopper.

It is largely what the GOP did to John Kerry in 2004.

I am largely tired of the conspiracy theories that the Democrats took out Herman Cain or what not. No they didn’t.

The Democrats of 2011/2012 are the most arrogant they have ever been. They absolutely are convinced they will be able to win re-election next year. They learned nothing from 2010 and see the Occupy crowd as a superior intellectual match to the tea party movement. They have no reason to try to pick or kill any Republican nominee. They think none of them can beat Obama.

And that, by the way, is precisely why the GOP will beat Barack Obama in 2012.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • davesinsanantonio

    we should pick the most conservative candidate, because that is what the country will need in order to be saved. Likewise, we need to work down-ballot to elect the best conservatives to Congress and the statehouses and city halls across this nation. We will need people who truly understand at all levels in order to right the ship of state. Otherwise, we are merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    The most conservative president will appoint judges who support the Constitution the most, and cabinet officers who will reign in the bureaucrats the most.
    This election is too important to the survival of constitutionalism to nominate anyone who thinks he is smart enough to fiddle with improving on it. We need someone to the Constitution is more important than his ego!

  • teme

    If the information is protected by passive protection only, knowing who has access and then punishing those who do use them illegally, and not active protection, preventing stealing of information like some national security information, the truth will come out.

    If I was a congressman, or any person, and there was some Democrat candidate and incumbent president, and I had access to dirt of releasing of which was technically illegal, I would use it and whatever the punishment were I would expect pardon sometimes after the Republican incumbent would have gotten the presidency. Then I could use my celebrity status for book deal, interviews, etc.

    Really, if there is some dirt out there that is not actively protected, some Democrat will do what I said.

  • wonkish1

    That is would have come out back then. There is no way that they would have held it back in the 90s when Newt was Dem enemy number 1 at the time and anything and everything that could take him down justified the means in doing so.

    Pelosi is just lying by acting like she can rehash things that are already in the public record.

    I mean what do you expect from the woman?… she is the ultimate spin artist.

  • don12345

    Why do we need the Constitution, Newt’s ego is so much bigger.

  • teme

    The level of scandal and dirt needed to take down a speaker in a district heavily leaning on one direction and notching a presidential candidate down a little is different, also having a controversial speaker or minority leader of opposing party is not bad, I love that Dems chose to keep Pelosi, so releasing the information then might have not been worth the trouble. But if he gets Republican nomination, then it will be.

  • bzip

    At least Erick has some sanity in all of this.

    I still say that it won’t be that hard to dig up even more dirt on Newt should he become the nominee and the dem’s aren’t that stupid to knock Newt out right now if they know they have something that will take him down easily in the general – they will safe it for later.

  • romansdaughter

    Rush said the same thing that any Republican candidate could beat Obama so that is why I am still behind Rick Perry. I actually believe he would do his best to balance the budget; do away with big government and secure our borders, etc, etc and get America working again. I don’t believe that Mitt or Newt would really do this. Mitt would tinker around the edges of things and be cautious because he would want to be re-elected and Newt will talk a good talk but suddenly think he is smarter than anybody else and go back to cosily sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi; hanging with Al Sharpton, John Kerry and the likes. This is just my opinion.

  • bzip

    Personally I think the dem’s want Newt, he is for bigger gov’t, believes in much of the same issues:

    Newt even praises FDR;
    Gingrich praised FDR, New Deal in ?95, ?06 books
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-praised-fdr-new-deal-in-95-06-books/
    ?Gingrich also commended FDR for passing the New Deal, a program many conservatives consider to be the foundation for modern liberal policy.?

    Newt supported the mandate for the past 18 years.
    Newt supports global warming.
    Newt supports a form of Amenst.
    Newt supports death panels.
    Newt the guy with ethic violations.
    Newt the guy who has had 2 divorces and an extra material affair.

    So this is the guy we call the anti- Romney most conservative candidate. What an embarrassment.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Glenn Beck is having him on his show today for 30 minutes and Beck has already told Newt he’s going to ask some nasty questions. Beck has no use for Newt and after today neither will Beck’s fans.

    If you accept Erick’s notion that One-bama will lose because he’s over confident then Newt is in even more trouble. Who on planet Earth is more overconfident than Newt?

    One-bama has something up his sleeve that will clinch this election. It is the One-bama way. Just ask Jack Ryan.

  • renl57

    Gingrich’s reminder that releasing this information would violate Congressional ethics rules is irrelevant.

    If Pelosi wants information leaked, it will be leaked. It will appear in the New York Times citing “sources close to the ethics investigation”.

  • circlegranch

    Newt called FDR greatest president of 20th century. www.dailycaller.com

  • renl57

    The Dems simply attack anyone they perceive to be the GOP frontrunner. The only way Obama can win is by destroying his potential opponent(s).

    For months that was Romney. And (contrary to the views of some folks here) the Dems have been attacking Romney’s alleged flip-flopping and inconsistency nonstop. The DNC has already released one or two videos about this:

    http://www.mittvmitt.com/

    While many Republicans, instead of defending their party’s frontrunner from these attacks, are actually agreeing with the Dems about this.

    If Gingrich wins Iowa, watch for the DNC to start switching over to attacking Gingrich. Guaranteed.

  • wonkish1

    FDR’s political talent not his governance.

    I’ve been privy to that comment numerous times. Newt is correct in asserting that no American president in the last century was more talented at **getting through to the American people** than FDR. He was a political juggernaut. There is nothing wrong with a conservative pointing that out. Still means his presidency was a disaster for the United States.

  • nathanalbright

    …I don’t think the Dems are pulling conspiracies, largely because some of them (Pelosi) are too incompetent to do so and the rest (Axelrod) are too arrogant to think it necessary. And Cain’s campaign was too incompetent to require a great deal of sabotaging effort from any campaign.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    We may be a bit too divisive and engaged in rampant primary cannibalism. But come the general, we will be equally united behind one candidate.

    Let me be the first to say, whether it’s Romney, Gingrich or Perry- each has their own strengths and they are eminently better than Obama.

    Certainly each has their own weakness. But none of them comes close to Obama’s weaknesses on our economy, unemployment, Obamacare, foreign policy, immigration, corruption, abuse and the generally divisive, destructive tone of his rhetoric

    Ask yourself this question; Obama and his Congress had two years of historic majorities to pass whatever he wanted unencumbered by any Republicans. What did he and Pelosi do for the unemployed, our economy and country in general? Pass Obamacare, the “Stimulus”, further bail-out corporations like GM and increase our debt to dangerously historic levels (more than ever in our entire history). Were those America’s priorities? I’m sorry, “four more years” of what? Are these wise, capable, smart, helpful, thoughtful decisions or political manifestations from someone way under qualified for the job?

    What Pelosi, Axelrod and other liberals are doing is galvanizing support for our candidate, no matter who that is. I look forward to the stark contrast that ill be our choice comes November. It won’t be here soon enough.

  • amazedamerican

    You Maybe right, but the fact still remains that there is so much really bad dirt on Obama that no one has touched; newt could not hold a candlestick to Obama when it comes to dirt. Newt is what he is, which is a very politically smart American, whom is no different than the rest of us, has made mistakes. Obama on the other hand is not a good American and is not like the rest of us. His mistakes have been deadly for many people, while his life seems to be a lie. Nancy p. is lower than a snakes belly when it comes to scruples. In the endrd heme of things, Newt has the good of the country at hand, while Obama has the ruination of the country at hand.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Gingrich is unbelievably intelligent. I’d love him as a history professor. Sadly, he’s got so much baggage that is out there for everyone to see. No one needs Nancy Pelosi to tell them he’s got problems. I wish he were wise AND smart, but I haven’t seen it yet.

  • jrussell

    I don?t mean that how it may seem. Looking at how Pelosi attacked Newt and it completely backfired on her made me realize something. Liberals have irrational extreme hate for Newt as a human being. They don?t think when they attack and bash them. They just do it out of their crazy hate for everything he is and stands for so their attacks can come across as irrational and plain idiotic and come back and hit them in the face. Which is exactly what happened with George W. Bush. In their extreme hate of him they attacked him out of their irrational disgust in President Bush as a human and it completely backfired on them in 2004. They couldn?t put forth rational good reasons to not re-elect him because they let their extreme hate dictate their actions. It is the same way with Newt.

    They don?t think, they just attack and their attacks come across as sad and make them look foolish. Their attacks amount to ?HEY LOOK AT THAT SMUG FACE HE HAS and and and and did you know he has had?..MULTIPLE WIVES?!?!?. Sad and stupid attacks that don?t sway swing voters and make the liberals look petty and stupid. Just like when they attacked Bush. They can?t put thought and logic into their attacks because they just plain hate Newt too much to think straight.

    It?s the exact opposite with Romney. They don?t hate Romney. They feel no extreme anger or extreme dislike for him. Hell, I know tons of liberals who think Romney doesn?t believe his own flip-flops and in his heart is pro-choice and still supports Obamacare and if elected he?ll go back to his true liberal self. So when they attack them it?s purely out of trying to make sure Obama is re-elected, not out of pure hate for Romney. So when they attack they attack him in ways they think will hurt him with moderate swing voters. Such as hammering home the image he is a flip-flopper. A charge that is potent and has taken down many national candidates.

    When they attack Newt they attack out of pure hate and make themselves look worse off for it. Just like Bush in 2004. So when people say Romney is the more electable of our two front runners I respectively disagree. Newt would give us much better chance in 2012 than Romney. Romney John Kerry and Mike Dukakis just with a R next to his name. And that type of candidate is a loser candidate, regardless what the liberal media is trying to say about Romney?s so-called electability.

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    The local AM sports radio broadcasts bookie ads on Saturday mornings. The bookies all have names like Nicky, Pauly and Joey. They all have northeastern accents and claim “number-one-in-Vegas” statuses.

    (Yes, “statuses” is the correct spelling for status’ plural.)

    All the bookies say they know which teams will win before the games are played.

    But that’s on game day: the morning before the afternoon games.

    The day before the 2012 elections, we’ll probably have a pretty good idea who will win, but 11/2012 is a long way off.

    What do we know right now?

    The democrats have one mediocre candidate with a lousy record and a guaranteed voting block (no matter what he does). They have aces up their sleeves, and–at least in my lifetime–they’re more adept at bold and cunning politics than the republicans. They also have more media support. But their candidate has defined himself as another “establishment politician,” spewing empty words, pandering to the wealthy, padding his and his wealthy supporters’ pockets and, ultimately, not nearly as exciting as he was in 2008. In fact, he is yesterday’s news: out of style.

    The republicans have a mediocre opponent with a lousy record and a guaranteed voting block (no matter what he does). No republican candidates have exactly set the world on fire, but whoever emerges will have his (it won’t be Bachman) opponent’s lousy record dealing with urgent issues and established history of corruption. He will also have opportunities to present plans for addressing his opponent’s failures; he will also have a burgeoning conservative media that, hopefully, willl be a match for the massive democrat propaganda machine.

    But beyond predicting competition defined by under-handed, cut-throat techniques (especially with Axelrod running Obama’s campaign), it’s way too early to call this race. Even Nicki, Pauly and Joes wouldn’t do it. A lot will happen between now and 11/2012. The democrats have some surprises, and so do the republicans, and so do some powerful and influential, behind-the-scenes, third-party players, and so does unknowable fate.

    Maybe a major storm will hit on election day, knock out power everywhere east of the Mississippi River, and inject chaos into the entire election process. Who knows?

    I know this: since the early 70s, personal debts, state debts and the national debt have skyrocketed. Our economy is based on people spending more than they earn; our public sectors survive by spending more than they take in. The mindless borrowing continues; politicians and private commercial interests encourage it: “if you don’t have the money, just borrow more.” The only person I’ve heard–besides my ol’ man, who said the Great Depression was caused by people spending money that didn’t exist–come anywhere close to addressing this recipe for continued disaster is Gingrich. Will people listen to him when he tells them, “It’s not our politicians; it’s us”?

    Time will tell.

  • ss396

    It is perilous to underestimate her. She may be Granny McBotox around here, but she held the Dem caucus together and wheeled and dealed to bring the strays back and keep them in line long enough to ram ObamaCare through and make it stick. Harry Reid did not shine particularly brightly during any of this. What policy successes Obama had are largely due to her.

    She is dangerous, and she is as ruthless. It would be great if Boehner and Cantor and gang were as devoted to Conservatism as she is to progressivism.

  • circlegranch

    but we’ve a long way to go. As stated, the attacks waiting on Obama have yet to be launched. When we get in full swing, it won’t matter which of our candidates is the nominee. What does matter is that Americans that are in the fight to save this country MUST coalesce around that candidate. Together, we can do this. Together, we can educate the moderates, undecided’s and disgruntled Democrats. We are walking on eggs, living in fear that we have to be careful and not turn anyone away. We should wave that American flag, which is BOLD in color, not pale pastels. (BTW, don’t forget that recent study which shows people frequently exposed to the sight of the American flag have more tendency to vote Republican. Fly your flag!)

    I’m still 100% behind Perry, too, and here’s a couple reasons why. VA’s AG, Cuccinelli, has stated he’s not impressed with either Mitt or Newt after the Huckabee forum. Yesterday on Fox, he did say, however, that he felt Perry had very strong state’s rights positions and he liked his answers. A Des Moines Register article on Sunday reported a poll had been taken of likely caucus voters. They were asked which candidate they would most like to meet or see in person at a rally, townhall, living room meet/greet. Gingrich came in first, Perry was second. The others polled very low. Admittedly, I’m only encouraged by poll results when they favor Perry, but with that said, the latest Washington Post/ABC poll has Perry at 11% which is an improvement from being stuck in single digits for quite some time. He’s also in 3rd place in South Carolina behind Gingrich and Romney, at 9% there, but at least he’s showing up in the polls. This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Scarborough and others agreed that its not yet time to discount the possibility of a Perry comeback (they expressed the same about Bachmann who is coming up on the program within minutes.)

    The other issue that will not go away is the fact that Perry, along with Let’s Make America Great Again, has a huge warchest. That money will go somewhere and it ensures he remains a player. If he at some point decides he can’t make it, he’ll be courted and sought after by the two current front runners because just as they are clamoring for Cain’s voters, at some point, they’ll be begging for Perry’s money. That money will give him power to use to his own advantage, whether that’s staying in or aligning himself with another campaign. He’s been the whipping boy for the most part but expect to see that begin to change–soon.

    One has to dig but there’s all sorts of pundits and columnists writing pieces on the possibility of a Perry comeback. One staffer with Romney said last week that they mourn the decline of Cain because “Cain keeps Perry down”.

    At some point, Mitt and Newt are going to have to play hardball and I don’t mean showing up to visit with Chris Matthews. They cannot share a co-presidency and while they can end up as co-nominee’s, one for prez and one for VP, both appear hell-bent on having the first slot. The only way to get there is to get busy. Mitt wasn’t afraid to go after Perry because he clearly despises the guy and that made it easier. He also knew it was gentlemanly to place nice with the girl on the stage and attacking Cain would make him appear a bully, perhaps worse. When the gloves come off, Newt and Mitt will do damage to each other. We still have about 75% of Republicans that are undecided, have some candidates they want to meet and learn more about, and just like Cain supporters that sent him packing because innocent or guilty, his baggage would exacerbate in the general and we’d lose, we have alot of voters that want to get this right. At least, as best we can.

  • bobguzzardi

    I have been misinformed. I thought Newt knew what was best for the rest and would use government to make our lives better for us. Now, it seems Nancy Pelosi and David Axelrod tell us he is a conservative. Would they lie to us?

  • esquip17

    Lets elect the most electable candidate.

  • lepelerin

    I think even most Rebulicans don’t dislike Pelosi (or Reid). Most voters don’t follow politics that close to dislike her. If the general media respects Pelosi, I think people will not just ignore what she says but will listen, even though she is a demagogue.

    Gingrich can handle her slyness.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …the obsession many Republicans have about which candidate the Democrats fear/like/dream of/etc.

    I would be willing to bet pretty big money that if this were 1980 and the two Republicans vying for the presidential nomination were George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan, the Dems would probably want Reagan.

    In the CW of that time, Reagan was in the mold of Goldwater…Bush was in the mold of Eisenhower. So why wouldn’t they want somebody that they felt was out of the ideological mainstream and would get crushed like Goldwater did in 1964?

    Point is: pay no attention to which candidate they want to face or which candidate they fear.

    Rather, we should pick the best candidate for us — the best on the issues, the one who would best expose the Obama Administration for the debacle it’s been, etc.

  • romansdaughter

    nt

  • Common_Cents

    thanks for the morning laugh ;)

  • romansdaughter

    I am sticking to Perry in the primaries, from all I have read about him and from my friends that live in Texas. I trust him more than any other candidate. That counts a lot for me cause I am pretty cynical.

  • Common_Cents

    And yesterday, a few people were jumping up and down around here excited/hoping that Pelosi had some new dirt on Gingrich in some grand conspiracy tipping her hand. Gingrich called her bluff and poof…….haha

  • uncmike

    I also think any old “dirt” would have been used when they were trying to destroy him back in the 1990s. Of course, Newt has generated quite a bit since then, but he has been so maligned in the past, I wonder if anyone can make it stick. My problem with Newt (whom I once greatly admired) is that he is not a real, steady conservative. He runs his mouth too much and his ego will be a big problem for him. Of course, I’m still an admitted Perry supporter because he is a true conservative and has a long record to demonstrate that. I can’t see why there is all the buzz about Newt.

  • bzip

    Why would they use them before now if they had anything – , he wasn’t running for President before and who said they “saved” them for now. Boy, your logic is as goofy as them come.

  • bzip

    Rather odd, you were the one jumping up and down all over the place yesterday saying how this made Newt the one the dem’s feared the most. You are your conspiracies, what a crock. You sure keep putting your foot in your mouth,

  • Common_Cents

    How is Pelosi spouting off her mouth because she is afraid of Gingrich a conspiracy?

    NOW, Others on RS saying Pelosi has some grand plan dirt that is tipping her hand, and her backing off because her DEM operatives told her to keep quiet?

    LOL, now that was funny!!!

  • sethellis

    Thank you so much for this post. I’ve felt like we have been playing right into their hands, and it’s hurting. I’ve been hitting on this point for a while, and was starting to give up.

    I should add that it isn’t just about trying to define the front runner. They want to set the narrative for the entire primary. They’re giddy at this fight between establishment and activist, moderate and conservative. By making it seem like Romney the moderate is inevitable, they can make any challenger seem that much more extreme. Their hope is to split the party, and create a weak nominee no matter what.

  • bzip

    I take it you really haven’t read or understood Erick thread right here or you couldn’t possibly be asking such questions.

  • avagreen

    I always come away with some knowledge and encouragement after reading your posts.

    WE CAN DO THIS!

  • johnt

    Which I think is why Pig Pelosi seems to be backing off. Somebody in her office may have called in her permanent psychiatric team for emergency treatment. She is probably strapped down now even as we post.
    I might add that Gingrich’s biggest problem was with his own delegation. I expect neither consistency here anymore but it’s basically the same group, or same kind of group, that routinely gets excoriated here, with reason, for selling out, caving that is. And that’s why we wound up with Speaker Hastert, a helluva improvement that was.
    Now let’s get back to tearing down our own, maybe that’s why Dems are so optimistic.

  • daniel22

    It’s an election year. Nancy is in her favorite spot which is of course in front of the camera. Slime in the realm of politics the usual just like a soap opera.
    Hasn’t anyone ever noticed that when Obama is getting ready to do something that he sets up a diversion? Nancy and Holder open their mouths and everyone looks at them.
    Why hasn’t there been more about Geithner in Europe? The EU is close to collapse and in desparate need of money. Obama can and probably will give our money to them in order to avert the consequences of a European collapse. Wanna bet there won’t be talk and outrage over this next week?

  • Common_Cents

    Hastert, DeLay, PeLIEsi, Boehner, etc….

    Real champions of conservatism and smaller government. ummm mmmm. Govt has grown extremely fast since Gingrich, R’s have largely fallen all over themselves to cave on important issues, since Gingrich.

    Yeah Gingrich is a thinker, brainstormer, idea guy that gets him into trouble but you have to give props to his historic transformation of the party and government. so Newt is supposed to be a god and force congress to uphold his contract with America after he was gone?

    sheesh.

    Things get real clear when you boil things down from all the crap said, the noise, to what actually was accomplished.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    That’s what Erick said in his other article this morning…talking about Dick Gephart (sp?) and Howard Dean. He said that they pummeled each other into the ground and then John Kerry waltzed to the nomination. Huh.

    Me likey. Ava’s right: WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THIS! :D

  • Money

    Electable to what end? If the Republicans want to be guaranteed victory this year, we should nominate Obama.

    We need someone who is capable of radically reforming this federal government and returning power to the people and the states. Nobody is better equipped to do that than Rick Perry. He is a true believer in federalism and articulates it better than any other candidate (yes, that’s right). He also has the added benefit of a record of conservative successes.

    Electing someone squishy that can supposedly beat Obama will likely not be successful in beating Obama, and will be unsuccessful in reforming this country to constitutional principles.

  • bzip

    Glenn Beck’s interview with Newt only shows what has already been talks and known about Newt:
    Newt is for big gov’t solutions, global warming and the mandate. You can can try and spin it anyway you want but that is what is boils down to.

    Glenn Beck: Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

  • tailfins1959

    The main concern I have with Gingrich is that it’s difficult to tell when he is engaging in “tavern talk” or if he’s talking about something he really wants to implement.

  • Common_Cents

    But that would ruin the narrative.

  • carolynr

    If there was ever a time to get back into the race…get that second look Perry…It is now. Perry aides…I’ll even volunteer for whatever…but THIS IS YOUR TIME.

    Here’s the playbook. While the press is busy, along with the Democrats trying to confuse and damage both Romney and Gingrich (both of whom share similar policies and solutions)….Perry has his opening. Not against either of them…the press and Obama minions are doing that…BUT AGAINST THE GANGSTER IN CHIEF…OBAMA.

    Draw distinct lines between your policies and those of Obama’s. Forget Gingrich with his child labor bs and Romney with his 59 point plan…and polished crap. Get on with it. Very POINTED AND TARGETED APPROACHES TO EVERY SINGLE MESS Obama has created. The answer RICK PERRY…is this…CONTRAST…CONTRAST with Obama….Pit your jobs plan against his…which…is simply this..he wants to cut the payroll tax plan, affecting SS (there’s you sr. vote), meanwhile revenues to the government are cut…and the deficit continues to blow up.

    This time…no Mr. Nice Guy concerning Obama. Fight.

    Oh…anyone that has sway with Perry….get similar messages out to him. It’s time to get OUT OF TEXAS

  • monhar

    Im glad I am not the only Perry booster on this blog. I sure would like to see more people become enthusiastic about a sterling records he has for the last ten years, Perry has a real plan to set the ship of state on a true and steady course. He cant do this by himself but with help from the voters and appointment of fellow conservatives, we can be up and running again in 8 years! I dont know what all the strategy is going to be but if prayer can help in politics, Perry has my sincere prayers and I hope yours.

  • supergirl2911

    That watching the shows on fox they do not mention perry. They mention Bachman sanatorium Paul and not perry. I know these are not hard news but commentary shows but I am going to have to stop watching in order to vote wih my viewership and not give business to their sponsors in order to vote with my dollars. Even as commentary shows they know they are responsible for the narrative and shaping public opinion. Its not just my guy so to speak it is irresponsible. The people who talk about he Obama mania media are just as bad. I am not referring to guests I mean hey discuss hue candidates chances and don even say his name . If they are covering Bachman and santorirm then why leave his name out.

  • acat

    This may have been a distinction without difference for a time, but .. we’re seeing the difference today.

    Mew

  • supergirl2911

    It sounds like he is at a loss for support with repubs as well.

  • tailfins1959

    SMART is Perry’s problem. Perry needs to show people he’s smart. If he pulls that off in a month, he is indeed a miracle worker. I will believe it when I see it.

  • edintexas

    So Newt has told you that in private conversation? After all, the first definition of “Privy” is “participating in the knowledge of something private or secret (usually followed by to ): Many persons were privy to the plot.”

    I think, in your proselytizing for Newt, you really are getting carried away. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before posting.

  • edintexas

    But that doesn’t mean we should go about prostituting ourselves, discarding principles in a quest for what others think might be electability.

  • cwfoster

    “Consistency requires that we not now view her as machiavellian enough to suddenly angle the GOP nomination in Newt?s favor or let slip some level of fear about him by attacking him.”

    What you miss is… she doesn’t HAVE to be. Remember Journolist? The NYT headlines distribute the DNC talking points to every other left wing newspaper in the country. SanFranNan can remain as drifty and dumb as a rock, and STILL have her party leadership feed her talking points! David Axelrod, he IS Machiavelli reincarnated!

  • edintexas

    Tell that to “Scooter” LIbby, who’s recollection was criminalized by an out of control Prosecutor who needed a charge to justify his excess, and a DC jury certainly not of his “peers”. Libby suffered a felony conviction and is a convicted felon to this day. He can not own firearms. He can not practice his profession (law). W did free him from a prison sentence through commutation, but did not free him from the conviction through a pardon.

  • carolynr

    If this campaign cannot come up with pointed one liners…which btw…stick with people…then he should not be president. I don’t want Romney’s wonkist solutions and I don’t want Gingrich’s convoluted solutions. I want straight forward solutions…one liners.

    I had a young couple who wanted to buy land and have a house built. OK. Fine. How do we do this. Three loans rolled into one, I said. I drew three circles, told them how worked…simple..simple

    Why did people like Ross Perot…because he made the complex simple. He used his blackboard. Even though I don’t like Karl Rove…look what his white board has done. People understand. They are better seeing it in visual forms. It is time for Perry’s campaign to realize that everyone is not a rocket scientist but rocket scientists along with everyone else understand visuals. That’s the SMART about the whole thing.

    Need to explain Tax Plan…Get Forbes out there…put it in simple language…and don’t put it in writing…do a video on the thing….that is how you sell the tax plan. People…. the sheeples and uneducated can’t get this…if they read it…they get lost in the minutia…but if they see it in a visual…they get it. That is what smart is.

    Show a depiction of any FEDERAL AGENCY trying to help you find a solution and then show…your solution….say…Healthy Texas. How much did it save…put it on a white board. CONTRAST IN VISUALS…IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO.

  • cwfoster

    I am largely tired of the conspiracy theories that the Democrats took out Herman Cain or what not. No they didn?t.
    - I know, Gloria Allred is such a PARAGON of neutrality! like she came out of the woodwork to support Gennifer Flowers when Clinton was accused, or Appeared beside John Edwards wife when the ‘love child’ story broke. She only seems to come out to torpedo Republicans. Ms. Bialiek is for all intents and purposes bankrupt, her boyfriend is unemployed, Allred was last seen in California, so who was paying her retainer to be in Chicago and for the time she put in on the episode? Just some questions no one is asking, because it’s obviously not a conspiracy. We use the term “Borking” because they really broke it out on Judge Bork in his SCOTUS confirmation hearings, driving him away from the job. They continually files suits on baseless allegations that was keeping Sarah Palin from being able to effectively Govern Alaska, so she resigned. If you don’t see a clear and unmistakable pattern here, i’m sorely disappointed.

    The Democrats of 2011/2012 are the most arrogant they have ever been. They absolutely are convinced they will be able to win re-election next year. They learned nothing from 2010 and see the Occupy crowd as a superior intellectual match to the tea party movement. They have no reason to try to pick or kill any Republican nominee. They think none of them can beat Obama.

    And that, by the way, is precisely why the GOP will beat Barack Obama in 2012.
    - Eric, THANK YOU! YOU were the one, on this website that got me off my duff and started to be involved in the local political level. (Our State Coordinator for Team Cain is one of our Central Committee Council…persons) so I’ve started to get involved in the GOP at the grassroots level as you suggested. But YOU were the one, as I recall, that said in a blog just a week or so about the Romney vs. Not Romney race, and that if faced with a candidate who can energize no more than 25% of the base gets nominated, we may well, have an Obama reelection!

  • cwfoster

    I read a post on another site this morning from a personal friend of Herman Cain. Aside from everthing else he said, he said Cain told him a YEAR AGO that he would keep his head down, and try to do well in the debates and would eventually “get a look” and when he did, he would come up woth comething catchy to give the people that would be simple, and effective, and be on everyones lips, and when they started ‘looking’ in Fla. he came out with 9-9-9 and he took off! OK, he expected once that happened to be attacked, but he wasn’t expecting it to be as vicious and underhanded as it was, and he NEVER expected to be accused of being a womanizer. But your point is 100% valid KISS.

    (for those with no military background that’s Keep It Simple Stupid)

  • cwfoster

    I read a post on another site this morning from a personal friend of Herman Cain. Aside from everthing else he said, he said Cain told him a YEAR AGO that he would keep his head down, and try to do well in the debates and would eventually “get a look” and when he did, he would come up woth comething catchy to give the people that would be simple, and effective, and be on everyones lips, and when they started ‘looking’ in Fla. he came out with 9-9-9 and he took off! OK, he expected once that happened to be attacked, but he wasn’t expecting it to be as vicious and underhanded as it was, and he NEVER expected to be accused of being a womanizer. But your point is 100% valid KISS.

    (for those with no military background that’s Keep It Simple Stupid)

  • benson1

    The only thing I find short sighted is no one who loves Perry seems to have bothered to look at Gingrich’s website and read the 21st Century Contract with America. Watched his interview with Hannity or seen his speech in Iowa. His proposals are radical, conservative radical. His plans for Obama are audacious. His record as speaker is remarkable. Of course the icing on the cake will be any debate he has with Obama.
    The only reason he’s risen in the polls is because other people have taken note of this. Having written all this I have nothing against Perry. I think he’s become dead serious about his run for president and I don’t think he would make a bad president. However I do not believe he’s what we need at this juncture.

  • Common_Cents

    It was straightforward and did connect w/ people. He just didn’t have the rest of the goods.

    Politicians largely get caught up in high level DC tactic stuff and don’t break it down.

    EX. Gingrich refers to his Contract with America like everyone knows what it even was. He needs to explain what it was, each and every time. People gloss by that stuff.

    Perot got 19% just for that and reached and engaged a new audience. I was dumb enough to vote for him my first time out in the voting booth. I helped elect Clinton and feel bad about it.

    However, candidates today can learn a lesson from Perot’s infomercials talking in terms people can relate to.

  • cheetah2

    I am following my conscience in the primaries. I want the man who has the best record of accomplishment, the most executive experience, and the most innovative and bold plans to save a country that is in huge trouble.

    I also want a man who is humble and loves the Lord. Perry fits all my criteria right down to the ground. I am praying to that God has mercy on our country and gives us Perry for our president.

  • cheetah2

    Its kind of an Oxam’s razor thing isn’t it?

  • wonkish1

    Might not have been the perfect word choice, but I’m sure you know what I meant. No need to make a big deal out of that.

    That I’ve heard it in several speeches, interviews, etc. over the years.

  • carolynr

    Benson…go back and listen to Gingrich…has a lot to say …but nobody really gets it. Cuccinelli called him on that. There was no substance to the answer…just hyperbole. Gingrich already knows that this country is failing when it comes to comprehension..otherwise we wouldn’t have “slick” in the WH.

    But…this is where Gingrich is lacking…as is Romney…they cannot get people fired up. Perry can. We’re proud of our country after listening to Perry. Gingrich…factual information. Romney…oh…forget it..he’s worse.

    Want it straight benson..neither Gingrich or Romney have the balls to change anything….they will do what Obama does…rename the program. .Perry has the conviction to change it…BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LIKE THE WAY WASHINGTON DC HAS DUMPED ON THE PEOPLE…AND THAT IS AS POLITE AS I CAN BE.

  • 1bunny

    because today they have a new message at rickperry.org Blogger center with Perry buttons/links for bloggers. check it out. I don’t blog but have started tweeting and trying to do my part that way plus write letters, posts etc.

    BLOGGER ACTION CENTER
    IF YOU’RE A BLOGGER FOR PERRY: Check out the new Blogger Action Center at www.RickPerry.org. Let us know what you’d like to see in this action center.
    We want to help you help Governor Perry get his message out and connect with voters, so send feedback.

  • 1bunny

    nothing new on Gingrich why would you think they released everything in the 90′s when trying to take him out. You release info see how it goes then add a little more see how that goes and keep doing that until you get the required results. You don’t release it all at once, you save some for later (politics 101).

  • unclefred

    You’ll discover that Newt has pretty solid answers to all of the tough questions. I don’t agree with some and think that his view on a couple shows that he has made some invalid assumptions, but your “boil down” does not accurately reflect Newt’s position on either the mandate or on global warming. Rather than comment further I suggest you listen to the interview.

  • supergirl2911

    Its is like a PROFESSOR not so difficult for most to get, too difficult for some, but in general used to sound impressive and smart. It is not bad per Se but it is a bit off putting if it is affected and that is how it appears. Not that he doesn’t know but part of his mission is to be the smart guy in contrast to the dumb one. I think it began with Clinton and has only grown into his habit. I think it’s best to lOok seriously at his past position and changes his character and what happened that made him leave the house before. Even here a place for conservative discourse i do not see anyone writing about it. To be honest I have no idea why he left but to not bring it out now OR ASSUME everyone knows or remembers is a mistake whether you are for him or not. Whatever happened in the 90 s won’t be off limits in the general. Again DO NOT ASSUME everyone knows. I guess I can google it, but why not talk about it here?

  • circlegranch

    and I hope President and Mrs. Perry send you an invite to the inaugural ball!

    I just read a breaking news item and apparently Rush hit on it too—that the RNC says we’re not supposed to criticize Obama? This Party is becoming more irrevelent by the day. We need a grassroots, patriotic person to be our next president; not one that has hoped and dreamed of this for a long time.

    Let’s fight on; stay encouraged and remember things in the polls are starting to look a little better, baby steps, but better. With some other breaking news that Romney ordered his staff in MA to remove all the computers and the questions that creates, things are very, very fluid and anything can happen. Have faith!

  • duncer

    I would like to suggest that this is a new ploy of the democrats. They make loud condemnations of some republican whose character they have targeted for destruction and cite accusers that are legally barred from revealing the details alleged as they did with Cain so successfully. Her attack on Gingrich is more of the same, if he declines to release the details of those long ago hearings, he will be accused if covering up his misdeeds. If he gives his permission to release the minutes of these closed door meetings, it will effectively destroy what little is left of hearings on unethical behavior, not that much would be lost as noted by the results of the Rangel farce.

  • circlegranch

    for some very good and quite encouraging internal polling numbers just in for Iowa.

  • wonkish1

    I don’t want to keep on posting the real numbers on those front. They are depressing. And I don’t want to keep on being the bearer of bad news on here.

  • Cogburn

    Would clobber Obama in a general election. I don’t think the Republican party should draft her, though…

  • circlegranch

    and since you don’t want to keep posting ‘bad news’ you can take a break from your labors and allow the internal polling staff in his campaign continue to do their work and then allow news outlets to report it. I highly doubt that Newsmax would be touting Perry’s good polling in Iowa as a lead story if they believed it all to be bunk. Your opposition reporting is appreciated; it serves to motivate and inspire Perry supporters to work harder. Have a great day! FYI–I will not engage you in an all-day hockey fight here because when others do that, important information and rational discourse is lost because commenters log off until its over.

  • wonkish1

    When you are dealing with someone that doesn’t want to post negative information about your candidate the dumbest move you can probably make is to try to taunt him into posting it.

    I can post a ton of polls with Perry’s F/UF numbers on here and compare it against the results in the internal. It will be quite obvious to all involved that the internal is a junk poll produced to make news.

    So learn to play your cards better if you want to plug Perry on here.

  • suzywuzy

    and the beat goes on