« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

My Endorsement for President

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 8th, 2011 at 04:47 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday I posted my confession about supporting Gingrich. Some people viewed it as a non-endorsement endorsement of Gingrich. Others viewed it as a rejection of Gingrich. Others viewed it as an endorsement of Perry or Huntsman. It was none of the above. I suspect I was too obtuse in that while trying clearly to express my concerns and publicly wrestle with getting my head around whether or not I could support Gingrich.

Over the course of the past few months, people have accused me of supporting Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Perry, and believe it or not, even Mitt Romney.

In truth, I support none of the above and as I am constantly called on these days to make an endorsement of one of the candidates, I suppose we have now reached the time for me to explain why I have no plans to endorse anyone.

First, I admit I have biases. I do like Newt Gingrich though as I noted yesterday, I have a real hard time wrapping my head around supporting him for the previously stated reasons. I do like Rick Perry too. He has been a tremendous friend to this site and I am personal friends with a great many people on his staff, some of whom used to write here. I also very much like Michele Bachmann. She has been a tremendously kind person to both me and my wife, thoughtfully checking in on us after the birth of our child, going out of her way to speak to me in a crowd, etc. I do not know Ron Paul, but his son is awesome. I do not know and have never met Jon Huntsman. I’m not exactly enamored with Rick Santorum.

Second, I have made it clear over the past month for reasons there is no need to rehash that I am firmly in the not Romney camp. In the early days of the 2008 campaign I endorsed Mitt Romney. My endorsement was made based on so many people I respect having endorsed him. But it seemed every other day I was trying to defend him changing his position on another issue and eventually got so frustrated and started doing my own research that I just gave up and threw in the towel. I can’t get back on that train and I am frankly stunned so many never got off that train.

But the lessons of 2008, the first open Presidential primary season any of us here went through since the founding of RedState, were remarkable valuable to me both in doing my own research on candidates instead of relying on the opinions of others and also realizing that the moment I endorse any candidate suddenly my opinions on the other candidates have little value because everything is seen through the prism of the endorsement.

So I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may. There are few honest brokers in this. I get accused all the time of being for one candidate or another. While I have my biases, I use the Horserace post and my other writings to call the race as I see it. Not endorsing anyone helps. You may or may not view me as an honest broker telling what I think of the candidates, but my aim is to get as close to that as I can, with previously noted biases taken into account.

Frankly, if I thought the guy I endorsed was an idiot, I’d still say so as I have done so in the past. And as happened in the past, that guy’s campaign team would irate me in trying to get me to spin for them. I don’t plan on carrying any campaign’s water.

Some of the front page writers have endorsed. Others will endorse. Some of you will be convinced I am endorsing or supporting a particular candidate. That’s all well and good. But my intention is to vote for not Romney and that is the only intention I have had since settling into the position a while back that he would be a disaster of a nominee.

Lastly, and in all honesty, this field of candidates deeply depresses me. I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that we’re on the verge of having God hand us 1980 all over again and this time making John Anderson the Republican nominee.

I can see a day soon on the horizon where I just give up and focus on House and Senate races instead of the top race.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because EE consistently promotes “gambits” which the reader is invited to “accept” or to “decline.”

    In the process, truths emerge; this is a vehicle that predictably challenges…yielding essential truths.

    And the quotable-quotes regarding which candidates aren’t true “”conservatives” on key-issues would obviously mirror those from Rush, again yielding recognition of facts that the reader can then invoke in personal decision-making.

  • davesinsanantonio

    of endorsements this early. One question I have with politicians who endorse this early is “why?”. What do they hope to gain from their early endorsement? That having been said, I do not condemn non-politicians who endorse early. They have chosen to support someone and let it be known. So be it.
    However, I do have one question for them: If your candidate drops out of the race, who do you then support? The person your candidate endorses? If so, why? Since your candidate is by definition a politician do you ask yourself what does he or she hope to gain from their endorsement? We all know politicians who have been knocked out of a race who for spite refuse to endorse the winner. Some have even gone so far as to endorse the Dimocrat!!!
    So for all you who have made up your minds already, do you have a plan B if needed? If not, what will you then do???

    Just asking.

  • wonkish1

    I’m sort of surprised that nobody on here has really seen the pointlessness of dropping right into a candibot flame war where about 2 dozen posters just run around tooling each other and ripping each others candidates apart.

    What’s the point for you? And what’s the point for them?

    If you are actually make a point talking about something other than candidates those guys just make it about candidates because they want to make it that is the limit of their value here. Then whatever you said just gets lost in a sea of repeated comments dominated by candibots.

    And I have no idea what could possibly motivate them. What do they think is going to happen? That being a constant troll day in and day out and filling the site with a sea of garbage is going to convince anybody let alone the other bots. No its not!!!

    And of course I’ll make clear that their are people here that support a certain candidate that contribute to other things, and I’m not referring to you. But I think some people need to ask themselves if they are the type of person that reads every post, diary, etc. entirely in the framework of how it fits with their chosen candidate. If that is true, do you see something wrong with that?

    I’m pretty much done talking candidates now I’m sticking to other things!

    Now watch folks figure out a way to turn this comment into something about a candidate they don’t like or one they do!

  • wonkish1

    They want to make it **clear*** that is the limit.

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

    …what happened to the RedState Army?

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/01/01/redstate-in-2009-2/

    I ask because inter-alia I believe Glenn Beck’s announcement @ 5 p.m. may entail creation of a comparable entity.

    I have learned about Heritage Action, and it appears the myriad Tea Parties are preparing to recapture the limelight.

    Thus, if RS ultimately “does” anything on a national plane [perhaps, for example, if the endorsement of other RS-leaders appear to coalesce], is there yet a “vehicle” by which any coordinated message might be disseminated?

    [Any such entity could gain instant potency in a state such as S.C.]

  • romansdaughter

    But I personally like coming to RedState to hear things about the other candidates and especially about my preferred candidate, as I am overseas right now and don’t even have a TV. I like to hear the pros and cons of all the candidates. That to me is being responsible about who we are electing, so keep on Erick.

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

    …namely “What?s the point for you? And what?s the point for them?” thusly.

    The point of posting critical comments about certain candidates is to dovetail with the theme of what EE has composed; regardless of whether a given person is preferred [for me, Perry], the goal is often to enlighten the reader as to what “not” to accept in another.

    The most recent example @ yesterday’s dominant site…
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/07/my-confession/#comment-148407
    …is the need to recognize that The Newt has endorsed the Individual Mandate.

    The Newt is a wordsmith, so his self-characterization should neither be discounted [by JSobieski] nor can it be portrayed as inconsistent with prior assertions [try as Wonkish1 might].

    Those who think that it’s “early” [davesinsanantonio] correctly note that the voting hasn’t started…but it’s initiation is imminent; in particular, it should be noted that the upcoming Holidays portend [except for the event hosted by The Donald and Newsmax on 12/27] an ancipated time-frame of lesser expressed-volatility nationally [even if the Iowans are churned by the candidates and politicos].

    Therefore, this is no time to resign one’s self to a sense that a game of musical-chairs has, for the last time, led to one man “sitting” when the music [polling] stopped.

    As EE wrote yesterday…
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/07/my-confession/#comment-148407
    …in reaction to the comment…
    “Got to play the hand you?re dealt”
    …”That about sums up where I am. I?m just not sure I?m yet ready to throw my cards on the table.”

    This is why we @ RS must continue to truth-tell, notwithstanding bruised-egos, for [if nothing else] an “Informed Consent” process must be followed assiduously during these frightful times.

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

    …under that of Wonkish1 ["I'm Bowing Out Of The Coming Flame Wars!"].

  • wonkish1

    See last sentence:

    **”Now watch folks figure out a way to turn this comment into something about a candidate they don?t like or one they do!”**

    ***After that Dr. Bob knock yourself out because I’m ignoring you!***

  • naraht

    In a straight up competition between Anderson and Carter, Anderson would have won…

  • bzip

    For me personally, I feel I made my case yesterday with lots of supporting evidence as to why I can not support Newt in the primaries.

    I have in the past and will continue to present supporting information of the candidate who I feel is the best, most consistent conservative who can beat Obama – that being Rick Perry.

    Along those lines the latest news for Rick Perry:
    VIDEO: Perry Defends Calls for Part-Time Legislature in Fox News Interview
    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/07/video-perry-defends-calls-part-time-legislature-fox-news-interview
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1315094625001/

    Perry gave a great interview with Wolf B. on CNN yesterday. Perry also made it clear yesterday that “if” he isn’t the nominee he has no interest in a VP slot – thinks being governor is far better and I don’t blame him.

    TRENDING: Perry hits Obama for war on faith, despite a ghost of ‘holiday season’ past
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/perry-hits-obama-for-war-on-faith-despite-a-ghost-of-holiday-season-past/

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

    …but do not decry those who wish [with credibility untainted, referencing assertions even before being challenged] to expose hypocrisy.

    The TEA {Taxed Enough Already} Party Movement must learn ASAP of the violation of a stance that remains @ the heart of those who promote Constitutional Conservatism.

    The Newt may claim to oppose ObamaCare, but NewtCare allows for what the great consensus [if not unanimity] of those in the TPM have opposed since the inception of what Andrew Breitbart has characterized as perhaps the most profound political grass-roots effort in modern America [as he told an audience in Philly two days ago and as he wrote in his new book, "RIGHTeous IndigNATION"].

    *

    GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

    GLENN: Okay. That?s 1993. Here is May 2011.

    GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

    VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

    GINGRICH: It?s a variation on it.

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/

    *

    As bzip summarized yesterday…
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/07/my-confession/#comment-148407
    …The Newt has not demonstrated he is a consistent-conservative.

    Say/write anything desired about Rick, but one charge that can’t be leveled @ him is anything akin to a flip-flop. Compare/contrast his humility with the over-confidence exuded by The Newt ["I'm the nominee"...Veep Mitt, SoState Bolton, etc.].

    As the critical comments regarding The Newt are provided by Ann Coulter…
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/07/the-newt-history-you-ought-to-know/
    …and this site…
    http://www.redstate.com/lessgovisthebestgov/2011/11/29/newt-gingrichcashing-in-on-his-political-connections/
    …with the latter referencing this…
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=369189
    …and this…
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/is-newt-gingrich-a-conservative-you-decide/
    …and citing this
    https://www.jbs.org/shop/download-the-new-american-december-7-2009
    …which has emerged in a half-hour video…
    http://www.jbs.org/commentary/the-real-newt-gingrich
    along with numerous additional references to profound problems presented by The Newt…
    http://www.jbs.org/search?searchword=gingrich.

    Note also the warning-signs about The Newt from last year…
    http://www.campaignforliberty.org/node/12120
    …and recently…
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/gingrich-backpedals-says-life-begins-at-conception-supports-14th-amendment-protection-from-conception/
    … which captures a flip-flop on abortion within a 24-hour time-period.

    *

    Rather than abdicating responsibility to recoil against The Newt [and Mitt, for different reasons], I aver those @ RS should redouble efforts to ensure this community [at least] has confronted key-facts about the GOP-POTUS race.

    And, to quote Hillel [in a different context]: “…if not now, when?”

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

    …with regard to 1980, which yielded RR.

    EE wrote: “Lastly, and in all honesty, this field of candidates deeply depresses me. I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that we?re on the verge of having God hand us 1980 all over again and this time making John Anderson the Republican nominee.”

    I confess to having voted for JA [and having led a loco-regional effort for Perot in 1992, just prior to becoming a GOP Committeeman], so I concur with Naraht and fail to appreciate the logic of this assertion.

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

    …are postings that emanate from a uniquely/aptly named blogger:

    http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/12/07/as-the-perry-campaign-shows-new-life/

  • dajeeps

    That is one thing that gets left out of the smear pieces – the steps included in transition from big government, command and control to market & freedom-based solutions. He has said that over and over. He has also said that it is the end game to have these programs transferred to states and enforcing the 10th amendment.

    There is also one other huge thing left out, his desire to have OUR feedback in his plans. He is not Obama, Pelosi or Reid who would just deem and pass whether we like it or not. It does not matter if he talked about mandates in the past, he is well aware they would not go anywhere.

  • romansdaughter

    Where can you see that CNN interview with Wolf B? I would love to see it.

  • unitedwestood

    Thank you for the updates on Perry. I am a cheerleader for Rick Perry. You seem to just make me feel better when I get concerned that he might not win. Thank you!

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

    The entire interview by Glenn of The Newt…
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/transcript-of-newt-gingrich-interview/
    …served to skewer him in telegraphic-fashion.

    He covered his fealty for Theodore Roosevelt; his endorsement of minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety; his support for ethanol subsidies [picking a winner]; his support for the [unfunded] Medicare prescription drug program ; his attack on Ryan’s “rightwing social engineering”; his support for gradually reforming Social Security; his support for creating a Department of Education; his support for Fannie/Freddie; and his support for Global Warming concerns [as per Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry] via “Green Conservatism..”

    I have experienced such profound sensory-overload [reinforced by bzip] that it is difficult to envision a method by which The Newt can justify his ongoing candidacy [notwithstanding all of his unnecessarily egocentric/elitist comments]. He is a statist – through and through – and I’m virtually “through ” with him!

    [Those who like him are invited to defend these stances, particularly those [such as Wonkish1] who harbor encyclopedic knowledge of his writings and speeches over the decades.

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

    …but I don’t hear much of this “transition”-concept seeping through, nor has he been sound-bited while inviting strong citizen-input.

    To the contrary, he acts the know-it-all at all times about all things.

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

    …focusing on values/religion/faith.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/12/07/tsr-perry-obama-war-on-religion-mpg.cnn

    He was very relaxed and precise.

  • renl57

    In 1972, the Dem base was far left antiwar (the New Left had gotten ensconced on the Dem National Committee).

    And they rejected moderate candidates like Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey to nominate George McGovern, who was doctrinaire liberal through and through.

    And McGovern lost to Nixon in a landslide.

    We seem on the verge of doing exactly the same thing: Nominating a candidate (Gingrich) who is completely out of phase with the concerns of those voters who aren’t part of the GOP base. Female voters will desert Gingrich in droves due to his personal history.

    And while we’ve spent the better part of 3 years asserting that a pseudo-intellectual with the air of a college professor–Obama–is unqualified to be Chief Executive, now we’re going to nominate our own pseudo-intellectual with the air of a college professor–Gingrich. Go figure.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Had someone (will not name names) slamming Perry for his comment about VP last night on RS. Amazing how quickly some people pounce on something NOT intended as an insult. If they had taken the statement in context they would’ve seen he was comparing the Governorship of Texas with the role of VP. Alas, some people willfully blind themselves simply because they despise Perry.

    Thanks for all your hard work, bzip. We really appreciate you around here. Even if EE doesn’t endorse Perry, RS has definitely become a hub for the Perry Posse–which is A-OK, since HotAir tends to be an Anybody But Perry hub and a lot of Paul supporters hang out at The Blaze. It’s good to have somewhere we can go to get encouragement from others and discuss different things at the same time.

  • cheetah2

    Right now I am not too interested in reading tons of negative stuff about the candidates I do not currently support. If the person I support drops out then I will be looking over all the info on the others to see how enthusiastic I can get about one of them.

    I support Perry right now because he is the closest to my ideal as far as experience, principles, plans etc. If he drops out, by that time it will probably be true that a clear likely winner has emerged.

    Honestly at that point I may be trying to get used to accepting and supporting the person who seems likely to win rather than choosing the one I feel more closely aligned with philosophically.

    There will come a point where we just have to rally behind the person with the best chance of winning to strengthen his ability to take on the ultimate goal of beating Obama. As has beens said many times by wiser people than me, they are all better that Obama.

  • renl57

    Huntsman could be a formidable candidate. He could sweep the Independent vote. Heck, he could even pull moderate Dem votes away from Obama. Folks who supported Hillary or Joe Manchin could easily vote for Huntsman.

    I wish Erick or the TEA Party or some other part of the GOP base would meet with Huntsman and try to work out a deal along these lines:

    1. Huntsman has to walk back his claim that the main thing wrong with Obama’s stimulus package was that it was too small. That’s non-negotiable.

    2. Huntsman has to reach out to the GOP base rather than use them as a foil.

    3. Huntsman has to show he can go after Obama. So far, he hasn’t. But the only way to unseat an incumbent is to convince the voters that the incumbent doesn’t deserve another term.

    Huntsman is more conservative than his campaign has painted him out to be. He and his campaign manager made a conscious decision to run to the *left* of most other GOP candidates, perhaps hoping to win Independent voters in states with open primaries. That was just dumb, and if Huntsman is to have any chance remaining, he has to abandon that strategy too.

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

    …because he feels it injures America’s international image.

    Add this to your to-do list!

  • rockytop9

    Well said Mr. Pence. Anybody other that Obama. Most folks are so busy picking at and putting down the republican challengers they have forgotten the prize. Evict Obama, whatever the cost. I suspect many of these whining so called conservatives are really Obamaite infiltrators trying to stir up discontent. I stand by my commitment, support whoever challenges Obama, even if it’s Ron Paul.

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

    …pacifist posturing:

    “Jon Huntsman, the closest thing in the race to a representative of an older Republican foreign policy tradition of ‘realism,’ promised to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan and Germany ? but to ‘ensure that there is no blue sky between’ the U.S. and Israel.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70033_Page2.html#ixzz1fwj6GJgn

  • jussmartenuf

    You like Bachman because she was nice to you? Gingrich is drummed out of congress for ethics? Not Romney club? These are your qualifications for president? If your candidate were an idiot you would vote for him? All candidates deeply depress you?
    Did you ever think of putting two and two together and abandoning the party of idiots or are you making so much money in leading this politically low information crowd into the fog the money means more to you than integrity?

  • wonkish1

    From Indiana.

    Cheetah is not Mike Pence!

  • peg_c

    This post reveals why I find myself visiting RS less and less as the days and months go by.

  • wonkish1

    Almost should take bets on how long it takes for this guy to be gone.

  • celador2

    I am relieved RS today may not become a mouthpiece for anyone for president since none of the candidates stand much chance of defeating Obama. Some soar in the eyes and hearts oof supporters and offer much!The comparison to 1980 is a good one. That outcome is also the profound observation I have made of late as I see unemployment drop to 8.6 and Obama win or tie in match up polls month after month.

    Obama may have peaked in job disapproval. Even if he has not peaked, the low job approval even on economy ratings are Obama only. When compared to a contender voters prefer him.

    Republicans have alot of work to do turning out voters to defeat Obama and Democrats.

    If Obama wins he will fill the federal judiciary with legislators from the bench who use courts to make policy. My greatest fear of a Demorat in WH is judicial appointments. Courts now sweep clear legislatures made actions over time, and make their own laws. Sotomajor and Kagan are prime examples of dangerous appointments. One or a few judges have the power of entire legislatures if they so say!

    I welcome RS following the House and Senate as I do too when I see things on the races.There is not much. I see a possible pick up in Wisconsin but only of the once most popular Republican can hold his lead, Tommy Thompson. MO I see as a tie now in match up polls but McCaskill will win. MA Warren is tied and may unseat Scott Brown. In the Plains at least one Dem is retiring Conrad. If a similar conservative sounding Dem runs he or she may win.

    AZ sees a slight surge in Dem chances with the Kyl retirement. Brown OH and Casey PA are up for reelection. And then there is VA–Allen stands some chance of a comeback. Turnout in a presidential year will decide that seat. Trending Republican VA GOP may have peaked in sweeping seats. VA GOP have made big gains.

    i am impressed with the tea party Senate candidate Jamie Radke but VA voters hardly know her. I am a long time Mark Neumann Groupie and voted twice for him, the latest was in WI primary against Scott Walker for governor 2010. But Mark won only 38% of primary vote. He has won Demint’s endorsement for Senate 2012. If he wins the primary over Thompson it could be a similar outcome to DE 2010 when Castle lost to McDonnell.

    Gov Thompson is far more right than Castle and Neumann more credible than Christine McDonnell. But Neumann does not yet click statewide as Rubio did FL. Still former Rep Mark Neumann is a dream come true for Senate! If Ron Johnson a nobody could defeat Feingold by a 5 pt spread then Neumann can win the retiring Kohl seat if voters are angry at Obama and Dems as they were in 2010.

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

    …because his posting is just as provocative as the “gambit” approach adopted adroitly by EE.

    For example, I would anticipate that reactions to this RS-page will affect the imminent/weekly Horserace column.

    People will note the misrepresentations in this posting, ignore its putative message, but understand the emotions that are increasingly exposed during this run-up to Iowa.

    As was noted by Margaret Thatcher [and routinely quoted herein]: ?First you win the argument, then you win the vote.?

    Essentially, EE is challenging the candidates [particularly Rick, in my view] to PERFORM…particularly on Saturday [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70060.html].

  • nancysabet

    I am suprised that Eric is not coming out and endorse Perry, for obvious reason, he is the most qualified by far.

  • jussmartenuf

    Government is NOT the problem. It is the idiots that are owned by the captains of industry, e.g. the billionaires, that voters send to Washington who then deregulate for them so they can take billions from the lower income classes of America. Example, take away the Glass-Stedman act, passed to protect us from the financial sector and you have a credit default swap crisis that is bailed out by the TARP (under Bush, remember) giveaway of billions of tax dollars to the banks.
    Take away the savings and loan regulations and you have the Savings and Loan crisis (under Reagan, remember) that transferred billions of tax dollars to that financial sector.
    Republicans have picked up the billionaire’s mantra and aren’t jussmartenuf to see they are voting against their own self interest. Who among us is really stupid enuf to think if Rush Limbaugh (who made $58 million last year) paid another million in taxes he would have to fire his staff or do his own laundry?
    It is time for you to stop listening and agreeing and start thinking.

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

    …because key-info is often revealed/distilled here [in contrast with predictable/vacuous postings elsewhere].

  • circlegranch

    and so do your readers here, otherwise we’d spend our hours per day at other places.

    In defense of myself and other Perry supporters here at RS, I think we’ve been obliged to come out strongly in his defense more so than some find tolerable. The reason we’ve found it necessary is because of the blatant disrespect he’s received from a number of prominent conservative news sources. It has not been difficult to track obvious agenda’s, trends and outright attempts to discourage the public from gving Gov. Perry fair consideration.

    The difference between Perry supporters and those of Paul, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman is that we truly believe our candidate is right for America at this point in time and we’re committed to investing the time, day in and out, to promote his candidancy. Flickers of support for the aforementioned show up here occasionally but it seems we’ve whittled the field primarly to anti-Perry commenters and they keep the discourse lively. Their opposition provides us a chance to educate. We engage with our friends supporting Romney and Gingrich also but there is a profound and deeply held respect among us for Gov. Rick Perry, and it is that which motivates and inspires us.

    We are not going to quit in trying to get his message out. Most of us are grassroots conservatives that have experience in winning hearts and minds, one neighbor, one friend, one relative at a time. We are the worker bees in a campaign; the foot soldiers that stuff envelopes and knock on doors and make calls, knowing we’re sitting ducks for attacks, rude behavior and getting hung up on or kicked off somebody’s lawn. We don’t lose heart. We call the next number and knock on the next door. We find a smile when we’re tired and we consume cold, cheap pizza foregoing a hot meal at home with the family. We are the souls standing in freezing temp’s holding campaign signs at honk and waves at busy intersections and we’re the ones trying to force the wire frames of yard signs into frozen ground. Are we discouraged and worn out yet? Not even close.

    We’re taking on powerful media elites on both sides in defending Perry, but the effort is honest and we see it as the taking back of America and putting forth a common sense, practical, experienced leader. Whether Texasans or not, we appreciate the normalcy of the Perry image; we can identify with his middle class upbringing and rise to success based on faith, hard work and love of country. We cringe occasionally at a gaffe or screw-up but we don’t leave the fold because we understand the man’s heart and that he shares with us the urgency that America is on fire and we need tough decisions made. My professional background is in hospital administration and physician practice management. When a critical patient comes through the ER doors, there’s no time for eloquent speeches or name-dropping about famous phyisicians of the past or to cite dates and stat’s about medical successes the triage team plans to use. What’s needed is emergent, quick response. A team of trained professionals must make snap decisions based on hands-on experience that works. A family waits on the other side of those doors and they are filled with fear and anxiety about the worst that can happen. They trust those skilled physicians, ER nurses and medical tech’s to get it right and get to work immediately. The patient has just put their life in the hands of someone and they don’t care how articulate the doctor is, or what his grades might have been in college. The ER physician is in charge and puts out the orders; his team executes and everything humanly possible is done to save the patient. Specialists are called in and experienced, dedicated staff begins the hard work of saving the patient and restoring quality of life. It’s a long road, but of course, its worth it. America is that patient, we are the family and swift, emergent care is needed or else the chance for survival is grim. We also need a Physician in Chief that not only intends to save the Union, but restore Her to vibrant health again.

    EE, continue on and if you see fit, allow us to do the same. It all comes together into a wonderful website that is admired and respected. Alot of learning is facilitated here; alot of thought is provoked and we thank you.

  • celador2

    In the HILL ‘Health watch’ they reported Dec 6 or 7 that Perry gave a health care presentation in House, I think, that was based on free market solutions.

    He gave details of Texas caps that reduced costs and tort reform. Many of the contenders have made a presentation to a House group but there is no media coverage. Perry did well but took no questions. Still his report was well received based on content and substance.

    Gov Perry is a good man to follow. He has core character and stands for limited government policies.

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

    …but your underlying premise ["none of the candidates stand much chance of defeating Obama"] must be challenged.

    Simply put, those who issue such wild claims [either way] are forgetting that the electorate routinely contains swing-voters. Although I feel “fly-over America” will reflexly go Red [for myriad reasons, national and regional], I always inject a disclaimer of uncertainty when presenting my case.

    Indeed, just noting this “killing with faint praise” endorsement…
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69798.html
    …illustrates why the GOP must nominate an exciting candidate.

    So, let’s not be defeatist when so much is on-the-line, ok?

  • noveldog9

    I like your dog. I also like the fact that you are a Christian and are not afraid to say so. The most important endorsement is that of a pet, they know you best, next to God that is.

    I have reluctantly been drawn to Mitt Romney. He is the husband of one wife, loves his country, and has much experience in the financial field.

    Besides Ann Coulter, he( Romney) has picked up the endorsements of several very conservative people like Dan Quayle, and Chris Christie. The ultimate endorsement of course is by God and by the people at the polls.

    I think a Romney/Perry ticket would do well against Obama.

  • chbroussard

    rockytop was agreeing with Mike Pence’s quote that he’s a “Christian, a conservative and a Republican in that order”, NOT that cheetah was writing as Mike Pence.

  • celador2

    Huntsman has many sound plans based in free market remedies like cheap insurance and taxes. But he began his campaign at a debate and to press by singling out Creationism and overdid his attacks. He said Republicans must stand with science and frankly so demonized people of faith I am wary of what the party would be like with him as President.

    It would change its tone and bring in Manchin, Hillary and Gingrich types who hold in contempt and by name Protestant evangelicals.

    Huntsman would draw atheists too and faith baiters.

  • yael

    The only thing that matters is that in the end we “Beat Back Barack.” See William Gensert at American Thinker, who says that the only way to do that is to “oppose him rigorously, relentlessly, and without remorse.”

    And for what’s it worth: “Barack Obama will fight dirty. The nation needs a candidate who will do the same.” (This is why I too favor The Not-Romney.)

  • JSobieski

    Does this phrase mean anything to you Dr. Bob?

    You quote the line constantly, but never seem to read what you quote.

    Is it wordsmithing to use sentences that are more complext than a grunt?

  • Darin_H

    Anderson probably would have beat Carter, that much is true.

    But thank God that Reagan was president because the country was better for it.

  • jussmartenuf

    Perry’s latest ad tells the story, he is against equal rights for all Americans. He is a hate monger willing to claim Democrats are anti-Christian. What a sad excuse for a person, embarrassing to Texans and all Americans.

  • noveldog9

    Most folks will say ghat they are worth more than their computer and rightly so. Our computers are, however, a very valuable tool. It gives us access to the web. We can do many wonderful things using it.
    There is a problem however, Satan and his hackers constantly try to hack into our computers and steal our information ,or simply implant a malicious worm to destroy it’s memory and corrupt our files.

    We wisely use a good fire wall, and registry cleaner, and malware, and spy ware, to protect our information ,and our computer. We download updates regularly and keep our computers clean.

    Why not do the same for ourselves since we are even more valuable? Our firewall could be the KJV, or NKJV bible. Our malware, and spy ware could be our pastor who teaches us how to combat Satan.

    Going to church regularly is like an update to our memory system.
    Praying to Christ and repenting of our sins is like cleaning our computer. It refreshes our registry and puts us back on the right track. So what are you waiting for?

  • ihateliberals

    since this is a primary race I find myself much in the same boat as EE. Until we actually select a candidate i will mostly root for Not-Romney. Romney is an absolute last choice in my thoughts. The only thing going for Romney is he is Not-Obama. Gingrich was my Third choice after Tim Pawlenty, then Michele Bachman. If Gingrich continues his ride at the top and wins most of the primaries before PA then I will vote for him.

    I am a Mormon and a conservative and I can’t in good conscious vote for Romney in that I don’t believe he follows Church teachings and he is from Mass. There has never been nor will there ever be a true conservative from the New England states.

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

    …tbat even her appearances on Red Eye have become strained.

    Regardless of Mitt’s family-life, you mustn’t forget how he has continued to endorse an Individual Mandate; he is, just as is The Newt, a statist/elitist.

    Perry is genuinely poised to dismantle the D.C. Establishment; would you not adhere to the Constitutional Conservative [TEA Party] approach to Federalism?

    Guzzardi and I SALIVATE at the prospect of POTUS-Perry; can advocates for other candidates [on a grand scale] be perceived with such enthusiasm?

  • Christian_Reppie

    is that do we vote for a man with no moral character but is very smart, or do we vote for a man who will not govern as a conservative but has a lot of moral character?

    Are we Christians first or are we conservatives first?

    That is one of the reason I want Perry to win. Christian with moral character AND a true conservative.

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

    …and, within the context of the entire ‘graph, it can only mean FISCALLY.

    NO, government has NO RIGHT to hold ANYONE “accountable,” in ANY fashion, for ANY facet of private life.

    The Constitution doesn’t endorse such Congressional conduct, and no amount of wordsmithing can obscure the impact it would portend.

    A grunt this isn’t; a warning-shot it is!

    Clear?

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

    …and I would not be “surprised” about anything about EE, as is often noted on CNN.

    Sometimes, a quasi-”endorsement” will emerge in more covert fashions, and that sort of process starts with “no Mitt” and could soon yield “no The Newt.”

  • JSobieski

    If two private parties enter a contract [say for medical services] and one party breaches, the aggrieved party can go to . .. .

    COURT!

    Are you saying that enforcing contract law is an inappropriate government function?

    Really?

    They say Newt has an ego, but the depths you are willing to go to refuse admitting your own linquistic malpheasance is striking

  • JSobieski

    One might as well threaten to chew off their own foot.

  • romansdaughter

    That was a fantastic post! Thanks so much!

  • circlegranch

    their show starts at 9 am EST; not sure if he’s first but he’s on.

    Thanks, romansdaughter. I appreciate your kind words; mine spring from within and I guess come with old age and subsequent wisdom that comes from bein’ around the block a time or two. Merry Christmas

  • Change Jar Conservative

    We have an opportunity to have a true conservative like RR and instead we’re going to get Newt or Romney who are more like Anderson.

  • romansdaughter

    nt

  • unitedwestood

    Perry doesn’t believe you need special treatment. Here is a news flash for you…. you people aren’t special.. you are no more special then anyone else. Your agenda shouldn’t be pushed through at the expense of taking my RIGHTS away from me. I should not have to recognize something that you dream up in your head as right…. just because YOU think it’s right, this week.

    You people are confused and just plain’ol weird! Didn’t your mother tell you to check your equipment- that tells you what you are! God doesn’t make mistakes… you were born a man or a woman… nothing in between. Now, what you prefer in your bedroom should be left between you and your partner.. but the rest of us shouldn’t have to suffer such fools! Perry is an honorable man with a moral code that you, obviously know nothing about… or you couldn’t say such things about the man. People like you set us back many many years………. Saddam and Gomorrah was destroyed.

  • SoFiMil

    : )

  • johnorton72

    The hardest thing I have about reading Red State is Erick Ericksons lack of substance. Yes, he is knowledeable about reading headlines but lacks indepth gastalt. For example, instead of skimming and jumping ship when I have never heard one substantial reason why I should leave Romney other than a head line quote. Does anyone here understand the necessity of exceptionalism in all things under certain conditions? Instead, it is always a forrun conclusion to get anyone in except Romney without any in-depth evaluation of circumstance at given issues at those specific times. If anyone really knows Romney they would not be questioning his pro life stance nor his 2nd ammendment beliefs in gun rights either.

    Another example… Does anyone believe in killing? Of course you do if you have any common sense. If not you would not even vote for George Washington. There is always exceptionalism on given circumstance and I would not call that a flip flop as people so easily label.
    Don’t get me wrong I am still open minded to anyone that would truly be the better person in helping turn our country around. I have still questions about Romeny myself as like us he puts his pants on the same way as we do. But his history is a proven fixer of broken problems.

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

    he feels the military will not function @ optimal strength if personal/private stressors are introduced.

    the ad compares/contrasts this definable concern with the wholesale rejection of JudeoChristian values by the D’s [and BHO].

    this isn’t a hate-monger, for his focus is on a muscular foreign policy…which DADT promulgated [in his view].

  • Wes_W

    It is obvious you are here to troll. It is time for you to get back to your little buddies at the Kos.

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

    essentially, by acting aloof [remember boycott of numerous events, such as the Thanksgiving Faith Forum], he self-marginalized.

    Endorsement by Mika is indicative, as his not having opposed a China Policy that he was espousing on behalf of BHO.

    This type of candidate would ANGER most everyone ["establishment" and TPM].

  • Common_Cents

    We are being brainwashed by the media. They have largely achieved success in getting us to compare our candidates to perfection, making them look very flawed.

    However, we should be comparing them to Obama, and who is the most conservative that can beat him.

    The left will have $1billion in media slime to wage on ANY candidate. If they can’t find much dirt, they’ll just make it up. Repeat it 24/7.

    This is why we cannot ignore nominating a candidate that can counteract this effectively.

    Secondly, will the GOP stupid party ever wake up and start training ALL its members on how to handle the hostile media? Coordinating messaging? Why do we keep going one by one like a lamb to the slaughter?

    Just think how different this country would be if we had even a hint of a fair and balanced media? Obama and the left would be toast just if American’s get both sides of an issue. Many of our posts here are a result of media bias. We keep bailing the boat, with no attempts to plug the dang media bias hole!

    This may appear off topic, but it really isn’t. This is at the core of you not feeling good about any candidate. The media is DESIGNED to do that. It is their INTENTION. It’s classic Alinsky ridicule.

    Here is an example of what we need(not him as President but the quality he has in smacking down the media twits)

    If we adopted some of this to call out the media, things will change rapidly, as the media morons will fold quickly after being confronted.

    Look at how the Donald challenged the framing of the discussion and alinskied F Chuck Todd. Todd was visibly shaken for 15 minutes after that, missing lines, disjointed, redfaced, nervous. He’ll think twice next time whereas in the past these lefty media twits get to say anything w/ the cover of the press.

    Gingrich slaps this idiot down. This guy was never seen or heard from again. Look at the reaction from Olbermann. freakin classic!

    Christie in this case, slams an idiot audience member but regularly slams the media. They will respect him some day and ask better fairer questions. People hate confrontation, especially the passive aggressive media twits.

    Again, these are to illustrate the quality so sorely lacking in our Republican leaders that we need to develop. We have to heed the Alinsky tactics and start using them. They work as evidenced by the relentless attack and ridicule the media has waged on all of our candidates.

  • bzip

    Thanks all, Thanks: unitedwestood, louisianapatriette, celador2 and Doc.

    I can’t seem to find a link to the CNN interview that isn’t broken into segments. Doc posted a link to a short segment but finding the entire interview is difficult. It was a really good interview, I think Perry came off very sound, solid and knowledgeable.

    We have a few posters here that like slamming a candidate for the slightest thing but refuse to acknowledge the most serious issues with there candidate. In all honesty I thought Perry’s answer on the VP spot was right on the mark.

    I’ll have to check out this Health watch. I hadn’t heard about it. I do know that Perry implemented the TORT reform and has had good reviews for it.

    Perry is the best choice for us conservatives. Have a great day and enjoy.

  • Common_Cents

    People have been down on Rush a bit, thinking he was endorsing Cain. He was defending Cain from the unfair media slime.

    Rush was not condoning any improper behavior by Cain, but rather the way the media tried Cain in the headlines. How different did they treat John Edwards? How about Clinton?

    Rush might now be defending Gingrich from being attacked relentlessly, unfairly, twisting, misrepresenations. Rush tries to keep us focused on the big picture, how bad Obama is.

    We need to quit falling for the media trap of comparing our candidates to perfection and focus on who is the most conservative we can get that can beat obama.

  • rowdy

    Lots of talk about how the man has heart and is a true conservative, and a real christian. But where are the facts? look at his history, He used to be a democrat, and if you look at his voting record he still is. He votes with the democraps almost every time. He has voted for(in every case) and written bills in an effort to keep our borders with Mexico open. This is not only one of the biggest contributing factors to Americas problems, but is also a clear violation of the constitution. Is that what you want? Another president that will continue the destruction of our constitution? As far as being a christian, so is obummer ;-) . No he is a politician, politicians are christians just the same as Perry is a R (well unless that R stands for Rino). We are in dire straits here folks. As far as I am concerned there is only one candidate in the running that I am even remotely sure I can trust to run my country in a proper manner. At this particular moment in history what we need is a president that we can trust to adhere to and to steer our country back towards the constitution. Is that person perfect and can they do everything right? It doesn’t matter, it only matters that they will stand against the corruption that is rampant in our government, and make the changes to bring us back to a moral and upstanding nation, respectful of our constitution and freedoms.THIS is the most important election since the founding of our country. It will determine whether we continue into the future or fail miserably here and now. We must have a principled leader, one that is not afraid to stand for our constitution and our freedoms and liberties. We can not take a chance on any other candidate than
    *- – – * – – * – – * – RON PAUL – * – – * – – * – – -*

  • Scope

    The site is < that way.

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

    …is a crash-course on much that already had been posted on RS.

    Not only must you recognize the flip-flops [Ohio plebiscite, remember?], but you must know that he remains adherent to the Individual Mandate.

    John, more than most every other pundit, EE has consistently written/said what had to be said, often with a memorable rhetorical twist; and nothing raised by EE remotely approaches dependence on potentially-prejudicial asides ["I have still questions about Romeny myself as like us he puts his pants on the same way as we do"] to make a cogent political point.

    The bottom-line is, to me, how he has eschewed relating with most any aspect of the TEA Party Movement, reflecting his fealty to the GOP-Establishment.

    The “Main St. v. Wall St.” metaphor remains ambient.

  • unitedwestood

    He’s my governor. I was torn — Governor or President. We need him as president, I just hate to lose him as Governor.

  • seanl

    Can he take the fight to Obama? Can he hold his feet to the fire?

    If he can’t do that then it is another four years of Hussein. That is why Gingrich must be the choice.

  • brucealexy

    Having reviewed the positives and negatives of each of the potential candidates I find myself desperate to find the best possible candidate to face Obama next year.

    I find myself hoping for a deadlocked convention turning to the best possible candidate the party can possibly nominate….Marco Rubio.

    Does anyone agree? Can we get a draft movement going?

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

    …but it is a baseline concept that is not akin to the bond-posting concept.

    OF COURSE normal business transactions would be available to anyone, but The Newt is advocating something/anything additional in the realm of health insurance.

    THIS is what is reprehensible and you should please recall his other writings on this topic [which are quite specific and he has not rescinded].

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

    …that portends the NewtCare that would be c/w all of his Big Government elitist/statist “solutions” to America’s problems.

  • annplato

    If you can find a talent within yourself and work hard to promote it, you can make millions or even billions yourself! Covetousness is foolish and a grave sin!

  • zeprin

    I’ve said it before, we may get through the primary season without a clear leader. Bringing on an old fashioned Brokered GOP convention. And looking into my very cloudy crystal ball, I can just about make out a certain lady from Alaska running away with the PRIZE on the convention floor.

  • celador2

    After reading that politico op/ed I agreed that Newt declared conservatives jihadists and all that and worked well with Democrats. The caucus fired him. .Joe gives him credit or praise for what others and he did.

    But does that tenure in office mean anyone owes disloyal Newt support for president?

    Newt may have been Speaker when Kasich. Paxton, Coburn and others did stay true to their beliefs and brought about some changes on alleged welfare reform–, taxes and balanced budget. Newt obstructed!

    Newt will weaken the conservative movement if he is president as the conservatives for limited and ennumerated government are his main rivals still, not retired buddies Obey or Pelosi..

    As Geo Will said Newt is not a conservative.

    He is a big picture-ideas government man. Amything that happened before he was fired was in spite fo Newt not because of him.
    His head was not screwed on straight once he became Speaker.

    A powerful cliche comes to mind and is fitting,.

    Newt is not my cup of tea.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    in a smoke-filled back room. Besides, brokered conventions select the least offensive candidate. You won’t get Perry or Bachmann, you’ll get Romney or Gingrich….which is kinda where we are now anyway.

  • scottb

    whom I will be voting for until the election. I’ve already changed my mind 3 times. So, it’s apparent it isn’t made up yet.
    One thing I’m definitely sure of, it won’t be Obama for president.

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

    …in two ways.

    *

    Sympathetically:

    azrally Friday, December 2nd at 2:13PM EST (link)
    Newt?s original position on healthcare was very much a conservative approach: eliminate the ?third party? payment system and make certain that each individual is responsible for their own coverage. The ?mandate? misnomer came about because this change would require each person to have ?coverage?. The coverage could be insurance, bond, or starting a medical saving account that was part of Newt?s proposals since the 1990?s. (To Renew America: 1995) This was a moral mandate not a government mandate. ?Allowing individuals to pass their health costs onto others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviours that bankrupt the current system.? (Real Change, p. 227: 2008)

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/02/the-danger-newt-gingrich-poses-to-mitt-romney/

    *

    Critically:

    This is based on the fact that The Newt endorsed the Individual Mandate in his two RECENT books [explicitly]: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."].

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/02/the-danger-newt-gingrich-poses-to-mitt-romney/

    *

    Choose your poison!

    *

  • Common_Cents

    Corrupt government twits like Clinton, Dodd, Frank, etccc……are 100% equal accomplices in this. Big business cannot make or repeal legislation by themselves.

    Glass-Stedman? Was Oprah’s old boyfriend Stedman Graham writing legislation? ;) I believe it was Steagal.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    But the point is that we’re going to throw it all away and nominate a squishy milquetoast candidate who really isn’t vastly different from the incumbent in office.

  • texasroots

    races. You are too conflicted to focus on the top race. I no longer care to read your e-newsletter because you are just like the rest of the pundits, too negative. I really believe that you want Obama to win in 2012 so that all of your jobs are secure. You have become just like the liberals. You want a perfect candidate. You need to build people up, not keep tearing them down. Accentuate the positives on all the Republican candidates, at least give them credit for being in the fight.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I’m tempted to put the comment in the trash and close your account. This is not relevant to this post and is a thread jack. Don’t do it again or you and your comments will be treated as SPAM.

  • Whacker77

    Over the last two days, there have been lots of hints the field MAY not be set. First came the piece by Stephen Moore in the WSJ. Erick essentially confirmed it and said Jeb Bush is a name being floated. Of course, Erick also said it probably won’t happen.

    Still, the chatter is growing. Just this morning, Larry Sabato tweeted it’s not too late for a new candidate. He mentioned a new candidate could join even as late as February 1 and one of his associates wrote a piece saying it’s not too late because of the way the delegates are being awarded.

    A choice between Newt and Mitt is no choice at all. In fact, the realization we may be forced to choose between these two is having an effect on Republican voters. Gallup noted Republican excitement about the 2012 race has fallen over the last three months. Given the clownish nature of the candidates that shouldn’t be a huge surprise.

    I agree with Erick. Even though we’re still 11 months out, I think we’re close to having to focus on the House and some of the great Senate candidates we have running. Newt would could endanger every single seat we won in the House in 2010. We should demand better.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    About Ron Paul and Iowa.

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

    Even the “sympathetic” version notes the potential need to invoke a MSA.

    This is a FISCAL manifestation of what The Newt would burden each American to do, as part of his/her responsibility [in his statist/elitist mind] to everyone else.

    My interpretation is reinforced by the stated-rationale for this intervention, namely, to preclude people from being able to “pass their health costs onto others.”

    This transcends the “moral” obligation behind which The Newt’s defenders simply can no longer hide.

    Indeed, the alleged existence of “irresponsible, unhealthy behaviours that bankrupt the current system” cannot be invoked to violate the Constitution.

    [I hope this has been composed by using a sufficient level of 8th grade lingo to allow JSobieski to respond cogently.]

  • Whacker77

    Don’t lose all hope. There is some buzz a draft movement in affot. Stephen Moore mentioned it first. Larry Sabato is backdoor hinting about it on twitter this morning.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    No text

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

    …but I thought the pathway chosen by Scarborough was worth weighing [both for how he ended it...10% of the space] and how he initiated it [90% of the space], respectively, praising and critiquing.

    Anyone remember “Friends, Romans, Countymen…lend me your ears….”???

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

    countrymen

  • clintonformccain

    Lastly, and in all honesty, this field of candidates deeply depresses me.

    Indeed. What is truly depressing is that only two of the candidates are even serious, credible Presidential candidates. Like them or hate them, at least Romney and Perry are actually running to be be President (instead of sell books) and have legitimate Presidential qualifications. The entire rest of the field is either running on a lark or on qualifcations so thin as to be laughable.

    At this point, I take some solice in the fact that the Republicans will probably win the Senate and control both houses of Congress for Obama’s second term. At least then gridlock will prevent the idiots in Washington from doing anything. The less they do, the better, I guess.

  • Whacker77

    Palin is as compromised as any candidate already in the field. There is no way she would be chosen as a compromise choice at a brokered convention. She’s no more informed than Herb was. She’s no less polarizing than Newt is. How does that make things better? She is never going to be a national Republican candidate. She flubbed too many things over the last three years.

  • Whacker77

    I think we underestimate what a poor presidential choice can do to Senate candidates. Look at all the seats Reagan swept into office in 1980. A dud choice can have the opposite effect. Winning the Sebate back and maintaining the House has a lot to do with whom we choose as the nominee.

  • clintonformccain

    That might make us all feel good, but that’s not what’s really important. What’s really important is beating Obama in the election with a candidate who is credibly qualified to be President of the United States.

  • JSobieski

    After repeating the same citation numerous times during the course of 2 days, you now quote new partial sentences and act as if you haven’t been ignoring the critical points I have raised during our entire “discussion”.

    Had you responded with this initially instead of mindless repeating the same quotations while ignoring the words within the quotations or asserting that contract enforcement was not a proper role for government, you might have some credibility.

    All you had to was say something like “the ORs were not always part of Newt’s definition of Individual Mandate” and we could have called it a day. Instead you purposely or obtusely mischaracterize the words in a quote that you persistently repeat. Only now do you implicitly acknowledge that your characterizations are inaccurate.

    Frankly, this entire episode reminded me of how the MSM pulvarized Newt for his proposed “cuts” when all he was doing was proposing reductions in the rate of increase for Medicare.

    Lets look at the undisputed facts:

    Newt has always been in favor of HSA/privatized medical savings accounts as a way to reform Medicaid and Medicare.

    Newt has always been in favor of tax reform so that the unfortunate coupling of health insurance from employment could be decoupled.

    Newt is not supporting a requireemnt that an individual buy health insurance.

    In the past, Newt may or may not have supported individual requirements that are analogous to Obamacare. At worst, this was always done in the context of a conservative reformation of medical entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid. All I know is that you repeatedly asserted that he did while quoting language that showed that he didn’t.

    Our side does not need more Bachmann types—people who talk in generalities while proposing nothing and accomplishing nothing. Newt’s ideas are at the core of conservative reforms in the area of healthcare. Based on those contributions, at a very minimum, the guy should evaluated fairly on what he said not on a mischaracterization of what he said.

    If you think that Newt supports an individual mandate without any alternative option such as a bond or some other accountability mechanism, then find the entire quote and publish it.

    That would be far better than repeating a quote that you know doesn’t say what you assert it says.

    Do you work for the MSM?

  • rmacgilv

    Erick,That’s all anyone can ask for is that you strive to be an honest broker.I realise that emotions get high when someone attacks a candidate that they support.I know I have not appreciated some Alinsky tactics that a couple of guys affiliated with this site tried with me.No matter,I’m a big boy and I can handle that.There’s no crying in politics or baseball.The best you can do is be transparent with your intentions and put out the facts as you best know them.If everyone gets to state their case without getting attacked as we would at a Soros sponsered site we would all be able to come together at the end of the primaries and kick Obama to the curb.Should any of these candidates try to run as a third party I would hope we’d all bring the wrath of God down on them.Anyway,this site is critical to beating Obama so I hope we all keep some powder dry for the general.

  • mrmises

    It is not true that you are born a man or a woman. Look up hermaphrodites. There are shades of gray.

    Also, which of your rights are infringed by a soldier or anyone else’s choice of romantic partner?

  • dpmapper

    Evolution is nowhere near one of the top issues of the day, and one that the federal government has little effect on. Science and faith can coexist and Huntsman’s remarks weren’t particularly pointed – “demonized people of faith”? Not even close.

    And you seriously would rather the Republicans have zero votes from atheists, even ones that support the same sorts of policies that conservatives (and Huntsman, as you admit) do on the important issues?

  • center77

    I think Erik has been really fair, all though we have different situations I totally get how him enforcing makes it hard to see objective. I feel I’m always objective and and I support Perry because gagged aside he still has all the goods of a great president. I am independent, and I love his message of deep conservatism and states rights. I believe that’s how the people gain their voice back. The social issues ate tough on the country, kick them to the states and give people the choice. I’m anti abortion and think the issue is not of social, but of life. New life deserves a chance. I am going to do my best to help Perry. I live in Iowa and I joined the strike force. This is about principles to me, and there are messages we as a movement don’t want to send to the country, and elected deep insiders like Newt undermines that message in a major way. I too find this primary to be lacking, but still believe Perry is by far the best. I see if the whole party gets behind his take Washington on message as creating a unstoppable Reagan like movement that sweeps Democrats out of power next year. I think its a shame more have allowed the American idol aspect of this election overtake common sense. I don’t not think the American people care as a whole about debates, but Character is really important.

  • clintonformccain

    To the extent that voters come to view Obama’s reeelection as inevitable because of a weak Republican challenger, they may be more inclinced to vote for a Republican Senate to act as a check and balance.

  • ihateliberals

    He is a Republican true but that doesn’t make you a conservative. There is such a thing as a Liberal Republican. I’m not talking about the moderates that are RINO’s I’m talking about people like Olympia Snowe. There are no conservatives in New England unless they are transplanted there.

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

    he covered the topic-at-hand [border-related] and the new-ad [politics-related].

    rather than stating “what would you have done differently,” he spun immediately into what has been done and what will be done; he focused and referred to position papers.

    he might have inserted a 10-second intro such as “I was not planning to run, but people–my wife Anita in particular–told me that I would add something vital to the field of candidates. I didn’t quite expect the intensity of the pinata-like reception I immediately received, but I learned quickly from this ‘baptism by fire’!”

    although his latest ad is viewed as “desperate” by its critics, he is clearly sending a vivid message to thinking-Iowans that they need to unite AND that he has the $ [manifest via the existence of the ads, which Bachmann/Santorum haven't been able to run] to be the vehicle to best carry the message that Michele/Rick have otherwise been conveying, as well.

    most importantly, although there are many upcoming months of voting, he is strongly suggesting that uniting [recalling the experience of the Huckster] would jettison the recipient [both of TPM and Evangelical support, which overlaps...of course] to the top-tier for the early part of 2012; if they truly dislike Mitt and distrust The Newt, there are simply no other alternatives.

    Rick can do it, and his moment is now.

  • JSobieski

    The guy tells you what he is currently for.

    To the extent that it contradicts what he previously said (which is at this point unproven by you), isn’t a fair interpertation to conclude that he rescinded his prior view?

    This is silly. You are trying to characterize the guy as a flip flopper without giving him the credit for having rescinded the matter on which he is alleged to have flopped.

    You accuse me of wordsmithing, but what kind of flim flam are you engaged in?

    I do not support Newt for President (he is my backup choice), but your blatant mischaracterization of a quote you repeatedly paraded around really got into my craw.

    I would think that RS would stick to the facts when it comes to our own candidates.

    Using your own logic, you never rescinded your failure to acknowledge the meaning of the word “OR”.

  • jrfromdallas

    Some of the things Perry has done in Texas.

    Voter ID ammendment
    1 million jobs in the last ten years
    Passed a law stating a marriage is between a man and a woman
    He has made gas companies disclose what liquids they use when Fracking to ensure they are not using harmful chemicals
    Created a tax friendly environment for business
    Spent 400 million of texas’s money to secure the border
    Passed a loser pays tort reform to limit law suits against companies

    I can go on and on about how lucky we would be to have a true conservative in the WH but I am not trying to convince you how to vote only encourage you to take a second look at Perry. I have also attached a link on a study that was done on the types of jobs he’s created in Texas since there is a lot of bad info pushed by the liberal media.

    http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

  • gwbramhall

    I respect the situation you find yourself in but we have to get this
    thing right and if people like you cannot pick a horse what chance
    do we? In short, regardless of your past misadventures in choosing
    a side, eventually you’re gonna have to sh#t or get off the pot. I am
    still intreigued that we may be headed for a wide open convention
    and see an exciting name like Christie, Rubio or any of the strong
    names that took themselves out of the process early for whatever
    reason, emerge from the convention as our candidate. A lot of
    wasted bullets would have been shot by the Dems and they’d be
    franticly looking for dirt on whoever emerges. We can dream
    can’t we?

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

    …may be shared by others.

    Rick must push the evangelical-button now, and this electorate must know that this guy doesn’t flip-flop…even as he initiates a process of absorbing support from other realms of the GOP.

    The TPM should fall into line relatively quickly, particularly after they learn of the Individual Mandate positions of The Newt and Mitt…vide infra for elucidation of the former and simply recall the arrogance/intransigence of the latter.

    Rick has to make a prompt judgment as to whether he joins The Newt and The Donald in NYC on 12/27…although perhaps the event could be held in Iowa? Although I’m not an insider, I would think he’d want to be there, if for no other reason than to espouse the type of hyper-muscular and non-ambiguous foreign policy that the others have insufficiently articulated [particularly with regard to Iran]. He can easily apply free-market principles to the bug-a-boo issue [China] while distilling interventions intended to “make D.C. as insignificant as possible in the lives of all Americans”!

    Even if The Donald comes out for Newt, it is probably desirable for Rick to appear there; even if Santorum [the other "Rick"] tries to displace him @ the last minute, he will be well-advised to maintain his “hi brother” approach [which was manifest a year ago with Jon Stewart and which obviously pervades his personal/public mien].

    Lament it at your peril, but the Reality-Show component of the Debates and their sequellae are engrained in contemporary American culture. Rick can revel in the ability to mix with everyone, just as he recently noted that his gubernatorial role–as he sees it–entails constant interaction with constituents.

    Thus, everyone @ RS should “keep the faith!”

  • hls87

    Boo hoo, the field is depressing. Deal with it.

    In reality the field is no more depressing this year than it ever is. Certainly no more depressing than it was in 1980 when we had some dunce from California that all the smart guys laughed at running against a former Congressman with charisma deficit disorder who had also been director of the CIA, and a bunch of nobodies. The really good candidates like President Ford skipped the race. Politicians are a sorry lot and all serious presidential candidates are politicians.

    In fact all serious presidential candidates are heavy-hitting governors or senators. Others may lead in the polls (Cain, Gingrich), but the winner will be someone with a recent record in one of two jobs and a national reputation before the campaign starts. If you keep that in mind sorting the field is easy.

    Huntsman, Perry and Romney have a chance. Nobody else does. Gingrich is wasting everybody’s time. Except for Wendell Willke (who was a very special case because the world was going to war and all the GOP candidates with conventional resumes were notorious isolationists), no candidate without significant government service outside the House on his resume has ever won a major party presidential nomination. Neither has anybody without any record of government service within the last decade. Nor, for that matter, has anybody with a raging case of OPD (Obnoxious Personality Disorder).

    The Gingrich campaign is a mirage that will melt away when the real voting starts. Voters say any darn thing to pollsters, but when they vote they behave in accord with predictable patterns. Few people will throw away a vote on Newt Gingrich. He will surprise nearly everyone by doing poorly in Iowa and his support will crater everywhere else thereafter.

    So the field consists of two former governors and one sitting governor. It’s as rich in talent and experience as any Republican field has ever been. It’s time we stopped moaning about our choices and started making them. We’ve wasted enough time pretending that conservatives can make anyone into a contender by wishing hard enough. It didn’t work with Bachmann or Cain and it won’t work with Gingrich.

    Huntsman, Perry or Romney? The first worked for Obama and then positioned himself at the far left of the field. The second got off to a late, slow start. The third is a recent convert of convenience to the conservative cause who doesn’t even seem to understand that cause and would be a poor champion for it. Any one of them can probably beat Obama; any one of them might lose. Sort through the strengths and weaknesses and make a choice.

    The silly season is coming to an end.

  • bzip

    “I would like to know how anyone can think you can make a that statement without any factual evidence to back it up”!

    Rick Perry is the most consistent conservative in this race and to think other wise, you better have some evidence to back your claims up.

    Lets get started with your evidence, ihateliberals.

    Lets take a look at Perry’s accomplishments, shall we. Then I expect you to offer clear evidence of your claim!

    1)Strongest voice on Abortion:
    Passed the sonogram bill and defunded planned parenthood in Texas. Due to legislation Perry pushed for and passed 13 abortion clinics in Texas have been shut down and more will follow.

    2)Gun Rights:
    Having the stance that there should be no laws restricting the right to bear arms. Perry signed into law Castle Law and further amended legislation to include the law extend to our vehicles and further be allowed to carry concealed without a permit while traveling with the clear and simple definition of traveling to include going to and from your home to our car and any destination thereafter.

    Perry is a CCL holder and below YouTube Video clip with response from Perry on gun control is all any conservative needs to know on how he will deal with gun control. It should be very clear by anyone and everyone what a pro10th amendment rights guy Perry is, you surely can’t dispute that.
    http://youtu.be/OenAw39A0b8

    3)Taxes
    Perry has signed legislation totally 14 billion in tax cuts; among them a veto on the internet sales tax, and bills signed cutting property and franchise business taxes.

    4)Government size:
    Perry has signed into law protection against eminent domain and when alerted to the threat of land grabs from the TTC, so scuttled the program and bound by law under scorched earth mandate that the TTC shall never rise again under an name and earned him the endorsement of the highest ranking conservative in Texas, Wayne Christian

    http://texasgopvote.com/2012-presidential-election/most-conservative-state-representative-texas-endorses-rick-perry-president-expla-003248

    5)Perry has also signed into law several bills protecting Texas against EPA over-regulation and is the worst enemy of the EPA
    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perry-vs-ep-epic-illuminating-clash/

    6) Don?t forget Perry pushed for lawsuit reform and got it ? he signed into law comprehensive reforms that have made Texas a leader in the fight against lawsuit abuse. These reforms include a recent loser pay law that will cut down on frivolous lawsuits. His medical liability reforms have increased the number of physicians practicing in the state by the thousands, improving patient access to medical specialists.

    7) Protected the ?Rainy Day Fund,? which set aside at least $6 billion for future needs and a lot of people were wanting to spend that money but he would not touch it. And Perry is the only governor since World War II to reduce state general revenue spending. Perry also signed a historic property tax cut, and a tax cut for small businesses with less than $1 million in gross receipts.

    8) ID required when voting. The law, scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, bars anyone without a valid state or federal photo ID from voting.

    9) Signed a bill that prevents driver?s licenses for illegals. Additionally, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed the use of a matricula consular, which is an ID card used by the Mexican government, to get a driver?s license in Texas.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    Unless you’re a Paulbot, that is, and in that case everyone but Paul is a bloodthirsty Muslim-hating troop-worshiper–see Lew Rockwell.

    Just a glimpse of Perry’s “On the Issues” profile:

    Protect the unborn via sonogram requirement. (Feb 2011)
    People are tired of spending on programs we don’t want. (Sep 2011)
    Keynesian theory is now done; never again in America. (Sep 2011)
    Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
    Promote school choice all across this country. (Sep 2011)
    Turned down $700M in federal aid due to strings attached. (Nov 2010)
    Don’t put economy in jeopardy based on unsettled science. (Sep 2011)
    Create jobs by taking advantage of our natural resources. (Oct 2011)
    America shouldn’t be in the business of adventurism. (Sep 2011)
    Make Washington inconsequential in your lives. (Sep 2011)
    States are liberty’s friend. (Nov 2010)
    Reverse trend of federal power back to state & local level. (Nov 2010)
    Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms. (Aug 2010)
    Total repeal and dismantling of ObamaCare. (Nov 2010)
    Member of the Tea Party movement. (Aug 2010)

    Perry’s “Issues” section on his website w/ sub-pages
    http://www.rickperry.org/issues/

    Rick Perry is a Tea Party Conservative. He may have made some bad decisions in the past (Trans-Texas Corridor, Gardasil) but overall he has a consistent record as a principled conservative.

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    I yield to your superior experience and articulation ;)

  • rowdy

    Absolutely: Everyone knows that the entire media system is owned and operated by the ones. The ones? Yeah the big money boy’s that are intent on running the world their way. Almost all media in the United States was bought and is Owned by big oil money from the middle east, that was spent by Hard working Americans to pay them for the oil that we found, developed, and produce with American technology and labor. Yep we do all the work and then pay them aholes outrageous prices for their unionized OPEC oil. Gratitude for you, we taught them, we built for them, we defended them, we developed them from the stone ages to modern rich pukes, and they use our money to try to destroy us. They are so rich on our money that they have nothing better to do than cause trouble, and they have plenty of our money to do so with. Those, the ones are very much involved with, (they are) the liberal, socialistic, progressive takeover crowd that is in progress right now of collapsing our country in order to bring us under control, not just here but the whole world. We are just the keystone in knocking down the wall. We had better stand up to these pukes before it is too late. I am not so sure that we can make it to the elections. If they get their chosen candidate nominated in the R party then we should survive till the election since they are a guaranteed win – win situation and it is all over for us. If we get the one possible nominee that will do us any real good (Ron Paul) (I don’t want to hear it) (the man is dead right) You can tell if you are paying attention that the media and the Dem’s are scared to death of him. And the media has done everything they can to make him disappear. Even if I didn’t have any other factors influencing my choice, that is a clear indicator to me that he is the best choice we have, The media is against him more than anyone else, and since they are clearly on the other side, that clearly means that RON PAUL is the most dangerous person to their cause, so he is the best choice for me on that premise alone. They were bad mouthing him terribly until he came in first in the polls and then they just put a total blackout on him. Now they are starting to have to pay some attention to him. GO RON PAUL Please save our country! ! ! I will thank you no matter how rough it is. Everyone will thank you, but very most important I think GOD will bless you. Back to the point of dead. I truly fear for his life if he should get the nomination. As years have gone by I have cleared a lot of the mud from the water in my mind. I am relatively sure now that our own government shot JFK because he was speaking out on many of the same issues that Ron is addressing right now. They did not put up with JFK getting in their way and I am sure they will not let Ron interfere either. All I can say is that if we put RON in to be president and they kill him, they had all better find a rabbit hole they can fit in real quick. My only solace is that I do believe that GOD will bless RON and protect him. I know that if they need extra body guards for him, just call I will be there Ready Freddy. But if RON should get the nomination, we are in for some pretty tense times. I doubt seriously that should an assassination attempt on RON fail, that something will cause all hell to break loose in order to prevent the election because they are already all too aware that B.O. doesn’t stand a chance against any republican candidate, let alone RON PAUL. They also know that the gig is up and it is all or nothing right now. The poker hand has been dealt the betting is done, and it is time to lay down the cards. They will not loose all that they have invested in this plan easily. Particularly since most of them know that if this goes bad, it will be particularly bad for them. This has been hashed and debated for years now and large lists of conspirators and complicit members are continually growing larger. People that are trying to destroy our country had better win, if they loose it will not be good days for them. Gitmo, month’s straight of intense interrogation including waterboarding. No fun but bet it will get to some answers. reinstatement of the McCarthy trials that should never have been stopped. All media confiscated from foreign investors and donated to owned and operated by the public as nonprofit organizations, political adds limited and free. Term limits, all government employee favoritism eliminated, salaries, benefits, laws. Insider trading is against the law for 300,000,000 American citizens but they passed their own laws to make it OK for the 543 or how ever many of them there are. See anything corrupt about that?

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

    …I hope, innocently.

    Your pal Wonkish1 kept claiming that The Newt had changed from advocating the Individual Mandate.

    I kept clamoring for data, which could be employed to characterize what had allegedly transpired, inasmuch as Wonkish1 had claimed to harbor encycopedic knowledge of the writings/speeches of The Newt during the past quarter-century.

    Invoking the alleged-conversion of Mitt [which he "dated" to when he was confronted suddenly with cloning], I wanted to ID the who/what/where/when/why how of this conversion process, if for no other reason than to assess content/character/credibility of the before/after

    As you may recall, the more I “called” him on this, the more he retreated. Thus, I was left wondering if ANY conversion had actually transpired.

    *

    Then, along came Beck. When I saw him @ the ZOA Dinner, I told him of the fact that, during the Thanksgiving Family Forum held the night prior, his “black robed regiment” concept had been specifically raised [another story]. But, clearly, he plans great things [to be detailed @ 5 p.m. E.S.T. tonight]. Constantly, from his perch, we can anticipate receiving quality-input.

    So, the interview with The Newt does NOT signal any definable distinction-with-a-difference between/among what he has said/written in the 1990′s, what he has said/written during the past half-decade, and what he now espouses.

    Therefore, my attack on The Newt is predicated on what he is now averring and I amplify it by noting that it is not inapposite to his prior stance[s].

    *

    Now, please get down to the business of attempting to defend it!

    .

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

    …if Perry consolidates the TPM/Evangelicals [from Bachmann/Santorum] and continues to rise in Iowa, even as everyone learns “just a bit more” about the Individual Mandate endorsement by Mitt and The Newt.

  • Whacker77

    Ronald Reagan was the former leader of the SAG. He led the fight to root out communists from the union and Hollywood. He later took a high profile stance against socialized medicine. He became strong advocate for Barry Goldwater’s doomed campaign. He was a successful two term governor of California. He wrote and debated extensively on the issues of the day including weapons control, taxes, the welfare state, the Panama Canal.

    To compare him to the circus clowns running today is an insult.

  • rowdy

    Your a real political whiz banger ain’t ya? Did a complete analysis of the Republican field and never made a statement of fact. Just a bunch of opinions (not very good ones at that) generalizations, and straight out bull crap. And in the end you never even mentioned the names of the two candidates that can really do any good for our country. Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman. in the end Ron Paul will be the nominee, as long as the left and their media bias doesn’t work enough magic to overcome what is right with enough of their continual onslaught of lies through the media.

    - – – – – RON PAUL – – – – – -

    President Ron Paul.

    Another look and your a complete idiot. Huntsman, and Perry are both undoubtedly complete RINO’s, Romney not much better. You must be a troll from the libs, you come here and promote the worst of the field while not even mentioning the only two truly constitutional candidates in the race. You’re one of the sick socialist creeps that need to be on the list ain’t ya.

  • bzip

    I can’t take credit of Perry’s conservative record and I really can’t even take credit for the response. So much of it is a collection of several people’s responses as to what Perry’s accomplishments are. I have factually check things and added a few things myself too to ensure the best I can that Perry is shown in the best way possible.

    I personally encourage sharing information and the posting of it – to help promote Rick Perry and ensure the facts are out there. So if anyone reads anything by me and they think it is of value and will help promote Rick Perry please use it.

    We have got to get Rick Perry nominated.

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

    …hermaphrodites are a rare-rare exception, and the key-question within the military is whether any arrangements can reasonably be made to accommodate gays without rendering straights “uncomfortable.”

  • monhar

    ranch — I couldnt agree with more. Your piece is much better than I could have written but I hold all the same ideals you have presented. I too will continue to present Gov Perry to all that will listen and trust they will be convenced of his honest, forthright and earnest desire to help our sick and wounded nation.

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

    …which were predictable and correct.

    One wonders why the posting had been provided in the first place….

  • jrfromdallas

    His foreign policy would be outright dangerous and he will be over 80 years old in the WH. Does that not concern you?

  • jrfromdallas

    His foreign policy would be outright dangerous and he will be over 80 years old in the WH. Does that not concern you?

  • mrmises

    I didn’t say they are common. I said they exist. As I am sure you are aware, there are a range of other birth defects and conditions which make it difficult to establish whether a person is male or female physiologically and genetically. There is an in between.

    In the past, a key question for the military was whether any arrangements could be made to accommodate black soldiers without rendering white soldiers uncomfortable. Clearly, they could. I see no reason this should be any different.

  • hls87

    merely reporting how he was viewed in 1980. He was a laughingstock to all the right-thinking people in both parties. Whole books were written about the daft things Reagan said and did as Governor. Republican moderates thought they had finished him for good in 1976. Democrats prayed they could run against Reagan because they believed he was so foolish and insubstantial that voters would never trust him with the presidency. He stumbled badly in early campaigning, losing Iowa in large part because he seemed like a spent force. Many Republican voters were concerned that he lacked the energy and focus to wage a good campaign or do the job if he won.

    In reality he was an accomplished man with a resume that indicated he might be a successful president. So is Rick Perry. So is Jon Huntsman. Romney not so much, but let’s pass over that. Nobody is a sure bet. Reagan certainly wasn’t in 1980. It was far from clear that he could win and far from clear that he could be effective if he did.

    Nobody’s a winner until they win, which is why the field always looks dismal. There’s no point in bemoaning this natural state of affairs. Let’s just get on with choosing from among the realistic possibilities.

  • hls87

    will never be President. The sun will burn out before any significant portion of the Republican electorate would consider, let alone cast a vote for, such a loon.

  • trelane

    You sound like a liberal. Perry is against special rights for a deviant minority, and doesn’t hate anyone. Texans seem to love him. too, though he seems a little out of touch with the rest of Americans.

  • mrmises

    How is not discriminating a special right?

    To discriminate is to recognize a distinction and to treat groups differently because of that distinction. Prohibiting people from protecting our liberty because of their sexual preferences is discrimination. Whether sexual orientation is proper basis to exclude people from service is another question. However, there is no question that denying homosexuals the opportunity to serve in the military on the basis of their sexual preferences satisfies the definition of discrimination.

  • ceili_dancer

    Especially the fight scene, where the youngest is wanting to go off and play gunman w/ John Wayne. The rest just get into short term two- on-ones and beat each other up until the gentleman rides by with an offer to have them run cattle for him to help pay for the college and save the farm.
    We just need to get past this fight(primary) and get to the saving the farm(country).

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

    …because it obfuscates.

    The Newt himself depicted his stance as akin to an “Individual Mandate” while chatting amiably with Glenn Beck.

    I have provided myriad incarnations of available quotes, and I have painstakingly analyzed same [from multiple perspectives].

    The “or” [which you belatedly appear to crave] was provided by citing the HSA [depicted as "MSA"when first described to RR in ~1982 by George Ross Fisher, III, MD].

    In recognizing this parameter, you clearly conclude that the “or” is not merely contingent upon Contract Law [as I articulated supra]; rather, it is the imposition of a $-structure upon all Americans.

    I care not whether you contrive to characterize this entire theory as a “core” Conservative value; just show me where it can be justified Constitutionally!

    Did I miss anything?

    *

    P.S. –

    Regarding your effort to find common-ground ["All you had to was say something like ?the ORs were not always part of Newt?s definition of Individual Mandate? and we could have called it a day"], I merely attempted to cut-to-the-chase [which you still unjustifiably characterized as unduly burdened with references].

    Try as you might, you cannot help ‘fessing-up ["At worst, this was always done in the context of a conservative reformation of medical entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid"] without coupling this rationalization with any reference that could justify the assertion [as meager as it ultimately is].

    No, the fact-of-the-matter is that The Newt is proposing the imposition of any $-mandate upon the citizenry to cover healthcare costs, lest other citizens be forced to do so [in his model]. This is unconstitutional, period!

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

    Apparently, he’s planning a love-fest @ the end of August in Dallas. Today, he appears to have moved to other topics. Assuredly, particularly noting the scathing reaction The Newt received from Michele, he will revisit the comments made during his oh-too-short chat with The Newt. I daresay he will not emerge unscathed [and he will be far more scarred than from anything being done by the GOP-establishment, as Rush has intermittently discussed during the past hour].

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

    Although the military-brass leadership was gradually replaced by people who supported BHO’s posture, I recall reading of the operational difficulties this overall retooling was going to entail. Even so, Perry didn’t come out against it in the Ad, as much as he contrasted it with other cultural [e.g., anti-Christmas] phenomena.

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

    …is that the military has determined a work-around for this behavioral challenge.

  • mrmises

    My point does not hinge on how Mr. Perry or President Obama feel about the issue. I am making the point that allowing homosexuals in the military does not pose any greater threat than did racially integration.

    Don’t forget that there have always been homosexuals in the military. The only change is that they will not be discharged if others discover it.

    Finally, I have not seen or heard even anecdotal evidence that the repeal of DADT has had any negative impact on the armed forces. Even if such anecdotal negative evidence exists, there is also a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence for the beneficial impact of DADT’s repeal.

  • mrmises

    I cannot understand what your statement means or how it bears on my prior post.

  • eyesopen007

    Eric,

    You may not “endorse” anyone and you may not “support” anyone, but your writings here at RS (including this very column) show very clearly (whether you want to admit it or not) that you are very clearly “in the tank” for Rick Perry, and have been so from the very beginning, even well before he became an “official” candidate.

    Prehaps you don’t even realize it on a conscience level, but your admitted “biases” have shown through in your writings on the primary race loud and clear. The only thing I don’t understand is why you continue to try to pretend that your “biases” have not strongly colored everything you have written on the topic. It is so patently obvious to anyone that doesn’t have similar “biases” where your heart truely lies, that your attempts to pretend otherwise have become increasingly ridiculous.

    Sincerely,

    EyesOpen007

  • swampgator

    Right now, even tho EE has made it known that he does not like Mitt Romney – I intend to vote for Romney in the primary. If my #1, Romney does not make it then I will go to plan B. At the present time I am having a problem with my Plan B. I am torn between a couple of people.

    Right now I am concerned that the sexual accusation just hurled at Gingrich will bring about another Cain like debacle! – this reported today in the Daily Caller column. Apparently, a woman came forward to the National Inquirer (that vestige of truth and consequences) and revealed that she had performed something resembling a Monica Lewinski on Gingrich). Now, is Gingrich to say (or echo Willie Clinton) in “I did not have sex with that woman.”

    So, I am completely bewildered by the conduct of some of these gentlemen running for President. So far, Romney appears to be one gentlemen who at least knows how to keep a zipper zipped.

  • cheetah2

    :)

  • cheetah2

    I am not giving Newt and Mitt a look over yet. I hope and pray it doesn’t come down to that.

  • olds88er

    I attended the 1976 convention in Kansas City when we Californians tried to take the nomination from President Ford and give it to Reagan. Close but no cigar. I likewise don’t have the perfect candidate to support. We conservatives have a dilemma. We want to pick real conservative in this race but we can’t find the “right” one. I don’t think that some of you posting don’t realize that we have to beat Obama in November. We CANNOT beat him with a hard core conservative. We need to also pull in Independents and conservative Democrats. I have been in this game ever since 1952. The nominees that we have right now all have problems. Newt will get nailed by Obama trotting out his family and who will Newt trot out? His three wives? Does he even have children? He never speaks of them if he does. I am afraid that his infidelities will kill him in the General.There are more woman voters than men voters. And women despise a cheater. And look at how many fellow House members have refused to endorse him. They claim that he was a lousy Leader. You people hate Romney because he has changed his opinion on some issues. But I think that Romney, out of all of our Primary candidates , has the best chance in the General against Obama. And if we can draft Rubio at the Convention that will give us our best ticket.

  • olds88er

    Totally agree!

  • center77

    vice president helps get the base, but not the middle, and it will be romney who is judged as having no core. The reasonis, because he has no core.

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

    …on two other websites:

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/08/the-horserace-for-december-8-2011/#comment-149214

    and

    http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/12/08/gingrich-is-his-rise-sustainable/#comment-19356

    *

    On the former, I issued a “memo” to the Constitutional Conservatives and Values voters in Iowa, suggesting that they align themselves ASAP behind Perry; on the latter, I updated my conceptualization of the chronic forces-at-play, again leading to a Perry-praising conclusion.