I Bet You This Hurts Romney

center77

to no surprise. Romney is something rather shallow for that bet. I think its one of two things: one, Romney and his team planned that in hopes to silence the whole attack which is weird because the only people who would believe that are already supporting him and have decided facts just get in the way, or two, Romney, in a moment of self awareness just showed the whole country he is the exact thing that turns so many voters off to him in the first place. Well Mr. Romney, fact are very portentous, one only needs to read the books and watch you tube to know you would have lost the bet.

What I think conservatives should note here is, twice now Perry has unraveled Romneys well rehearsed supposed steadiness, while no one else has. I did not here one analysis say that Perry has landed the two most affective punches against the supposed inevitable front runner. Perry may not be the best debarred, but he has slated the giant. He could very well do that to Obama as well. No one on the stage was calling Romney out until Perry did it, at least not in an affective way. It was not until Perry drew blood has the Romney machine started to fall apart.

Sure others have gotten the support, but like I said, facts are stubborn things.

romansdaughter

that Willard just put one more nail in his coffin. I like Rick Perry’s new ad about the 10K bet.

michaelbowler

Romney and Perry quibbling over government mandates…I’ll take Perry’s side on this, only beause Romney is Obama with a little business sense.

Romney, as a mormon making bets, proves that his core values aren’t very core or very valued…but that’s why he can’t get any traction, we all know he’s an opportunist. The whole episode on saturday night is just proof of what we already knew…

center77

Conservatives should ask themselves, if Perry can do this to the robot called Romney c201, why not Obama1980Carter, and I think it happened because Perry takes it where it hurts them most despite the media clearly covering for the two robots. Perry challenges the voters to look by saying it, and it has shaken Romney twice, and I think it would work against Obama too.

romansdaughter

Romney and Obama have some similiar characteristics both feel they are entitled; are condescending to lesser mortals in how they come across; and have thin skins. I posted somewhere else that I have no qualms about Rick Perry debating Obama. He would do the same thing and leave Obama making the exact same silly remarks that has gotten Romney in trouble. They are two peas in a pod in some ways.

wombat888

During the debate, I remember thinking that the bet fell a little flat, but at the end of the debate, when my friend and I were discussing who we thought did well or did poorly, neither of us remembered the bet, or for that matter, said much about Romney. I saw a headline the next day about the bet, and chuckled at the idea that of all the things discussed in the debate, somebody would pick something that meaningless to write an article about.

And now I find Redstate talking about the “$10,000.00″ (note the penny zeroes added to inflate the number of zeroes), including pop psychological analysis of how people choose betting amounts.

Do you have anything to say about how Romney breathes? I am starting to wonder whether you care as much about beating Obama as you care about beating Romney. (Though I am sure you’d say you want to beat Romney in order to beat Obama, since you believe making a “put up or shut up” bet is a disaster of epic proportions.)

bzip

This bet by Romney coupled to the ever growing concerns that Perry has so nicely raised through the campaign will ensure that Romney will be joining the lower ranks of the lower tiered candidates.

It was bad enough that Romney seem to have ceiling of support in the mid 20′s but now he keeps dropping his support. It is my belief that Perry will benefit as Romney goes down.

The 10K bet has been the talk of the media cycle non-stop;

TRENDING: Romney’s ‘out of touch,’ Perry says
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/11/romneys-out-of-touch-perry-says/

New Perry Video Highlights Romney?s $10K Bet
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/new-perry-video-highlights-romneys-10k-bet/

The Truth Cannot be Bought

nathanalbright

The truth cannot be bought indeed–but good ads can be made very quickly.

ombd

The bet was a mistake, but a minor one. Quips like this seem to quickly take on a life of their own, then just as quickly die out. Don’t see any impact once the voting starts. Eye on the prize here. If a candidate can’t win in November, then nothing else matters. GOP primary voters have traditionally understood that this one qualification stands above all others … www.ombudizen.com

boonerdan

How can this be? You mean the “preordained, establishment candidate” is out of touch with regular folks? WOW, there’s a revelation.

Too bad for Perry that he can’t appear on prerecorded ads 100% of the time. He would be better off.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Erick has often stated he is in the anti-Romney camp and will work towards getting the nomination for an anti-Romney. Part of beating Obama is beating Romney. Obama will crush Romney in a debate and we’ll lose the one election we should have won. Any of the candidates are better than Romney. I for one will vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if it means defeating Romney.

jrfromdallas

It would have been so much sweeter if Perry would have said something to the effect ” that’s a lot of money to bet Mitt, I have never had that kind of money to throw around like many of my supporters and that’s why you’re out of touch”. That noise you hear are people jumping off Mitt’s bandwagon and jumping on Perry’s. Rick Perry 2012!!

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

I’ll NEVER decide which is my favorite. I keep saying “This is the best one yet!” This one was definitely of epic proportions, closest one yet to The Trailer!

goodgovernance

And now he’s going to be on the defensive when he really needs to catch up with Newt. But I think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that Perry created a debate trap that Mitt walked into — Romney made the mistake purely on his own.

Perry continues to underwhelm debate-wise, possibly because of the back pain issue. But for the all important independent swing voters in the general, they’re not going to care about that.

Perry needs to bring his game up to at least Bachmann level (she did pretty well) before he can really become a threat to either Romney or Gingrich.

I wish he would do better. He’s fantastic in commercials and even on David Letterman’s Top Ten list. Maybe he’s getting over prepped or something prior to the debates.

APA Guy

You can’t buy that sort of messaging…Mitt Romney just handed it to Perry for NOTHING.

teme

“The point, however, is that to offer the bet to a man who grew up without indoor plumbing and whose wife has to work to help pay their kids? way through college is more than a bit tacky.”

His present net worth is somewhere between $2.5 – 3 million, and Texas governor salary is $150k a year, so it’s not like the sum somehow made it fundamentally unfair. I don’t see it mattering that much whether that bet would have been offered to person who rose from middle class to millionaire or from poor to millionaire. Of course it was not smart move.

circlegranch

and since Obama’s re-election is based on income disparity, OWS, and attacking the wealthy in general, Mitt just handed him a wonderful gift.

Beyond Romney seemingly wanting to manhandle Perry in debates (first the hand on the shoulder, then the attempted snarky bet shake; what’s next? a left hook?) Mitt made it clear to all of America, not just Iowa voters that he’s a really, really rich guy. He’s the 1% incarnate. He betrayed his faith by publicly offering a bet (good catch by EE) and he admitted he was born rich. He might as well have thrown in the fact that he imports horses that cost 6 figures and tears down mansions to build bigger mansions.

Mitt has to reinvent himself now in Iowa by running ads trying to portray him as an average guy and that his ‘poor moment in life’ probably was while he was on his mission. Mr. Flip N. Flop has to scurry and rewrite the story again—he has to delete some lines from the paperback version and hope nobody notices.

By contrast, Rick Perry is the same day in and day out, whether that appeals to you or not. It’s the truth, like it or not.

For Romney supporters that continue to tell us he’s the most electable and he’s the only one that can beat Obama, they might want to reconsider. Their guy may well slip by and not be held accountable for his debate gaffes of Sat night but be sure, Team Obama is breaking down the game tape as we speak, creating plenty of ads and sound bytes and attacks on Romney using his own words.

“Minor quips” matter a bunch, fairly or not. Just ask Rick Perry.

papabear

I noticed that it is your first time commenting.

Perhaps you missed the article that mentioned that EE has 200+ pages of single spaced oppo dump from 2008. EE has not shared much of that with us RSers. He is being remarkably judicious with the treatment of Rombly.

You and your friend are an anecdotal incident.

Nothing. More.

Most RSers (and Republicans) do not like Rombly. Check RCP if you doubt me.

papabear

shinebox

lesueur8

“The point, however, is that to offer the bet to a man who grew up without indoor plumbing and whose wife has to work to help pay their kids? way through college is more than a bit tacky”

Seriously? We have a $15 trillion deficit and you write stuff like this? More and more, you remind of the very thing I detest with liberal journalists, mainly a focus on such petty and out of touch comments. Wow, Perry grew up without indoor plumbing and Mitt was just being so insensitive to the millionaire Perry.

Erick, I certainly am not a fan of Perry or Romney. Neither would be likely to get my vote in a primary but would gladly get my vote in the General. What is becoming difficult is your obsession with Mitt. Great, you don’t like him. We get it. Your comments today are just silly. Sure, you will get some of your readers to jump on your “attack Mitt” bandwagon but I am simply fatigued with reading such petty attacks. Come on, you are better than this.

circlegranch

When Michelle Bachmann was in front of the mike’s as a House member, she spoke the tea party language. She gained alot of notriety and popularity thanks to the liberty movement. She spoke our language.

She’s getting some kudo’s for her debate performance on Sat. but I find her sanctimony and “look at what an amazing person I am” attitude very tiring these days.

She opens her statements at the Sat debate by calling upon the name of Herman Cain and closes with the same, much as a pastor calls on the Lord at the start and close of a church service. Her obvious pandering to try and get Cain’s supporters to come to her side was over the top. It may well backfire because Herman Cain is so yesterday’s news.

While Mrs. Bachmann tried to score points with her notion of cloning the front runners into a new person, “Newt Romney”, its clear if either guy gets the nomination and offers her the VP or other big job, she’ll be fawning all over the opportunity.

In talking about her perceived marvelous and amazing accomplishments, she fails to say “we” in reference to the House of Representatives. To hear her tell it, she’s the only tea party member in Washington and any good achieved is all because of her. She gives credit to no one in her past. When she talks about her childhood and having to work hard, she doesn’t acknowledge her siblings as doing the same. In her work as a MN State representative, she doesn’t compliment others she served with. On Sat night she tried to take credit for ‘gathering 10,000 people to come to Washington” for a tea party rally as if none of those folks would have gone on their own. They went in opposition to ObamaCare, not because Mrs. Bachmann beckoned them. 80,000 or more showed up for Beck’s Washington Mall event; we go for the cause, not the organizer.

She started the debate season with vitriolic attacks on Rick Perry. She went after Cain for 999. Now she’s morphed Newt and Mitt into one being and levels attacks on both, trying to get two for the price of one. She is good at singing her own praises and touting herself as a one-woman wrecking ball at the Obama Administration but she might have gone over a little better with voters if she’d shown some humility along the way amidst all that self-adoration.

Crash71234

Not sure why she’s still on the stage. Preseason is over. Herm’s gone. Time to dump Bachmann, Santorum and Paul and get down to business.

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

…based on the notion that this was NOT a planned-event.

Unless the e-mails were sent instantly to the bloggers from Mitt’s staff, it’s possible they saw lemon and quickly tried to squeeze lemonade.

This was SOOOO problematic that it would be difficult to believe they would contemplate emphasizing Mitt’s $$$.

AceInTX

I saw this on a video recently and it nails where I am with Romney. I will also point out that…by focusing on the bet, we are ignoring the fact that Romney is LYING.

and it is a Demonstrable LIE

Which opens up several lines of attack for those wanting to take Romney down a peg or two…all you have to do to prove he is lying is go to an older version of the book, and compare it to the newer version…

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

She has behaved responsibly during each/every debate.

That line about “Newt Romney” was superb, as was the follow-up patter.

Remember how, earlier, it was assumed she was going to be Romney’s hit-person…so that he would ultimately pay-off her campaign-debt?

Her self-promotion is overt, but a small price to pay.

It’s great having her around, truth-telling.

babykaboomer

glancing at his watch during a debate. A little detail, perhaps, but it is one more important pixel adding to the whole picture…and it ain’t a flattering picture!

jimmyg

Who does this error on Romney’s part help? For the last 6 weeks Gingrich has been made of teflon, His multiple marriages and infideity, fannie and freddie, his reign as Speaker, etc. has been discussed and he continues to rise in the polls. Rick Perry, since September, has dug himself a hole, and as late as last week continues to do so.

My guess is that Perry may slightly rise in the polls, but only marginally. If anything this error on Romney’s part will help Gingrich. He has the momentum and it now appears that the voters have decided that he is the anti-Romney.

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

?based on having reviewed everything everyone has written, here and elsewhere.

[This was posted on another RS-site but is being re-posted to invite critique.]

http://www.redstate.com/zsmvf6/2011/12/10/debate-open-thread/#comment-988

*

First, it?s clear that Mitt has accelerated his slide; it?s difficult to imagine that he will be more than an [" * "] by the end of January. His feet are made of clay, and he epigomizes the ?Wall St. vs. Main St.? metaphor.

Second, everyone else did well, in their own ways. This is an important consideration, particularly with regard to the need to keep Paul within the GOP universe?lest he go 3rd-party.

Third, the friendship [Perry's intro composed by The Newt] echoed, despite the somewhat critical assessment of fidelity of the former regarding the latter; the comment supra that we are potentially dealing with a ?Bush/Perry on steroids ticket [Perry/Gingrich] may appear apt.

Fourth, one can predict a low-key Monday discussion [The Newt and Huntsman] and, therefore, any discussion here must be provisional?because the FNC Debate is pending [prior to the movement of the discussion behind the moon...during the Holidays].

Fifth, assuming Mitt has a problem tactically [will he attack to regain dominance...and risk another slap-down?] and everyone else continues to maintain a strong sense of positivity, the prospect exists that the rise of The Newt could suppress Bachmann/Santorum to <10%?yielding their inability to maintain presence in the race.

Sixth, even if Mitt is able to survive as the Establishment-Candidate [due to $/endorsements], the race becomes focused between The Newt and Perry; this is just fine with me, for reasons that will be detailed.

Seventh, these two guys could create a pact that the delegate-winner would choose the delete-follower as Veep [even if it's relegated to "a warm bucket of spit"].

Eighth, The Donald was probably deferred by Perry for two reasons; first, prep and delivery would have eaten into his bus-tour and, second, he probably felt he wouldn't be chosen. This latter point is reminiscent of why Mitt is in trouble, because he decided to try to KO everyone in Iowa; this could prove to be his Waterloo #1 [with NH following shortly thereafter]. Similarly, Perry cannot feel too badly if The Donald doesn't choose him if he hasn't been perceived as having courted this support. {Yet, he was probably super-polite so that The Donald could ultimately support him anyway, if The Newt falters.}

Ninth, KO'ing Mitt [who has spurned the TEA Party Movement] is just-desserts; he has acted "Holier than Thou" and, candidly, if there is ANY anti-Mormon feeling [I learned a week ago that Jesus was supposedly the son of a human, Elohim, on RS], this risk is neutralized [secondary-gain] if raised by BHO. {This is a "handicapping"-related comment, not a values judgment.}

Tenth, therefore, if this becomes a competition between Perry and The Newt, the issue of the Individual Mandate could tip towards the former, without hurting the other potential support from the latter; although I have exhaustively detailed the other problems with The Newt on RS, his strong support for truth-telling in the Middle East is quite telling.

*

wombat888

If I were new to Redstate, that would actually make my comment more valuable, not less. Do you know what “preaching to the choir” means? For the record, I read often, but rarely feel the need to comment. And yes, I’ve noticed the pettiness toward Romney several times.

Let’s say I am considering between two cars, and I like one because of specific factors – for example, I like the one that has a bigger engine.

When I explain why I want that one instead of the other one, I will say “because it has a bigger engine.” I will not sit there and say “I hate the carpet, the paint, the floor mats, the dash knobs, the antenna, the slope of the windshield, the tires, the transmission, the wiper fluid, the trunk liner, the oil reservoir cap and the cup holders in the other one.” There is no need. I have a good reason (the engine), so I don’t need to resort to absurdity to make my argument.

This $10k thing (or, if you prefer, “$10,000.00 thing”) is childish. Which is fine if this is meant to be a blog for people who hate Romney. If it is meant to be a major source of Republican perspective, it would make a lot more sense to understand that, while the party is certainly not 100% behind Romney, he is consistently among the frontrunners because he does have substantial support.

If you’re curious, I haven’t made up my mind yet (was leaning Gingrich before Saturday, but thought he had a pretty weak performance … disliked Perry before Saturday, but thought he had a pretty good performance … will support any of the Republicans over Obama).

texabama

are what we really need to be looking at, because they are the best predictors of the future. It’s hard for me to view either Romney or Reid has faithful Mormons because of the abortion issue. I know Romney has switched to a pro-life view, but I can’t fathom how he ever supported abortion in the first place. All the Mormons I have ever known have been the most staunchly pro-family people I’ve ever met. I don’t support their theology, but would welcome them as my co-workers and neighbors because I know they respect people.

clowngirl

It calls into question how much he submits to God with regard to his public life.

circlegranch

more so that it helping anybody else. Every candidate stands on his own words and in some cases, falls as you note in your comment. It was stated here by another commenter that Romney wouldn’t get hurt by his offering a bet. I agree w/ EE that he will take a hit for it, not that it’ll help any other candidate but that he will perhaps finally be held accountable for his actions.

texabama

is usually very different from what the pundits do. I’m constantly amazed after watching one what the paid analyst takes as the defining moment. They take nothing at face value. Everything has motive and is premeditated with the occasional sheer gaffe.

We all have our biases. Personally one of the most memorable moments of the debate for me was when Rick Perry said a vow before God was more important than a handshake in Texas. It reminded me that we once had a cultural code of honor that no longer exists and have suffered as a nation as a result.

clowngirl

And can easily bring it forward and prove the fact that Romney is lying.

Watching Romney debate, I can imagine him being effective closing deals — when he makes his case over a relatively short amount of time– spinning the facts — or even altering them to strengthen how his company is perceived.

It’s different when he is subjected to scrutiny, questioned in depth and has fact checkers. He seems to want to control exactly the image he puts forth – in a General Election, that is wildly unrealistic for anyone running on the Republican ticket.

It all reinforces my view that – despite what most of the media assumes – Romney is really not ready to be a good President ( though virtually any Republican President would be much better than Obama) or to win the general election.

btpull

If being “in-touch” with the ordinary man is the main criteria lets re-elect Clinton at least he could “feel our pain”.

Seriously who the F-cares about Romney’s stupid bet. I am sure he was not serious; it was just a dumb moment for him. They all have their moments.

Of course when GMA ran this story they made a point that it took Perry 12 hours to come-up with a response. So the narrative we get from the debate is that the number 2 candidate Romney is a rich out of touch guy and the number 4 candidate Perry (yes, he is clearly in a distant fourth) is a dim-wit.

Thanks, RS for perpetuating the typical Republican candidate stereo-type. With friends like you will get another 4 years of Obama.

nathanalbright

n/t

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

*

First, as expected the bet has dominated talking-head reviews for the past 36-hours…and won’t go away; as much as Frank Luntz loves to bash Perry, he had to place this gaffe into a pantheon all-of-its-own.

Second, I also commented previously about The Newt, thusly: “It may very well be possible that The Newt could quickly fade, except for the ?exhaustion? factor; people may wish to alight for a bit longer to detect a comfort-level?before migrating to Austin.”

Third, the anti-Perry “scorn-factor” on PMSNBC runs-rampant, perhaps enhanced by last week’s “Faith”-based ad; this will only enhance his support among any Iowans who bother to catch those Lefties.

Fourth, is it not delicious to imagine Biden debating The Newt?

Fifth, I’ve noted that other sites are not giving Perry any “credit” for drawing-out Mitt for a second time; rather, Jennifer Weiner [WPost] is being called-out by many non-liberal bloggers for her reflex-support for Mitt [and she has remained mute].

Sixth, some have suggested Perry should have accepted the bet; I disagree because it would have deflected the spotlight from Mitt’s violations of both good-taste and Mormon-theology.

Seventh, this-a.m. on F&F, Mitt was initiating the “humanizing” campaign that was just launched [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70280.html], although his nervous-laugh hasn’t proven very reassuring.

Eighth, as anticipated, “Rick Perry, going all-in in Iowa, kicks off a 14-day, 44-city bus tour Wednesday. Retail politics is what he?s good at, so the trip represents his back-to-basics approach ? and positioning to pick up conservative supporters of Gingrich if he fades” [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70281.html#ixzz1gKQZ2Lkt].

Ninth, an article that codifies the potential eccentricities of The Newt has emerged [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70274.html]: “The return of Newt Skywalker.”

Tenth, illustrating the impact of Perry’s “War on Religion” charge is what BHO did yesterday: “After Perry attack, Obama displays Christian faith” [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/after-perry-attack-obama-displays-christian-faith/250751].

*

bzip

It looks like the ABC debate from Saturday was the most watched debate yet. 7.5 million saw that debate. This ought to be interesting.

As I pointed out in my analysis of the debate yesterday we have several things that stood out. 7.5 million people saw:
1) Rick Perry do an excellent job in the debate.
2) Rick Perry cornered Romney with the bet
3) Rick Perry blasted Obama
4) Rick Perry kept that “trust” issue alive in regards to Newt and his infidelity.

Rick Perry won the debate in his performance and in accomplishing the above.

The MSM will gladly call Newt the winner since Newt didn’t ruffle his feathers like Romney BUT Newt never put the questions/concersns/doubts away in regards to: Trust and his Progressive ways.

7.5 million people saw Bachmann paint Newt/Romney as the two most progressive candidates and she was aided by Ron Paul and Rick Santorum in painting both Newt and Romney as progressive flip-floppers. Though I do admit as I mentioned before Bachmann blew again when she tried to go for Cain’s supporters – that was rude.

You would think in the most widely watch debate, 7.5 million people that what took place in the debate is going to affect the race at this point. Perry benefits from this debate.

ABC?s Presidential Debate Draws 7.6 Million
http://www.deadline.com/2011/12/abcs-presidential-debate-draws-7-6-million/

It also Looks like Perry’s attacks on many things are working. From the war on religion we now have;
After Perry attack, Obama displays Christian faith
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/after-perry-attack-obama-displays-christian-faith/250751

nathanalbright

…but Mittens doesn’t. And fair or not, people are reluctant to vote for people who can’t relate to them. It’s been the curse of Republics ever since Coriolanus.

texabama

Many of the analysts believe Perry won the last debate and did very well in the previous two. At any rate after each of these three debates issues or exchanges with Perry have fed the narrative—such as foreign aid starting at zero. This is all good for Perry as the media was basically ignoring him two weeks ago.

nathanalbright

…is a major potential storyline for 2012 as a whole.

circlegranch

The paperback book version of Mitt’s book has a sentence deleted. That’s not hard to prove. Romney is desperately trying to run away from RomneyCare yet he’ll still defend it–always the consumate flip flopper, it appears.

In Oct., NBC news (and National Review) reported the story about Gruber, a MIT economist, that worked in the Romney administration as healthcare reform was drafted for MA. White House visitor logs were scanned and it was revealed that 3 of Romney’s health are advisors reported to the White House for 12 different meetings to discuss and give input regarding the drafting of ObamaCare.

The facts don’t lie. This is where the elite wing of the GOP is getting it so wrong. They have hand-picked their guy and will defend him to the end just as they did McCain. They beat up other candidates for mentioning the close association between Romney’s healthcare plan and the development of ObamaCare, yet those very facts primary voters are supposed to ignore are exactly the substance of attack ad’s Obama will use against him in the general.

texabama

was such a great take-away for Bachmann. You could substitute Gingrich’s name in everything you’ve said and instead of the word, “company” use think tank/organization/firm.

Yes, we may be stuck with one of the them in the general, but if there’s a possibility of getting a better candidate let’s do it!

circlegranch

as we each are entitled to our strong opinions. With that said, there are a couple of interesting read’s this morning at National Review:

Rich Lowry’s, “2nd Tier Shines”
and
Marc A. Thiessen’s, “What About National Security?”

Have a great day!! Always intrigued by your comments and enjoy them very much.

concrusade

Is this seriously the lead Monday post?

Yes, let’s analyze a verbal hyperbole and talk about how tacky it was because Rick Perry comes from poor roots. This is worse than sensationalist. This is petty garbage.

And the bet wasn’t whether something had been changed in Romney’s book. It was whether or not Romney advocated for a federal mandate, which was wrong when he brought it up in September, and it’s still wrong today. The “impoverished” Rick Perry would have had to fork out $10,000 — look at any fact-check of the debate.

It would have been fun to discuss Bachmann’s powerful attack on “Newt Romney” or the candidates’ views on Israel or jobs or anything of substance, but instead we follow the left’s lead to engage in class warfare.

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

…and don’t think that Perry won’t have reviewed the following crib-sheet regarding The Newt’s “Individual Mandate” posture prior to Thursday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/newt-gingrichs-changing-stance-on-health-care-mandates-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/09/gIQAVl0lkO_blog.html

texabama

sure bugs those Ivy-league types. It all fits into that class warfare narrative and this is where I see Perry having a real advantage. It will be really hard for Obama to call Perry a member of the 1% when he can talk about not having indoor plumbing and mom making his clothes until he went to college.

Ann_W

I’ve been here for a long time, but they are so virulently against Romney that they are getting petty and silly. It’s hard for me to read anymore.

The statement that Romney is as bad as Obama, or Obama-lite, which is stated repeatedly here is ridiculous.

I will vote for Perry if I think he has a shot by the time voting gets to my state, but the hyperventilating about Romney is very off-putting. Business sense still counts for something, and he definitely has shown skills in that area.

And– Newt Gingrich– please… The man is corrupt and has been shown to be a way bigger flip-flopper than Romney, yet they will overlook anything to get an Anti-Romney.

Ann_W

He impulsively was trying to prove Rick Perry wasn’t accurate. Let’s follow the MSM’s lead, shall we?

texabama

who managed to be the only candidate in the debate to take it to Obama on foreign policy.

We need to remember that ultimately it will be all about Obama and that class warfare will be the main line of attack.

goodgovernance

nt

nathanalbright

…but like Perry I come from very modest roots and having that kind of personal narrative really takes the wind out of the sails about being born with the silver spoon. I think one thing that we have to consider in this election cycle when looking at a candidate is what issues are taken off the table for each candidate. We know that someone like Newt or Mittens is going to have a hard time going after big government, after Obama/Romney Care, after the whole corrupt crony capitalism support of “green” companies that go bellyup, the corrupt Washington culture in general. That takes a lot of what is wrong with Obama off the table.

On the other hand, with Perry the whole 99%/1% narrative is taken off the table because of Perry’s modest personal background and the fact that he spent most of his life growing up as a small town farmer, a member of the Air Force, or a part-time member of the Texas legislature whose wife had to work to help support the family. That’s a strong narrative of main street living that helps Perry take some of the populism luster for himself–and I’m quite happy about that being at least somewhat of a populist myself.

clowngirl

Glad to hear it. Wouldn’t want Newt to win because on unforced errors. Would rather see him and Perry at the top of their game for the rest of the primary. If that happens, Romney will not be the nominee and either Gingrich or Perry would go into the General Election well prepared.

Actually it sounds like it was a good debate for most candidates — and a bad one for Romney. Looking forward to seeing it- didn’t get to watch it live though did see the line where Newt told Romney the only reason he wasn’t a career Politician is that he lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. That was perfect. About time someone stated the obvious!

JSobieski

there is nothing responsible about Bachmann’s behavior.

Her ability to talk the best game possible is matched by an inability to even propose solutions. She is the equivalent of a coach whose only instruction is to say “score more points than the other team”.

This election cycle, almost all of the candidates have provided for example detailed economic plans. In contrast, Bachmann who is an actual member of Congress, proposes nothing specific. It makes it far easier for her to attack the others for being imperfect conservatives if Bachmann provides nothing of her own that could be attacked.

Google Bachmann asterisk Paul Ryan.

It is not responsible for Bachmann to (1) merely attack candidates for not being as conservative as she is on their basis of what they say while (2) refraining from putting out any solutions of their own.

Nothing responsible about Bachmann. Anyone can talk a good game if they don’t actually try to move the ball.

“Newt Romney” is a heck of a line—of course, she probably stole it as a version of “Obama Romney care” from Pawlenty.

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

…because each of these issues is indeed a priority.

BUT, this moment is viewed by all three a.m.-Cable networks as pivotal; even Mitt admitted his wife rebuked him afterwards on this [clearly unplanned] act-of-desperation.

It is revelatory to those who feel Mitt had expected to waltz to the nomination, and it unifies everyone who had previously noted the 25%-polling ceiling; it may now be true that, for Mitt, the “sky” is falling!

*

This wasn’t a mere “verbal hyperbole,” for it was class-less; Frank Luntz [who wrongly suggested Perry was incorrect] characterized it as a Junior High School Debate Blunder. [Luntz said, otherwise, Mitt had done well in that debate.]

Mitt’s saying “it’s an outrageous number to answer an outrageous charge,” a lame-rationalization…as others have noted.

The key-component is the number-chosen; as EE noted.

*

The Hilll’s Bob Cusack, Managing Editor, just now, on FNC] noted that he broke personal-space again, and this is illustrating how he is deficient in retail-politics;; remember how he placed his hand on Rick’s shoulder after the illegals-charge?

And, if there is any doubt about Mitt’s excision from the hardback book when he issued the paperback [in addition to his oral unambiguous comments], just looky here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/66081535/Romney-Deletes-Romney-Care-Reference-From-Book

*

sdwinkler

Mitt is not likable. It was bound to come through in some way on a big stage. The amount of the bet is not so important. He seems neither warm nor thoughtful. His nervous giggle is off-putting. His manner of speech is staccato. He’d not be a good talk show host. None of this is a small point. You cannot study to be a people person. Nor will years of service help. Oh, and Mitt never says anything that makes him sound very smart to the average ear.

Health care, smealth care. You gotta get people to like you on some vector.

Marcus_Traianus

Publicly her campaign thinks she can still win Iowa and respectably show in New Hampshire. But her shrill, superficial attacks and “I am the true conservative” Tibetan Chant is getting a bit worn.

I am sure Ms. Bachmann believes she can pull the candidates towards more conservative policies with her antics, but that is simply a pipe-dream. What she has done is hurt her own credibility with Republican voters, who otherwise had a favorable view of her, by attempting to seemingly damage other candidates. The coup de gr?ce is a lack of any real accomplishments which display she is up to the job. Her style of gratuitously attacking other candidates has cemented that perspective.

“Newt-Romney” was the epitome of fatuous and puerile politics. That’s material for SNL, not a debate. It made Bachmann look like a desperate clinger grabbing for a headline and trying to muscle for a seat at the big-boy table. It won’t happen. Bachmann has not shown herself as a deep, inventive or innovative person.

Folks have had enough of the internecine warfare and she now occupy s that space with Ron Paul and Romney. Even Santorum gets it and I have to say his posture has led me to formulate a more positive view of his candidacy. Even thought they may not completely agree with his positions, Rick also seems to get more respect from the other candidates.

So I will be sad to see Rick go. Bachmann, not so much.

http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

You hate Romney.

romansdaughter

do not support Harry Reid at all. My Mom is from southern Idaho (lots of Mormons). All my Grandma’s neighbors there in Idaho are Mormons and they definitely don’t like Harry Reid. Nope good Mormons are very conservative. I don’t think most of them even like Mitt.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Noooo text

westcoastpatriette

Sometimes people have blind spots about how they are perceived by others (probably all of us to one extent or another) but Bachmann’s style of tooting her own horn coupled with excessively pointing out others’ faults begins to sound too self-righteous for my taste. It can be hard to strike the right balance between tooting your own horn and being too timid about your record but Bachmann’s style is starting to reveal a tendency on her part to really believe she is better than the others on stage–which is always a turn off. Identifying with not being perfect or talking about past failures more could balance this out some but for now, this seems to be the strategy she thinks will win her the Presidency.

edintexas

People usually use zeroes in the cents positions because that is the correct way to write an amount of US Dollars, or other decimal monetary system.

I use the decimals in a dollar amount for the same reason I use ellipses in quoting, for accuracy. It is an effort “…to inflate the number of zeroes…” only to a person with a partisan predisposition to see it as such.

JSobieski

Put another way, what proposals has Bachmann—a sitting member of the House—proposed on any issue?

Budget?
Tax reform?
Entitlement Reform?

Even the Ryan plan the garnered party-wide support was supported with an “asterisk” by Bachmann.

To attack others on the basis of specifics when she herself fails to provide any is an act of hypocrisy.

romansdaughter

I think Newt is as bad or worse than Romney. Just saying.

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

…because I gave her $180 @ the ZOA Annual Dinner 22 days ago.

I just think that the natural course of events will lead her supporters–and those of Santorum–to coalesce behind the man with the deliverables.

BTW, I told this to her national $-chair [Mr. Pollack]…as I was completing the donation-form!

*

I had read the NRO-essays prior to typing-out the 10-point summary, yesterday; I’m in general agreement with them, but the points therein had already been made [often, by multiple bloggers].

*

I am also aware of a key-person who is advising Michele [who is VERY well respected] and, thus, every time she channels that individual’s input, I am again glad that she has remained in the race.

Just like some people have felt that Cain stuck-it-to-BHO every time he spoke, Michele’s poise enhances ?-pride [to some] each time she delivers a zinger; both are good for the GOP [demographics-wise].

Also, as critical as I’ve been of Santorum [remember, I'm from PA, and I have met him a few times, during the past two decades...the first time having been in 1991] and as much as I favor Perry, he has also captured a certain following that constitutes a healthy contribution to the GOP’s potency in 2012.

*

Common_Cents

Perry did well but his bar has been low. Gingrich was hands down winner. This debate was to take down Gingrich, 2 mods and 5 candidates against Newt. He did well and deflected to expose Romney’s glass jaw.

If anyone else was in the hot seat like Newt, they would have folded.

tailfins1959

I didn’t think it could be done, but Romney appears to be knocked off his pedestal. While Romney doesn’t bother me as much as most people here, I think we can do better. Actually only Paul, Johnson or Bachmann would be worse than Romney. Santorum or Romney would be a coin toss.

Common_Cents

He’s not used to having to attack. It’s easier to look Presidential when you can sit back, but when you have to attack, its a totally different dynamic. Romney is much like Pawlenty, going on the attack makes them look phoney, not very genuine.

It will be good for Romney that he is tested, we’ll see if he can improve his game.

concrusade

And like others have mentioned, I would expect this to get coverage in the MSM — it’s their job to be sensationalists. It’s a shame to see it on a site like RedState.

The fact that changing the number would have made this a non-issue is what makes this so laughable. So if he had said, “I bet you a million dollars,” the anti-Romney crowd and MSM wouldn’t have made that an issue either? They would have played even more into the narrative.

It was a dumb thing to say in the first place, but it’s silly to actually purport that Mitt was literally making a bet on stage that according the Erick, proves he is a poor member of his faith.

And if there is any doubt that Rick was right to not take the bet — again — http://factcheck.org/2011/12/more-baloney-at-abcyahoo-debate/

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

…and perhaps my opinion is driven by optimism that, ultimately, Perry will consolidate.

Remember, I was impressed during ~15 minutes of eyeball-to-eyeball conversation with her content/candor; she believes in this effort, and we should all note how well she has handled critique.

Nevertheless, for what she does and says [and remember, her Congressional votes are constantly defining her "platform"], she merits accolades.

sethellis

As one of Redstate’s few remaining Romney supporters, I can say that I was very disappointed with the bet. It does not match up with his personal values, and I do not believe it accurately reflects who he is or what he stands for as a person. I’m sure his wife has already set him straight on this.

Personally I think he should just move on, but I wouldn’t mind an apology to his supporters either. He should admit his failings, and hope voters are as forgiving as they have been to others.

Now that that’s out of the way I just don’t see this boosting Perry. I thought Perry looked weak when he backed down so easily. For all that big talk about cards and Texas earlier in the campaign; I have a hard time believing he’s “not a betting man”.

romansdaughter

I thought the Newt Romney cloning was superb. Because in many ways they are alike in flip flopping. But I must admit to being turned off when she mentioned Cain and 999. When he was still in the race she was pointing out the wrongs of the 999 plan etc. To me that didn’t go over well. She does seem to think highly of herself. But kudos to her on going after the big dogs. But I didn’t get the Win-Win-Win at all.

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

…who has caused the erudite Mitt to decompensate…twice!

“We need to remember that ultimately it will be all about Obama and that class warfare will be the main line of attack.”

THEREFORE, Perry has the “Main St. v. Wall St.” populist “Touch”!

proud2btexasmom

ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS TRIBUNE: 10/21/2011

“Perry and his wife, Anita, took a loss of about $6,000 on the sale of their College Station home, and they reported a relatively modest $217,447 in adjusted gross income in 2010, according to their 2010 federal income tax records released Friday”

09/22/2011

“Still, the records available to the public paint a portrait of modest wealth, and they present a stark contrast to Perry?s chief rival, Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor?s wealth has been estimated at between $190 million and $250 million, according to a recent report in the Boston Globe.

?For a guy that?s almost 62 years old, he does not appear to have built a lot of net worth. He?s got some pensions and things. He had this one time in his career where he made some money in real estate, but he appears to have lost a lot of what he did gain,? said Bob Martin, a Houston accountant who helped analyze Perry?s financial disclosures for The Texas Tribune. ?Unless there?s a ringer in there as far as these investments, he is not as well off as a corporate employee who had a low six-figure salary for several years.”

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

…because most commentators have placed both Perry and The Newt as the major-winners.

But, remember, the Individual Mandate issue will be revisited [perhaps after the Mitt-slide has been noted, as early as on Thursday], to the detriment of The Newt.

He is going to have to provide a better answer than those that are rooted in the mistaken-notion that this is merely an idea he promulgated in the 1990′s…indeed, one that supplants those proffered here on RS by [surrogate-bloggers] Wonkish1 and JSobieski.

Because, if he can’t, as “tired” as the GOP-masses [many TPM-adherents] may be, they will migrate still again…perhaps to our-favorite-Texan.

And Perry will now need to show that, even with a raised “bar,” he will continue to function well in his “groove”…AND SHINE!

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

…because it fits into a MSM/LSM/ELM “narrative” of Mitt’s tremendous wealth.

[Just ask Perry whether a glitch can gain a life-of-its-own.]

No, Mitt is going to have to deal with it assertively [as did Perry], and admitting that his wife was displeased simply won’t suffice.

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

…is in full-swing.

Mitt even wanted to ensure that a cook was wearing a net over his/her hair, but even that effort to pretend he’s a “man of the people” appeared lame.

He will need a personality makeover [including that he-he laugh], and it’s difficult to believe it will have been completed within 72 hours.

Although Gore tried in 2000, the “wooden” imagery lasted; remember how he suddenly became animated and even moved into “W” ‘s personal space [in that debate-in-the-found]?

Mitt will need to be self-deprecating [as was Perry], or he will keep falling-flat; this may become too tall an order, even for a man of his driving ambition!

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

…that Mitt needs to confront the damage assiduously; but Perry was wise not to help Mitt rise from the ditch in which he found himself, for reasons aforementioned.

Perry benefits indirectly with the drop of Mitt [certainly in Iowa, perhaps even in NH], for this allows the survivors to create a 2-man race [with the presumed drop-outs of Santorum/Bachmann and Huntsman...respectively...having occurred after each of these initial contests]. {Paul will continue receiving his 10% tithe.}

Once the TEA Party Movement activists learn more of The Newt, they will be motivated to gain a greater appreciation for Perry…and for how much he is NOT portending a third “W”-administration. Perry isn’t a squish, and he knows precisely what needs to be done to D.C.’s bureaucracy.

clintonformccain

The real underpinnings of the discomfort with Perry lies with the accent. He must be a dumb hick like George Bush because he speaks with the same Texas accent. Perry has played into that with the brain freeze moments, but that’s the meme. Same reason Haley Barbour must be a racist, because in the eyes of northeast liberals anyone who sounds like that is a racist.

Ann_W

Just askin’.

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

But I concur with your assessment of the net-effect of this blunder; when we note he is not going after BHO and the establishment-endorsements cease, we know he knows how much trouble he’s in.

Ann_W

And Perry’s in single digits…

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

…but it is therefore all-the-more necessary to educate the public about Federalism.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

was directed towards the fact that you are/were obviously clueless regarding EE’s views. You said:

“I am starting to wonder whether you care as much about beating Obama as you care about beating Romney.”

Well, yeah, he does. And yes, we also know what “preaching to the choir” means; that’s why we spread out and comment on other blogs/conservative websites/Twitter as well.

lizzie

http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/story.cfm/full_program/8962/tcn_20111212/video

An excellent Q&A, widely viewed in Iowa. Video and full transcript, which I read fist, and then watched the video, and the video is so much better.

I only found it because I now check the Des Moines Register’s caucus 2012 homepgae – you will not find it anywhere else. Here is the $10,000 Q&A:

“…Obradovich: One of the things that voters are seeing a lot of is debates, there’s been a lot of them. I’ve been wanting to know, why didn’t you take that $10,000 bet from Mitt Romney?

Perry: For a couple of reasons, I don’t have $10,000 to bet and I was a little shocked, frankly. And the other side of it is I’m not a betting man. That is not my, that is not how I operate. I do think it was a very clarion moment during the debate.

Obradovich: Why?

Perry: Well, number one, I’m right on the issue and he did write no apologies in hard back and said that he thought that the individual mandate was a model for America, it’s in the first printing of his book and then in the paperback he takes it out. So, I’m right on that issue regardless of what he says. And I thought it a bit over the top to make a bet of $10,000 as I’m driving over here today and I’m passing all these houses and I’m going, you know, I bet there’s nobody’s house that we pass by that wasn’t a little bit taken aback when he says, I’ll bet you $10,000 and I’m kind of like holy mackerel, that’s just a lot of money for most people and I guess not for Mitt….”

and, about Perry’s back surgery?

“Obradovich: So, were you not feeling good in those early debates?

Perry: I would suggest to you I was pretty fatigued. But no excuses, it was there, it’s what it is …”

Most of the interview is about domestic policy, including immigration, 10th Amendment, and Perry’s “Strong” ad.

Not getting echo outside of Iowa, because Perry is articulate and gaffe-free.

It is what it is

(is one of my favorite sayings – I picked it up from TV’s NCIS Mossad liason Ziva David.)

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

…and that explains both the rise of The Newt and the impending fall of Mitt.

This can only benefit Perry, for he has the $ to survive for the long-haul.

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

…in response to Letterman’s “congratulations” for having provided “oops”–fodder!

concrusade

The “Oops” moment?

Or Montemayor?

Or the eight Supreme Court Justices.

Or the country of Solyndra?

Perry has done a good job of earning his reputation without the MSM’s help.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

And my personal answer is no. But I will elaborate no further as this is a closed, touchy subject on RS and there are lots of differing opinions.

miconservative

Another error for Romney forced by Rick Perry. First it was “I’m running for office for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals>” Which showed that his anti-illegal immigration stand was nothing but political pandering.

Now it is the bet which shows several Romney character flaws. First, although he contends to be devout in his faith he is willing to violate one of the tenets of that faith in order to make a political point. Second, he says in the Israel debate with Newt that he would be sober and contemplative, but in a minor skirmish he was anything but calm and sober.

Romney may be fine when nobody is challenging him, but the second he gets challenged he loses it. Look at his over-reaction to the very fair Brett Baier interview. Romney is the typical CEO type who doesn’t like to be challenged. That may work well in the corporate world, but in the world of politics where you have a 300 million person board of directors it is a little different.

Romney has been exposed and now is the time to watch the painful slide down.

Ann_W

Objectively either one of them would be very distinctly better than the huge damage Obama has been inflicting.

Neither one of them is NEAR my ideal candidate, but this is where irrationality kicks in for too many people on this site.

Common_Cents

He just plays one on TV sometimes

Perry has to watch that. He has a target on his back if he makes some gains or is the nominee. He’ll get the Palin and Cain treatment like nobody has ever seen.

All candidates have their baggage/weaknesses, the left and their media accomplices will throw a couple billion bucks worth of smears at them, no matter who is the nominee.

bzip

This is a good point.

Bachmann isn’t presidential, she never has been and that is why she has never gained much traction. She has her own set of problems that have kept her at bay and will continue to keep her at bay.

The thing about Bachmann is – she is a good attack horse. Her attacks much like the Newt-Romney attack are all very affective at hurting who she goes after BUT she never really gains from the attacks either.

Her attacks work but the other candidates gain from her attack. That is the beauty of her attacks where I am sure her Newt-Romney attack is going to hurt both Newt and Romney but she won’t gain much from it either.

We have one more debate left before the Iowa vote, Thursday. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out. Who gains and who loses. My best guess:

Perry gains, Romney loses and Newt stops gaining traction with some bleeding.

I predict and I suspect many won’t argue that shortly after NH, in early Jan. that: Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman will all drop out. They don’t have the resources to continue much beyond that, It will turn into: Newt, Perry, Romney and Paul race. I don’t think Romney is going to ever break that 20-25% support but only go down from that leaving a Perry and Newt if I had to guess.

Ann_W

Being a CEO-type may not be a liability when trying to streamline and hold people accountable.

I find the nit-picking of debate performances silly. I’m religiously barred from betting also and am very careful to live my religion, but if someone continued to say something false I may be frustrated enough to say a similar stupid thing to prove that they will not put their money where there mouth is. He knew Perry wouldn’t bet, so it wasn’t actually going to be a bet.

joecollins

“twice now Perry has unraveled Romneys well rehearsed supposed steadiness”

Yes, good point. You are correct.

acat

we need a cutter, not a streamliner. Streamlined government is marginally less expensive but just as intrusive, and will have only a temporary (until we elect another Dem POTUS) positive effect on the economy.

Second, whether this was said “in the heat” or not, it was said; like the “I can’t have illegals working here, I’m running for office” line Perry got out of Romney before, it’s now out there… and like Perry’s brain fart or Obama’s 57 States, it’s going to dog Willard.

While I agree the job of campaigner-in-chief and commander-in-chief are different, I think there’s at least one or two candidates who can do both well. Neither of them, though, are named Willard Romney.

Mew

miconservative

you can only hold people accountable who are accountable to you. Nobody on that stage, or in the audience, are accountable to Mitt Romney. And “he knew Perry wouldn’t take the bet” so it was ok? So is it ok for a husband to proposition a woman who he know’s will say no to him? Is that not cheating on his wife?

From the start everyone has nitpicked Rick Perry in these debates and now when Romney starts to falter in the debates and criticism is nitpicking?

lcnsac

It’s becoming increasingly obvious to me that the successful candidate will be viewed as a populist. Whether its Obama’s brand, which, judging from his recent Kansas speech is some hybrid blend of Euro Democratic Socialism, Marxism, and even Peronism, or Gingrich’s visionary, futurist, technology based plan d’jour we don’t know, but those are the two who will probably compete. Romney just can’t appear to be any kind of a populist, no matter what he says, and the wonderful Federalism espoused by Perry and the other Tea Party folk isn’t resonating now. Paul is a very long shot but stranger things have happened–I think.

To validate this theory, one only needs to look at Occupy. The genesis was from a radical, anti-capitalist man from BC. Ten years ago someone like that would be blacklisted, but today a majority of Americans “somewhat” agree with some parts of Occupy. Although many of us can easily see that the 1% aren’t the problem, Obama has picked up the sentiment and is running with it full steam.

clowngirl

Saves me looking it up!

I little doubt your conclusion about Newt winning and solidifying his status. Looking forward to watching him and to seeing Romney ( who reportedly had his weakest debate, along with making this stupid bet and taking the shot from Gingrich about not being a career politician just because he didn’t successfully get elected for awhile) along with seeing how impressive Perry really was and to seeing what was reportedly Rick Santorum’s best debate and Michelle Bachman’s best in awhile.

Seems like Rick Perry’s best chance in Iowa is to consolidate the voters who don’t like Romney, Gingrich or Paul. Could be difficult if Santorum and Bachman also just gave their best debate performance,..

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

…and know that Mitt was incorrect, and he knew it.

THAT is why he got flustered, and THAT is why Perry benefits.

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

…that originated where I live [Abington] and which dealt with School Prayer; the decision was 8-1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

Also, when he referred to the date of the election being November 12, he was referring to “November 2012.”

So, please, CHILL!

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

…they will peal-away by the end of January, anyway…while Perry lives-on.

That is another reason why it’s just-fine for them not to be pushed-out; their supporters will be more apt to “do the right thing” if they are provided sufficient “space.”

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

But, we @ RS [mostly] hope he remains in his “groove”!

Common_Cents

It matters less where they have been that counts, but more so where they are going.
Old baggage is old baggage. Where they are going in the future is what matters.

Ask anyone who thinks Newt is going to pursue some national forced individual mandate in this day and time, and you’ll only find desperate supporters of other candidates trying to pound this silly narrative.

acat

Well, okay. Two questions.

First, why is the title of your post “eating your own” ? If you’re one of us, then .. shouldn’t it be “eating our own” ?

Second, are you a domestic or imported wombat? The wombat is, after all, a native of Australia, not North America, so .. I’m interested to know if the handle is rooted in reality.

Your argument, by the way, sounds like it’s rooted in the idea of “electability”, that is, that only Mitt Romney can defeat Obama. This is a very flawed idea for many reasons.

Consider that, historically, a conservative who can enunciate his or her positions will defeat a moderate or liberal every time. Bush 2.0 is the proof of this, defeating two liberals (or one liberal and one moderate) and barely able to enunciate anything.

Consider also that this is an historic election in that there are twice as many Dem Senators up for re-election as GOPers .. so if the GOP POTUS candidate has “coattails”, we could not only flip the Senate, we could flip it with a safe margin.

Consider finally that the Dems are also in the process of picking their nominee – although it is going on in quiet rooms, not in the public eye. The Dems can read the same polls you’re looking at and may well decide that, with the White House lost, their best strategery is to run someone other than Obama with the hopes of saving the Senate.

I look forward to your answers, wombat.

Mew

lizzie

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/12/12/politifacts-romneycare-bias/

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/12/romney-flip-flopping-on-bet/
following the Romney trail on this haunting wager, great quote from Mary Matalin to Chris Cilizza:

“…Mary Matalin, an unaligned Republican strategist, said that while the $10,000 bet wasn?t an ?implosion,? it did amount to ?one more heavy brick in [Romney?s] political backpack?.
Matalin added that much of Romney?s strength in the race to date has been centered on his perceived superiority as a debater, making it easy for undecided Republicans to imagine him battling and beating President Obama on a debate stage. ?The display of being bested by a candidate roundly dissed by the chattering classes cannot conjure up anything but scary images of Romney vs. Obama,? she noted.
The other longer-term danger for Romney in the $10,000 bet is that it reinforces a narrative already swirling in the political world: that his wealth makes him out of touch with the economic concerns of average folks.
No matter what the Romney people say, offering a $10,000 bet is, at best, somewhat odd. (You generally either bet someone $1 or $1 million dollars; anywhere in between seems weird and raises eyebrows.)
The bet then could have a similar effect to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) ordering swiss cheese on his cheesesteak or Martha Coakley suggesting Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan? crystallizing for voters that Romney just isn?t one of them.”

And, from the thrifty Yankees in New Hampshire via Boston Herald::
“…Voter Jill Spencer of Hudson, N.H., said the blunder won?t go over well in the Granite State.
?It seems pretty outrageous and out of touch. People around here don?t have that kind of money,? she said. …”

However RedState feels about HotAir, y’ll are on the same page on this one.

No, I do not bet on anything

But, I really wish someone would ask Romney exactly when he had dreams of playing for the National Football League?

I soooo want to see Romney in a Carhartt jacket, but he will most likely poll test to choose an LLBean jacket, Made in China!

btw, Gov. Perry’s team is using a GMC SUV in Iowa.

lizzie

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/12/12/politifacts-romneycare-bias/

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/12/romney-flip-flopping-on-bet/
following the Romney trail on this haunting wager, great quote from Mary Matalin to Chris Cilizza:

“…Mary Matalin, an unaligned Republican strategist, said that while the $10,000 bet wasn?t an ?implosion,? it did amount to ?one more heavy brick in [Romney?s] political backpack?.
Matalin added that much of Romney?s strength in the race to date has been centered on his perceived superiority as a debater, making it easy for undecided Republicans to imagine him battling and beating President Obama on a debate stage. ?The display of being bested by a candidate roundly dissed by the chattering classes cannot conjure up anything but scary images of Romney vs. Obama,? she noted.
The other longer-term danger for Romney in the $10,000 bet is that it reinforces a narrative already swirling in the political world: that his wealth makes him out of touch with the economic concerns of average folks.
No matter what the Romney people say, offering a $10,000 bet is, at best, somewhat odd. (You generally either bet someone $1 or $1 million dollars; anywhere in between seems weird and raises eyebrows.)
The bet then could have a similar effect to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) ordering swiss cheese on his cheesesteak or Martha Coakley suggesting Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan? crystallizing for voters that Romney just isn?t one of them.”

And, from the thrifty Yankees in New Hampshire via Boston Herald::
“…Voter Jill Spencer of Hudson, N.H., said the blunder won?t go over well in the Granite State.
?It seems pretty outrageous and out of touch. People around here don?t have that kind of money,? she said. …”

However RedState feels about HotAir, y’ll are on the same page on this one.

No, I do not bet on anything

But, I really wish someone would ask Romney exactly when he had dreams of playing for the National Football League?

I soooo want to see Romney in a Carhartt jacket, but he will most likely poll test to choose an LLBean jacket, Made in China!

btw, Gov. Perry’s team is using a GMC SUV in Iowa.

jasondallastx

While we’re holding politicians accountable to the tenets of their religions…Jesus said that it’s easier for a rich man to walk through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of heaven. So, that kinda rules out everyone on stage, and everyone in Washington for that matter.

romansdaughter

Even though I might have to hold my nose..they would not be as bad as Obama. Just to let you know I am an Independent and do not adhere to any party. That being said…Socialist Obama has got to go. I am socially and fiscal conservative and have enough from the Dems right now. But I am praying and doing as much as I can to hopefully not have to make that choice between Newt and Mitt.

acat

The statement that it’s harder for the rich does not make it anti-christian to be so … just harder to be so.

Mew

red_oakster

If Romney loses Iowa and South Carolina, he’s going to have a tough time winning Florida. And New Hampshire is looking more and more like a favorite son contest (is Romney the Tsongas of 2012?).

At some point in that collapse of inevitability, the GOP establishment is going to have an interesting dilemma. Embrace Gingrich or encourage other entrants (I assume Huntsman will not finish in the top two in NH and will be out, and the establishment will not embrace Perry under any circumstances). Even more than Reagan in 1980, the establishment is looking remarkably isolated in 2012. You really have to go back to 1964 to find a moment when the GOP establishment faced such a significant limitation on their influence.

My guess is that Christie and others will be getting a lot of phone calls.

utahtim

Like most believers, we Mormons aren’t so much against betting as we are against gambling, especially institutionalized gambling. It didn’t seem that Mitt was too concerned gambling was involved — he was just making a point. I once offered to bet a billion dollars to make a point. (FYI, I’m not a billionaire.) I’ve even entered office World Series Pools ($0.05 a square). Do you really think that impugns my core values? Let’s all lighten up a little.

westcoastpatriette

how someone who does not believe in God is able to rightly divide the Word of God more accurately than a believer.

Good kitty.

Common_Cents

Why the heck wouldn’t he mention the case?

He also said it’s too bothersome to memorize the names of 9 SCOTUS. huh? Geez, Rick, you are better than that.

His campaign was just spinning his screw up but Rick confirmed it on national television.

Here is the transcript from the Chris Wallace show. Why didn’t Perry reference the case then? He said he didn’t know why he said 8. Then he said it’s not important for a President to know the names of the 9 most powerful justices in the nation??

PERRY: Well, obviously, I know there are nine Supreme Court justices. I don’t know how eight came out of my mouth. But the fact is, I can’t tell you, I don’t have memorized all of the Supreme Court judges.
…
They are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice, or someone that is going to be perfect in every way. ”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2011/12/11/rick-perry-iowa-chances-mitch-mcconnell-talks-payroll-tax-cut-extension?page=3#ixzz1gL7Sw6Dr

Repair_Man_Jack

You’ve succombed to a common intelelctual velleity here. If person A ascribes to high moral standard but is unable to quite make it over the hurdle, he must be the inferior human being to Person B who has no moral standards whatsoever but can clear that hurdle with no particular strain. I thinkt hat fallacies along that line will typically underline all sneaky and back-handed efforts to pre-disqualify all GOP candidates from being vioable against Obama/Biden in next year’s general election.

romansdaughter

Perry was not underwhelmed. Good night, I have watched that debate 3 times and I cannot see where you got that idea. Some commentators or pundits actually thought Perry won that debate. Now if you thought Newt won it just cause he didn’t implode under fire…then maybe but I wouldn’t say this was one of his shining moments and people were left with a lot of things to ponder about Newt. To me who lost though is easy…that was Mitt.

lizzie

“Perry?s wife will also be a rare no-show at tonight?s debate. Anita Perry is instead in Maryland for the Army-Navy football game.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/candidates-soothe-debate-day-jitters-with-exercise-and-movies/

Adding to the irony of Romney’s $10,000 bet:

“…Romney spent about two hours this morning preparing by talking current events around a conference table with his advisors before making a surprise visit to Iowa campaign headquarters. Friday night he took it easy, watching the movie ?The Help? which he said was ?powerful.? …”

maybe Romney should have watched “Real Steel” or “Moneyball” or “Dreamer” or “Hidalgo” instead.

miconservative

They do need to ask when he wanted to be a football player and who was his favorite player growing up. He grew up in Detroit so was it a Detroit Lion? Is he still a Lion fan? Or did he flip-flop and become a New England Patriot fan when he moved to Mass?? This Detroiter will always root with the team that starts with the word Detroit no matter where I live on this planet.

I bet $10,000,000,000.00 that Romney can’t name a single football player from his youth.

jasondallastx

Jesus was speaking in an analogy.

you can’t walk through the eye of a needle, so my conclusion from that quote is that it’s impossible to get into heaven if you’re a rich man.

If you think it is possible (I guess with a REALLY big needle) then sure, it’s just more difficult.

jasondallastx

just working off a specific quote from the Bible and interpreting based on my knowledge of my own faith as I replied in previous quote.

Repair_Man_Jack

nt.

acat

The eye of the needle does not refer to sewing.

Mew

jasondallastx

I shouldn’t have said it is against Christianity. I should have said it diverges from Jesus’ teachings. Since the article was about how politicians live up to the tenets of their religion, it seemed fair game to me.

romansdaughter

She is like an attack horse but it never helps her. I think it is because she doesn’t know when to stop. She always over does it. Like when she nailed Perry on Gardasil but then couldn’t help herself by over doing it and that certainly didn’t help her. Her fawning on Cain was a bit overblown and I am sure did not go over with the voters. She tends to overdo her play.

septembergurl

Not a title I ever thought I would be writing! Pay no attention to the media meme that Newt won. He and Mittens both had their weakest debates, but Romney took more devastating hits from the “second tier” (all of whom outperformed the top tier) than Newt did. Herewith my ranking, in order:

1. Rick Perry: Unlike previous outings he did not lose energy and seem to fade as the debate progressed. Rather, he actually seemed to be enjoying himself, confident, relaxed, with his sincerity and passion connecting with the audience. He has the ability to get under Romney’s skin like no other candidate, and as a result, romney had his worst moments of the night attacking perry (the $10K bet and the Gardasil crack) when Perry barely has a pulse, while ignoring the frontrunner Gingrich. Perry had the best moment of the debate when he skilfully turned the discussion of Newt’s comment on Palestinians to a critique of Obama’s Middle east policy. We need more of that! His comments on the sanctity of marriage were good, and the hat tip to Ron paul was nicely delivered. All in all: Strength, passion, sincerity, humor.

2. Michele Bachmann: I actually had a fight with myself over the 1-2 positions. If not for her lame attempt to pick up the Herb cain stragglers with shameless pandering, I think I would have put her first, she was that good. She began by laying out the conservative case for not extending the payroll tax cut with clarity, concision and passion, tying her position deftly to her tax experience and her record in Congress. The blistering attack she launched on Gingrich and Romney for supporting the individual mandate was perfectly executed. Again she tied it explicitly to her record of opposition in Congress and leadership in the Tea party opposition. “Newt Romney” was effective in making her point (though I do agree w/Jonah Goldberg that “Mitt Gingrich” is a more sinister name.)

3. Ron Paul: I know! But he had an excellent debate, downplaying some of his more outre positions, and basking in some approval from competitors. He had an excellent moment vis a vis Newt and Freddie Mac, when he pointed out that the taxpayers funded Newt’s “historical advice.” He failed to push it, though I assume it will come up again. I liked it when he said his wife worked to put him thru med school. Like Perry, he seemed to be enjoying himself. I think he believes he has Iowa in the bag, and he may be correct.

4. Rick Santorum: He had one of his best debates as well. He effectively evoked his experience in campaigning in Iowa more than any other candidate. He launched a comparison of himself with bachmann, claiming that he had succeeded in Congress while she had failed. This argument would be better if he had not sustained the 15-point loss in his last Senate race. I don’t see how he gets past that.

5. Newt Gingrich: The first outing for the New Newt, post-surge, I did not find impressive. He did well in the debate because Romney was clearly rattled and did so poorly. He was on his best behavior, smiled a lot, did not attack the mods(and these two actually deserved it, tho the format was fine) and tried to project maturity, discipline, serenity, etc. I found him as usual, petty and vain as well as articulate and sometimes brilliant. But the line that “everybody in Washington” supported the individual mandate in the 90s is simply a terrible defense. Most Americans and most conservatives abhor the mandate as unconstitutional, always have, always will. Arguing that it was a defense against Hillarycare is not a good argument! We’re dealing with Obamneycare now. The Ted Kennedy line against Romney is an old one and was delivered with Newt’s trademark spitefulness.

6. Mitt romney: His worst debate ever. His attack on Newt’s flakiness, set up by the question, obviously prepared, was not well executed and fell flat. His attacks on Perry were a sign of loss of discipline. He was not able to deal effectively with Bachmann’s and Paul’s attacks. Mostly he seemed to have lost control of the debate stage, which he had previously dominated. His best moments were unscripted, personal ones, where he talked rather haltingly about his family’s wealth, and when he answered Newt’s Kennedy line with the football analogy, which was genuine and funny. But these moments simply illustrate how little known Romney remains after decades in the public eye.

To sum up: If you are basing your choice of candidate on the ability to best Obama in a debate, it’s a fools errand. Any of our candidates could defeat Obama, based on Saturday night. In fact, I could make the case that Newt and Mitt would fare worst in a debate with Obama, because they share many positions with him and would find it more difficult to draw contrasts than would, say, Perry or bachmann.

Also: Winning a debate w/Obama does not mean winning the election. Keep that in mind.

jasondallastx

that includes all politicians. Not just republicans. Pusillanimous? Come on, this is a blog where people post anonymously. Everything about this thing is pusillanimous. LOL!

lizzie

full name at his War Against Hanukkah pandering party on Dec 8, 2011.

yeah, common_cents, I did not understand why Gov. Perry flubbed that softball from Chris Wallace when Perry’s campaign had already made the point about the 8 justices who voted on that specific 1962 SCOTUS decision.

It is what it is.

Romney is NOT going to get softballs from Chris Wallace when Romney finally appears on Sunday, after a two year absence from Sunday morning news shows.

Assuming Romney survives being questioned by Bret Baier et all at FOX debate on Thursday. Glass jaws do shatter eventually.

jasondallastx

Genuinely interested in your response.

JSobieski

So if you loaded up with wealth, you can’t fit in the narrow space.

The camel had to be unloaded before the camel would fit.

ericksontales

Will this $10,000 gaffe hurt Romney? Yes. However not because in and of itself it was bad but because the lame stream medial loves to attack Romney for anything they can grasp. Romney should have known better. Had this been said by Santorum nobody would be talking about it. Since Mitt is wealthy he isn’t allowed to talk about his personal wealth without the media hounding him. While I think this $10,000 comment was harmless to the average citizen Romney should have known that EE, MSN, and the rest of the liberal media would take the ball and run on this one.

Romney did excellent in the debate. He should strength, confidence, and was more articulate than Gingrich when it comes to specifics (as usual). When Romney and Gingrich go head to head Romney always looks more intelligent. Newt has big ideas, clever sound bites, and does a good job pandering to people that no little about the issues. Romney has a lot more substance and real application to put behind these issues.

When it comes to a human element Romney is still struggling a bit although getting better. Perry did a good job catching Romney off guard on the $10,000 gaffe. Perry is really the only one that has ever taken Mitt off his game and its happened twice now. Perry is still the much bigger threat to the Romney campaign. Romney and team know that time and perseverance will prevail against Newt. They can obliterate Perry intellectually but they can’t seem to speak to the heart like Perry can. This is what makes Perry a much more formidable opponent than Newt.

When it comes time for voting Newt is going to have a strong start and a weak finish. I think over time people will find they simply can’t trust a dirty politician like New to run this country.

Romney 2012!

acat

and trying to filter out my modern american cultural biases. It’s so simple even a cat can manage it …

(I’ll admit the decade or so I spent (some say squandered) studying history may have something to do with it….)

Mew

easyb

Obama now goes to church!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/after-perry-attack-obama-displays-christian-faith/250751

jasondallastx

Thanks. It’s sort of a vague idea…not sure how much the camel needs to be unloaded, but it makes sense. Thanks.

gekster

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

A Christian would know that.
And it does not mean Jesus said to not be rich.
Only a Marxist would believe that to be the meaning.

jasondallastx

Hee hee.

Repair_Man_Jack

http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church%20Traditions/eye_of_a_needle.htm

acat

Cheshire grin

Ann_W

laying off lots of people when Bain bought companies and then here you say he’s just a streamliner. I have a business degree and hear about the company my husband is in, trust me, to actually streamline a business you would need to cut a lot of the positions that are performing the same exact functions in other parts of the organization.

I agree that Romney isn’t very good at connecting with people, but it’s just funny that his mistakes get so magnified, whereas Newt has such a high level of verbal gaffes that they kind of just get glossed over.

romansdaughter

I thought that was one good comeback to Mitt trying to act like he isn’t a career politician.

Ann_W

It was about that Mitt thought an individual mandate would be a good idea for the whole country.

Oh, and… Perry benefits, how? Only on RS do people think he will win anymore. The rest of the web is ablaze w/ parodies of his Iowa ad. I would prefer to vote for him over Romney on conservative ideology, however you folks are pretty far down the denial path if you don’t think that you will end up needing to choose betw Newt Romney at some point. Good luck with that.

jasondallastx

And I agree with you (minus the Marxist comment) now after the considered responses above. It’s about the fact that rich men have to work harder to get into heaven…they have to unload some of their possessions to get the camel through the eye of the needle.

acat

Newt is taking quite a lot of flak around Red State, not just for his recent miscues but for his past offenses as well.

Also, as I do not write all of Red State by myself (it would be much less interesting if I did ..) I find it .. interesting .. that you try to make points over my word choice vs. that of someone other than me.

My hope is that the D.C. area will see the kind of housing market collapse, between 2013 and 2017, due to demand drying up. I don’t think, though, that Willard has the stones to stand up to the congressional Dems to make the cuts necessary…. and if you think I’m mistaken, take a look at the debates again – Willard does not react well to being challenged, but the Dems will unleash hell against him both in the campaign and after he’s elected – he will be challenged again and again and again ….

Mew

Ann_W

The relationship between Wall Street and Government is corrupting. Ironically the Dems have the benefit of that cozy relationship and now seem poised to get the benefit of people who are angry about the relationship.

We need to be better at explaining that– with capitalism–while the rich do indeed get richer, the poor also get richer at a faster rate than in socialist countries (and this country in the last three years).

This is such an overlooked opportunity for Republicans to share their values.

westcoastpatriette

of needing to read the entire context to get a handle on what all Jesus was trying to teach. If you read Luke 18:18-30, you will be able to understand better the bigger picture.

jasondallastx

Thanks for posting.

acat

Should have waited another 5 seconds. Alas.

Mew

supergirl2911

Apart from gambling the amount was silly . Mostly we believe Romney is a ten thousand aire
Pretty ridiculous

acat

Rev. Wright ring any (church) bells?

Mew

jasondallastx

Just never discussed it. I have to say that (most of) the replies and discussion around this was very interesting, particularly the link above with the in depth analysis of it.

acat

with a candidate who grew up without indoor plumbing instead of one with $100 bills in his mouth.

Mew

kipling

The purpose of the church, as outlined in the Letters to Timothy, is to boldly proclaim the message of Christ and not the false doctrine of socialism or black liberation theology. Rev. Wright is an apostate and false teacher. Like Jackson and Sharpton, he is a wolf in shepherd’s clothing who fleeces his own flock.

supergirl2911

The fact that is makIng headlines ELSEWHERE and Perry using it in an ad and let’s not forget Romney lies, make it noteworthy at the least. It shouldn’t be the main analysis of Romney and the debateand IT IS NOT.

supergirl2911

Ditto not sure if it’s between the two if I don’t vote for Romney he may be a little more relatable and a little less pompous than newt.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

I’m not elaborating further because there are lots of differing opinions and this is a touchy subject. Good day to you.

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

And, if there is any doubt about Mitt?s excision from the hardback book when he issued the paperback [in addition to his oral unambiguous comments], just looky here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/66081535/Romney-Deletes-Romney-Care-Reference-From-Book

[As was posted earlier.]

Ann_W

But it just shows that the guy gets everything thrown at him. I’m not sure he would have the stones to stand up to Congress in order to cut, but I do know that he would know how to do it, I’m not sure that Newt would know how.

Maybe Newt can handle criticism better, but the richer accurate material about him will take its toll eventually. Yes, I’m ignoring Perry, I don’t think his numbers suggest that the decision involves him at this point. When they do we can talk about if he’s better.

I guess that’s conservative pleasant day dream material, DC housing market collapse. Why don’t we add in knocking all those DC counties out of the richest counties in the country list? A girl can dream, but I think Mitch Daniels wife put that out of reach for a while.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

The web is ablaze with rave reviews of Perry’s performance Saturday night. Sure the crazies are mad about his Iowa ad, but people who care about conservative values are and should be applauding it.

~From one America-loving patriette to another.

Ann_W

It may be easier, but hasn’t/won’t happen. He’s too busy slicing social moderates off the coalition.

ceili_dancer

I would have said, ” No Mitt, I think actions speak louder than words. I would like to change the bet to loser quits the race. If you have that much confidence that you have not changed the wording or the meaning in your book, I will quit the race and ask for my supporters to go to you, and I’d expect that your supporters go to me when I’m proved true.”
Maybe it’s from watching too much professional wrestling when I was younger, but a loser quits match would be awesome.

romansdaughter

nt

supergirl2911

But I find it hard to believe they -dems-think the white house is lost and are talking in back rooms. I consider it possible but not probable. Do you have anything to reference or share? Or could be I misunderstand the message.

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

The establishment will line-up behind The Newt.

Ann_W

I hope you will reexamine your position on the slim chance that he doesn’t. My kids deserve better than Obama, and if that’s only slightly better, I’ll take it, gladly.

ceili_dancer

I’d like to highlight the Huckabee panel, where the Attorneys General all said that Rick was the best when it came to the 10th amendment and really was the strongest all around.

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

…EE will support the GOP-nominee, per RS-rules.

supergirl2911

That right Perry campaign gets two thumbs up for quick and effective messaging. They are the top campaign in my opinion.

acat

A simple dream.

A dream where Gingrich, who managed the House *very* effectively, gets a chance to manage the Senate. (and watch McConnell squirm)

A dream where Gingrich gets to work alongside each cabinet appointee to offer suggestions on how to cut waste – Newt did a good job on that back in Contract with America days, after all.

Mitch Daniels running HHS or the Fed or Treasury would be a part of that dream, just like Bolton at the U.N. and Trump at NEA – with orders to fire everyone – and Palin at Energy.

As the old saying puts it, castles in the air sometimes show us where to pour the foundations.

Mew

texashistorian

And about how I saw it too. I think a lot of folks are calling it a “win” for Newt simply because he didn’t flame out. They are all getting better at this (except Mitt, perhaps) and it shows, and I also agree that any one of them could do for Obama on the debate stage.

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

…to make a point.

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

must save this for future-reference

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

…and, if i remember correctly, the reaction of her colleagues to her additional State-of-the-Union rebuttal was underwhelming.

Basically, she doesn’t seem to care about the reaction to her comments.

Certain people play this role, other people play other roles; let’s just enjoy what she contributes [quote-wise and strategically] for as long as she’s running.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

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

…it could be The Newt vs. Hillary…also delectable!

Common_Cents

10k is pocket change for Romney.

Perry didn’t go all in to call his bluff.

acat

A quick look at Wikipedia (because it’s accurate for our purposes) will confirm the number (and names, conveniently enough) of those up for re-election.

A look at the map shows a number of cases where the GOP has been ascendant – Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio – and where a Dem is running. Further, there are several cases – Wisconsin, Virginia, North Dakota – where the GOP is ascendant and the Dems are running away. (erm, “not seeking re-election”) This is all publicly available data.

Next, we must consider the Obama polling data. Neil does a much better job with this, but .. Obama is polling lower than any POTUS who has sought and won re-election. Ever. There will be an anti-Obama bias in the electorate, so the Senators will have to, in effect, run against Obama to win. Again, this is publicly available stuff. We don’t know what their private polls show.

Let’s also look at how closely aligned some of these Senators have been with Obama. Can the GOP opponent (and I’m hoping Santorum runs in PA…) tie the Dem to Obama and make it stick? A simple picture of the sitting Senator and the POTUS from 2008 or 2010 should do it… This generates very nice anti-coattails – that is, the presence of Obama on the ballot reduces the chances of the senator winning. This is, again, publicly available.

Finally, there’s the “Chicago way”. We know, from the investigation of Antonin Rezko and the trial(s) of Rod Blagojevich, that Obama was quite tied into the Chicago way of doing things. Specifically, the Blagojevich trial tells us that Rod knows someone has dirt on Obama. That’s another part of the Chicago way – nobody rises to power without someone else holding evidence against ‘em. Period. That way, the powers behind the scenes keep control. This is, again, publicly available, but it helps to spend time in the shadow of Chicago to really get a feel for how pervasive (and perverting of the process) it really is.

My conclusion is that if enough Senators’ internal polling matches the public stuff and/or they have reason to fear a strong GOP competitor and/or anti-coattails ..they know it’s a blowout, and they’re talking amongst themselves … that they may go have a chat with the folks in Chicago who know where the skeletons are and force Obama to retire. If he won’t do so for the good of the party, perhaps he will do so for the good of his reputation.

Mew

Common_Cents

nt

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

One can also anticipate that Chris will ID a key-outcome of Thursday’s debate…for careful/additional scrutiny.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Ann_W, Perry just jumped 8 points in a new Iowa poll. See here:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

He was at a coffee shop meet-and-greet in Ames, Iowa yesterday and the place was so packed, people were suggesting on Twitter than they might have to call out the fire marshal. People are listening to him, eager for a straight-talker.

If Perry makes a good showing in Iowa it will make him a contender. Romney, however, will do poorly. If you look at the statistics on the poll I linked above, Newt has dropped 5 points. Now I’m no poll scientist and I certainly don’t live or die by ‘em. If Perry jumps up in the polls I’m going to work as hard and as fast as though he were at the bottom. But to say that he’s basically a loser is to deny the facts. He has always won from behind and I’m not counting him out until/unless he DIES or drops out before next summer.

I’m not settling for second or third best. I’m going to fight for the candidate I feel is the best for our country at this point in time. I’m not going to settle for a guy who’ll drive our country over the cliff at 45 mph while Obama careens down at 70. I’d rather have Obama for another four years and FIGHT him with the Tea Party beside me than watch the people sit back and put their feet up because there’s a Republican in the White House. Sometimes a slow, steady death is far more agonizing than a quick chop of the axe.

Those are my views and I’m sticking to them. You can stick with yours, but don’t accuse me of not being a patriot or loving my country. I do love America, passionately. And I am working fast and furious for the best we can get, and for my future children’s sake.

clowngirl

Ideally I’d like a Gingrich/Perry ticket and would like to see Rick Perry establish himself as unquestionably ready to be President.

The Democrats are going to treat whoever the GOP nominates for Vice President as if they are on the top of the ticket, so it needs to be someone whose been vetted and tested as if they are going to be President.

So ideally, I’d like to see Newt win the nomination with Perry second — having quieted doubts about his readiness. The Vice Presidency has become an important job in its own right – with recent VPs having significant responsibilities. I would hope Governor Perry would seriously consider accepting if offered the job.

He’d also be well positioned, and still not too aged, to win the Presidency in 8 years.

To me Newt’s time on the National stage and comfort with the intensity of the spotlight is a huge asset. And he has a record of important reforms at the National level, under very difficult conditions. He seems much more disciplined and mature than in his days as House Speaker. I think he would accomplish a great deal and be an excellent President.

With Perry, I think there might be more of a learning curve – and I’m not sure – at this point – how much the National media would cause him problems. But, as he’d probably have a Republican Congress to deal with — he would also probably be a good President. Very good if he had Newt as VP.

I do also think Newt, at this point, looks much more electable. So, he’s my clear first choice — but I would much rather have a Perry/Gingrich race than Romney vs. Gingrich.

Get a very bad feeling at the thought of a Romney Presidency — although logically I try and convince myself it would be ok – on a gut level, it looms as a disaster to be avoided. Maybe we’re just at a point in history where merely ok isn’t nearly good enough. Gingrich and Perry have passion and I think, to do the job right, that’s going to be very neccessary.

acat

Set the tone, set the agenda, negotiate to get it done.

Of all the Governors, because of the way Texas is set up, Perry is actually better experienced in doing so than anyone else – especially Willard “athletes’ scalp” Romney.

Mew

center77

the one can say the Perry team has already rattled Obama once this election cycle.

Common_Cents

because that is what he said recently, indicating he’d not consider it himself.

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

And how ’bout Sarah as Press Secretary?

acat

And at this point, of *course* all candidates deny wanting to be the veep. Remember that barely 4 months ago, Perry denied being interested in being POTUS.

Mew

* the original quote was “bucket of piss”, by the way.

gekster

Iowa Likely Republican
Caucus Goers Dec 8-11_2011

Gingrich 22%
Paul 17%
Romney 17%
Perry 13%
Undecided 12%
Bachmann 7%
Santorum 7%
Huntsman 5%
Other 1%
Roemer –
Johnson -

acat

Her claim to fame in Alaska was pipelines, let her fix Keystone.

Mew

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

You’re the best

cheetah2

center77

with the conservative movement than any when it comes to Romney. The 10,000 bet would not change much if it had not come from Romney, but wooden willard just lived up to the standard set for him.

note Eric said Romney was shoving his wealth in the face of some one who grew up poor.

JSobieski

There is no space between Jesus and Christianity.

Common_Cents

BLITZER: If there were somebody else that got the Republican nomination — I know you think that is unlikely, but let’s say Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney got it. Would you consider being a running mate?

PERRY: Why would leave being governor of the state of Texas to be vice president?

BLITZER: You’re just in next line to be president of the United States?

PERRY: — very powerful statement about that. Being vice president is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

I’m sure Perry knew the reference and sanitized it for TV so it wasn’t a gaffe, but he did say it.

It came across as arrogant that he wouldn’t consider serving the country as VP.

Here is a classier way of answering the question:

“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is rarely mentioned as a top choice for the vice presidential slot, says he hasn?t ruled out accepting an offer if one comes from the eventual Republican nominee for president.

In an interview with CNN News anchor Wolf Blitzer, Gingrich was asked whether he would answer yes or no if asked to be the eventual nominee?s running mate. ?Well, it wouldn?t be a no,? Gingrich said. But he declined to say a word more ? literally, standing and smiling on camera as Blitzer continued to press him.

?That sounds like a yes,? Blitzer said. Gingrich smiled.

?Anything?? Blitzer asked. More smiling.

?Well, I?ll leave it at that,? Blitzer said, throwing in the towel.”

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

…for the MSM/LSM/ELM to have to contend with her daily???

cheetah2

Perry accuses Obama of waging war on religion. Right the very next Sunday, the Obama’s show up at church (their first time since Easter, and I think we can count the total times they have been in church during his presidency on the fingers of less than one hand.)

http://www.examiner.com/fashion-in-atlanta/the-obamas-go-to-church-style

If this is a preview of what a Perry- Obama show off for the presidency would look like, I say bring it on!

unitedwestood

You can not ‘work’ your way into heaven. Jesus died on the cross for us so we can go to heaven. Works will never get us in or keep us out of heaven, only the acceptence or denial of Jesus can do that… according to the bible.

Perhaps Jesus pointed out that the man thought more of his money then he did God. He shined a light on that fact by telling him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor.. and the man couldn’t …..why? It say’s… The ” Love” of money is the root of all evil… Not money itself. Money is neither good or bad, it just is. Goodness… I look at the Socialistic way of life and can point out instantly it’s against God. Why? People put more faith in governments ability to take care of them, then they do God’s ability. That is man meeting his own need.. he doesn’t need God.

If you dig into the bible you will find that God say’s poverty is a curse. Look at God’s people.. were they poor?NOPE!

Also in that verse if you look Jesus deciples said ” Then which of us can be saved” that’s very telling… they were rich men. Those boy’s weren’t poor. Do you think you can actually travel from place to place to preach without having some money? That boat Jesus almost sunk with all those fish wasn’t a dingy and he also called to his partners to bring their boats… Humm, not just some poor fisherman, that was a business. Was Jesus born in a manger because Mary and Jospeh were poor, or because the Inn was full? If they were poor, they weren’t for long… did you hear what those kings brought him? Spices don’t mean much to us today.. but it was currency then…. pricey currency.

This topic interest me because when my husband and I bought our Hotel, one of my staff made the statement (Sorry for him I heard it) They can’t be Christians, their rich! he changed his mind when I payed a few debts off for him.. and told him… If I wasn’t rich, I couldn’t do this.. and if I wasn’t a Christian, I wouldn’t do this.

unitedwestood

You can not ‘work’ your way into heaven. Jesus died on the cross for us so we can go to heaven. Works will never get us in or keep us out of heaven, only the acceptence or denial of Jesus can do that… according to the bible.

Perhaps Jesus pointed out that the man thought more of his money then he did God. He shined a light on that fact by telling him to sell all that he had and give it to the poor.. and the man couldn’t …..why? It say’s… The ” Love” of money is the root of all evil… Not money itself. Money is neither good or bad, it just is. Goodness… I look at the Socialistic way of life and can point out instantly it’s against God. Why? People put more faith in governments ability to take care of them, then they do God’s ability. That is man meeting his own need.. he doesn’t need God.

If you dig into the bible you will find that God say’s poverty is a curse. Look at God’s people.. were they poor?NOPE!

Also in that verse if you look Jesus deciples said ” Then which of us can be saved” that’s very telling… they were rich men. Those boy’s weren’t poor. Do you think you can actually travel from place to place to preach without having some money? That boat Jesus almost sunk with all those fish wasn’t a dingy and he also called to his partners to bring their boats… Humm, not just some poor fisherman, that was a business. Was Jesus born in a manger because Mary and Jospeh were poor, or because the Inn was full? If they were poor, they weren’t for long… did you hear what those kings brought him? Spices don’t mean much to us today.. but it was currency then…. pricey currency.

This topic interest me because when my husband and I bought our Hotel, one of my staff made the statement (Sorry for him I heard it) They can’t be Christians, their rich! he changed his mind when I payed a few debts off for him.. and told him… If I wasn’t rich, I couldn’t do this.. and if I wasn’t a Christian, I wouldn’t do this.

kestrel

with regard to Bachmann. As Bachmann concluded her Newt Romney segment (I agree it was a terrific line), Newt is in the background acting totally dismissive of her. This does not convey a presidential demeanor. He went on to belittle her, saying, as if to an errant child, “Michele… it’s important that you be accurate.” Nevermind that she was all too accurate about his lobbying Congress (particularly to pass Medicare Part D. See Conn Carroll in today’s Washington Examiner). I don’t think Gingrich can dismiss Bachmann’s other charges as easily as he wants to either.

A President Gingrich will dismiss the Tea Party just as easily, just as glibly, just as condescendingly, as he does Bachmann, the moment suits him to do so.

For president, I prefer Perry’s record and experience to Bachmann’s (and Gingrich’s), but I don’t see Bachmann as the lightweight that you do. Gingrich’s attitude toward Bachmann reminded me that intelligence is not all that’s needed to win a debate. There are ways Gingrich could lose a debate to Obama that have nothing to do with intelligence.

acat

would be either Erick Ericson or Moe Lane….

Mew

acat

just one that gets under my fur.

For my part, I find Perry’s flat denial – with historical misquote – resonates better than Newt’s rude ignoring of the questioner… even though it’s Blitzer.

Mew

acat

I .. don’t really see the problem here.

Mew

znjs

Kind of seems to me that we’d want them to come out again in ’12 like they did in ’10 rather then chase them off for good.

red_oakster

nt

kestrel

Obama is scared to death of running against Perry because of Perry’s record, especially on job creation and healthcare. Their records are nearly polar opposites. Texas was creating jobs at the very time that Obama was declaring it couldn’t be done, and that we would have to get used to economic malaise — because of Bush. Perry created jobs not only in spite of Bush (if one buys that), but in spite of Obama. If Perry is the nominee, Obama’s rhetoric will not amount to a hill of beans, and he knows it. No other Republican in the field presents such a stark contrast to Obama.

qcompson

Per the Washington Post
“In other words, Perry is simply making up the claim that Romney advocated his health-care plan as a model for the rest of the country ? and that he deleted words praising it. Perry?s claim is directly contradicted on the very page from which he draws his gotcha quote. (You can see this clearly if you click on this PDF of Pages 176-177, courtesy of our friends at PolitiFact.)”

JSobieski

Every other candidate has serious policy proposals out there. Heck, even Romney recently put a medicare reform plan out there. Perry has a flat tax and energy development plan.

Bachmann is a sitting Congresswoman and what has she proposed? NOTHING. Otherwise, she would invite attack. It is easier for her to be the purest conservative possible if she simply stays out of actually proposing anything.

The gap between what is said and what is done is greatest with Bachmann.

“Titanium” spine? Even Ryan’s most tepid medicare reform proposal passed by the House does not have her full support (she attached an “asterisk” to it).

Two facts that are undeniable:
(1) Bachmann repeatedly said that she would never support raising the debt ceiling by even 1 cent
(2) Bachmann never proposed anything that would allow the government the achieve the goal of (1) above

If that isn’t the definition of “all talk, no action” I don’t know what is.

In this respet, Bachmann is the worst candidate on the R side.

gekster

Romney ‘did’ have the words changed from the hardcover to the softcover.

words were changed
___________________________________________________________
excerpt:
HARDCOVER: “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.”
To:
PAPERBACK: “And it was done without government taking over health care.”

Why make the change? Well, Romney was in quite a spot. His hardcover was written when the national health care policy supported by President Barack Obama included a public insurance option. So his Massachusetts plan, by comparison, kept “private insurance and personal choice intact,” he wrote.

Then the Democratic plan passed, without the public option. And it looked uncomfortably close to Romney’s plan. As PolitiFact’s Angie Drobnic Holan has written, both leave in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. They seek to reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid and by offering tax breaks to help moderate income people buy insurance. People are required to buy insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the “individual mandate.” And companies that don’t offer insurance have to pay fines, with exceptions for small business and a few other cases.

Suddenly, the line in the hardcover edition to “accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country” as Republican Romney had done for Massachusetts was pretty close to what the Democratic president had done nationally.

So Perry was right that there was some strategic editing.
________________________________________

Perry was right.

acat

and clearly, electing the “next in line guy” is not – as demonstrated by McCain, Kerry, Dole, Mondale, et al the way to go about it…

Mew

JSobieski

What proposals has Bachmann put out there for consideration?

What cuts would she make?

How would she reform entitlements?

She proposes nothing, and gives only tepid support to even mild efforts to fix things (see “asterisk” support of Ryan plan).

Are having auditions for a reality TV show?

I do actually care about the policy. If Newt does the right thing but is dimissive of the tea party–I will be more than content.

The Bachmann alternative is to cozy up with the tea party, but propose nothing, and nothing happens.

Bachmann is a lightweight on policy, and she doesn’t feel compelled to actually show leadership on the issues.

If you like her, good for you. I don’t care about any of the candidates as people. I care about them primiarily as instruments to implement policy changes.

JSobieski

What are her proposals? What spending cuts is the “titanium spine” willing to stand up for?

It is far easier to attack other people’s plans if you don’t have any of your own. I call it the “Obama manuever”

qcompson

He changed the wording, but he did not do so for the reasons Perry alleges. That simply is not true. In the paragraph preceding the changed phrasing, in hardcover and paperback, Romney’s book reads, ?My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own.?

Romney is on record as early as 2006 saying that this was a Mass. solution to a Mass. issue. He has consistently argued that each state should be able to tailor their health care system to the state’s individual needs.

When Obama did not include a public option, Romney no longer had to distinguish his plan on that basis. Mass. didn’t have a public option, and everyone on the right was very worried that Obamacare would. A public option is an example of a government takeover of healthcare. That would have been a relevant distinction. In the end, the law did not have a public option, but it did represent a government takeover of healthcare. The edit reflected the change in Obamacare, not a substantive change in Romney’s view.

10th Amendment.

JSobieski

The issue is why does Romney think it was a good idea?

It isn’t market oriented (i.e. it wasn’t coupled with regulation to encourage high deductible/low premium options). It wasn’t coupled with a medicaid voucher system.

By what metric was Romneycare a good thing?

If the best response to “You did something bad” is “it wasn’t illegal”—the response is inadequate.

If the answer is that it was the best possible option due to the Blue legislature, then Romney should be more apologetic about it and say so.

Instead, he seems proud of it, but nobody can understand why.

jasondallastx

I’d never heard that Jesus was well-off. That was very kind of you to help your staff. I’m always encouraged to see christ-like behavior, not just people who talk about it.

I guess that’s the interesting thing about the Bible. It’s open to interpretation. There are plenty of people who would disagree with your perspective that being poor is a curse.

Luke 6:20 says “blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven” and there are plenty of lines like that – so I’m not sure that it is a curse to be poor. Is there something in the New Testament that says otherwise?

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

`…as to whether the index-quote was altered.

It was, and the message that was reviewed unambiguously claimed that “what was good for Mass would be recommended as being good for America.”

conservativemusician

And normally he drools all over Gingrich or Romney after every debate. He also thought that Gingrich’s lead would slip a few points after the debate. Of course, he thought Romney won the debate and dismissed Perry’s good performance, so I would also ask him what debate he was watching.

I thought Romney looked off balance and generally flustered most of the night. Gingrich smoked Romney on the Palestinian issue and Perry smoked Romney on his support of the individual mandate that he still won’t own up to changing in the paperback edition of his book. Romney then made gaffes wagering $10K with Perry and then bringing up the Gardasil issue in TX which ended up backfiring on Bachmann. Very weak and pathetic responses bordering on desperate. Romney truly has a glass jaw.

Don’t know what the polls are showing now, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see Perry moving up a few points. It was his best debate to date and he is getting more and more comfortable in the debate format, even though it is not his strong suit.

1bunny

From twitter postings so I don’t know what poll they are referring to just keep saying IA poll shows:

Newt dropped now at 22
Romney and Paul at 17
Perry at 13

goodgovernance

in the debates, but it’s a slow improvement. He really needs to show a big improvement before I think the numbers would really swing his way.

Regarding the Huckabee debate, that was a format where he wasn’t standing at a podium with his opponents all around him. I’d point out the general election debates are usually in that format — an important point given Perry’s back surgery. It could be Perry doesn’t debate well when he has to stand for long periods of time like that (it would explain why he tends to fade out at the end).

And even in the Huckabee debate I was holding my breath wondering if Perry could clearly convey he understood the president can’t just wipe away a law passed by Congress with a stroke of a pen, after it’s been passed.

Perry’s best hope is probably that Gingrich implodes very soon.

romansdaughter

jasondallastx

If you weren’t a Christian, that you wouldn’t have helped that guy? So, only Christians do kind things?

I’m a believer (though very different from you), and I’ve seen plenty of kind people from all walks of life. Buddhists are particularly kind and giving people.

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

[a keeper]

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

…wouldn’t it be fun if the two-of-them pledged to be the ticket, with the person with the greater number of delegates becoming POTUS and the #2 tabulator becoming Veep?

qcompson

Access to affordable health care is a major issue in this country. There is an urgent need to address this issue. Doing nothing is a terrible option. The states are laboratories of democracy. Romney’s plan in Massachusetts increased coverage, but it has not decreased cost. Parts of the plan worked. Parts of the plan did not work. Parts of the plan have been altered by his successors in Massachusetts.

Romney’s contention is that what was good for Massachusetts could be good for the individual states as states. Each state can look at what did or did not work in Massachusetts and tailor its own plan accordingly. He does not, nor has he ever, suggest that the Massachusetts plan should be the foundation of health care reform at the federal level.

The Massachusetts plan does represent real leadership on politically difficult issues that represent a real threat to the stability and health of our nation. Massachusetts has almost compete coverage, but it is expensive. Regardless, there is a health care problem in this country and it is getting worse. We need innovative plans from states to help find the solution to that problem.

center77

at other expenses.

bzip

Yep, I read the poll – some one posted it here at RS. I also just saw it on CNN:

Newt 22 (Newt drop 5% he was at 27%)
Romney 17
Paul 17
Perry 13

The poll was taken Dec 8-11. So it really doesn’t have the affect of the last debate on it.

I strongly believe that Romney will go down and even Newt will go down “some” as a result of the debate and Perry will go up (he sure won;t go down because he had a great debate and he wasn’t the one being hit at in the debate).

lineholder

But don’t agree in the least that Romney’s actions pertaining to the healthcare plan in Massachusetts exemplified leadership. Why? Because the plan was old news, utilized in European countries, blown all out of proportion about being effective in the provision of health insurance for the poor, but even when Romney signed onto this plan, the evidence already existed that this type of healthcare system was faulty and would fail in the long run.

1spark

was that he was ill-prepared from the beginning.

He was an unpolished national contender for the presidency. (A rushed one, at that.) Currently, I believe he’s a seasoned candidate, slowly rebuilding his coalition.

But still a far cry from the veteran contenders who are now leading the pack.

Perry needs to re-evaluate for maybe a 2016 bid.

But then again, who knows what this man is capable of?

1bunny

aired but before the debate at least according to tweets. Encouraging I think.

qcompson

Fair enough. I am not much of a Romney supporter, but I think it is important not to forget how important addressing health care is. All of the candidates want to get rid of Obamacare. That is the right call, but it is only the tip of the issue.

We have a serious problem with health care, and we should recognize that Romney has demonstrated the courage and ability to address the issue. Hopefully, the other candidates have thought deeply about the issue and can demonstrate leadership once the mission repeal Obamacare is accomplished

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

bzip

Yep, it was after all tee hard work Perry did and the faith ads that are working. On top of which the vetting of Newt I am sure is having an affect (Newt did drop 5%).

I am sure Perry is going to place in the top 3 in Iowa, maybe in the top 2 if things continue to go well . This is really good news. Perry can only go up after that last debate and Romney can only go down .

I found the actual poll, it was louisianapatriette that posted it and it is located at;
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

romansdaughter

In other words she is all bark and no bite?? But her bark is loud and I rather enjoy her going for the big dogs. LOL

carolynr

I have posted this on other threads….Perry has to come out MEGA strong with a simplistic, specific plan for SS and Medicare. I have lived in FL (no more) for 40 years…I know that place like the back of my hand. Those two subjects alone will pull in the votes. It will also bring in those that are not ready for SS and Medicare. He has a perfect example with Healthy Texas…in his own state. 30% reduction to business for healthcare.

Seniors…expecially in South FL…can’t understand Gingrich…believe me…they can’t. Simple and truthful answers will get them.

carolynr

Sorry..I was overly zealous with Perry. You are talking establishment…and you are absolutely correct…they don’t want Perry AT ALL. This might be a good thing with a congressional approval of about 10%

carolynr

and that is exactly what we will get with Romney. Hasn’t the country tanked enough.

Ann_W

He’s not another Obama by any stretch of the imagination. You may prefer another candidate, but that comment is just dumb.

carolynr

addressed it with Healthy Texas, an insurance for business in his state.

Look…I do not want the Federal Government involved in anything more than they already are..in fact, let’s take some of it away…they either don’t do it or they have bankrupted the system. There are NO government programs that have worked so far. Therefore, let it go back to private companies, buy across state lines and have the state oversee it. NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in anything.

Looks like the states will have to guard the border…Obama just announced a un-manned crossing for Illegals…TODAY ON DRUDGE.

carolynr

Perry’s problem is that he is not a crook like the rest of them…with the exception of Paul…who I would not vote for. Perry is exactly what the country says they want. Their problem (the country) is that they are too easily swayed by hyperbole and the media.

Romney is a liar
Gingrich is a liar and not trustworthy
Bachmann has lied in the debates and is a dimwit
Santorum is not fiscally Conservative…he’s a company man.

I don’t know enough about Huntsman to make a call…but the other I do.

If you get bent out of shape about Bachmann…go see how much hubby got in FEDERAL GRANTS for his husband…”change back to hetrosexual clinic”. That does not count state grants.

JSobieski

nt

supergirl2911

I am educating myself.

carolynr

How’s that for an Oops. In case any of you don’t know it…Idiot Boy is Obama.

romansdaughter

Fishermen were not wealthy and several of his disciples were fishermen. Jesus was not wealthy,,,he was in a lowly carpenters family. I am down here in Brazil right now and let me tell you I see lots of poor, christians who believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins and they are happy. Where do find in the Bible that poverty is a curse? God only promises to meet our needs. Needs are different than wants. The people down here are poor but God supplies their needs. I find the poor people more generous than the rich. Kind of like in the Bible where Jesus says about a widow lady who gave an amount of money from the little she had and how Jesus praised her.

Common_Cents

her ace-ace-ace in the hole-hole-hole.

romansdaughter

nt.

ericksontales

“Any of our candidates could defeat Obama” If only this were true… While I agree any of them would be better than Obama the reality is that not all of them can beat Obama. In fact, most of them according to all data and research do not have a chance. There are only a few that can appeal to a broad enough portion of the electorate to seal the deal.

Its a fools errand to vote for someone that cannot win in the general. All your accomplishing by that is handing Obama another 4 years…

“Newt and Mitt would fare worst in a debate with Obama” Well, while I detest Newt he and Romney are the only two that can in fact go toe to toe with Obama in a debate because of the depth of their knowledge and grasp of the issues. Trust me, I wish there were more that could. Even though I detest Obama he is excellent in debates. We cannot put up a paper tiger like Perry and expect him to trip up Obama. It just won’t happen. Perry is a nice man. I like him in many respects but he cannot win in a debate against Obama no matter how much wishful thinking we have.

carolynr

nt

gekster

.

Melody Warbington (rwm52)

Then there’s Abraham.

From my usual go to reference here upon which I can’t improve so I’ve posted in its entirety:

Jesus once declared: ?It is easier for a camel to go through a needle?s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God? (Matthew 19:24). Does this passage suggest that it is utterly impossible for those who are wealthy to enter God?s kingdom?

If it does, then what shall we say of Abraham of whom Moses wrote: ?And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold? (Genesis 13:2). If the wealthy are forbidden entrance into heaven, solely upon the basis of their material assets, then clearly the great patriarch, known as the friend of God (Isaiah 41:8), will not make it.

Such a conclusion, however, does not harmonize with the testimony of the Scriptures elsewhere regarding Abraham. Jesus Himself announced: ?And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven? (Matthew 8:11; cf. also Hebrews 11:16).

What is the solution to this problem? It is not to be found in the novel suggestion that the ?needle?s eye? is a small gate in one of Jerusalem?s walls, through which a camel might squeeze with some difficulty, nor the notion, occasionally suggested, that ?camel? really means a rope. The Lord plainly specified that He was speaking of something ?impossible? (cf. vs. 26).

Out by the side of Matthew 19:24 enter this marginal notation: See Mark 10:24. That passage reads: ?. . . how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!?

Underline that key phrase. It is not the mere possession of wealth that bars the way to heaven; it is the trusting in that substance of which the Lord disapproves.

romansdaughter

No one was attacking him except Rick Perry..most of the other candidates attacked Rick Perry, Herman Cain on 999 etc. But now he isn’t above the frey anymore and some how just like Obama, Rick Perry gets under their skin. I am still trying to understand what it is but its there.

ericksontales

btw… waiting for you to tell me who is the most conservative candidate in this race on the other thread….

Come on tell us who is your candidate.

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

…is most conservative and has shown he can debate BHO well.

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

…because the handicapping is generally on-point.

Yet, your inserted assertion ["Perry did a good job catching Romney off guard on the $10,000 gaffe"] assumes Perry set-up Mitt; this was spontaneous…and it reflects the effects of good preparation.

gekster

Your stated goal to try to embarrass Erick and promote the rino Willard for a second reason.

And it was acat you asked, not me.

I will not state for the simple reason of someone else being for or against of whome I support.

1bunny

avagreen

Why would Perry take on a bet of this monstrous overplay by Romney? That’s not what n“debates” are about. Candidates betting each other on the other’s statements? How childish can you get to think this was anywhere to anything but desperation and a mistake on Romney’s part. Against his religious believes as well.

Perry: 1 Romney. big fat 0

avagreen

…..so many voters are so ill informed, they take what the evening news tell them is fact.

The fact is that if Perry sneezes too long, it is reported as a gaffe.

bzip

Thanks bunny1. As Romney continues to go down you can thank Perry for his abilities. The same abilities that Perry used on Romney can surely bring Obama down. It was and has always been Rick Perry who has taken on Romney and down right gotten under Romney’s skin.

romansdaughter

I laughed so hard at the end with the statement there is a lot of good reasons to not elect me. There sure is!! Whew Willard is not having a good week.

ericksontales

My goal is not to embarrass Erick… I’ve never said that. I do wish to counter argue much of the nonsense that Erick spouts about Romney. I do want to promote “Willard” (libs in conservative clothing always use that name to taunt not sure why) because I honestly believe he is the best candidate.

Why won’t you say who your favorite candidate is? What are you hiding? Afraid someone will blow holes in your opinion. Take a stand man… come on.

ericksontales

Erick doesn’t need my help to embarrass himself. I simply wish to give a voice to those of us who are long time conservatives that want to put a competent candidate in the WH that will represent America well.

ericksontales

Your kidding right?

-Texas Dream Act (instate tuition for illegal immigrants)
- Elected to the Texas House of Representatives twice as a Democrat
- Supported Hillarycare (even wrote her a letter)
- Mandate for young girls (HPV vaccine)
- Supported TARP bailouts
- Voted for Jimmy Carter and supported Al Gore
- Endorsed Pro-abortion and Pro-guntrol Rudy Guliani for Pres

ummm… yeah, Rick Perry is the most conservative (eye rolling).

Look, I actually like Rick Perry. I think he would make a good President, even better than most that are running. However, to say that he is the MOST conservative is flat out inaccurate in so many ways…

gekster

And pay attention to the last line this time.

gekster

He gets that from it being his first name, and he flopped on that.
Remembe, “Mitt is my first name” in the debate, which it isn’t.

Are you talking about his flip-flops.
Is it his calling himself a conservative when he is not.
Is it saying he will pander to the crowd he is talking to so as to garner thier votes..
Is it the fact that he hasn’t held a core conservative belief in his political career.
It it calling out that Willard will hold beliefs according to the office he is running for.
Is it saying he was so pathetic he couldn’t even beat McCain in the last primary.
Is it getting elected only one time in over 20 years of seeking office, and not running for re-election after winning the one office he did win.
Just what nonsense has Erick told about Willard.

gunsrus

Less filling etc.

circlegranch

and I can never trust her again after the ridiculous and very hurtful way she hit on Gardasil. There was absolutely nothing presidential about her REFUSING TO LISTEN regarding the opt out clause. WSJ just printed yet another article last weekend about the explosion in the number of cases being diagnosed amongst both young women and young men (HPV infection). She knows it cannot be cured once contracted. She knows not every parent is a staunch Christian conservative with perfect kids that never would even think about how to become infected, let alone be infected. She’s unrealistic, rigid, crowns herself with an holier than thou attitude. She jumps on every bandwagon that rolls down the road if it appears it could benefit her.

Your predictions on what will be occurring between Jan 3 and the 31st are, I believe, spot on. Huntsman has hung his hat in NH and by not attending debates or keeping himself in the news otherwise, he will fold after NH without a strong finish. Santorum and Bachmann both must have the One and Two spots in Iowa. Without those high placings, they have no momentum from which to kickstart their fundraising again. Paul will do well in Iowa because his support is primarily young and they’ll brave the bitter temps and ice to go vote. Perry needs at least a 4th finish to restart interest in those refusing to give that second look and to help replenish the campaign coffers a bit. He’s got a good ground game and alot of devoted people; if they can get people to the polls, anything can happen.

kestrel

She does have the least experience, and possibly the fewest specifics out there. I don’t really know because I haven’t looked at her website. I’m not voting for her or anyone with a thin resume, no matter how bright their future, and no matter how much I admire and appreciate the person. For Pete’s sake, I wouldn’t even back Mike Pence for president in 2012.

Perry’s record with the Texas economy has the potential to create a whole new generation of “Reagan Democrats” and I want to see that happen. These people don’t want to hear ideological blather from either left or right, they just want the good times rolling again. They work hard, they play hard, (and their teenagers are a blast), and they now view Obama as a drag on the nation. They will look at Perry’s record in Texas and not care how he talks.

If they were watching the last debate (not likely), they probably noticed Perry for the first time because of that hilarious back and forth with Romney over the mandate and Mitt’s book. I was laughing my guts out even before Mitt announced that he has a copy of his own book.

PERRY: “I’m just sayin…”
MITT: “You’ve mentioned this before.”
PERRY: “It was true then…”
MITT: “You’ve mentioned this before…”
PERRY: “…and it’s true now.”

Perry couldn’t keep from laughing at his own enjoyment of the moment, which makes me guess that he has been having a good time on the campaign trail. That kind of thing — mildly offering to show Mitt his own book — is exactly the kind of humor that is Perry at his best.

I will vote for Romney in the general if he’s the nominee, but there will be no fun in it, and not a lot of hope for the future. Maybe Mitt will go on to beat Obama and then surprise us, but I don’t see him drawing in a next generation of “Reagan Democrats” the way Perry could. I think Perry will beat Obama in a landslide if he’s the nominee.

Nice talking to you.

jasondallastx

Thanks romansdaughter.

texashistorian

There was some big lib DC political writer (can’t remember who, a WaPo guy maybe?) a couple weeks back that said Perry was the one most of the liberal writers feared in the general election because he doesn’t play by the “rules” or something on that order. I think that is probably the case in the primaries as well. He’s done that in Texas as well; the GOP establishment here doesn’t care for him and never has (witness the big guns lining up behind Kay Bailey in the last governor’s race). That intangible thing that Perry does to the traditional pols must be why Kinky Friedman (erstwhile songwriter, poet and onetime Perry gubernatorial candidate) endorsed him.

clowngirl

I think that would be a good plan. Unless, of course, the #2 tabulator turns out to be Romney — in that case go to #3.

Basically I just want it to be Gingrich and Perry.

unitedwestood

I didn’t know how to find this until today. I am new here. I found the my profile button and viola! Here is my answer…………

This is under the curse of the law, of which Jesus hung on the tree and saved us from – Poverty IS a cruse, not a blessing.

Passage Deuteronomy 28:16-19:
16Cursed shall you be in the city and cursed shall you be in the field.
17Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading trough.

18Cursed shall be the fruit of your body, of your land, of the increase of your cattle and the young of your sheep.

19Cursed shall you be when you come in and cursed shall you be when you go out

That’s financial poverty… that’s a curse.

2 Corinthians 8:9 “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.”
Proverbs 23:21:

21For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

unitedwestood

I didn’t know how to find this until today. I am new here. I found the my profile button and viola! Here is my answer…………

This is under the curse of the law, of which Jesus hung on the tree and saved us from – Poverty IS a cruse, not a blessing.

Passage Deuteronomy 28:16-19:
16Cursed shall you be in the city and cursed shall you be in the field.
17Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading trough.

18Cursed shall be the fruit of your body, of your land, of the increase of your cattle and the young of your sheep.

19Cursed shall you be when you come in and cursed shall you be when you go out

That’s financial poverty… that’s a curse.

2 Corinthians 8:9 “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.”
Proverbs 23:21:

21For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

unitedwestood

Before I was saved, I would have said ” You got yourself in the mess, you get yourself out”. Most people I konw that have money and not God, are greedy and out for only themselves. You might have the opinion I’m talking about a few hundered dollars… I am talking about a few thousand dollars. God softnes the heart… makes you see people totally different. It’s all about people. You don’t love people to get money, you love people with money. Let’s face it.. for something that’s so ‘evil’ why do most people spend most of their lives trying to get it? saved and unsaved

unitedwestood

Before I was saved, I would have said ” You got yourself in the mess, you get yourself out”. Most people I konw that have money and not God, are greedy and out for only themselves. You might have the opinion I’m talking about a few hundered dollars… I am talking about a few thousand dollars. God softnes the heart… makes you see people totally different. It’s all about people. You don’t love people to get money, you love people with money. Let’s face it.. for something that’s so ‘evil’ why do most people spend most of their lives trying to get it? saved and unsaved

lineholder

This makes it sound as if material possessions and earthly riches are a key factor of spirituality and Christianity, and I don’t agree with that at all.

lineholder

to the context of a very specific situation that was taking place after the people of Israel had been travelling for 40 years through the desert to reach the Promised Land. They had come to the end of their journey, and just before crossing over into the Promised Land, Moses and the other leaders provided them with admonitions to continue to obey, rely and trust God to lead them, even though their journey was completed. The blessings and curses mentioned were in that particular context, not meaning to imply that striving for material possessions and earthly riches is something that we should place higher than striving for heavenly riches and spiritual goals.

The verse in II Cor. pertains to riches that Christ sacrificed (specifically in the context of giving up his position on the right hand of the Father for a period of time to come here, live here, on this earth, in human form, die in our place, overcome death through the power of God the Father, return to that throne on high, and through all of it to provide us with an example to live by during his time here plus a means of being justified and becoming righteous through His sacrifice) thus allowing us to partake of the spiritual riches of a similar fellowship with God the Father that He Himself had known (thus making us spiritually rich, not earthly rich)

The verse in Proverbs pertains to wisdom and knowledge of behaviors regarding sloth and usage of time.

romansdaughter

I am pretty new here myself so haven’t figured everything out yet. Okay First off in Deut. 28 You have to remember that Deut is one of the books of Law and in Deut. 28 God was talking about if the people of Israel disobeyed His commands and decrees then they would be cursed with those things which I am not going to type out here. This was because He was trying to show them that no one can work their way to heaven..we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Yes, I am sure that extreme poverty isn’t fun but it doesn’t mean some Christians are not going to be poor. And in II Cor. 8:9 Paul, the author of the book was not talking about wealth when he penned that verse if you look up to the first part of the chapter Paul says ..brothers (Corinthians) we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches,,Out of the most severe trials, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able and even beyond their ability. And it keeps going telling about these poor brethern. So when it gets down to verse 9 you realize that Paul is not talking about wealth but the richness of grace and sent his Son to die for us sinners that we might partake of His grace which is eternal life. Okay I have to go but I hope this helped.

unitedwestood

Sometimes the way it come across is not the intended statement….so as I say this,know, it’s said with nothing other then respect for you and your opinions.

We would have no idea what exactly sin is/was if it wasn’t for the 10 commandments – Right? We wouldn’t have a baseline for our laws, we wouldn’t know right from wrong if it wasn’t for out teachings in the bible. God laid out what blessings are in Deut.. and he laid out what the curse is in Deut. You wouldn’t know if you were blessed or cursed if he hadn’t laid it all out for us to know the difference.

When we speak of blessing and cursing dealing with the rich and the poor, we have to take into account Malichi ( sp?) as well. Will you rob God? Yet you rob me with tithes and offerings, prove me this day that I will pour you out blessings that you have not room enough to recieve them ( paraphased of course) We would have no idea what blessings were unless he spelled them out in Deut. Blessings are just money.. but money is part of it. You have to have money to live.. that’s a fact.

In those day’s and even in some parts of the world today… cattle, sheep, goats, horses, gold, silver, spices are all money. They are a tradable commodity that is of value.

Look at all the women that supported Jesus ministry.. they had money.. they had to have money to help him. Go read back through it all.. and honestly look at it from the perspective of ” who’s paying for all this” they too lived in an economy. I think many times we think of them not having and economy back then but they did, very much so. Actually not much different then today. Perhaps I’m doing a lousy job at this. take a look at this and see what you think.. you are welcome to e-mail me if you want… steffanie@wvranch.com ( just romansdaughter.. all others will be blocked) http://www.destinedtowin.org/pdf/BREAKING%2520THE%2520CURSE%2520OF%2520POVERTY.pdf

unitedwestood

blessings are NOT just money… but are part of it…………………..taking it further…. it’s health, healing etc…

unitedwestood

I set before you this day life and death, blessing a cursing… choose life. They are opposits. Life and death are opposite…. blessing and cursing are opposits. Your either dead or your alive………your either blessed or your cursed.. but you can’t be both of either of them. You can be super rich and be sick… your still under the curse. You can be super poor and super healthy.. your still under the curse.

This is the message I was originally answering to —

jasondallastx Monday, December 12th at 12:21PM EST

And I agree with you (minus the Marxist comment) now after the considered responses above. It?s about the fact that rich men have to work harder to get into heaven?they have to unload some of their possessions to get the camel through the eye of the needle._____________________________Nobody has to get rid of possessions to get to heaven.. and rich people certainly do not have to work harder to get to heaven. So, if you leave this post on it’s face… that is where ‘earthly riches’ are key to spirituality and Christianity. A poor man will not get to heaven any faster or slower then a rich man. The denial of Jesus will keep them both out just the same…..the acceptance of Jesus will get them both in just the same.

One is not better then the other. Being poor does not make you more righteous then being rich.. only Jesus can do that. He died on that cross for all… not just a certain class of people. God is not having a class warfare, only men are. I guess that why it say’s………. Mens traditions make the word of God of no effect.

unitedwestood

I set before you this day life and death, blessing a cursing… choose life. They are opposits. Life and death are opposite…. blessing and cursing are opposits. Your either dead or your alive………your either blessed or your cursed.. but you can’t be both of either of them. You can be super rich and be sick… your still under the curse. You can be super poor and super healthy.. your still under the curse.

This is the message I was originally answering to —

jasondallastx Monday, December 12th at 12:21PM EST

And I agree with you (minus the Marxist comment) now after the considered responses above. It?s about the fact that rich men have to work harder to get into heaven?they have to unload some of their possessions to get the camel through the eye of the needle._____________________________Nobody has to get rid of possessions to get to heaven.. and rich people certainly do not have to work harder to get to heaven. So, if you leave this post on it’s face… that is where ‘earthly riches’ are key to spirituality and Christianity. A poor man will not get to heaven any faster or slower then a rich man. The denial of Jesus will keep them both out just the same…..the acceptance of Jesus will get them both in just the same.

One is not better then the other. Being poor does not make you more righteous then being rich.. only Jesus can do that. He died on that cross for all… not just a certain class of people. God is not having a class warfare, only men are. I guess that why it say’s………. Mens traditions make the word of God of no effect.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

I Bet You This Hurts Romney

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL