3 Weeks And Counting. Are We In a Suicide Pact?

Change Jar Conservative

The issue becomes “is Perry up to it?”

His ad that hits gays in the military will hurt him in the general election.

His previous debate flubs will hurt him a little as well.

But, if we believe him that some of those debate issues were surgery related then we should see more “good Rick” down the road.

I still miss Mitch Daniels, but I know that is not going to happen.

I do think that Perry’s 46 city Iowa blitz along with the huge ad buys in Iowa are great strategy. If he comes out of Iowa in 2nd then I think he has a chance to win it all especially if he can get Rick S or Michelle to back him as they head out the door.

deathandtaxes

is that he would pick Chris Christie as his VP. There’s nobody else I’d rather have making a case for the free market. Christie has Newt’s rhetorical prowess without the baggage. I still smile every time I watch this video

davesinsanantonio

We must remember that the slick salesman is not the product.

“Those who do not learn from history . . . .”

When you compare histories, not just Perry and Newt, but also Perry and Mittens, you should be able to see a tremendous difference.

We have to stop nominating those who can make the slick talk, and nominate he who has walked the walk.

Who is more “electable” than the guy who has never lost an election????

Why are people so willing to gull themselves??? Why do they insist in perfect delivery and not in the actual person???

“Each people gets the government they deserve.” –Maistre
I am beginning to think we don’t deserve any better than Obama.

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

…because all of BHO’s campaign-arguments stem from the class-warfare meme.

If the R’s can go toe-to-toe in this realm, the postures orated by the “Emperor” will have been stripped-down to the naked-truth: he is attempting to destroy the essence of what made America great [legally, ethically, morally, economically, militarily, philosophically].

}I will attempt [emulating "Kowalski"] to tie-in prior discussions after having generated this overarching point…which is probably intuitive, but must be articulated as a priority.}

eiseman

I missed the Huckabee “debate” but Tivo’d a repeat of it…listening/watching it I still find no fault with Newt’s answers…

Education: “should be largely returned to the states…most of the Washington bureaucracy should be dismantled….and states should encourage to adopt reforms.”

Medicaid: “block granted back to the states and states should be experimenting with what works best because it’s clear that the Federal government has failed to manage that as a national thing.”

EPA: “develop an environmental solutions agency to replace the EPA with an agency that has to have economic rationality, has to look for innovation and entrepreneurship and has to collaborate rather than dictate to state and local government.”

10th Amendment: “shrink the Washington bureaucrats we have to grow the local citizenship…return power to the parents rather than the government.”

Regarding Judge Biery:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Colorful-Judge-…

“he’s essentially anti-American”

Everything I hear from this guy is not only spot on…but VERY consistent with the limited government and constitutional conservatism of the Tea Party.

Again, his plan is clearly presented in the 21st Contract….what am I missing about what he is currently proposing?

If there isn’t anything wrong and you just SUSPECT he is lying then fine, go with that…but I don’t see any holes in his current policy.

And, again, I don’t much care what it took for him to have his “come to Jesus” moment as long as he, in fact, implements the contract…and that’s something for which he can be held very accountable.

And as for the Trump debate:
So let me get this straight, they will prostrate themselves in front of liberal sycophant NBC/Politico moderators at the Reagan Library and CNN multiple times and MSDNC ad nauseum but they won’t attend one with Trump as moderator? Makes me like Newt and Rick that much more…

bilduff45

Hopefully, out of the mess that is running for president on a republican ticket, Perry can come out on top.
Nuetered Newt-sorry, to me nothing changes. It’s the same downhill slide we are in at present.
Mitty- forget lower taxes, obamacare and he would probably issue more exzecutive orders that Obama has. Hold on to your guns! and ammo!
As for a VP like Christie or even a run by Christie for Potus: We still go down.

AS Bob Livingston writes”keep your powder dry and you guns ready for the final solution”

trutexan

I do not concur that the ad hit gays in the military. Instead, conservatives we should correct anyone who goes there. That ad simply highlighted the fact that government is choosing who gets personal freedoms in public-funded organizations. I heard the CNN 360 guy insinuate the hidden message in that ad as well, so going down that road only helps the left’s misdirected message against Perry.

romansdaughter

I was just thinking that same thing the last few days and an added plus for Rick Perry for some reason it is not just Mitt but Rick Perry seems to get under their skin. I think that another good reason. Rick Perry all the way!

nancysabet

on Perry. just to remind everyone, there are only 3 debates in general election but 100′s of rallies and town hall events. To pick a candidate based on his performance in debates in primary is just wrong. Perry is great in rallies and one to one town hall meetings. He is very likable and we all know he is the most qualified in terms of job creation and conservative values.

avgjo

to ‘gays’, to hold that against Perry in the general, if he can make the case for his economic plan. After all, ‘gay’ marriage was voted down in NEW YORK and CALIFORNIA! Only after elite class members shoved it down the throats of those people did it become legal there.

I hope we see more ‘good Rick’ down the road.

bzip

Thank you for saying what many have been trying to say. Your arguments and logic are spot on. In the end, I am with Perry all the way. I will not turn my back on principles, values, morals.

One thing you hadn’t talk about though was: If one doesn’t consider a serious 2nd look at Perry and goes for Huntsman – Remember Huntsman has never really been at the top tier and vetted on a national level.

No matter, I am with Perry 100% till the end. I can not and will not turn my back on principles and who I truly believe is the best for the job. Perry is and can be a strong candidate and surely one can see the improvements he has made in the short time he has been in the race,

Thanks for saying it, thanks for conforming what many of us have been saying.

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

Although there is a tendency for RS-posters to be pro-Perry, this is predicated on two phenomena: he has unique/fundamental political-strengths that his competitors lack, and his ideas/ideals are c/w Patriotic, Constitutional, Moral principles. Indeed, his approach resonates because of his novel method to convey his thoughts/feelings. And each time he is inappropriately ridiculed, the reflex-response [whether typed or cognated] is to solidify further this sense of commitment.

It may not be ?hip? to comment in this fashion in other progressive venues [PMSNBC, in particular, which is monitored to ensure accuracy], but such insights are welcomed @ RS. That is why most will ignore the anti-Newt comments that have spewed-forth from D.C.-Insiders during the past week [as blatant as the rationale for such public-dissing has been]. But that is also why so many pundits have been falling-flat [such as those who claim this-or-that person could ?never? be elected].

I ?labor? before posting @ RS because I believe many people?including those working with the candidates?may be weighing this input; it prompts procrastination in other realms, but time-is-tight regarding the issues we recognize as vital to articulate and to poke/probe. Those who do not share these motivations generally ?out? themselves?and are then provided a pathway ?out? of RS [by being forcefully dumped, by being ignored, or by deciding not to continue to post?fearing predictably pungent rejoinders]. In any case, that those postings that include references/hyperlinks are the most valued, this is what elevates RS above competing sites?and it appears others on RS share this vetting priority.

It is this approach that prompts most readers to slog-through the discussion held last night regarding the draft and Vietnam [http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-knows-deprivation/] so that they won?t miss what must be said; in that instance, it was the very point that had been made @ its onset [by streiff] namely, that ?Romney is an out of touch rich-guy in search of a hobby.? All that tangential chatter about Mormonism aside, it is amazing in retrospect that Mitt didn?t simply answer the ABC-question, ?No, I haven?t faced deprivation, but my father conveyed a sense of what happened during the Depression from personal experience. But I see what is happening, and you don?t need to have ?been there, done that? to sense the driving desire to turn around the destruction of lives that has been occurring due to Obamanomics.?

Most posters recognize that time-is-tight [regarding how people might be forced to drop-out if they don?t succeed in early skirmishes], but few posters overtly acknowledge that the ?voting-season? only STARTS in three weeks. Although there is a certain temptation to discount daily skirmishes [such as the ?give the money back? back-and-forth between Newt/Mitt], they are revelatory to a degree; this becomes a major consideration when an alternative approach [unchosen by the politician] is so easily conjured. And none of this discussion need be predicated on whether the definition of ?conservative? is met either by the involved individual or with regard to the specific issue being highlighted.

jonedanger

I’m guessing that 95% of the people who are anti-Newt have never read the 21st Contract.

Wait. Make that 99%.

nancysabet

Great line davesinsanantonio.. worth to mention Romney lost most of the elections in which he campaigned. He’s a loser. Romney is a bit right of Obama – and only a bit.And he’s spent his entire career losing elections – that’s why he brags about not being a career politician. It isn’t as thought he hasn’t TRIED to be.. it’s that he keeps LOSING.. which he WILL if we nominate him for 2012.

circlegranch

Let’s roll.

goodgovernance

I’d vote for the guy in a heartbeat for pres. I’m still very bummed he didn’t get into the race, but I think it was ultimately the smarter choice for him — he’s still very new to the national political stage. And we all know what happens when you rush someone into the presidency before they’re ready.

But is Romney running with Christie a great idea? That’s an all Northeast ticket! And in case you haven’t noticed, the Northeast isn’t a Republican stronghold like it used to be oh, a century ago.

circlegranch

Reported at both the Register and by Robt. Stacey McCain as a blog post at today’s American Spectator.

http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

I said this early on and everyone trashed me for it. Can you remember a Presidential campaign season in recent history where we’ve had so many “front runners” in the course of 6 months? We are now at Newt, the 5th front runner, who will not save the conservative movement and may be the black sheep that disgraces the family name.

This election is about jobs. Perry is the jobs governor. Somebody wake him up and tell him he would be the runaway winner if he just spent some time memorizing some facts and figures and took a public speaking crash course.

circlegranch

Perry should become the nominee, then she’ll angle for an appt. in his administration. I still see the opening for a Perry/Newt team. Newt needs Perry’s money, and Perry could use some crash debate courses from Newt, although, Perry’s been doing exceedingly better of late.

This Thursday’s debate is huge—for all of them.

romansdaughter

The majority of Americans are sick of Government cramming their agenda down our throats.

tricianc

The problem is you are looking at what he says NOW that he’s running for President.

What his record and words and actions show are the anti-thesis to the Teaparty. It is Big Government. Newt has a way of taking a Liberal idea and articulating a conservative sounding solution. He’s a wordsmith. He’s studied how to do this for years and he does it well. He does this while dazzling with the knowledge of a historian, a professor.

He also knows the key to success in the primaries is to hit Obama and hit him hard. We hate Obama. That’s what we all want. So Newt is giving us what we want. But it’s temporary, to get him through.

All through his life, Newt’s sought Power. Do you really think someone with the arrogance he has is going to relinquish to the states? If he did, where’s the power he so eagerly craves?

Newt claims he is a Rockefeller-Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt Republican. His favorite President is FDR. In other words, Government is the solution. Big Government. Any man who holds these as his own ideology and any man who says this of conservatives: “they want passive, lean, inactive government. That I would never favor.” is not small government, nor are they Conservative.

Erick’s right. Debating skills are not a qualification, nor a duty of a President. To punish someone who’s got a life long RECORD of true conservatism because they aren’t a masterful debater is foolish. You can learn to be a great debater. You can’t learn to be a great small government, conservative. You can, however, learn to talk like one.

romansdaughter

I laughed at Mitt’s phoney laugh and I am still wondering about the Football career. Can’t seem to picture Mitt playing football. Maybe it was a fantasy??

jgfl

I just dont get it. We should get rid of Obama because he uses class warfare. Ok…. So should support Newt because he uses class warfare and Marxist language to attack Mitt???

Bain Capital created wealth by making companies more efficient. If you believe in the free market you have to agree with that, there is no middle ground.

republicanconscience

Ever since my candidate Herman Cain was hammered, pulverized, and nailed on a cross by a vicious innuendo campaign by the left, I have been wavering and cannot decide. Gingrich is not a conservative, he is New World Order, CFR and Trilateral Commission. Exactly what we are fighting against.

Romney is nothing but a egomaniac who actually thinks he is privileged due to his fine pedigree. His dad, a former state Governor put the silver spoon in Mitt’s mouth, so it is hard to think he earned anything on his own.

Santorum is a fraud, showing his true colors, various shades of yellow to green, by endorsing and campaigning for Christie Todd Whitman in her reelection Primary against Murray Sabrin, and endorsing and campaigning for Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey.

That leave only Perry, Huntsman, and Bachmann, and Paul. This Primary was full of promise and someone let the air out and it is sinking. I fear the GOP is just “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

goodgovernance

Isn’t it possible that Gingrich is right in the sense that Mitt Romney is NOT a job creator, as he has so often claimed?

Making companies efficient, increasing productivity, and creating wealth is not synonymous with creating jobs. Romney is a good capitalist, but to simplify his argument to “I know how to create jobs because I did it before” isn’t really accurate.

He would be better off stating 1) Obama is killing jobs with his horrible nonsense policies and 2) I know how to get rid of Obama’s GOVERNMENTAL inefficiency that keeps the free market from revving up.

Bain just really isn’t that much of a plus for Romney in the general. Yes, he created wealth. But not wealth for blue collar or lower middle class workers.

I say all these things as a free market capitalist.

circlegranch

which is a major campaign adjustment coming from the team that pushed the primaries ahead, trying to seal the deal early and quick. That pesky Rick Perry came up on Romney’s heels and it was necessary to put him away early. With Texas on fire and post- operative spinal surgery helping Perry lose his footing, the Romney folks figured they had this wrapped up before any primary slug fests would ensue. A compliant RNC agreed and encouraged early primary states to bump up the caucuses. What could go wrong?

I have Romney supporter friends that are FURIOUS that this is taking so long. They believe Mitt is inevitable and the other candidates and those that support them are morons. We in the Idiot Class are donating to other primary campaigns and dragging this out, when, if we were all good Republicans with a brain, we’d end this now and force Perry to send his warchest with love to Mitt, tied with a red Christmas bow. They fear we are revealing too much about Mitt, inflicting blows that give Obama fuel and come general election season, too many of us will be broke and unable to send our treasure and a pint of blood to the Romney for President campaign. In other words, its time to delete the First Amendment. It’s time for the 80% to stop being so problematic and just align with the 20%, which is clearly the smart wing of the party.

It’s suicide only if we allow it. Things aren’t going as planned for the RNC. They thought by now their Heir Apparent would be burnished in bronze. Instead, something happened on the way to the nomination: America spoke. America will soon vote and nothing is written in stone until those voices are heard and counted.

spinoneone

is to defeat the 0. Job #2 is to take the Senate. Job #3 is to hold the House.

The only way to accomplish #1 is to convince the people that 0 is wrong and that capitalism is the only way to prosperity. We need to focus on who the best man/woman for that job might be and get behind him/her 110% [not a typo]. Our internal debates on social morality don’t necessarily resonate well with the independent voters whom we must capture if we are to win. We must get the person best qualified to run a winning campaign based on the economy. That isn’t Huntsman, Santorum, or Bachman.

The rest of our potential standard bearers have lots of warts and baggage. Romney/Christie or Gingrich/Christie or Perry/Christie would be fine. So let’s acknowledge that the road won’t be smooth and get on with it.

horizon3

Vote for Newt or Mitt, Simple reasons. I don’t trust them, and I personally don’t like them.
These two men are wannabe kings, it’s evident in their speaking and actions.
Another is the fact the Liberal/Progressive media is behind them, and that should throw red flags up in front of everyone that can see past their nice hair and easy on the ears rhetoric.

What is it with people that they consistently believe the BS that these two spew? Their prior actions should be the baseline, NOT! what they say presently, both are excellent salesmen, but I am not buying what they are selling, because there is not a snowballs chance they can/will deliver on it. The Prez doesn’t make law, he has only veto power over Congress, bear that in mind the next time they make a promise they can’t keep.

annplato

Really? It is not a “duty”, I concur, but a must for “qualification” to get through the general debates.

How and why do we have Obama in the WH and still high on personal likeability” BECAUSE he is such a “smooth talker”. Remember his “unflappability in debates? Can we really afford a Perry with, by now, multiple “senior” moments? Just try to visualize a Perry searching for a word, as the smirking, pleasantly and condescendingly smiling, suave Obama stares at him to “find” his thoughts. OR coming up with a lame “oops” moment. Not many people will be as forgiving toward “poor but decent” Perry as some conservatives are.
I have no doubt that Perry is what he claims to be. I like him, but winning the WH is not about ME liking him but how he will be perceived by the vast majority of voters when he will face Obama in the debates. And let?s not forget the MSM which unfortunately is the ?think-tank? for the majority of voters. Didn?t Republicans have enough of the ?dummy? pejorative during Bush2; they need it to continue with Perry?

avagreen

nt

annplato

considered that Perry may be in the early stages of Alzheimer’s? I can’t believe nor accept that his “back surgery” makes him unable to come up with the three departments he intends to cut. He thought about it long enough and then to not be able to remember? There is something seriously wrong there!

boonerdan

Perry should be able to tell his own story before others can be expected to tell it for him. I was excited when he first got into the race because I envy Texas and their success. While Perry talks about being conservative, his flirtation with government interventions reveal otherwise. I was also disappointed that Texas (Perry included) bowed down to the Feds over the sexual molestation of its residents in TX airports. He talks a good game when it comes to the 10th Amendment, but once again, this appears to be just bravado.

As stated before, I will vote for Perry if he is the nominee. BUT, he has yet to give me a reason to vote for him in a primary. That is his biggest hurdle right now.

TSquared

Erirck…. Go see a shrink.

You want to talk suicide? Saddling us with Rick Perry would be suicide.

The never ending – and it will be never ending – sound bites of stumbling/bumbling Rick Perry would be unbearable. The media would have a field day.

When was the last one? Oh that’s right – yesterday. What was it now? The COUNTRY of Solyndra. How many justices are there on the SC? 8? That’s right. An that one justice – Montamayor – should recuse herself from the Obamacare case. Right.? That didn’t get a lot of play you say? Well that might be right. But stuff like that will if Perry becomes the nominee.

It doesn’t matter what Perry is selling. You’ll never hear his message because all the news cycles will be consumed with this crap.

You say:

“He intends to make the moral case for government and wealth redistribution. The campaign will be about the morality of government picking winners and losers and will be presupposed by a belief that the free market has failed.”

And:

“We do not have anyone on our side making the moral case for the free market. ”

How is Rick Perry going to be effective in making that case when he will be spending 1/2 of his time cleaning up the messes caused by his thick tongue?

We’ve already endured 8 years of Bush. That was enough.

You children over here at Redstate are going to have to come to grips with the fact that you Rick Ranger action figure toy is defective and needs to be returned – thanks to defective programming of it’s CPU and voicemitter.

snowmonkey

Rick Perry is a moral man.

Newt Gingrich is not.

If Newt Gingrich gets the GOP nomination, that will be the death of the party. How can we ever assume the moral high ground again, with a serial adulterer, liar, thief, and ego maniac as our candidate?

How can the party of family values even consider nominating a man like Newt Gingrich? If Newt gets the nomination, then that just shows that all our positions of morality and justice were not positions, but posturing. Empty and hollow.

Rick Perry is a man of conviction, morality, and good. He is the antithesis of Newt.

So. What do we want? Are we a party of conviction, or a party of convenience? You decide.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Perry is getting his second look and thus far has showed himself worthy of it. So glad he admitted his back was bothering him in the first debates–everything makes a LOT more sense. He’s on fire and ready to grab the prize, while Newt and Willard engage in cat fights. I cannot WAIT to see what happens in the next 3 weeks and beyond. And since I’m not a Texan (bless their hearts) and this is my first Perry election, I’m probably more on pins and needles than they are! Nevertheless, I’ve got Texan confidence this morning!

annplato

has to have power of persuasion. For that he/she needs to have an excellent and fluid way to express him/herself.

Leadership quality in a president is to persuade dissenting parties to come to his conviction and conclusion.

Newt is the only one who can persuade. He did it during Clinton and he can do it again prior his WH residency AND after!

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

When Cain made verbal missteps we heard 24/7 that we were being overly critical and we needed to lighten up. That game works both ways.

renl57

You know the saying: “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”

Perry would have to completely make over who he is. Evidently in his political career, he never needed great skills in public speaking and debating before. It’s way too late for him to reinvent himself.

He is who he is.

And he’s stuck. He can’t rise in the polls as long as Gingrich is sucking most of the conservative oxygen out of the room.

Gingrich would have to stumble badly, the same way that Cain stumbled badly.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

When Cain made verbal missteps we heard 24/7 that we were being overly critical and we needed to lighten up. That game works both ways.

celador2

GW Bush was not one for shining or soaring rhetoric in debates. Thank GOD conservatives and swing voters had not decided the corporate media ‘debates’ were to be the sole standard to pick a nominee for president US. That job requires governing and involves more than a few photo ops at book signings or exchanges with a media host.

Voters allowed Bush some slack with the words and lack of savvy fast talk; and then chose him based on the overall candidate. Not so 2011. Media call the shots, set the standards for president and meek voters follow.

Obama leads in match up polls or ties Romney. The others have not done well over time. As the economy and unemployment numbers improve- uptick so will Obama’s numbers.

His high numbers are based in part on his ‘likeability’ factor. That ranking is high always despite job approval on economy being low.
Bernie Goldberg ranked a Bill Oreilly presidential intervew around New Year’s 2011, a year ago. Bill was focused on who won what round or question. Bernie said it did not matter, Obama won. He came across as a’ likeable’ man. And that warm and fuzzy feeling voters got was what White House intended.

There is blowback mounting though—

Yesterday Drudge ran two headlines of note. One was that Glenn Beck said on radio Newt was not fit and he’d think about backing Paul as an independent.

The second was Michael Savage offered Newt a million dollars to drop out. Savage saw Romney as having a better chance to defeat Obama. He said two things I recall about Newt. He promoted global warming a false science for years and he will be seen as a fat old man. Newt is not likeable, I think is the Savage point, not as much as Obama is.
Iowa caucuses offer a chance to negotiate a slate of delegates, not winner take all. Its cold. Ice snow abound Jan 3. Turnout is all that matters.

Stay tuned this nominating process is moving fast.

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

It is a source of ongoing amazement that personal observations [obtained following ?little chats? with visiting speakers who have visited Philly] mesh so well with those emanating from RS; I have tried to contribute what may not have already been stated [either tersely or elaboratively, as needed] because the goal has been to advance the discussion to appropriate endpoints.

That is why the provision of hyperlinks?such as that to Perry?s recent interview [http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/story.cfm/8962/video/tcn_20111212] are appreciated?and that is how tangential pursuits are discarded. For example, it is apparently not anti-Mormon to bet; the prohibition is against gambling. But it remains shocking that otherwise respectable commentators can fall-flat when discussing such an issue as Mitt?s obvious gaffe; not only does Jennifer Rubin http://www.washingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/ABV7qSI_category.html?blogId=right-turn&cat=2012%20campaign] continue to promote Mitt [most recently, by dissing The Newt], but yesterday?s spate of programs [?The Five???The Fox All-Stars???Red Eye?] all ignored the REASON for the bet.

Sadly, I know why. Not only do commentators on PMSNBC/CNN ignore Perry?s name, but they even will say something resemgling Mike Barnicle?s response on ?Morning Joe? to Mark Halperin?s prediction that a normative ?narrowing? of the race will occur in Florida and elsewhere: ?Yes, the conservative will be taking another look at Santorum and Bachmann.? EVERYONE fears Perry?and this phenomenon is a source of inspiration when engaged in handicapping. There is a testing process in chemistry when faced with an ?unknown? reagent, and that is to observe what transpires when it is exposed to a series of ?known? products; similarly, we learn a lot about our thought-leaders by pondering how they react to Perry?s resilient candidacy.

This is also why it is vital to assess the oeuvre of each of the people who would guide us. For example, EE?s viewpoint has been falsely portrayed?literally?as having evolved away from being pro-Perry. First, as he has noted, his ongoing ?thread? has been to expose Mitt?s lack of ?true? ANYTHING [that would serve as the basis for deriving a given posture on a topical concern]. Second, his underlying theme has been to remind readers of basic Conservative principles [? la the Buckley Rule]. And, third, he has built concepts upon concepts succinctly, rather than engaging in rhetorical legerdemain.

That?s why I?ve noted that it?s crunch-time for the Evangelicals and activists in the TEA {Taxed Enough Already} Party Movement; as per today?s battle-ground observation [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70327.html?and note that Paul is pictured instead of Perry], either there will soon be a coalescence, or it will be much harder to combat either/both Mitt Gingrich or/and Newt Romney. Trends may indeed be favoring Perry [http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/12/12/ive-been-called-in-to-cover/], but it is possible to sketch-out a threshold of ?comfort level? that Perry is now hastening to cross. Rush is reluctant to endorse because he feels he would then become beholden to future conduct, defending what might emerge as indefensible?.and it is this psychological road-block that must be confronted ASAP.

trevorb

that whoever the nominee is and it’s a three-way possibility between Gingrich, Perry, and Romney will realize that this is no time to go wobbly. We can’t stay on the defensive, because we’re already seeing the kind of campaign that Obama intends to run. I wouldn’t call it vicious so much as a scorched earth campaign.

celador2

Rick Perry can win the nomination by winning large or even small numbers of delegates throughout the 50 states.This year ‘winner take all ‘ in late primaries has been replaced with the proportional representation of the early states.

Tim Pawlenty a blue collar governor from upper midwest Grear Lakes area would be a great VP. Tim could deliver MN and maybe swing Iowa and WI.

Both men have been successful governors, are men of the people who have actually worked at jobs because they need the money and therefore value it personally.

Caucus politics are murky, still,

But Perry has to make the most of his bus tour through Iowa and convince delegates to vote for him as first, second and third choice. If a group is under 15% in Iowa caucuse they must join another group for the 15% to win a delegate for a candidate, I think.

Abraham Lincoln was the first choice of few in 1860 at the nominating convention, but the second and third choice of many more obviously! He won over better known and qualfied men on the second and third choice vote imo.

Perry is maybe one of the most qualified and has a base of support across the US hopefully.

Stay tuned….

celador2

you wrote

<<>>

There are a few who offer the constitutional conservative principles of governing re funnymoney deficit spending and bailouts and ennumerated duties of the president as specified in the constitution.

They are still standing: Bachmann, Paul and Perry.

I can make a case for each and everyone of them.

But gov Perry is the best situated to be president as he is a governor who created jobs in a recession and is a man of character and hard work. He had to work to earn money because he needed it.

His policy views for the most part will put America back on track to ecomonc prosperity through free market growth.

Obama makes gaffes as does his most trusted advisor and VP, Joe Biden. Joe may run for pres 2016, he says. They have supporters.

We must not let the media set all standards on qualifications for president. Let us look deeper than a TV pundit mocking a candidate as incompetent. Outside TV arena Perry is a go getter!

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

The Talmud defines ?wisdom? as the ability to predict the effects of your actions. So, as noted earlier, it is necessary to apply already-identified [legally, ethically, morally, economically, militarily, philosophically] criteria to the rationale for continuing to champion the Perry-POTUS surge. His background [from poverty to military to identity to productivity] can mirror that of those who choose to vote for him [over others who lack either each building-flock or the achievement that emanated from them]. His potential [at a time which sorely needs both a turn-around and a future-model] is unbridled, certainly, by any trace of a flip-flop track-record.

When one addresses some of the anti-Perry arguments revisited on this page, a sense of impatience churns [debate skills, policy blemishes, career politician]. It is quickly supplanted by ongoing recognition of underlying/unstated forces; just as Mormonism lurks behind any presumed-aberration by Mitt, Perry?s unabashed Evangelism is blinding to some observers. What proves unnerving is the natural way he expresses his convictions, as he gently shifts between Constitutional-Federalism and Ethical-Fiber.

So, what is to be done, as Iowa?s caucuses loom? Disregarding Rohmer/Johnson and shelving Paul/Huntsman is a first-step towards regaining focus; no matter what can reasonably be anticipated, each is a one-issue dead-end with multiple-defects [Rohmer Financing?but no positivity; Johnson Libertarianism?but no reality-testing; Paul Fed?but isolationism; Huntsman Mandarin?but abhors coercive interrogation]. Recognizing that Perry [with ?deliverables?] supplants any reasonable rationale for supporting Bachmann/Santorum is a second-step towards narrowing the field; no matter what has emerged during the debates, each is a definably-incomplete BHO-counterpart with quotable-quote drag [primarily rooted in what Independents and swingable-D?s most abhor, the ?social issues?]. As wonderful as they often sound and as prepared as they are for their few minutes of ?earned media,? Santorum?s written-book [?It Takes a Family?] and Bachmann?s oral-book [Gardisil] don?t convey the existence of much ?space? for balanced-judgment.

As noted earlier, The Newt is effectively exposing Mitt?s profound flaws?with anticipated polling results; it is not unreasonable to predict he will fail in Iowa so unambiguously that he will become sandwiched [by Huntsman and The Newt] in NH, lose badly in SC and, regardless of what happens in Nevada, suffer Giuliani?s fate in Florida. All the King?s [Establishment/Wall St.] Horses and all the King?s [$/endorsement] Men WILL NOT be able to put-together a theme for the glass-jaw?ed Mitt to again prevail into February. He will indeed be playing Hillary?s role [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70336.html] as a foil for someone else.

For now, that is The Newt. Judging from the intensity of the negative reaction to his ascendency by ?insiders? [D.C. politicos with axes to grind] and ?outsiders? [thinkers/documenters such as myself], he will have as difficult a time attracting solid support from the broad-GOP as Mitt has had when [VERY occasionally] he has deigned to court the movers/shakers within the TPM. That leaves Perry as a presumptive nominee, and this can become a dominant narrative as others gravitate to his camp [remember, he?s perceived as rustically handsome].

countryroad2012

Erick is stating exactly what I have been saying for a couple of weeks.
Romney and Newt are not conservatives, they are for bigger government. What are conservatives doing selling themselves out because they want someone to tell Obama off? Get a grip. Don’t sell out your principles for a quick gratification and then you pay for it for 4 to 8 years! I am very disappointed in people who said they were conservative and lived by principles. Makes all of the work done so far a waste of time if they go for Newt. Look up his history people!

romansdaughter

nt

avgjo

was always something that bothered me about him.

Now I’m convinced he’s nuts. Not because of his chalkboard or his way of tying all those non-profits together, but because of what he said about Newt Gingrich.

He called Newt Gingrich a socialist. Newt’s got his issues, but only an idiot or a nutcase would believe he’s a socialist.

He hinted that the Tea Party is racist. He’s stupid; a lot of his audience are Tea Partiers.

Mr. ‘I stand with Israel’ is now saying that he might support anti-Israel, possibly anti-Semitic Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich?

Savage is just trying to get attention.

gjohnson

Out of respect for Bachmann, an excellent conservative candidate, your last sentence in the first paragraph should read; “Three weeks from today, in the Iowa cold, people will gather and support their man or woman”. Just saying man. Oh yeah, and you posted this story twice. Get it together brother!!
Just kidding buddy.
Love,
Greg

geoph

Come on!
Really?

You’d base your vote on a VP? The Country’s most useless job?

Are you saying you believe Christie is the Conservative Eric states Newt is not?
If you want a Christie on your ticket, why not skip the middleman (Perry) and vote Gingrich?

The Conservative (the collective) “we” desire does not exist yet. The current system and party does not allow for him to rise to prominence. What “we”
need is to determine who can move us in the direction where, perhaps, a Walker or a Rubio can rise – to continue the shift we need.
If nothing else, Gingrich has a record of accomplishments on the grand stage.
He’s proven he can get things done, and each and every other candidate out there (including mine, Bauchmann) has had an opportunity – yet failed to succeed.

Is it “Newt by default”? Maybe, but if we keep him working for us – our message will be stated and acted upon. I just hope the GOP Proper can get behind US for a change, and NOT work to discredit the candidate before the general election – as they did in Delaware.

theone3434

While Rick Perry and other consistent conservatives can effectively trade barbs regarding the morality of social conservatism, by nominating Newt, the GOP and every conservative voter would lose any and all integrity when bringing up those issues. For at LEAST 4 years, gay marriage would not be approachable (along with several other issues) simply because the man we nominated has cheated on two previous wives (while one had CANCER!!!). I understand that he has asked for forgiveness and has converted but, to me, that is between him and God. It is absolutely a disqualifier for me (especially given how much emphasis we have put on the John Edwards potential DNC nomination in the past). Remember when Gingrich, during the previous debate, made his case for illegal immigration “amnesty” (if you will) and he said that the GOP is the party of the family…did that not disgust anyone else?? Who is he to talk about the party of the family while seeking it’s nomination DESPITE having several HUGE black streaks across is moral record??

Perry certainly did much better during the last debate and look more comfortable than I have ever seen him. There were still several awkward answers (which has to frustrate pro Perry backers…why does he answer so succinctly and thoroughly to some questions and just plain horrible in others). He IS making some inroads, though. Will it be enough to make up some ground…we will see after Iowa’s results. In my opinion, he MUST come in 3rd or a very, very close fourth to have any hope. Especially because he has no hope in N.H. and by the time he gets to S.C. in will be too late.

throwback59

USA TODAY/Gallup poll was eye -opening. In a poll of registered (not likely) voters (who tend to be more liberal), in 12 swing states that Obama won, Mitt beat Obie by an average of 5 points. Surprisingly Newt beat Obama by an average of 3 points. The libs on Morning Joe were horrified to report this.
It may support my contention that 2012 will be an “anyone but Obama” election.

theone3434

did the first dozen debates already cement Perry’s reputation? He has had several gaffes (although lame and trivial misspoken words or forgetfulness) that the media will only use to further back the portrait of Perry being “dumb” in the last week or so. I do agree however that Perry had his best debate last Saturday. He definitely needs to build on that and to continue to hone in on his thoughts to articulate them better. If he could eliminate the 3 or 4 answers that end in a pregnant pause while searching for a final word (that usually comes out wrong or repetitive) his points would be much more clearly defined. You can usually judge the quality of the nominees answer by the amount of applause after she/he has completed it (I realize this may be a inappropriate measure but it points to the audience’s agreement and understanding). When Perry ends with that pause, it just throws everything off and no applause (regardless of agreement) is given. He just has to work on that. Again he had, BY FAR, his best debate on Saturday.

bs61

no nonsense speak – unfortunately he is not a conservative. Read the conservative new jersey column for the Christie myth. Saddens me really.

streiff

Romney’s experience in actually building companies and creating jobs is very much inferior to Gingrich’s. His experience was limited to making hundreds of millions of dollars for a small group of limited partners.

theone3434

I agree with you to a point. Independents know where conservatives stand on social issues. The problem only comes when/if we nominate someone that clearly flies in the face of those core conservative social themes. Newt Gingrich would do that. How could we possibly advocate for, literally, decades and decades on social conservativism and during the height of the most important election of our lifetime, nominate New Gingrich (serial cheater and morally bankrupt)??!!

acat

his over-emotional, manipulative approach to television always bugged me – even when I agree with his agenda, I’m often not comfortable with the way he’s pushing it – but I’d been content to live and let live.

This, though, is flat unacceptable on two fronts. First, the problem with any third party run is that it means four more years of Obama. Second, Ron Paul is bat-{guano} insane. Oh, sure, he sounds great for 2 out of 3 sentences, but that third one is a doozy!

Mew

paladin1

With Romney and Christie we have have nothing but TWO RINO style Republicans leading the most effective conservative emergence in a generation. Christie looks good just because he is such a contrast to the socialist state government of New Jersey, run so ably in the last election by Governor Corzine…I think he has been in the news a bit lately. “Sam the Plumber” De Cavalcante would make Corzine look good too so I get some of the infatuation with Christie. His greatest accomplishment seems to be wowing the easily impressed with his ability to yell at union members and become the front man for the Democratic machine to fix the issues they know are fatal to New Jersey while giving them the out of blaming a Republican in the next election. We as conservatives cannot let this kind of travesty happen to the conservative agenda.

geoph

And your solution is?

I mean that. An election will be held and votes will be cast. Pointing out problems with no solutions is not a viable option. I posted this earlier:

The Conservative (the collective) “we” desire does not exist yet. The current system and party does not allow for him to rise to prominence. What “we”
need is to determine who can move us in the direction where, perhaps, a Walker or a Rubio can rise – to continue the shift we need.
If nothing else, Gingrich has a record of accomplishments on the grand stage.
He’s proven he can get things done, and each and every other candidate out there (including mine, Bauchmann) has had an opportunity – yet failed.

Do you suggest we stay home and not vote; or that we vote 3rd Party?
(I don’t know if there are guidelines as to how late one can enter the race and be on the ticket in every state?).

bzip

A very good ad that Perry is just releasing:

Perry: I speak the truth
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/13/perry-i-speak-the-truth/

Rick Perry Pushes Against ?Political Correctness? in New TV Ad
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/rick-perry-pushes-against-political-correctness-in-new-tv-ad/

Politically Correct
http://youtu.be/QzUIJVerqN4

paladin1

And so true. We have got to keep the conservative Perry pressure going all the way through the primary!

Marcus_Traianus

This campaign will be about bold ideas for restoring our fiscal health, getting people back to work and restoring America’s exceptional nature. Over the tenure of Mr. Obama’s presidency, it has been nothing of the sort. We have rampant unemployment and out-of-control spending fed by the failed policies of a feckless President who is well beneath the job. He has hurt our country’s standing in the world and given people a reason to despair. Under Mr. Obama America is no longer a bright leading light, but a dim fading bulb.

Mr. Obama can try as he might to surreptitiously destroy the character of his opponent through subversive underlings. But that will only cause us to go back and reexamine his background, which the press skipped last election and obviously is a recipe for failure. He has nothing useful to say and is merely a divisive chameleon who disguises his true intentions come election time. Will people fall for it again? Perhaps and anyone believing this campaign to defeat him will be easy is a fool.

I will skip all the prognostication for now. That would be a disingenuous attempt to influence others and distract from what most people really want. In my humble opinion, they desire someone who can articulate a truly substantive American vision, not rhetoric. Someone who can negotiate in a bipartisan way without sacrificing principle. A person who is accomplished and skilled at the political process. Someone who can navigate the Congress in a constructive way. A person who honestly believes what they state and has learned from past mistakes or experiences. I hold no sin or weak moment against another man if he is honestly contrite, repentant and shows he has learned from those transgressions. I dismiss the critical, opportunist johnny-come-lately’s who come out now that someone is in the political spotlight. You’ll forgive me if that seems disingenuous and conniving. We’ve been told by the press this current President is without fault or limits…how has that worked out?

Finally, I find it curious how “good-debater” has suddenly become an obloquy now that some people’s favorite candidates are not doing so well in that format. Sure, we don’t want someone who can only debate. As previously mentioned we want someone who can articulate a positive vision. But the history of our country has shown debate is often one very useful measure of a presidential candidate. Do we want someone who can stand up to the rhetoric and mendacity of Mr. Obama, challenge him on every point or someone who stumbles on their words and appears unable to fight for us? I think most people would choose the former.

Enough of the furtive attempts and useless prophecy. You want to stand and fight on principle? Hang a scarlet letter on the White House gate and let’s get to it.

horizon3

Newt has the gift of gab, he’s a teacher that is his forte. It does make a difference in just exactly what he would attempt to persuade someone to do, not the power of persuasion itself.

What on earth makes people want to elect leaders? Last time I checked we are supposed to have a Republic, which inherently requires representatives not bosses (We are the Bosses and They are supposed to do Our Bidding), not take it upon themselves to do whatever they want, which is a leader types inclination.

Leader worship brought Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Obama … among others of equally nefarious qualities.

goodolboy

More people need to read what is on Newt’s website at Newt.org. I’m disappointed in Eric’s characterization of Newt as merely a history professor who is a good debater. That is really discounting what Newt brought to this country in the 90′s along with Dick Army, and other conservatives. Look folks, we have only two choices, and I’ll back whoever gets the nomination, and that is Newt and Mitt. There are so many incorrect comments made about Newt such as FDR is his favorite president. I have heard him say how bad FDR was for the country in many ways. One of the problems with Obama is his total lack of understanding of US history. Mainly because he has never been taught it in school. He grew up in Indonesia where US history is not taught. In Hawaii he was taught Hawaiian history and not US history and you know he learn none of the Founding Fathers ideas and what makes America exceptional in the liberal colleges he attended. We need someone who understands the history of America and the ability to use it against Obama. Newt’s class he taught on Renewing America was fantastic. He is not a big central government person as many want to portray. He has big ideas that should be tossed out for the states to think about and get Washington out of peoples lives. Please don’t get side tracked on false trails that many would want us to pursue. Right now nobody understands the workings of the government and the solutions needed than Newt. All he has been doing for the last six years is studying solutions for American’s problems.

earlgrey

being shown by Breitbart.

I just wish Perry hadn’t flubbed so badly in the beginning. I wish he would also stop the attack on Romoney’s book because I don’t think most voters know or care much about that book.

I am all for Perry, but if not Perry than I would prefer Romney to Newt. He is no better and a loose cannon.

katem

I’ve voted for the Republican nominee in each election since I became old enough to vote in 1984, If Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee in 2012, for the first time I will not vote for the Republican. I’ll either consider a third party ticket or abstain from voting in the presidential race. Gingrich is smart but not presidential. The damage he did to his own party in the late 1990s should give us pause. Gingrich’s flipflops on every issue, ethical problems, serial hypocrisy and arrogance will turn off Independents, the group that will decide the general election. These flaws in Gingrich, on top of his personal character flaws, should turn off conservatives as well. I still believe that the president should be a role model and someone who commands respect from supporters and those who disagree with him. Gingrich is not that man. In any event, it is only a question of when, not if, Gingrich’s candidacy will implode. If it happens during the general election, he could take other GOP candidates down with him.

Many people on this site still want Perry. Unfortunately, Perry’s debate performances have, as Erick said, called into question his readiness to be president. Perry may improve his standing in Iowa but he has very little appeal to Independents, Reagan Democrats and moderate Republicans.

Huntsman and Romney are the only two candidates who can attract Independents, moderate Republicans and Reagan Democrats in the general election. Of the two, I believe that Huntsman’s appeal is far greater. Huntsman also happens to be the consistent conservative of the two (make that three, as Huntsman is a far more reliable conservative than the flipflopping Gingrich too).

Huntsman is a strong conservative (pro-free markets; strongest economic and tax record and plan; conservative foreign policy; pro-life) even though he has some moderate views too. He is pushing a reform agenda (term limits; restrictions on lobbying by politicians leaving office; against too big too fail banks) that should appeal to conservatives and many others. And he has good foreign policy experience. Huntsman is our best-qualified candidate and the one most likely to defeat Obama. I urge those who counted him out for reasons based on style rather than substance (and a campaign strategy of targeting independents and moderates) to give him a real look. You may like what you find. I think Huntsman combines Reagan’s conservatism and optimism with George H.W. Bush’s diplomatic experience. This election is too consequential for people not to look closely at Huntsman. Let’s put our best foot forward with Huntsman and give Obama a real race next year.

Yesterday’s “Lincoln-Douglas debate” between Gingrich and Huntsman is on youtube and is worth watching.

paladin1

and is causing the disturbance. Part of the issue is the rush, before any voting occurs, to have a nominee in place. If you recall, the culprit in the frantic race to move up the primaries was the Romney camp, who were frantically trying to set him in stone before the Romney ship took on too much conservative water. That spurred conservatives to become frantic and nit-pick the conservative field to death searching for the most likely candidate to beat him in the primary. The increased friction and fractionalization was exploited both by the Romney camp and by the Democrats who have been busy little bees in the background, helping to attack each conservative candidate who rises through the Democratic controlled media. Now that Romney is wobbly, it is time for the conservative field to knock him out and rid the field of him so it can begin to effectively coalesce around a conservative candidate who can win. Goveror Perry saw that in the last debate and that is why he continued to punch Romney. He understands that he must be finished off before the field can advance.

Perry has the political smarts and the conservative political agenda to make this happen for conservatives. No more Doles, Bushes, or McCains; we have been sacked long enough!,

supergirl2911

is that is his core belief system and it will show. I imagine he will say that he will listen to commanders on the field and honor the rule of law, etc.

supergirl2911

Why not? Beside them foaming at the mouth of Romney vs. Gingrich thing.
Perry For President.

elayman

After watching the Huntsman/Gingrich LD forum yesterday, I am more convinced than ever that overall Huntsman is more organized in his thinking and has a better grasp of the importance of a strategy consistent with our values in international affairs, His ideas are bolder and fresher with consistent themes running through all the policies, national and international.

Newt is more scattershot and anecdotal with a depe understanding of bureaucracy but ideological underpinnings all over the map. Jon presents a faster, more energetic approach that shows he has spent much time thinking deeply about how to prioritize and resolve complicated world/domestic problems. He is so much more knowledgeable, with a far superior command of language, culture and customs especially of Asians. Even Gingrich seemed intimidated by his second to none level of expertise and backed off
more hardline assertions of earlier debates.

A candidate with THAT conservative record, with THAT enormously successful executive background as a governor, with THAT skill set and knowledge, with THAT superb economic plan, I can?t help but genuinely feel that we are missing a huge opportunity here.

There are certain candidates that the president would not like to face in November. There are certain candidates which would be extremely tough for him to beat with his record and in this economic climate. Jon Huntsman is one of those.

Of course the debate is predictably getting little national attention from a liberal media that has an agenda-keep Huntsman, the candidate who can clearly defeat Obama, out of the limelight.

lakeshore

I was about to write the same thing. I’d rather vote for a likeable honest man like Perry who isn’t always a great debater, over one who isn’t honest or trustworthy. Let’s go with our hearts and pray on this. Maybe Perry deserves a second chance more than Newt. I’d rather have Perry at the top. I have a better feeling about him all the time.

bzip

Now if we couple the above ad to a just one of Newt’s many growing concerns – I wonder if we can see a pattern from the below:

Newt Gingrich played key role in Medicare drug benefit
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70332.html

Gingrich made big bucks pushing corporate welfare
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gingrich-made-big-bucks-pushing-corporate-welfare

Report: Gingrich took money from drug lobby while pushing Bush?s prescription drug bill
Newt Gingrich Had Lucrative Health Industry Ties
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/newt-gingrich-hit-on-health-care-flip-flops-think-tank/

Gingrich Gave Push to Clients, Not Just Ideas
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/gingrich-gave-push-to-clients-not-just-ideas.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Newt Gingrich was a lobbyist, plain and simple
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple

Gingrich Said to Be Paid at Least $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-11-16/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-at-least-1-6-million-by-freddie-mac.html

Gingrich Says He Doesn’t Regret Supporting Medicare Drug Plan Which Is Now a $7.2 Trillion Unfunded Liability
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gingrich-says-he-doesnt-regret-supporting-medicare-drug-plan-which-now-72-trillion

Newt Gingrich: Government Not Paying For Prescriptions Drugs Under Medicare Is “Utterly Anti-Human”
http://youtu.be/3zrymc1-DT8

Newt Gingrich supports funding the IMF
http://youtu.be/bdmHtJmBLrM

rcastonjr

No candidate making the case for the free market? My gosh folks. That is an outright, no, let em calm down, that is just not true. At the risk of being banned you and I know that there is a candidate that is totally free market oriented and that is none other than Ron Paul. There, I said it. Why. Because it is the truth and for anyone here to say otherwise would be an untruth. This much I do know, if Ron Paul becomes the nominee I will vote for him. If Newt becomes the nominee I will vote for him. If Perry become the nominee I will vote for him. Get the picture. But no one, not even Eric can truthfully say that there is not a single candidate that supports true free market principles.

goodolboy

That indicates a total lack of caring for the future of the country and I’m sure that is not your intention. To say that the the president doesn’t make laws but can only veto is completely forgetting the impact of appointing judges, justices, and many agency heads as well as political appointments in cabinet agencies such as DOJ. The agencies and cabinet postions are having more and more impact on our daily lives than Congress in many ways because Congress has just about abricated its responsiblilities to those agencies. For a case in point one needs to look no further than the EPA and NLRB. So, please don’t say you want vote for some one. We have to get rid of Obama and any of those running as Republicans will be better.
As far as this being a weak field, would someone please give an example of when there was a perceived strong field at this point in the primaries?

jgge

the conservative radio talk shows, the conservative bloggers, and Foxnews for contributing to the insane overrating of the debates and making them as the most important qualification for being President with total disregard of the candidate record. Now I see the remorse in many folks that they should not have gone wild in the crazy overrating of the debates. Fred Barnes had an excellent article yesterday showing the foolishness of making so much of the debates.

Anyway, nothing is lost yet, and not a single vote has been cast. I am with Perry till the end because he by far has the most impressive record of all the candidates. I have no problem if Newt Gingrich is the nominee either as he has been always my second choice after Perry.

znjs

It’s my biggest concern backing him, who knows what the vetting process will bring.

That said, I think a similar point should be made about Perry. A lot of Perry supporters on RS seem to be under the impression Perry was vetted and if he gets his second chance it will be smooth sailing. And certainly a vetting process started. But before it could run it’s course, Perry repeatedly “stepped in it”. When that happened other campaigns stopped going after him, and the media focused their attacks on other candidates – no one piles on a guy digging his own grave. A lot of the things that the vetting process dug up never truly got explored. They may have gotten a small mention, but the average voter didn’t hear about them, and Perry hasn’t been pushed about them. That will not last if he gets his second shot. For instance look up his dealings with Waste Control Specialists. And that’s just one example of crony capitalism that he’s been accused of. Bachmann tried to go after him for that, but since she went to far the story became about her inability to tell the truth rather then how Perry lied on stage about how much money he had taken from Merck. And he keeps some interesting company, like the New Apostolic Reformation. Perry still has a lot of questions to answer before he has a shot at beating Obama.

paladin1

Thanks ofr posting it. It carries weight and should appeal to anyone sick of the Washingoton game-players.

paladin1

Thanks ofr posting it. It carries weight and should appeal to anyone sick of the Washingoton game-players.

jgge

has anything to do with someone readiness to become President? Seriously folks stop the insanity of overrating the damn debates. Presidents do not govern in 30 seconds sound bites and must not govern in 30 second sound bites. Quick on his fit is the biggest BS term I have ever seen because we do not want our President to enact any decision in 30 seconds. Wake up folks, time is running out.

swi2522

we need to get rubio into the race now
i dont like any of the candidates but will vote for them over the socialist. my problem is i think alot of the gop are also socialists

perry cant talk his way out of a paper bag

where are the rich true conservatives to get rubio to run?

jgge

not quick on his fit.

TSquared

I wasn’t a Cain defender. I didn’t tell anybody they needed to lighten up.

But since you brought up Cain. Cain shared similar problems with Perry and in other areas was far worse. Both of those two need to spend time with a speech therapist. Perry is better than Cain ever was in terms of knowledge and experience. Cain was clueless.

rcastonjr

Geez. Come on people, ANY of the current crop running would be a tremendous improvement over the Marxist currently occupying the White House. To say you won’t vote for the nominee, whoever that is, is simply CHILDISH. I’ll take ANY of our candidates over Obama. I would vote for my dog before I would vote for Obama or vote in a way that helps him win another term. This election is different folks. This is for the very survival of the Republic. I suggest you all treat it as such and stop this childish nonsense.

paladin1

He rejected the conservatives outright and has taken his appeal straight to the moderates in the primary. Romney had them sewn up and he got not traction. By distaining the conservatives initially, he still gets no traction now. He is not going to get a first look, much less a second.

sethellis

Erick has correctly identified the quintessential issue of this campaign cycle. Free market capitalism. I often feel that some here are afraid of that fight. Put me down on the list of people that scoff at Obama’s strategy. When given a chance, the American people will choose free markets every time. I say BRING IT ON!

The winner of the Republican nomination will be the one who does that he or she will be the best advocate of free market capitalism. However, Erickson is wrong when he says no candidate is making that case. That candidate exists, but Erickson doesn’t see it because that candidates name is Mitt Romney. This its the one and only reason why Romney maintains the support he has. Newt threw capitalism under the bus yesterday, and Huntsman is too busy throwing his own party under the bus. Romey is the only one who has maintained free market capitalism as a core of his strategy. He has correctly identified the choice by framing it as a choice between an entitlement society, and a merit society.

So the path for Perry is clear. Stop the comedy tour, stop worrying about who is serving in the military, and stop focusing your campaign on a part time congress. If Perry can claim the mantle of “champion of capitalism” he will win.

Not holding my breath. Perry keeps moving from message to message. I question if he even has the messaging to make such a case anymore.

jgge

Seriously folks, stop the BS and emotions and think with your brains. I love Rubio but he need to build some damn resume before running for President and I think that he is wise enough that he would not be tempeted to run at this time.
And please do not come back to me with Obama experience BS. The man had no experience and we have seen the very bad results.

LibertarianHawk

For the young’uns, this is a reference to the Pierre Boulle novel (adapted to the silver screen by David Lean) “The Bridge on the River Kwai”. Col. Nicholson was the commander of a British unit held in a Japanese POW camp during WWII.

Long story short, he and his men are forced to supply labor for the building of a bridge near the prison camp. The bridge will be of great strategic significance for the Japanese forces — so much so that the allies, unbeknownst to Nicholson, are setting out to destroy it.

As a matter of pride and dignity in defiance of his captors, Nicholson takes on the project with great zeal. Only when he finishes it does he realize that he’s just unintentionally aided the enemy.

I think the same thing is going on here within conservative ranks. We’ve concerned ourselves more with tearing down fellow Republicans — forgetting Reagan’s famous “11th commandment” — than on being part of a winning strategy to defeat Obama.

And we might well be in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — largely because of our insistence on a “perfect” candidate.

What hell hath we wrought?

Aaron Gardner

I get that you don’t care for Gov. Perry. You think he can’t “KO” Obama, you say he isn’t “fluent”. Fine.

Just remember, floating rumors about Gov. Perry having Alzheimer’s won’t get Herman Cain to restart his failed campaign.

buster93

I am glad his poll numbers are going up!!.I am from Texas and I like Rick Perry. I agree with him too about starting at 0 for foreign aid except Israel. There are so many hungry Americans here. They are also hungry for work, jobs and health care. Rick Perry is the guy to get this done. JOBS = food for families, a home, and security.and health care
3 things Secure the border, Create Jobs, Drill = Stronger America and Independent of Foreign Oil.
God Bless America.
I’m hoping to get to IOWA
GO RICK!!!!!!

benko

but debates matter. How you come across matters because you have to get elected first. Newt comes across very well, and can get elected. Hey how about Newt and his old friend Dick Cheney as VP

irishgirl

that campaigning consists of a lot more than just debates. From everything I’ve heard or read about Perry, the guy can work a room. Plus he’s as good, if not better, as Obama giving speeches. I find it amazing that some people are actually indicating they are going with the guy who can do the best in a debate.

red_oakster

If they decided to get behind Perry now, he might be able to edge out Romney and maybe Paul in Iowa. That would give him his fighting chance for South Carolina.

goodgovernance

I was very impressed by Huntsman’s debate performance last night.

We really ought to have more debates like this. But of course the MSM isn’t covering it, because they prefer to run the snippets of $10,000 bets and zinger exchanges between Gingrich and Romney, which while not irrelevant, certainly pale in comparison to the substantive approach to serious issues we saw Huntsman provide.

I only hope a lot of voters in New Hampshire watched it and take Huntsman into real consideration when they vote in a few weeks.

circlegranch

I really like his demeanor in this one. Powerful.

It’s not over………

jgge

about Romney except that he “looks presidential” and he is a “smooth talker”. When Obama campaign runs against Romney the CEO of Bain Capital then Romney will barely get 40% support.

irishgirl

There’s so much more to campaigning besides a debate.

TSquared

what’s ya got… If you can’t sell it.

Perry is a disaster when it comes to two of the most fundamental skills that a President must have – salesmanship and communication.

He can be right as rain on the policies he’s offering, but if all the oxygen in the room is being consumed by talking about his gaffes, then they’ll go nowhere.

jaykali

1. This camp wants the most conservative candidate and believes he will win by winning the hearts and minds of ppl with conservative values.

2. This camp wants to win and tries to select whichever candidate they believe has the most electability and feels that the differences btwn the candidates is a) relatively minor when compared to the vast gulf btwn liberalism & conservatism b) feels that winning against Obama at all costs is the most important thing.

I am okay w/ ‘Newt Romney’, Newt has a lot of problems for sure but like Hillary he’s been around so long that they dont matter as much as you might think (would Hillary have been vulnerable to the White water scandal in a general?).

As for Romney if he does some how pull it out in the end w/his Tortoise v Hare strategy, fine he will have earned it. I will gladly vote for ‘Newt Romney’ and even tho they certainly have problems they have both been around and I don’t think Americans will ‘fear’ voting for either as some kind of extremist Tea Party radical or Ron Paul looney candidate.

Newt has actually played his cards well in that he is kind of a hybrid Tea Party / establishment type. He plays well in both camps I think.

One thing is for sure in my opinion, the media has completely underestimated Obama’s vulnerability and that includes conservative radio. That is bc we still remember his rise in 2008 and how popular and charismatic he was that really took hold of America. 2008 is long gone. The shine has wore off and wore off BIG time. There are plenty of people that have completely jumped off the ship and would not come back for ANY reason.

I think he has vulnerabilities in his own base that are kind of hanging on by a thread. Many of which I think will be disillusioned and stay home which is in effect a vote for the Republican candidate. Young ppl fit that category. And regarding young ppl, I know that wont sway the election but I think Newt does appeal to all ages in that he can articulate things similar to the way Ron Paul does (ideas) that really speaks to younger ppl. I think generic political speech is a real turn-off for college-age, they like persuasive detailed arguments. Even tho Newt is an old white guy, he isn’t John McCain, he is a different animal.

So here we go, fingers crossed everybody.

buster93

I was once a Fox supporter. Now I go to the others for a different perspective. Fox is all about Newt and Romney. No mention about guns and religion this go run. Rather borning. I feel like like Fox would like to step in my voting booth and pull the lever for me. I can think for myself thanks and I like Rick Perry!!!!

romansdaughter

I think his support is going to pick up.

irishgirl

n/t

trevorb

it’s now or never. we’re getting down to the crucial moments.

romansdaughter

That was I think his support is going to pick up.

elayman

But they haven’t been repeated. He was stronger than ever in the performance yesterday and is definitely getting a second, or even first look, from New Hampshire voters. When the fate of the country is at stake, you would think we could somehow get onto the intelligent dialogue and convincing approach needed solve our complex issues.beyond how a campaign was rolled out. It isn’t like conservative purists are using Newt to cleanse their sins against conservatism

BTW (for the 100th time) Huntsman is no RINO. Don’t know why this perception sticks! He is the most consistently conservative of them all–everyone from Red State and the WSJ to more liberal media say that.

red_oakster

Lots of establishment types worked for Reagan (the Baker boys, Darman, Deaver-the list goes on and on. Huntsman is REALLY bad on foreign policy-four more years of Obama-style withdrawal; anti-Israel “realism”, climate change etc.. Besides his economic plan, he’d be a social truce guy all the way. In fact, he’s filling the Daniels slot. I don’t like Romney and I’d much prefer Romney to Huntsman.

dpmapper

But he hasn’t repeated it in a while. Is it truly unforgivable that kissing and making up at the convention is unimaginable? (Compared to, say, refusing to apologize for Freddie Mac lobbying.)

goodgovernance

students should not learn about the Lincoln-Douglas debates in school because they were irrelevant?

By the way, it sounds like you did not watch last night’s debates because both Gingrich and Huntsman made your point — 30 second soundbites aren’t the way to go. Which is why last night’s debate saw both participants speak on topics for up to 5 minutes at a time, uninterrupted. It was great. Very substantive.

And the thing is, debate performances are important for undecided voters to judge a man (or woman), get a sense of his mental acuity, his native intelligence, and his overall character. If you’ve already got your mind made up to support someone (and it sounds like you have) then yeah, the debates don’t matter.

But it’s all coming down to the independents in the general. They’re really going to want to see that side by side comparison of Obama and the Republican nominee.

This is why Perry has yet to prove he has the chops to be our challenger to Obama. You may not like how the process works, but good luck trying to convince everybody to not watch them, not talk about them, and not make judgments as a result of them.

acat

Seriously, there’s all kinds of ways to dice, slice, julienne, or otherwise try to understand the electorate by trying to find common traits.

I’d wager most of Red State are in the “conservative in the primary, republican in the general” camp .. but we have plenty of arguments over which leg of Reagan’s 3-legged stool is most important (my answer: all three!) and which candidate best exemplifies them (my answer: Perry) but .. once the primary is decided, I expect we’ll come together.

As for your last paragraph, the real question is whether #OWS can pivot and become a ballot box phenom. If so, then we’d better have a candidate who is a good campaigner, good at interviews and speeches, not just at providing sound-bite answers to gotcha questions….

Mew

znjs

I know, I know, eeww, not RS approved source. Well guess what, in a general election most people won’t use only RS approved sites for information. He needs to be able to answer the issues brought up without just complaining about the source. Can he? Can his supporters here? I’d honestly like to know. I’m not snarking, I just don’t see the appeal he has to so many. If someone could answer the concerns I mentioned there’s a decent chance I’d go from a critic to a supporter. If they can only attack the source, then I’ll assume my concerns can’t be answered.

bzip

I some what disagree with Perry and Vetting. When Perry first entered the race he was the front runner and had a lot of vetting taking place. Couple that to his 3 terms as governor and Rove’s vetting machine trying to take out Perry – I feel very safe in saying we can be rest assured that no surprises await us with Perry in being vetted “again”. I don’t think it will be a piece of cake but of all the candidates out there Perry has been largely vetted.

I do disagree with Erick on two points. The thought of Hunstman – its wrong, Hunstman not only hasn’t been truly vetted so who knows what surprises may await but Huntsman is polling worse then anyone, he has the hardest road if any road to the path and no clear resources. Why waste the time on Hunstman, stand for principle and the guy who actually does have a pretty good chance – Rick Perry.

I also disagree with Erick, I am with Rand Paul on this. If I was forced between a Romney or Newt I would go with Romney. I am sorry but Newt is too corrupt, too much baggage to easy to lose to Obama. Though I honestly think Perry will be a choice and a competitive choice at that. I will stick with morals, principles, values and the best person for the job who can beat Obama and that clearly is Rick Perry.

To simply support anyone based on polling is just NOT right, we must stand and unite for principle. If everyone did that then before before you knew it – you would have the true consistent best candidate – Rick Perry.

supergirl2911

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

Just checked out your link, Doc.
This is great.

Everyone watch, like (if you like), share, etc.
It is tremendous!

supergirl2911

I included one too many characters in my copy and paste….

Scope

but to me, Newt let slip his classic shoot from the lip habits with his response to Romney saying he should give the money back to Freddie Mac. Whatever Romney did with Bain or any other business he was involved in, it was in the private sector. Obama, with his policies, has caused thousands or maybe millions to be laid off, and private businesses to go under, especially small businesses. Wasn’t what Romney did with his company a part of the free market system?

OTOH, Gingrich pulled in $1.6 million of federal government “taxpayer” money, advising the very organization that lead to the housing crash. He said himself that he supported home-ownership for low income people. He also made many of his millions working for medical companies, health insurers, and big pharma in advocating for the compassionate Republican entitlement with Medicare Part D. The Gingrich Group has also worked with the largest ethanol lobbyist, in securing ongoing federal government subsidies, for an industry that would likely dry up without those subsidies. Gingrich has been involved with the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy, some of the most active environmental activist organizations in this country.

I’ve said before, Gingrich is on the side of the issue that organizations are paying him to be on. He has used his influence as the previous Speaker as leverage to advocate for the highest payer.

Yup, we are seeing some of the old “attack dog” Newt coming through, despite that he is now 68 and a grandfather. When he was 66 and 67, and a grandfather he was still supporting liberal positions such as Global Warming, and an individual mandate. Who knew that the number 68 is the magic number when you magically mature and become a conservative.

acat

Erick started his coverage of Huntsman by ripping strips off Jon’s back over a PAC starting while Huntsman was still Ambassador to China.

I .. really don’t think Erick is pulling punches in that direction, let alone idealizing the guy.

Look, Huntsman has a great conservative governance record in Utah .. to which my question is how much of that record is because of Huntsman and how much is because it’s Utah? That the guy started his campaign by trying to get the CNN endorsement (i.e. running to the center) tells me plenty.

Mew

nancysabet

We all know that Romney is a big lair and I don’t have to bet to prove he is a huge flip flopper. Perry was right and I am glad he did not take the bet. Romney, a rich East coast boy, was condescending and arrogant towards Perry, a Southern man who grew up poor in a farm. The message was clearly obvious and Romney could not hide it. People saw it and did not like it.

bzip

Thank you romansdaughter. This was a really good interview. Perry was very articulate in his message, sounded very much on message. I hadn’t seen this before. Thanks

supergirl2911

from the above link, IOWA PBS
Obradovich: But we were talking about jobs earlier and you started this campaign with a really strong focus on the economy and jobs. Why the focus now on religious values?

Perry: Well, I’m still talking about jobs. As a matter of fact, I happen to think that having an economy that allows for people to have the dignity to have a job is a value. It is a biblical value, frankly, being able to take care of your family, not having to rely upon government. So, we’re continuing to talk about jobs.

Obradovich: But you made a choice to focus on your religious values in a TV ad, though. That is a specific message that you’re sending out to somebody. Who are you trying to reach?

Perry: Well, we have a lot of different messages. So, this happens to be one that you have picked up on and want to talk about which is great and good but I also have ads that are running and have run and will run and I’ve got a 42, 43 city bus tour and we’re going to be talking about a lot of issues, jobs. It’s hard to talk about Rick Perry and not think about and know about jobs. The Governor who has created, it was me and our legislature helping create an environment where the entrepreneur knew that they could risk their capital and have a return on their investment. We created more jobs than any other state in the nation. As a matter of fact, since September of ’09, 40% of all the jobs created in America were created in my home state. That is what people are looking for, that executive governing experience of creating jobs and I’ve got it.

Whacker77

Don’t believe the hype, Despite what many may say, there is still plenty of time for another candidate to enter the race. Larry Sabato pointed this out on Fox yesterday afternoon. Most filing deadlines have not been missed and Sabato points out a candidate could enter in February and still register in states that total a majority of the delegates.

Let’s not make a suicide pact with either of these guys yet. These deadlines the media is pushing are artificial. A big name candidate with great appeal and a high profile can enter late and sweep to a win thanks to the new rules. And don’t believe for a second efforts aren’t being made to convince those on the sidelines.

The moment Newt wiins Iowa, finishes a strong second in New Hampshire, and wins South Carolina, there is going to be a loud and massive effort to woo someone into the race. Stephen Moore, Bill Kristol, Larry Sabato, and even John Heilemann have all hinted at that.

Any one of the people listed below could enter between now and February and win the nomination with wide support.

Marco Rubio
Bob McDonnell
Bobby Jindal
Chris Christie
Jeb Bush
Paul Ryan

I know each has said no and two have already endorsed, but things can change.

theprodigy

Not even Ron Paul, champion of the free market for quite some time now?

Locke

and the government we deserve.”

Well, we all get the same. I deny that we all want or deserve the same.

[Regarding your '?Each people gets the government they deserve.? ?Maistre
I am beginning to think we don?t deserve any better than Obama.']

nancysabet

of a tiny state (with 2 millions) ??? I guess he speaks Chinese and also good in debate that make him a good candidate!!! He has this suspicious look on his face every time he talks!! As if he is not sure if people are going to buy it….I am just saying,

lalupa

the only difference is that the press is not paying attention to him because he is down in the polls.

During the last debate, he said that regulations are killing people and obama gave money to the country of Solynda. Sorry. The man is a sure loser in the general. He comes across like he just fell off the turninp truck.. TIme for a little reality check.

theprodigy

Have you looked at some of Newt’s positions? I’m not talking about the past, although that’s a good place to start. But even positions he currently holds now.

lalupa

http://www.thinkingpoliticsforum.com/2011/12/romneys-electability-myth.html

lalupa

http://www.thinkingpoliticsforum.com/2011/12/romneys-electability-myth.html

nancysabet

and these qualities are the best asset for a candidate.

Spartan4Life

This is the case that is not being made effectively enough.

The one great redeeming quality of America is the freedom to do and be whatever the heck you decide what you want to do and be. Anytime you give government the ability to make even the slightest encroachment on that freedom you are chipping away at America’s greatness.

Taxes take away your freedom. Government regulations make you less free. Accepting a government handout at the expense of your own freedom is the stupidest thing you can do. I, for one, am sick of damn government.

Conservatives have to have big themes. Individual freedom is the biggest theme of all.

elayman

Because strictly speaking, Perry’s problem isn’t one of forgetting or not knowing, but of retrieval failure. Whether it is Alzheimers related as opposed to what he was like before the campaign I can’t say. All I know is that he speaks, acts and looks different every time I see him. and it is terrible if this is truly a medical condition; but unfortunately the inconsistencies, self inflicted errors and mistakes Perry has saddled his candidacy with do appear to be fatal.

theprodigy

There is a difference between not voting and voting 3rd party. A vote for a 3rd party like the Constitution Party is a vote trying to have some influence in the future as opposed to the duopoly of the R’s and D’s. Not voting is the rock-bottom of political apathy.

jgge

are engaged in is stupid and the answers have to be in 30 second sound bites. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were not 30 second sound bites. The debates should be about two or three topics max and each candidate should be given at least 10 minutes to express his opinion.

groverc

It’s my dream, now that we have proportional voting. And then, we get the near perfect candidate: Jim DeMint.
Seriously, I would like anyone to challenge the notion that the one candidate that Democrats would fear the most going against Barack Obama is Jim DeMint. He can debate, he has all the facts, he’s rock solid conservative economically, socially and in foreign affairs, and yet he’s kindly through it all, and he projects common sense and steadiness.
There he is, he’s near-perfect (frankly, I can’t think of an imperfection, but I’m sure there has to be some small ones). Scenario: deadlocked convention, we all turn to him, and he accepts the mantle (he would) for the good of America.
Short of that, I hope Perry keeps rebounding.

jgge

were insanely overrated and much more than any other year. When the real votes are cast we should know if the debates really matter.

celador2

Rick Perry is a mroal man.

Newt Gingrich is not a moral man.

The party will be hurt with him as the head as you pointed out.

If his Speakership is an example of how Newt treats and views subordinates even elected represenatives we are in for trouble. He did not nurture talent. He sees or saw conservsatives as enemies or rivals and wanted to contain them SO he bonded with Pelosi and Obey.

Coburn and now Scarborough have written to the experience of working with Newt as Speaker.

Newt sells books and snake oil and tells his audence what they want to hear.

dpmapper

It’s somewhat circular to say “I won’t support person X because he hasn’t gotten enough support to be attacked yet.”

unitedwestood

I sat last night with gritted teeth watching Hannity and Morris Lovefest of Romney. Frank Luntz makes me absolutly crazy, which is too bad, I used to like all these people.

I used to make sure that I watched when Coutler (sp?) Morris and Luntz were going to be on… Not any longer. I’m for Perry, Hubby’s for Newt……..so I’m pretty open to listening to what they all have to say, I’m just sick of the slobberfest they have with Romney.

Sean had a two minute blip on the 10,000.00 bet. But failed to say if it was true or not… I thought they were news guy’s.. I thought Sean was after the truth… I didn’t realize I was watching the equvilant of a “Moderate” On the view. I know, it’s a talk show.. not a news report…. but if your going to talk about it.. at least tell the whole story. I thought these guy’s were ABOVE the others, come to find out… they’re just like the others!
( off my rant)

Scope

he sure made it appear that he was all in for Cain, and kept using excuse after excuse to prop him up. Cain had been flubbing up almost since he got in the race. First it was the “right of return” with Chris Wallace. When he said that he wouldn’t have any muslims in his administration, he had to walk that back also. Cain spent much time taking 3 steps forward, and then 4 steps back throughout his campaign. Rush excused him for every faux paus, but never, to my knowledge, did the same favor for Perry when he made a faux paus, or anyone else. I understand that Rush was trying to fight the leftist media with their attack and smear campaigns against all of our GOP candidates, he just was selective in who he went to bat for.

I always remembered Rush saying that he wouldn’t endorse because you never knew what a candidate would do that would make you look foolish and not credible with your endorsement. He refused to endorse or say anything really great about Fred Thompson in the 08 elections, other than one time saying he was the only conservative on the stage in the debate the night before. His brother David Limbaugh endorsed Fred. Rush couldn’t wait to mock his own brother, on air, a day or so after Fred quit the campaign. I exchanged an email with David L, and he said that he didn’t think Rush ever was on Fred’s side.

I’ve said before that I believe Rush has changed over the last year or so. Rush knows a whole lot of the inside the beltway politicians, and movers and shakers in the R party. He has surely moved more to the side of the Tea Party movement, which I’m sure causes him some real agida (sp) with his Washington friends. One thing I understand he has said in the last days was that voters should not be fooled into voting for someone just because they sound smart, it doesn’t mean they are smart. Good for Rush. I may have to turn the radio back on again after sticking it in the closet for the last several weeks. Beck is, and has been getting more and more creepy with his pronouncements. I turned him off more than a year ago. The Blaze is nothing more than a web National Enquirer, such as you see in the grocery store line.

creativegirl

Wake up, Republicans! The media continually writes the script with its overblown coverage of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary. Because of this, the Republican Party seems doomed to be beholden to the Christian Right of Iowa (where you get an extreme right winger who can’t win the general election) and the psuedo-conservative electorate of New Hampshire (with it’s open primary and serious migration of liberals from Massachussetts fleeing high taxes) that gives you the mushy in the middle McCain and now Romney.

I have to say that I don’t think I can take 4 years of Perry’s manglish.

nancysabet

romansdaughter thanks for the post.

bzip

Rick Perry’s new ad will be on TV in Iowa starting today. It is a good ad and he promotes himself very well in this ad.

jasondallastx

Sticking your head in the sand won’t make it not true.

He says, “when gays can serve openly in the military and our children can’t pray in schools, you know there’s something wrong in the world.”

So, both of those things are bad. He’s saying gays shouldn’t serve openly in the military.

No matter which side you’re on – whether it’s gays should serve openly or gays shouldn’t serve openly – the gov’t is choosing.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

At this rate I will NEVER decide which 30-second ad is my favorite.

barleycorn

“Rick Perry is a moral man. Newt Gingrich is not.

If Newt Gingrich gets the GOP nomination, that will be the death of the party. How can we ever assume the moral high ground again, with a serial adulterer, liar, thief, and ego maniac as our candidate?”

If by “moral” you mean without sin, then you are a delusional quack to say Perry is “moral” because we all fall short.

If by calling Newt not “moral” you mean he has sinned then you are correct but so to have we all including Rick Perry.

You have no basis to accuse Newt Gingrich of being a “liar” and a “thief”.

Rick Perry was wrong when he claimed that a man who would cheat on his wife would cheat his business partner. This is simply not borne out by human history.

Men are complete idiots when it comes to women. I know this from my personal experience as a man. We make poor decisions due to lust that we don’t make under clear-headed circumstances. This in no way is meant to excuse cheating on your wife or to minimize the evil of adultery. It is intended to make a practical distinction based on thousands of years of men making fools of themselves over a pretty face.

King David was a very “moral” man upon whom God lavished great power and fame. Yet, David went so gaga over a married woman that he sent her husband off to war in hopes he would be killed thus making her available to King David.

Nothing Newt Gingrich is known to have done makes him unfit to be president or even puts him more than a standard deviation from the mean of past holders of the office.

paladin1

and has chosen not to appear in several of the recent debates. He is not going to win New Hampshire, which is really his only early shot. The idea that he has not repeated his early mistakes is also disengenuous. Its not like he had a verbal stumble or mis-spoke something; he flatly ignored the conservative movement and went straight to the moderates, giving the perception that he was distainful of them. As to his recent performances, I have not heard him back off his social liberal stances one iota. He may have gotten the idea that it was very unpopular with the conservatives and not repeated them but he has certainly not repudiated them. He does not have the organization, the finances, nor the support to go anywhere and no, we will not “kiss and make up” at the convention; a man who will not support and defend his own personal convictions will not save the country from the fate you speak of. He may not be a RINO (though that is doubtful) but he is certainly not politically astute enough to have understood the mind of the conservative Republican primary voters. His appeal to some in the general does him no good since he now is unable to get there.

paladin1

and has chosen not to appear in several of the recent debates. He is not going to win New Hampshire, which is really his only early shot. The idea that he has not repeated his early mistakes is also disengenuous. Its not like he had a verbal stumble or mis-spoke something; he flatly ignored the conservative movement and went straight to the moderates, giving the perception that he was distainful of them. As to his recent performances, I have not heard him back off his social liberal stances one iota. He may have gotten the idea that it was very unpopular with the conservatives and not repeated them but he has certainly not repudiated them. He does not have the organization, the finances, nor the support to go anywhere and no, we will not “kiss and make up” at the convention; a man who will not support and defend his own personal convictions will not save the country from the fate you speak of. He may not be a RINO (though that is doubtful) but he is certainly not politically astute enough to have understood the mind of the conservative Republican primary voters. His appeal to some in the general does him no good since he now is unable to get there.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

Like who? George W. Bush wasn’t an extreme right winger (won two terms), Reagan won two terms as a Conservative. The Republicans since 1976 who haven’t won: Ford, George H.W. Bush, Dole, McCain weren’t extreme right wingers. Are you sure you belong on this site?

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Had a bit of a Twitter altercation with some guy who wanted to tell me that Texans were “looking at their governor differently” after “this oops campaign.” Said he was quoting “talk radio.” I told him not all talk radio was created equal and that I’d met many Texans who supported Perry wholeheartedly (which is true, whether in person or on the Internet). You just confirmed it for me (being the 1,000th confirmation or so ), so THANK YOU very much!

Common_Cents

Where you can work the state on the ground.

National elections depend much more on media, debate performance because you cannot shake that many hands. You must focus on a couple states and that’s it. Or you just spread yourself out too thin.

It’s just a fact, reality.

What if Coca Cola came out with a new great tasting product that gets great reviews but they totally flubbed the national ad campaign seen by tens of millions? It would be nearly impossible to do so many on the ground taste tests to overcome the poor national performance.

nancysabet

and appreciate your well thoughtful analysis of the race.

gunslingr45

HE double hockey sticks NO! I am afraid of how many gun bills he might sign on to or even Useless Nations treaties on GW or small arm bans.

Rick or Michelle are the only two Conservatives in the race now and while I wish she could pull it off I am do not think it will happen. Rick is the best chance we have. Maybe Michelle for VP?

“For those who have fought for it freedom has a sweet taste the protected will never know”

paladin1

but the child of Bathsheba died and his kingdom was ever after riddled with subversion and revolt from his own sons, one of whom committed incest with his sister. Not the best analogy if you look at the end of the story.

Scope

back to the forefront. It is really unfortunate that Perry’s energy plan got so little play on the news channels, but it follows along with their habit of ignoring him. When I heard his plan, the first thing I thought was how many thousands of jobs he could create with that plan.

With Gingrich’s long held environmental positions, I really don’t believe him when he says that he has suddenly become an all of the above energy supporter. First off, he has never said that he would stop subsidizing the green energy producers, even though those means of energy production have not become any more cost effective, or dependable or reliable sources. They would fail without government subsidies, such as ethanol. With Gingrich’s long involvement with the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Nany Pelosi and Al Gore, it is highly unlikely that he would go all out with drill here, drill now, if he would go with it at all.

We need Perry’s energy plan, and we needed it yesterday.

Common_Cents

That is a problem.

conservativemusician

I don’t buy the narrative the media is spinning that our candidates are substandard. Rush has been pounding on this a lot and he is correct. Every single candidate on our side is head and shoulders better than Obama and all of them (even Ron Paul) are more conservative than Obama. This election is all about how Obama is a miserable socialist failure and whose policies and values are out of step with the vast majority of Americans. I like that Perry is starting to talk more and more about Obama’s failures and weak leadership and less about the differences he has with the other candidates.

Others have posted that Perry should have already had this wrapped up a couple months ago and I agree with that sentiment. The past cannot be changed, so there is no use dwelling on what should have been. What we do know is that Perry is gaining in the polls now and is hitting his stride in every facet of the campaign at the right time – including the debates. I think he will finish either 2nd or 3rd in IA (probably 2nd) and that his momentum will continue building into the later primaries.

I believe that the race will come down to either Newt or Perry and that Perry will win out in the end because he is the most consistently conservative candidate we have. His ads are also excellent, he is great in one-on-one interviews, he is great on the stump, and he won the last debate in IA. Perry has some momentum now and many are starting to pay closer attention and are seeing Newt for the flip-flopping big government wonk that he really is.

clintonformccain

As long as they have a nominee who sticks it to Obama in debates, that will be enough. Everyone can thump their chests and hoot and holler. And, then lose the election because the goal is to nominate a Presidential candidate, not a firebrand.

jqcitizen

I have heard about all the Newt spots, many of which he has admitted, and like many Americans am somewhat concerned that not only the liberal media but also the conservative media have chosen to focus more and more emphasis on his past flaws rather than his current his past and current accomplishments.

l tend to believe that he has the tools, the strength of character, intelligence and knowledge of American government and the Constitution to be able to help right our ship. His work with organization such as the Heritage Society, American Solutions, and other organizations has only increased his knowledge of some very complicated issues. He has demonstrated his ability to listen to many noted and accomplished experts and has modified many positions on the basis of the additional acquired knowledge.

True, he was a tough task master as Speaker, but the bottom line is that he successfully accomplished much good in his terms. He earned many enemies in his own party, which could be expected given many of our representatives tendency to want to protect their careers more than American values and our Country’s well-being. I believe that if he takes the oath as our President to uphold the Constitution that, unlike our current President, he will honor that commitment and will insist that all members and branches of government do the same, whether it is convenient or not.

I like most of the Republican candidates, but believe that only two or possibly three have distinguished themselves in their lifetime accomplishments. Of those three only Gingrich has the knowledge, focus and proven ability to get our Government (somewhat like herding mice) to act and address our problems.

Obviously, my preference is Gingrich, but I will support any candidate over Obama, who I believe is a disgrace to this Country and to his office.

gwbramhall

Why are we led to believe that this most undemocratic and unrepresentative
Iowa caucus trial by ordeal will decide our party’s nomoinee? Three hours
after the results are in New Hampshire will suddenly be the fixation until that
one too passes us by. This is going to be a long drawn out process that
very likely will be decided by an open convention that turns to an individual
we may not even be thinking about today, though a DeMint/Huntsman ticket is intriguing.

gwbramhall

Why are we led to believe that this most undemocratic and unrepresentative
Iowa caucus trial by ordeal will decide our party’s nomoinee? Three hours
after the results are in New Hampshire will suddenly be the fixation until that
one too passes us by. This is going to be a long drawn out process that
very likely will be decided by an open convention that turns to an individual
we may not even be thinking about today, though a DeMint/Huntsman ticket is intriguing.

theprodigy

are corrupted. You just can’t trust anything you see on television these days because anything will pass as “news.” Better to do your own research and challenge everything you hear; the positive and negative alike. With the internet, this is possible.

nancysabet

in general election, but 100′s of rallies and town hall meeting. Perry is very good on these.

nancysabet

in general election, but 100′s of rallies and town hall meeting. Perry is very good on these.

cacharlie

If Perry can’t tough it out, drafting DeMint would do – if we’re tough enough to get the go along to get along GOP “establishment” on the bandwagon!

Meanwhile, does anyone know what President GW and Laura Bush actually think of Perry? Rumor leads me to believe it’s a good thing they don’t weigh in – unless in the final stretch it helps Perry if it comes out they aren’t crazy about him. Sadly, more guts than ego are the very things I like about both men that seem most scary “swing” voters.

romansdaughter

As everyone us humans have sinned. Look up the definition for moral..one of the definitions is: good or right in conduct or character; sometimes specif.. virtuous in sexual conduct. So yes, I would say Rick Perry is a moral man. And he was stating a character flaw in Newt if he can so easily set aside his wives when he loses interest in them then it is a character flaw and his record shows the same character flaw to my way of thinking. He has flip flopped about as much as Romney. And yes King David also committed adultery and basically murdered a man cause he wanted his wife. But it had consequences and he lost his first son. Only God can see our hearts.

avgjo

The Heritage foundation supported that; in fact, IIRC, they came up with that idea.

I can’t think of others: could you give me an example?

avgjo

The Heritage foundation supported that; in fact, IIRC, they came up with that idea.

I can’t think of others: could you give me an example?

Common_Cents

What makes a good debater? Is it just some skill in a vacuum? There is much more that goes into being a good debater.

You must know the subject.
You must have experience in the subject.
You must be able to articulate.
You must know the material backwards and forwards, not just empty talking points.
You must know historical context of the subject.
You must have a command of the facts and have instant recall.
You must have studied your opponent and have prepared on countering attacks and focusing on their weakness.
You must be persuasive.
You must show genuine authority on the subject.
You must demonstrate substance.
You must inspire confidence by prepping and doing all the above.

I could go on and on. All great qualities needed for a successful President.

A great debate is the culmination of years of preparation. Like a football team winning on sunday depends on their preparation in the off season, and preparation the week before etc…

Secondly, a good debater is critical for a successful President.

Your main job is using your mouth to persuade the people, media, house, senate, cabinet, other foreign leaders, your own party, opposition, business etc….. A President is continually selling his/her agenda. The list of good debate qualities above are critical and apply very well to the office.

Putting good debate skills in a vacuum is totally disingenuous. Let’s give a little credit where due and acknowledge its importance in the Presidency.

avgjo

Re: the 3rd party. Thank you.

acat

that’d be a good one to have.

Mew

acat

Quit FUDing around.

Mew

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt

Menlo

Like the federal Toilet Ban he supported in 1992 and Ted Kennedy’s HIPAA legislation?

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

…and received considerable guff.

Meanwhile, Perry has been almost impeccable…and merits strong support.

avgjo

By citing Heritage, I’m not trying to make a ‘Heritage made it so it must be ok’ argument. I just don’t know of anybody who’d charge them with socialism.

znjs

But it is something to be aware of and be ready for.

edintexas

You might be happy with two Rockefeller Republicans*, but many of us would rather have nominees who are Conservatives, not cheap Liberals.

* To be fair, Christie is a proven Fiscal conservative, he’s just socially Liberal (and the 2d Amendment is a Social issue). Nelson Rockefeller really was neither Fiscally conservative, nor Socially conservative.

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

…are provided for critique.

Let’s Not Take Ourselves Too Seriously:

Through it all, the levity evinced both by RS-leaders and RS-bloggers is simultaneously enlightening and engaging. Other sites may capture citations from others [Politico quoted The Onion?s citation of this alleged flip-flop from Mitt: ?In 1998 Romney said he'd been married to his wife for 29 years, but in a speech just last week he claimed it's been 42 years.? But only RS has the capacity to invoke unique imagery to make an overarching point.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/files/2011/12/French_Squatter_Toilet-1024x876.jpg
http://hoaxblog.s3.amazonaws.com/elephant1_lg.jpg

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/12/12/mitt-romney-knows-deprivation/
[posted by Streiff and Menlo]

rickperryreport

Erick Erickson needs to get off the dad-gum fence and move the movement away from suicide by endorsing Perry. All of this hemmin’ and hawin’ has me reaching for the pill bottle.

So come on Erick! Do the right thing. Endorse!

Joe @ Rick Perry Report

edintexas

That is the problem. Newt will be conservative just as long as the last person he talks to (and makes promises to) is Conservative. We can’t be with him 24/7/52, so there is no way to make sure we can “…keep him working for us…”,

retire05

in at least one of the debates, Rick Perry had more pressing issues to deal with than some stupid debate run by a bunch of left wingers who were looking for nothing more than a “gotcha” moment by one of the candidates on stage so they could rail on that candidate for days?

So let me give you a little inside information: during the Nevada debate, Perry seemed to be detached, and his answers were not the best. I agree with that. But I have to ask you, are you aware of any situtation that Perry might have been dealing with that would distract him from preparing for that debate, as the others had done? Nah, because you are not curious enough to wonder about it. So I will tell you:

the morning of that debate, Rick Perry was in the right side seat of a Texas DPS helicopter at dawn. He was flying over the fires that were devestating a central Texas county. By 11:00 a.m., Governor Perry was at the Bastrop Community Center (in Bastrop, Texas) talking to the over 6,000 people who were either displaced by the fires, or who had already lost their homes to the fires. That home loss total went on to be 1,554.

When Governor Perry was meeting with the families that had just lost everything, he was asked if he would even be at the debate that night. His response, the correct one, I might add, was that he was more concerned at that point with the plight of Texans, not some debate that was of lesser importance.

The next day, after the debate, Governor Perry was once again back in Bastrop County, tending to the needs of the over 6,000 Texans now out of a home and the lack of response from the Obama FEMA.

You only see what you want to see. You saw a man who seemed ill prepared for a debate. You did not see a man who not only is running for POTUS, but who still has a job that requires his attention. This is a man who not only has to be able to walk and chew gum, but who understands what his priorities are, taking care of the victims of fires in his state. Being a candidate for POTUS doesn’t absolve Rick Perry from being governor of the great state of Texas or dealing with disasters when they happen. Perry was taking care of his citizens instead of preparing for a useless debate or as in the case of our current poseur, playing golf.

Perry may not be your choice, and that is fine, that is your right. But don’t spread rumors only to show your own ignorance.

celador2

A publicized gaffe makes me cringe too. Oh no, I say to myself.

Have you seen his many ads so well spoken and simple? Perry communicates well. Its the press that put in the forground the few minor gaffes to help Obama-Biden whom they overlook similar gaffes

Or have you heard him discuss reform re UN? He would exit US from UN! Man, that is heavy stuff to put on the table!

He would start Foreign aid at zero and have them all make a case for it.

He would render the ever expanding Congress half time meaning limited federal government, less fear of EPA ,IRS and Obamacare. He addressed Congress at a hearing on IPAB or Obamacare and pointed to caps in Texas that saved money. thumbs up says HILL.

And Perry is the kind of guy who would say MERRY CHRISTMAS and mean it in the Love thy neighbor and peace on earth sense imo.

In the field running is there anyone who is better situated from experience to be president than gov Perry?

He created jobs in a recession and that is so credible for universal support by voters as a qualification for Oval office that it negates the gaffes that trouble some.

Can Gov Perry overcome the few media gaffes by his merit ,virtue and experience is the question.

.

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

…are provided for critique.

Perry Has Not Been Idle:

Perry has meshed his job-focus with a reminder of the $10K bet gaffe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db2t88WXydM&feature=youtu.be
?.and his expressed-concerns with what to do with entrenched Congress-People…
http://biggovernment.com/rperry/2011/12/08/time-to-get-serious-about-insider-trading-in-washington/
…has caught-on?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-12/congress-insider-trading-sec/51841156/1
?and his latest ad develops this theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzUIJVerqN4

*

[full article]

http://biggovernment.com/rperry/2011/12/08/time-to-get-serious-about-insider-trading-in-washington/

Time to Get Serious About Insider Trading in Washington
by Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)

Congress is finally feeling the pressure over insider trading, the practice of trading financial securities based on non-public information available to a select few in government.

After a series of investigative reports, including several here at Big Government, the American people are beginning to realize that what is wrong with this country can be diagrammed on a map, with a straight line connecting Wall Street and Washington, D.C.

Now exposed to the light of day, the political establishment is determined to show the American people it is ?doing something? to clean up its act.

This week, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the matter, taking what many observers saw as great pains to minimize perceptions of a systemic and bipartisan problem. But I remain skeptical, as do many Americans, that Congress will actually pass a bill with teeth that requires them to live by the same rules as the rest of us.

The fact is, things will never change as long as the same Washington insiders remain in control. Washington is broken and needs a complete overhaul, but establishment politicians only want to tinker at the margins. This is why we can?t ask a Washington insider to fix Washington, because it takes an outsider to overhaul a corrupt culture.

My plan to overhaul Washington starts by creating a part-time Congress. We should cut their pay in half, cut their staffs in half, and cut the time they spend in Washington in half. A part-time, citizen Congress will not only get rid of the permanent political class ? it will restore the vision of our founders and force members to live under the laws they pass with the people they represent.

Second, my plan makes passing the STOCK Act a priority. Any member of Congress who trades on insider information should go to jail, plain and simple.

And third, I will permanently ban all corporate bailouts. We shouldn?t be awarding taxpayer-funded bonuses to Wall Street executives who defrauded those very same taxpayers, we should be locking them up.

Americans who are frustrated by the excess spending, our stagnant economy and the corruption that permeates our nation?s capital have a clear choice in this election.

We don?t have to sit back and take it anymore. We don?t have to resign ourselves to replacing one Washington insider with another, or settle for modest reform that amounts to a reshuffling of the status quo. We don?t have to tolerate a government that brazenly tells us that all are equal, but some more equal than others.

It?s time to clean house in Washington, starting with a real ban on insider trading that forces politicians to live by the same rules as average Americans.

http://www.realityunwound.com realityunwound

Erick, you’re typically the most dependable perspective I find, but I’m afraid that your voice will carry weight in this instance, and we’ll all be dead… with our principles.

Elevating Perry as the bona fide conservative misses a lot of demonstrated reality: fast and loose eminent domain principles, The Immunization Mandate, Immigration fuzziness, etc. The Texas University System is evidence that he’s no hater of cronyism, but he’s a firebrand, he’s got more Red Meat than Lady Ga-Ga’s wardrobe designer, and he fires me up.

David Byrne inadvertently described Romney, “Some good points. Some bad points.”

Newt has legislators who don’t like him, he’s got a rap as an undisciplined campaigner, he’s slimy and squishy and moderate (Oh My!). How much weight do those recommendations carry, though? Are our legislators such dependable leaders and visionaries that they can credibly cast aspersions?

The reality is that being a legislator is a different job than being a President. Presidents are executives. Legislators are consensus builders. Executives get in front of an issue and push it (Bush’s Tax Cuts and wars) while legislators “lead from behind”. Throw an executive into a legislative body and you’ll get some stuff done quickly (Contract With America) but you’ll eventually rub raw the people who are trained to reach across aisles and build consensus. I’ll bet Tom Coburn didn’t like Newt. So what? Tom Coburn has said some really great stuff, and I’m a fan of Sen. Coburn, but frankly I’ll take Newt’s list of achievements over Coburn’s. Is his leadership really “lacking” or is it just not soft and deliberative and ultimately unfruitful and disappointing? Should we trust Coburns ability to assess leadership based on his demonstrated ability to lead recently?

Newt on Nancy’s Couch was horrible and foolish and dinged his conservative credentials. Is anyone really worried that he’s going to push Cap-n-Trade legislation in the upcoming session with a (hopefully) united Republican Congress? Are we worried that he’s going to divert a bunch of funds into Fannie and Freddie? What are the implications of Newt’s so-called squishyness?

At the end of the day, I don’t believe Perry’s track record is any more reliably conservative than Newt’s. I think they’ll both appoint conservative justices and be a voice for American exceptionalism and strength in the world.

At the end of the day, though, Obama will dismantle Perry in every single public appearance that they have together because the media format will be stacked against an already proven weak communicator. Newt, on the other hand, may come across as abrasive, but he will speak precisely and clearly, and directly to the point. Obama’s “uh’s, ah’s, and well’s” will stand in stark contrast to Newt. Rick Perry will look like a gay hating Cowboy who forgets how he really intends to shrink the government.

I get nervous when I hear about suicide pacts, because everyone loses in that situation. I am, and you should be, infinitely more afraid of a Lame Duck Barack Obama than I am of either of the three you mentioned. So what, then? I want the guy who can get elected, and Perry hasn’t demonstrated that he has NEAR the mental faculties to hang with Obama.

Thanks for your thoughts, but please consider the bigger picture here. To lose the WH in ’12 will be to undo everything that we have won in the past 2 years, even if we win both houses. Lots of really good legislation will die on the President’s desk, and the COUNTRY will be worse off for it.

acat

…their rage-machine has lit up like a winter holiday tree over this ad.

All I’ll point out in reply is that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been the de facto policy in many armed services for longer than we’ve been a country… and, since Obama kicked the can – so far, all he’s really achieved is to ask the armed services to look at integration of openly gay people serving – the left are up in arms over a non-existent thing.

I don’t have a problem with the integration of the armed services, but I’d like to think that we’d let the experts – the armed services themselves – decide when they’re ready for it. Otherwise, it’s just using the military for social engineering experiments – whether from the left or the right.

Mew

thelastconservative

in the Perry campaign.

At this point, I think that Perry’s people think that they have nothing to lose by going all out for the nomination.

But the ad was stupid.

Tony Fabrizio should not have ever ok’d it.

Other candidates (Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Thaddeus McCotter) had the grace to bow out when it became obvious to their inner circle that the nomination had moved beyond the candidates’ reach.

Perry, for whatever reason, can’t see that the electorate has already mourned the failure of his campaign to get off the ground and moved on.

His campaign was as bad as Fred ’08, Gramm ’96, or Kemp ’88. And he can’t blame his advisors. He didn’t do enough debate prep and it showed. It’s a great lesson for Americans everywhere: do your homework or your competition will eat you up.

acat

sympathy over hospital visitation rights is different than sympathy over preferential treatment.

I also think more Americans are concerned about the armed services working at peak efficiency, not about whether they’re “sensitive”.

Mew

annie54

Newt would be the death of our Grand Old Party. Further, I place Christie and Romney in that same category. And, Jeb Bush. Two words are important here: “discernment” and “wisdom”. The Holy Bible addresses those two words quite frequently, but churches don’t anymore. I’m thankful I grew up with those words.

nancysabet

. In comparison, Perry looks like a giant presidential, a commander in chief indeed.

Locke

He needs to learn to constrain his utopian and technocratic tendencies when they pull him away from his conservative center.

I still see enough in him to like to prefer him to the alternative candidates,

romansdaughter

supergirl2911

Sounds authentic and confident, stands by convictions, not wishy washy. Able to answer truthfully to tough questions.
http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/story.cfm/8962/video/tcn_20111212

westcoastpatriette

a closer reading of the account does not depict David ordering the murder of Bathsheba’s husband so he could have Bathsheba. The real reason David did that was to try to cope with Bathsheba’s pregnancy. If you recall, as soon as Bathsheba told David she was pregnant, David called for Bathseba’s husband to come home and tried to get him to lie with his wife in the hope that he would then think he was the father of the child. But Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, refused to leave the King’s palace out of loyalty to the King while at war. So, David felt there was no way to hide the affair and then ordered the set-up for Uriah to be abandoned on the battlefield and thus, eliminated.

Had Uriah gone home and laid with his wife, no one would have known Bathsheba’s child was his. So, the murder of Uriah was to protect David from retaliation from Uriah rather than so he could marry Bathsheba. Oh, the tangled webs we weave…

jasondallastx

The internal survey results said 70+% were fine with gays serving openly. And the top brass pushed it.

I mean, come on, we all know servicemen. Talk to them for half a minute. They don’t care, especially the younger guys who are out there with them.

(ps, saying “the left agrees with you” in an attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with your position is sorta lazy.

Mew.

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

…for many reasons, re-capped here.

You can’t be serious, citing the diffuse ideas of The Newt while selecting a few moves by Perry [particularly when you know he disavowed Gardisil, etc.].

Perry’s message is c/w Gallup-data…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/liberalisms-problem-in-one-graph/2011/08/25/gIQAVuVTqO_blog.html
…and his “electability” contrasts with that of Mitt…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQYGAWm_r4
…in rather profound ways.

And no one can delink Perry’s Jobs-record from the trenchant need to promote capitalism.

acat

Of your list:

McCotter never caught on, had a too pro-union record, and had no money. He never had a chance.

Cain stepped on his wedding tackle. More than once.

Pawlenty got out too soon.

Not on your list:

Bachmann has no chance, her anti-science delusion disqualifies her, which is really sad.

Santorum has no chance, his “trucer” (google it, specifying site:redstate.com) record and angry mien disqualify him.

Ron Paul has no chance, never did, never will.

So. Clearly there’s no reason for Perry to get out, and there are over 100 reasons for him to stay in… i.e. the number of delegates he’ll pick up if he can win his home state of Texas.

The ad certainly lit up the left’s hate-machine. So what? You know this issue is going to come up in the general, may as well talk about it now. Kicking the can is a Dem strategery.

Mew

supergirl2911

He answered the question very well, I thought.
Obradovich: You struggled in the early debates even though you’ve had some good ones recently. Do you regret at all not getting out to Iowa earlier and getting your feet wet with a lot more questions from Iowans before you had to answer those kind of questions on national television?

Perry: Looking back and trying woulda, coulda, shoulda is an interesting question to ask but the facts are the facts. I mean, I didn’t even make the decision to run until very late June and I had surgery on my back the first of July and …

Obradovich: How is your back? Are you doing good?

Perry: My back is great, I’m back running again for the last six weeks so I think part of the reason you’ve seen a somewhat different candidate on the debates is that my health is, really both physically and mentally, just really back in the game from the standpoint you have a fusion on your back and it takes you a while to get back on your game.

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 and, look, if anybody’s looking for a perfect candidate I’m not it. If they’re looking for the perfect debater, if they’re looking for someone that is going to have the answer to every question and never make a mistake I’m not their candidate. But if they’re looking for somebody that knows how to run this big government and particularly substantially downsize it, get a balanced budget, get people back to work, lay out a clear plan, cut their taxes and make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in their lives as we can then I am their guy.

Obradovich: You went on a round of the late night talk shows after that first kind of debate snafu and really poked fun at yourself. Does that come naturally to you?

Perry: Oh yeah.

Obradovich: It does?

Perry: I made fun of myself at a couple of church services this morning. It is what it is. Again, anybody that stands up for public service is going to have some things happen to them and the media is going to report what they report and, again, I’m not perfect and I forget things, I misstate some things but I think Americans are looking for somebody that will admit when they’re wrong, admit when they make a mistake and don’t even mind poking some fun at themselves. So, yeah, it comes pretty natural for me to go, yeah, I stepped in it and press on and stay focused on the work at hand.

celador2

Rick Perry has done some things more like many things right to get to where he is.

As governor Texas he presided over the creation of so many jobs in the recession that he was seen as a leader fit for White House by supporters and media.

Voters in Texas have trusted him and have shown they like him Thumbs up to Gov Perry!

westcoastpatriette

no one would have known Bathsheba’s child was David’s.

federalfarmer1

It’s not worth upsetting the perryphiles.

supergirl2911

but they DID NOT stop the pile one. They stayed at it for a few weeks.

elayman

What liberal social stances ? What inconsistencies or running away from his record ?

Maybe you are talking about his first interviews which were with George Will, National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, and Sean Hannity. In fact, Hannity got the exclusive the moment that Huntsman announced.

Huntsman also did several sessions with conservative magazines. He held a bloggers’ briefing at his Washington D.C. home with journalists from The American Spectator and National Review. He sat for a substantive and very convincing profile for The American Conservative.

Jon has also been physically present at all the debates save one for which he was excluded by ABC and another in support of New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary status against Nevada’s decision to move up its caucuses to January,

nancysabet

that no other candidate can claim. I just don?t give a d*mn how he debates. If that mattered, I?d have voted for Barack or gotten behind Romney. Records matter. Nothing else. Gov. Perry, unlike other candidates, is running basically on his gigantic record of achievements. Can you imagine Obama running against Perry based on his very poor record? Obama with disastrous record or no record at all, vs Gov. Rick Perry, a giant successful third term governor of a great state, with 13th biggest economy in the world, who has military, governing and legislative experience!!!

acat

Taking a survey is far from implementing policy. Just one simple thing, the UCMJ will need to be updated, and that’s up to Congress, not the White House nor the DoD.

For the record, calling someone who has family in every branch of the service and keeps up on issues affecting them “lazy” when you’re missing key facts is what we like to call “irony”.

Mew

TSquared

.. but even if Perry presents himself well for 99% of the time, 99% of the media’s coverage (and resulting narrative) will be on the 1% of the time that Perry does not.

supergirl2911

Ever had back surgery? Know someeone who did? I have a few stories from my parents. I believe it was surgery.
Obradovich: You struggled in the early debates even though you’ve had some good ones recently. Do you regret at all not getting out to Iowa earlier and getting your feet wet with a lot more questions from Iowans before you had to answer those kind of questions on national television?

Perry: Looking back and trying woulda, coulda, shoulda is an interesting question to ask but the facts are the facts. I mean, I didn’t even make the decision to run until very late June and I had surgery on my back the first of July and …

Obradovich: How is your back? Are you doing good?

Perry: My back is great, I’m back running again for the last six weeks so I think part of the reason you’ve seen a somewhat different candidate on the debates is that my health is, really both physically and mentally, just really back in the game from the standpoint you have a fusion on your back and it takes you a while to get back on your game.

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 and, look, if anybody’s looking for a perfect candidate I’m not it. If they’re looking for the perfect debater, if they’re looking for someone that is going to have the answer to every question and never make a mistake I’m not their candidate. But if they’re looking for somebody that knows how to run this big government and particularly substantially downsize it, get a balanced budget, get people back to work, lay out a clear plan, cut their taxes and make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in their lives as we can then I am their guy.

rightinthemiddle

She won Iowa Straw poll and has perfect conservative record. Has good knowledge on Foreign policy issues, Economical issues.

She is not explosive in debates. It makes me wonder is it because she hit the glass ceiling?

Common_Cents

Perception is reality. You can nuance it and say it wasn’t a slam, but it is also easy for the left to push it as a slam.

Why can’t he make the same point in another way? Why give obama a gift to wake up that segment of his base that has been largely disenfranchised by obama himself?

supergirl2911

from a statement from a doctor. It is a stupid rumor the person above just started. Don’t give it credibility. The fact is no matter who the candidate is, the opposition (and the media) will emphasize all real or perceived weaknesses and minimize all strengths.

jasondallastx

If that’s possible.

It really does seem like Gingrich is the only viable candidate.

dpmapper

I think he’s referring to civil unions and evolution. I’d classify both as moderate, rather than liberal, since both have significant support even among GOP voters. I’d also classify them as second- or third-tier issues (actually, in the case of evolution, 100th-tier).

cheetah2

It is such a roller coaster ride with Perry. One day he is making us groan with the gaffes and the next he sits down and has a relaxed and confident talk with some reporter, where he leaves no doubt that he’s got the stuff to beat Obama and lead this country back in the direction it needs to go.

If we get this man in the White House we will never regret it. That is why we who support him need to hang tough and not abandon ship no matter what. If he loses us he WILL have no chance.

supergirl2911

I would be interested to see.

unitedwestood

I live in Texas… I’m not sure if I want to share him with the nation or not! – Just kidding. This IS the best state I’ve ever lived in. There is much to be Thankful for if you live in Texas. Not to say that other states don’t have anything to offer, I just feel blessed to be here.

The only people that I’ve run into personally that are ‘ looking at Perry differnetly” fall into two categories (1) The’ve never been out of Texas to see how the others live ( Taxes, insurance, regulations) (2) They didn’t like Perry to begin with. That’s just my take on people that live here in Texas, talking to them face to face.

Scope

the door was wide open for him, and I think some actually tried to draft him. He gave it consideration, and said no thanks. I wish people would allow those that said no, to remain a no. They deserve respect for their positions. Many many came to the conclusion that Fred Thompson didn’t have his heart in his 08 campaign, but was pestered to death to jump in. When someone doen’t have the desire to put themselves through the meat grinder, have their entire lives and the lives of their families on display, they should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves.

jasondallastx

I was saying that since you have military in your family that makes you lazy.

Brilliant! Brilliant I say!

Air tight logic. I bow before your mewness.

hls87

He will steadily bleed support in Iowa between now and January 3 as Romney and Ron Paul constantly remind voters of the many reasons Newt would be a disasterous nominee. Like Howard Dean in 2004, Gingrich will finish third in Iowa, at best, his bubble will pop and his campaign will collapse. He is not a serious player and he never was, regardless of recent polls.

Voters are flirting with Newt, but they won’t nominate him any more than they will nominate Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann. Nobody who has never held an executive position or won a statewide election, who hasn’t held any office of public trust in more than a decade, and who was driven out of his last such office under an ethical cloud will ever win a major party nomination. Even if anyone with that resume could win, Newt can’t. He’s too obnoxious and he’s too much a part of the statist past we urgently need to leave behind. Voters can be remarkably obtuse sometimes, but they aren’t stupid.

Gingrich won’t be a factor in the nomination contest any more than Cain was. He’s a passing fad, nothing more. The serious candidates are Perry and Romney, unless Huntsman can pull off a political miracle in NH and take Mitt’s place as the candidate of the Democrat wing of the Republican Party. Newt is just a distraction.

supergirl2911

she doesn’t come off as having substance.
She likes one liners.
She attacked Perry over Gardasil.
She uses questionable facts (I hypothesize this because it is part of her narrative, I have not fact checked myself)
She does not have executive experience.
What has she accomplished in the House of Representatives? (part of the narrative is that is nothing)
History is against her statistically.

izoneguy

I know plenty – both active duty and retired.
They are all 100% against gays in the military.
They were against DADT and now that everything is out
in the open the recruiters are having a hard time.
This is all political and panders to the left base.

wacowboy

there’s a never ending list of Joe Biden’s and BO’s that can be trotted out.

“this is a big f@(*#&$ deal”
“give the kids a breathalyzer”
57 states
corpse-men
speaking to live soldiers as if they were dead (memorial day 2011)

the list goes on. if the left wants to make it about gaffe’s they do so to their own peril.

snappy101

All it takes is for Obama to choose not to debate and the benefit of having Gingrich as your candidate goes right out the window. There is nothing in it for Obama. As the sitting President, he doesn’t have to introduce himself to the country or state his values, ideas or experience. When you are talking about Gingrich, Obama now has more executive experience than Gingrich. Obama knows he’d be playing defense all night. If I was him, I’d choose not to play because there is nothing in it for him

acat

You *don’t* think this would be an issue in the general, Common? I’d been waiting for it to come up, although I expected it to bounce against Romney or Huntsman.

I’ll agree that it’s a rather direct appeal to the older (55+) religious right voters in Iowa, but I do not see how it hurts in the general – or do you think many gays have taken Barry Goldwater’s words to heart?

Mew

izoneguy

Perry is right on target.

Time to take it to the left and destroy their family destroying values.

dpmapper

Not just in Utah, but what he’s laid out in this campaign. Plus, he’d have a GOP congress if he wins, just like in Utah, to help keep him on the straight and narrow, so to speak.

supergirl2911

?

cbartlett

and get off the social issues. My son-in-law is ex-Army and currently a law student. He is a conservative and a leader in the Republican Law Society and I’m working really hard on getting him behind Perry, but it is a challenge. He was mad about Perry’s commercial. He said military guys do not care about that issue and Perry needs to step away from social issues. Period. Perry has the most conservative positions on foreign policy and economics and ENERGY and he needs to emphasize those. There is too much variance in many of the social issues among conservatives and it really isn’t the most important thing for our country right now. Mitt and Newt are both Progressives and will continue big government in Washington DC. We need THE most conservative in the White House. Now.

wacowboy

nt

ericksontales

This will be the headline we are all reading on January 4th.

How many of you really think that social conservative Iowa is going to vote in the serial adulturer Newt Gingrich? How many believe that Callista the mistress will ever be considered a legit 1st lady?

Look, Iowa is known for voting in the social conservative (i.e. Mike Huckabee in 2008). When they go to the polls to vote MANY of them (mark my words) are going to cast their vote with their heart and go for Perry. Gingrich will lose is wide margin that he has today and will likely take 3rd place just ahead of Ron Paul. We will be listening to the Perry or Romney victory speech. Also keep in mind that 11% of voters were still undecided and those that have decided are pretty fickle.

Those of you who on RedState that have illusions about Newt debating Obama are in for a rude awaking in the coming months. America is just not ready for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac lobbyist to be in the white house.

Paul seems to have a ceiling in Iowa. Romney has a higher cieling around 20%. Perry has an unlimited ceiling really. Newt has already reached as high as his ceiling will go.

Don’t take my word for it. Just wait and see. Newt will not win Iowa. I won’t be surprised at all to see him in 3rd place when it all shakes out.

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

…and the Gardisil “mental retardation” attack.

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

…as Perry cites Federalism as his anti-D.C. theme whenever debating BHO.

Scope

and Cameron posed a question to him something like what will happen if you don’t do well in Iowa. Gingrich replied- “I’m not going to let the people in Iowa tell me what to do.” Not a good statement to the voters in a state you are hoping to win in three weeks. It was a definite slam to the Iowa GOP voters.

http://www.realityunwound.com realityunwound

If he’s the candidate, I’ll gladly pull the lever for him, but I’m hoping like hell that he’s not the candidate.

A Republican winning an election in Texas isn’t exactly the same as winning a national election because Texas is solidly red. Texas also has one of the weakest governorships in the country. He’s not less polarizing than Newt, he just hasn’t had the national stage to do it on. As far as citing a few of Perry’s creds, it was interesting to see the agenda he sent to the TX Legislature this year. I knew immediately that he was running for POTUS, and that he was running as the “true” conservative. It’s just interesting that he hadn’t tackled any of those issues in any of the previous sessions, but only as the spotlight drew tight.

I’m not saying that Perry is bad. Not at all. I’m just saying that it would be wrong to think that he’s the stalwart, never fail conservative that he seems to portray himself as. He’s very much a politician, and he will very much say what he needs to say. The clearest indication of what a person will do is what they have done.

I don’t see Perry being able to beat Obama, but if he does, I’ll be ecstatic. I just won’t be surprised when he turns out not to be a Barry Goldwater / Ronald Reagan ideological love child.

jasondallastx

is that you said “the left agrees with you.”

It’s a lazy way of saying “you’re crazy.” It’s like saying “the marxists agree with you.” or “Yes, that’s what Hitler said.”

It’s a lazy ad hominem attack, and it will always undermine your argument.

celador2

I can see why a resident of Texas would be saddened by the departure of a long time governor who created million jobs in the recession. Gov Perry feels the same about departing Texas as governor for any job short of the Oval office itself in 2012.

He said recently he is not interested in VP and would return to be governor if not chosen as the party’s presidential nominee.
I hope he sticks to that. He sure can lead by example with the economic uptick ahead of all others!

Maybe 2012 is not the year for Perry or some others with good policy positions.

Stay tuned…..

hls87

She’s never won a statewide election. She’s a member of the House and that’s the only government post she’s ever held. She doesn’t have the stature to be a serious presidential candidate. It may not be fair, but it’s a fact of American political life. Nobody who hasn’t been a Vice President, Governor, Senator or victorious General in a war of great historical significance can win a major party nomination for President. Bachmann (like Cain, Paul, and Gingrich) is none of the above and therefore just cluttering up the field.

jasondallastx

anecdotal evidence is always specious. Oh, well, all the guys I know say this.

OK. great. Polls say otherwise. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is the guy who pushed repeal. The joint chiefs of staff pushed for it too.

So, I’m sure you can find some people against it. The fact is that most don’t care.

cbartlett

I’ve lived and voted in Texas my whole life and proud to say my husband and I have raised 3 more conservative Texas voters (plus 2 son-in-laws!) so that’s a few more! The difficulty I see with some, definitely not all, Texas voters is that they became disenchanted with Perry over A particular issue just here in Texas – the Guardisil thing (I actually didn’t like that much either); the way he did or didn’t handle the campaign against Hutchison last time – depends what side you were on, etc. etc. etc. I know some teachers that don’t like the way they THINK he handled education cuts. In reality, We must have a balanced budget here in the state – we can’t print $$ like the feds do – and cuts had to be made in difficult places. Even though I have several educators in my immediate family, I still think we have developed a very top-heavy (lots of highly paid administrative types) system that did/does need reforming and what the state legislators did, and Perry supported, was the right thing to do. The truth is – these single state issues are just not as important as getting this country back on track. Perry has a good record – especially compared these two Progressives. He just needs to do a better job of getting it out to the 54% of the uneducated voters. According to O-Reilly last night, they will be the ones determining this election – SCARY!

colonelflagg

“It is hard to dislike a guy who can filet his opponent with a smile and a side of fava beans and a nice chianti.”

I can if he’s not a conservative. In fact, it’s not difficult at all.

Priority 1 for conservatives is stopping Romney. Priority 1A should be to stop Gingrich.

onemovoter

From the first time he got into congress, to the time he became Speaker, know who Newt really is. Erick is right actually. There are plenty of people who have worked beside and for Newt that have commented on who he is. It is not that pretty of a picture.

The problem most folks have is that their memories of Newt are very shallow in depth. They don’t know most of what those who have worked with Newt have been saying. The key is that no one really changes who they are when they are older, from 50 to 70. You can act like you are different but deep down your personality traits are still there. It’s those personality traits that got Newt thrown out of the Speakership.

Dick Army doesn’t even like Newt Gingrich either. You should read Breach of Trust as well. It is an eye opener. Newt might sound smart and know a lot, but sounding smart and a good leader don’t always go hand in hand.

Have you ever come across a very intelligent book smart person who you thought was great, but come to find out they have no common sense? That is basically Newt’s problem.

People who are marginally paying attention are going for whatever candidate is least offensive to the MSM. The MSM keeps putting out the ‘meme’ that conservatives are dumb and ignorant, so people naturally look for a candidate that sounds like they aren’t dumb, saying “see? we have someone who isn’t dumb.” The MSM also puts out the meme that we are just a party of white folks, so we gather behind a conservative black to say, “see? we have them too.” Cain even said the race card couldn’t be played against him.

We are falling prey to the MSM in trying to counter what they keep saying about us conservatives. What we should be doing, like Rush has said, is to look for people who stand up for conservative principles, no matter the attacks. When we have that candidate, we have a winner every time.

When Erick talks about Perry being the best representative of the conservative movement, it’s because Perry has been the most consistent out of all the candidates.

When you look at hiring someone for a job, you look at their work history and personal history. Why? Because if what they say in a single interview doesn’t jive with their work history of 10 years, you will be must less apt to hire them. It’s what I call trustworthy. What Newt is saying now does not jive with his history. Sometimes I’ve seen him outright lie, in so many fancy words.

Most here in RS are politically astute. That is the reason why most here support Perry as their first choice. Go ahead and support Newt if you want, just don’t come back here after being screwed, and not expect us NOT to say we told you so.

JSobieski

Easy to say “I won’t raise the debt ceiling by one cent”

Harder to actually propose a plant for actually getting things under control.

Bachmann is so focused on staying pure that she accomplishes nothing.

jaykali

Look you can divide ppl into a bunch of different groups, sure but I personally think these 2 camps are the dominant force in people’s thinking when it comes to who they will vote for: 1. Who can beat Obama? or 2. Who is the most conservative?

I don’t think #OWS is going to do anything but damage anyone connected, they are irritating. I think the longer they’re out there bothering ppl while they’re christmas shopping or squatting on someone’s land the less sympathetic they will be. Personally I think a huge faction of #OWS won’t even vote themselves bc they are so disillusioned.

romeg

He’s asking the question “If it is ok for a particular subset of American Society to freely to live their lives based solely on public knowledge of their sexual identity, why is it wrong for another subset of American Society to have to keep quiet about the most important aspect of THIER identity?”

We can pretend that Governor Perry is a homophobe and most in the media would certainly want that to be the meme. But it is an honest question that deserves an answer. If homosexuals can freely and openly carry on their lives based solely on publicizing their sexual identity, why must Christians suppress their religious identity?

celador2

The press downplay as a campaign issue energy development and independence in part because Obama is such a failure and corrupt Solyndra solar panels shows crony capitalism at its heights with taxpayers picking up the guranteed losses for Obama fundraisers. Also Obama has nothing to offer for today’s enegy needs.

In contrast all Republicans support shale, clean coal, drilling safely offshore. They also oppose EPA and its cap and trade outlook on life.

One more clear difference between cap and trade big government solutions and the GOP is freemarket innovations including states and new energy or more of the same Obama EPA

I rarely use polar opposities to describe but on energy and GOP v Dems I think it fits.

Perry is well qualified to create an energy policy that creates cheap,. safe fuel and JOBS.

izoneguy

arrowhead

evangelical concervatives don’t look @ anti-science as dillusional.(for acat) For all those claims of being scientific we have a global warming hoax loving Newt!@ which is sad. Perry maybe. But Bachman or Santorum would make for great leaders. Good core values and principles not flip floping like fish out of water

acat

You keep throwing this poll around as if it means something.

Mew

acat

Because the truth is, the left agree with you. And you’re both wrong.

Mew

thosjefferson

How can any self-respecting conservative support Newt? His latest attack isn’t atypical. His entire career has been about seeking and exercising government power and then selling access for millions and lying about it.

Now he attacks Romney for being a capitalist and we have Erick leaning toward him?

Between Newt and Obama, which is the greater anti-capitalist? It’s not clear at this point, but it is clear that neither is a capitalist.

Krauthhammer pointed this out, as did Lawler here:

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/12/gingrich-attacks-romney-from-t

izoneguy

Just pointing out how pointless you were.
Gays can be as patriotic as non-gays.
They will get no special treatment as a “gay in the military”.

thosjefferson

in this race: Huntsman and Romney. Now that Cain is gone, we’re left with a choice between government employees/lobbyists and true capitalists.

None of the Founding Fathers got rich through their government jobs or by selling access. They prospered in the private economy and then served selflessly in government. The only candidates left who follow this pattern are Huntsman and Romney.

It’s a travesty that so-called conservatives are falling for the rhetoric of Gingrich, Perry, et. al, whose entire careers have centered around government.

jasondallastx

No matter how you slice it.

jasondallastx

Is it the leaders or the individuals who make the decision in the military, because they both think it should be repealed.

If the poll isn’t valid, what is? The sec of Defense? OK, he pushed for repeal. Who is in charge of making this decision….

now go look for some obscure person who wants to keep it on the books and declare that it’s that person’s decision.

MF

The survey questions were seriously gamed to get the outcome the administration demanded. (Note my choice of ‘demanded’ versus ‘wanted’.) Plus, the open-ended wordings were interpreted in the most favorable (to the administration’s desires) way possible.

RS has had many discussions on those survays. I have not searched through the archives, but I suggest you might want to peruse them before you talk further about the flawed surveys and their conclusions.

jasondallastx

I offered up anecdotal evidence first. So, yep. You’re right.

I also offered other evidence. But you’re right.

znjs

First, going after solders generally isn’t seen as presidential. But also it’s not just the gays and leftists who wanted DADT repealed. Polling I saw had right around 80% of people wanted it repealed, and that was a year ago; it’s sure to have gone up since then. That includes over 60% of independents. And it was about even among self described conservatives. This people will push all the worst stereotypes of people from texas, and drive many away. That ad will be an anchor around his neck during the general election if he gets the nomination.

angelfire

Thank you for pointing out all that Perry was dealing with in the first days of his campaign. I remember he missed the first debate he was to be in because of the Bastrop fires here in Texas. But he did have a sit-down interview that morning before he flew back here to Texas, and I remember he was sitting in a rather soft chair and he could NOT sit still – it was so obvious he could not get comfortable sitting there for even a short time after his back surgery. I feel sure his back surgery and possible pain meds influenced his performances in his first debates.

I have friends who lost everything in the Bastrop fire and Perry was where he needed to be at that time. The Bastop fire was so horribly devastating, and Perry was focused on the lives of fellow Texans who had lost everything. The measure of the man is in his actions and his priorities, and Perry has his priorities right.

I have been a Perry supporter from day one, never wavering, because I see the true character of the man, and know he would make a wonderful President.

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

…then Rick should do ok.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-is-confident-but-is-he-ready/2011/12/01/gIQA66o9nO_story.html?wprss=

lineholder

Interesting that your post and LUR’s about manufacturing czar’s are back to back.

If we’re going to make the moral case for free market capitalism, we’d have to draw a distinct comparison between managed capitalism (which is very much so the direction we’re heading in now with the czars and government intervention at every turn, defining winning and losers) and true free market capitalism because a lot of people across our society really don’t have the slightest idea of what the differences are. Sad, very sad, but also the truth.

To draw that comparison, and to incorporate the Conservative principle of limited government into context in the process of drawing that comparison, thereby presenting Conservatism as the better choice over Socialism/Liberalism/Progressivism, requires being able to clearly and succinctly articulate what the differences are, why free market capitalism is the best choice to make, and why it beats socialist-style managed capitalism to dust. (Articulate being the key word, eh?)

So far, the American people are rejecting socialism, and I’d just as soon that it stay that way. If this is the approach Obama will be taking in 2012, and we’re looking for a free-market champion…we’re in big trouble.

I think you’re correct that we need a champion for the free-market cause and for Conservatism. I think one or two of the candidates you’ve mentioned are capable of it. The question isn’t so much CAN they do it, but WILL they do it.

Talk about frustrating! Each one of the candidates who has been directly involved in the realm of politics for any length of time has become acclimated to acceptance of big-government intervention in one way or another. That mindset of acceptance is a major stumbling block in this case.

I’m not sure they genuinely and sincerely see the need to do otherwise. It’s like I keep looking and waiting to see that one of them “gets it” mentally and is willing to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, to be proactive and willing to fight for the sake of our nation and it’s people on this particular front of the battle we’re in…and it just hasn’t happened. Sure, they make comments along these lines now and then, but displaying a willingness to actually fight for it tooth and nail…NO, I don’t see that in any of them.

rightinthemiddle

We don’t know yet and all she did was repeat what some listener told her..and also agreed that she is not the expert on the issue.

rightinthemiddle

Can we make up our mind if we want career politician or not? One time we say he/she is Washington insider..othertime we say he/she has no experience in how Washington works..

celador2

Your Bachmann credibilty point is well made. However there are times a scenario for an underdog by choice prevails.

Lincoln was only first choice of a few as the Republian nominating convention began 1860. Stellar men had much support in Ohio and NY. Gridlock led to deadlock and a final compromise for the underdog, Abraham Lincoln, a not so well known former member of the House and state legislature, won the nomination in 1860. He had shown no signs of the leadership he would display while in office 1861-65.

Bachmann is quite fit and has true grit to repeal Obamacare and stick to ennumerated limits of the presidency.

Will voters turn to her? Maybe not.

But the Iowa caucuses are much like the convention in 1860 that nominated Lincoln as third choice imo.

Caucuses trade votes back and forth. Being second or third choice can lead to a win or stronger position than a ‘winner take all’ selection as a primary vote for one provides.

I see more merit to caucues than I once did in selecting delegates and a nominee..More flexibility between first, second and third choices.

1bunny

romansdaughter

nt.

izoneguy

Bachmann is reckless and a lose cannon. No politician should spout something that a stranger says as gospel.

jasondallastx

Where or where are the logical republicans like George Will when we need them? The party is being overrun with twitter-logue, oversimplified digestible soundbites put out by Palin and Coulter.

The intelligentsia in the party is being drowned out by “cleverness” and snarky, headline grabbing crap that just stirs people up and alienates moderates.

Like it or not, elections are won in the middle, with sensible, reasonable discussions.

rightinthemiddle

We have Newt and Romney who has lot of experience and have been on all sides on all issues.

But Bachmann does have experience [not a lot] but has been consistent and doesn’t deviate from core values..

Do you want another compassionate President (R) that proposes no Homeless guy left behind?

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

…will be HUGE!

http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/the-family-leader%E2%80%99s-endorsement-a-decision-by-next-monday/

earlgrey

I wish more conservatives knew this much about Gingrich.

rightinthemiddle

It is much better than Mitt’s I will abolish Obamacare thru executive order which she explained he cannot do it.

Secondly, I don’t believe in what candidates say anymore. Even Obama said he will withdraw all troops from Iraq and still hasn’t done that. I want to see if they have right conviction and she comes out much ahead of others in that factor.

Cain had 9-9-9 proposal. Do you think he would have accompolished that even if he had both houses under Repulican leadership?

znjs

She hears something and just believes it, no matter how ridiculous it is. Obama’s trip to India is going to cost taxpayers 200 million per day, there’s a plan to replace the dollar with a global currency, iran and al qaeda have a secret agreement to partition iraq, etc etc etc.

Someone who can’t tell fact from internet rumor has no business being anywhere near our nuclear weapons.

bzip

Thanks much bunny1. That is what we need to see, some positive energy mixed with positive support and we get: “Momentum”.

Very nice ad. Thanks for sharing.

omegamale

This site is going off the deep end.

So creating successful companies like Staples only benefited the very wealthy? Tell that to people that work there. Gingrich’s millions were made of influence peddling in Washington for the likes of Freddie Mac.

Gingrich is singing a different tune about Romney here:

Common_Cents

“I am instructing all members of my campaign staff and respectfully urge anyone acting as a surrogate for our campaign to avoid initiating attacks on other Republican candidates,” Gingrich wrote. “It is my hope that my Republican opponents will join me in this commitment.”

On Monday, Gingrich and rival candidate Romney sniped at each other over their records in the private sector. In Tuesday’s letter, Gingrich categorized the comments from both camps as “a frank exchange,” saying he “reserved the right to respond when my record has been distorted.”

The choice of the president of the United States, at a time of genuine troubles, is not a game,” Gingrich said. “It isn’t who can hire the meanest, nastiest, or most creative consultant. It is a fundamental choice about who we think can provide the solutions that bring us together as a nation.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/13/gingrich-vows-to-stay-positive/

romansdaughter

I am fairly confident that Newt is not going to be the nominee; cause for all his supposedly smartness…he says very unwise things. Right there is a prime example. What’s he going to do if he becomes President say , ” I am not going to let the people of America tell me what to do.” His arrogance is blatant and you can believe that is what he probably would say once he gets in office and does something the American people don’t want. No Newt for me.

JSobieski

How do you reconcile the following two points:

(1) Nobody talks bigger about cutting spending Bachmann

(2) Nobody puts out fewer specifics than Bachmann

During the budget debate this summer, where was Bachmann’s plan? In the same secret vault as Obama’s—i.e. there was none.

Bachmann is very shrewd, By not proposing a plan, she can argue against everyone else’s plan while not being attacked herself.

Great strategy for a talk show host. Bad idea if you actually want to lead.

When push came to shove, she even equivocated in her support of the most tepid Ryan proposal.

Google Ryan Bachmann Wallace and asterisk

omegamale

Obama is going to play the class warfare card, so let’s make sure we run someone who has no experience in the private sector and isn’t wealthy. Yea, that’s the ticket.

If Obama plays the race card, we need to draft Herman Cain or Alan Keyes, so he can’t campaign against us on that issue.

No matter who Republicans run, Obama is going to say their a tool of the 1% that only care about the rich. They said the same thing about Reagan, despite having a dirt poor upbringing. If “humble” Perry got the nomination, they say he only cared about Big Business and bring up all of his shady crony capitalist dealings.

Democrats would say only Republicans cared about the rich if we nominated a homeless man.

acat

the definition of ad hominem:
—–
ad hominem argument (plural ad hominem arguments)

(logic) A type of fallacious argument in which the attempt is made to refute a theory or belief by discrediting the person(s) who advocate that theory or belief.
—–

Mew

JSobieski

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/07/does-bachmann-have-a-plan-to-limit-government/

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/michele-bachmann-backs-away-ryans-medicare

“Titanium” spine “is not wedded to the idea of a voucher program for Medicare” but she is wedded to the old stand by of “efficiencies and cost cuttings and savings in healthcare”

“EFFICIENCIES AND COST CUTTINGS AND SAVINGS IN HEALTHCARE”!

Sounds like a great plan.

Everyone else running has endorsed some type of voucher plan (be it voluntary, delayed, etc) without an asterisk.

If there is some link out there that details how she would achieve these savings or what she would cut, I would love to see it.

gekster

The quote is “I?m not going to let the people in Iowa tell me what to do.?

It is not ? I am not going to let the people of America tell me what to do.?

You should get the distinction.
All Iowans may be American, but not all Americans are Iowans.
Just pointing it out. Nothing more.

jasondallastx

You’re attempting to refute my ideas by comparing me to the enemy.

It has nothing to do with the validity of the idea. You’re attempting to discredit me by aligning me with the left.

that’s exactly what an ad hominem attack is.

OMG, do I really have to explain basic logic and debate on here? Lord help me.

JSobieski

WALLACE: What do you tell people nearing retirement who say I can?t afford to pay more of my own healthcare costs out of pocket? Which is what the Ryan and Republican Study Committee plans would do.

BACHMANN: And I understand that. I put an asterisks on my support, I put a blog posting up that said just as much. That is my area of concern, I support this bill with that proviso. ? One position that I?m concerned about shifting the cost burden to senior citizens. Seniors are saying, look, I?m not in a positon to be able to handle that. I also share that real fear, that?s why I put that asterisks out there. [...]

WALLACE: So you?re not wedded to the idea of a voucher program for Medicare?

BACHMANN: I?m wedded to the idea of efficiencies and cost cuttings and savings in healthcare, but how we get there is open to discussion.

After all the debates, how is it possible that each candidate has not been asked- How do you plan to get medicare spending under control?

celador2

Bachmann is not ficused on being pure for its own sake.
She is a candidate for the nomination of president. Until Bachmann is in office no one knows what she would do. Sometimes a candidate does what she says or tries. That is a clue.

As a member of the House Bachmann has produced some results on repealing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. She formed and chairs House tea party caucus. She helps render the operating concept of ‘constitutional conservative’ real.

“Where in the constitution does this provision derive its authority”

is a question tea party members ask in mark up sessions when designing a bill. Work within limits of constitution and do not step all over states.

Thank you, Michele Bachmann for fiscal points and the discipline you have shown on bailouts and debt.

Those are just some of the qualities needed in a president.

acat

The armed services serve the elected government. The elected government serves the will of the people. The will of the people is divided on this issue, as reflected in Congress.

(free hint: if the will of the people weren’t divided, this ad wouldn’t have bothered you because the policy would already have been changed)

The system is supposed to change slowly. It’s a feature. Look at how long it took between when blacks could vote and when the army was integrated. This is because rapid changes are very damaging, especially to structures requiring rigid adherence to a code of conduct – such as the armed services.

(free hint: your repeated citing of a poll indicates you do not understand the structure of the armed services)

Furthermore, the decision to allow open service does not reside with the White House, the SecDef, or the Joint Chiefs as the code of conduct – the Uniform Code of Military Justice – must be altered, and that is the responsibility of Congress.

(free hint: you’ve ignored that I’ve mentioned this …)

My conclusion, Jason, is that you’ve responded to a dog whistle, without thinking or understanding it.

Mew

acat

That you’ve chosen to try to win on points just confirms your inability to defend your position.

Baka.

Mew

jasondallastx

used to avoid answering the question.

it’s full of buzzwords and clever quirkiness that really doesn’t say anything about the matter we were discussing.

Just keep blogging Mew. Ignore my posts please.

acat

Your evidence is flawed, but you swallowed it, hook, line, sinker.

Derp.

Mew

lineholder

Can you tell me where the wisdom is for a candidate who comes into the race late to take a “sit-back-and-wait-for-my-opponents-to-implode-then-move-in-for-the-win” approach to this race?

The central core of this race is Socialism vs. something other than Socialism. (hopefully presented in a way that inspires voters to choose Conservatism over Socialism). Period. If you’re American, you believe in the American spirit and the American way, then you don’t hold back, because everything that has made this a great nation is at stake.

The door of opportunity has been wide open, and I do mean wide open (seeing how approximately 75% of the people in this nation are something other than Liberal and opposition to Socialistic-style government is high) for Perry to take his stand and fight for the Conservative cause all along, and he’s been so stuck in his trademark campaign style that he hasn’t taken full advantage of that opportunity.

I think he may be starting to move in that direction now, but…for crying out loud, these doors of opportunity don’t stay open forever and a day.

acat

Every time we’ve nominated a squishy middle candidate, they’ve tanked.

Bush 1.0 couldn’t win against a lying philanderer.
Dole couldn’t either.
Bush 2.0 barely squeeked in.
McCain lost, badly, against an inexperienced naif.

Do attempt to learn from history. With your way, we’d all be looking around for the next Jon Anderson.

Twit.

Mew

acat

I would like to see the specific questions and polling scenarios.

Specifically, one of the groups wanting DADT repealed – call ‘em paleo-conservatives – want it repealed and replaced with zero tolerance. Conflating them with those who want it repealed and replaced with open service is .. amazingly wrong.

Mew

cacharlie

Apparently, there’s no “entitled” American citizen who has risen from poverty, demonstrated governing prowess and marital fidelity, has the guts to run for President and propose that Congress become a part time business concern, the IRS and Obamacare and Iran be rendered irrelevant and our borders get closed pronto who is as slick with a microphone as Obama.

Perry is just too Texan to be entitled to the swing vote, right?

. . .but, then even the American Idol crowd once in a while goes for an especially appealing underdog. Maybe Perry will keep fumbling, once in a while, like a real person , , , or remember when Jindal’s response to Obama’s State of the Union address supposedly doomed him to obscurity? I couldn’t figure why until I got more familiar with “establishment” tactics.

Why not hold off doing ourselves in until we see if we’ve got a miracle coming due at the convention?

romeg

Of all the candidates in the Republican Primary, none looks more presidential than Rick Perry. And his record, though not perfect, speaks for itself. Does success as governor or Texas assure success as POTUS? Will he be able to lead a Conservative movement to not only undo the unspeakable harm done by Obama but damage done by Bush and Clinton as well?

Newt, OTOH, clearly has the best stage presence of the lot. He has total command of the arena when he speaks. His early history causes me to want to support him.

But he seems to have allowed himself to get drawn in by all of those things that Americans have come to despise about Washington D.C. and its inhabitants. He likes to point out that, at 68, he’s calmed down and become more patient and thoughtful. Well, I’m not so sure I want the guy that I choose to lead the charge against the liberal onslaught to be “calmed down”. I’d like to have the “Bomb Thrower” that took the House by storm in 1980. But I do want him to be as Conservative as he appeared to have been way back then.

What are the odds?

annie54

Herman Cain, the analyst, discussing the candidates per each one’s performance at Saturday’s debate?

That’s when I flipped Hannity off (per the remote, and otherwise, I must admit.)

acat

I consider “electability” a mirage, especially this far out, but .. like I keep saying – voters make their decisions for a wide range of reasons.

Mew

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

“Either you love him or you hate him.” Thanks for all the Texas info, friends! pttx333 declared me an Honorary Texan a few weeks ago and I certainly love your state! I love vacationing there and I wouldn’t mind living there someday.

geoph

And what options do we have left, Obama?

I’ll take my chances with Gingrich.
Remember when we used to support the lesser of two evils and vote for the establishment guy: HW, Dole, W, McCaine… Not to mention further down the ticket!
Every other candidate had their shot, and Romney is just not acceptable!

znjs

But this one is close enough. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145130/support-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell.aspx

The exact wording of the question was “Would you vote for or against a law that would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US Military.”

The result was 67%, which was lower then the one I was thinking of, but support among independents was higher (70%) and support among Republicans was closer – 47% to 48% against, where the one I was thinking of had it 40 – 44.

naraht

I just don’t see Pawlenty being able to pull off Regional Favorite Son. Minnesota pollitics is wierd, I know, but I’d still like to see someone who got elected with a majority of the vote in his state for that. Wisconsin politics is going to be completely polarized by that point, but I agree, he might help in Iowa.

How about Virginia goveror Bob McDonnell?

gracie

and recently. My husband had it June 7 and a friend of his had it a month later. Both experienced hallucinations from the anesthesia! Then they both had memory problems for weeks. Perry was also wrestling with Texas being on fire!!

Cut the man some slack. Remember how Erick would comment that Perry lost energy in the second half of the first few debates…my husband still wants to go to bed at eight o’clock! Although successful he has been told it will take a year to recover.

BTW, it is one thing to lose your train of thought:….. everyone knows this! Perry knew full well which depts he wants to cut. Comes from exhaustion or nervousness, which he has overcome. It is another to lose your ability to add and subtract or to reason.

He speaks excellently in speeches and most interviews. It is his comfort zone. Try listening to what he does say and not pick him apart for what Obama does every time he is off teleprompter!

These malicious rumors are not helpful!

http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

we didn’t have this multiple sound bite debate runway walk in place.

It is worthy to note that many former leaders considered great would fair poorly in our modern system.

Abraham Lincoln was ugly and had a strained speaking voice.
Thomas Jefferson was absent minded and mumbled. He refused to even deliver the state of the union as a speech because he was so bad.
Theodore Roosevelt had a very high pitched nasal voice
Franklin Roosevelt was in a wheel chair and had a very haughty east coast upper crust accent.

We will lose out on the best because of this emphasis on the non-debate debates.

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

i wrote an extensive meicolegal report on that issue a few months ago; reviewed all literature from perspective of potential to cause coagulopathy

i came-up dry from the “mental” perspective; the allegation was bogus.

clearly, she transmitted the anecdotal message to upend Perry

Common_Cents

But since I can’t, he’s gotta win under today’s conditions.

The same exact conditions that every other candidate has to face.

It’s just reality.

dudette

Anoone with the endorsements of Steve Forbes and Joe Arpaio should get the conservative vote in a heartbeat. Oh, and did I forget to mention that he is a successful governor of one of the biggest states in the Union??? and is military?? That trumps a spoiled little community organizer anyday of the week—question–can he pummel the airwaves with his message or go around the media to articulate CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES to the populace??? PRAY!!

dudette

Anyone with the endorsements of Steve Forbes and Joe Arpaio should get the conservative vote in a heartbeat. Oh, and did I forget to mention that he is a successful governor of one of the biggest states in the Union??? and is military?? That trumps a spoiled little community organizer anyday of the week—question–can he pummel the airwaves with his message or go around the media to articulate CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES to the populace??? PRAY!!

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

[as detailed episodically during the past month]

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

…as per Jim Talent interview on PMSNBC.

paco12348

I had my mind made up for Newt because of his creative ideas and ability to take on Obama but I really respect Tom Coburn and that bothers me. I know we need to look at a person’s past to predict their behavior in the future but I also believe when a person finds their faith they can have a radical life change.
I’ve also learned more about Romney and I would not be disappointed to see him get the nod.
I cannot tolerate that supercilious, arrogant, Obama light Huntsman.
I’ve been rethinking Perry. I like what he says but I also detect a slight inferior complex covered up with brashness that might not serve him well. There’s so much more to him than what we see and I do believe he would lead us the right way. I forgive his gaffes. Been there, done that myself. It’s made him more human and his brashness no longer appears as arrogance. We do need to give him a second look. He needs to get off attacking Romney and he needs to stop limiting himself to just talking about energy (oil). I like other things he says, flat tax, only 6 months of Congress, holding Oath breakers accountable. I think he said that about Oath breakers. God only knows we need someone holding them accountable.
So I’m conflicted.

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

…although haven’t yet captured proof; will keep monitoring.

gracie

You just heard the Bastrop fire described. On top of that the one 30 miles north of us in Magnolia got so out of control Gov Perry had to decide to take the huge plane that came three days late from DC away from Bastrop and send it to Magnolia. What a decision! The Bastrop fire was horrible yet the Magnolia fire was threatening Houston.

The whole state of Texas was under the most extreme drought in history. Fires were starting spontaneously in fields and forests. The whole state was in a panic. Gov Perry left Jim DeMint’s town hall to come home to attend to Texas. Then and only then was the transport plane ordered and progress started in contollling this devastating disaster.

Common_Cents

Do you want to revive the obama birther stuff to revive obama’s base?

Let’s stick to his failures of domestic and foreign policy.

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

…because you eloquently explained the rationale for Perry’s candidacy!

acat

I think you’re wrong.

This election, the left is going to be out for blood. This is their do-or-die moment, the culmination of a century of progressive work comes down to now.

You’re welcome to keep your head in the sand and believe that none of Romney’s endorsers have checkered pasts (stage whisper: Kjellander) but your wishful thinking won’t limit the Dems this time.

Mew

romansdaughter

I was just saying he would probably use the same arrogant attitude if he became President. Why stop with just Iowa?? He has an arrogance at times that gives you a glimpse of what he would be like as POTUS.

http://www.RightFace.us dkolonia

So many have already written off Perry so I am not sure he still has a chance. Of course, until a vote is taken they all have a chance. I like Perry but will Obama slice him up in a debate and then the media will rip him apart for being “dumb”? Yes, they can rip Newt for other things but which is the worst thing? Newt asking to be forgiven or people accepting Perry when the media calls him stupid? Huntsman can’t really be your choice can it? Obama will say Romney is just Gordon Gekko from Wall Street movie fame and that picture of him with money coming out of his pockets won’t help.
Why do conservatives never have anyone to vote for! It is our fault for not putting forth anyone we like.

theone3434

and they all don’t care. Gay people have been in the military for a long time. Whether the people you know were/are against gays in the military didn’t matter. If you are willing and brave enough to fight for the country you live in, then you should be allowed to. Are they against women in the military, too? It has nothing to do with the “left” it has to do with honorably serving your country. Why would you seek to disallow those that are willing to fight for their freedoms (ironic considering you would be okay with your “friends” possibly dieing to protect those that you don’t allow to serve). I just don’t understand the argument against allowing gay men or women to serve.

gekster

But I don’t think that not listening to one group means that he will not listen to all groups.
I do see your point though.

http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

And I’m not worried about birthers. Perry handles people who’ve endorsed him but who he disagrees with on some things very well. Certain Persons just like to hash over Arpaio’s birtherism because there’s little else with which to attack Perry. As for me, I saw Arpaio on Fox with Cavuto and he didn’t talk about his birtherism, not once, and I thought he was pretty funny and refreshingly blunt. (Kinda like Perry.)

philorida

Honestly, I am disgusted with many of my fellow Conservatives who love Newt. In their purist pursuit of a “true Conservative”, which Newt isn’t even close, they are willing to sacrifice winning in the general election next Nov. Their stubborn animosity of Mitt, who I will admit, leaves a vacuum of enthusiasm, has stirred up irrational belief that just because Newt can debate, he will somehow “eat Obama’s lunch”. Obama Inc. wants Newt. They prefer a crotchety old white guy who has the tendency to become vindictive when challenged. Case in point–yesterday in Iowa when asked about Romney’s assertion he should give back the Freddie Mac money. Instead of explaining a valid answer why it is OK to keep it…he avoided the question and made a nasty and dishonest attack, stating Romney should give back money from companies he bankrupted. Not only a bogus charge, but, mean. That’s the Newt we have all come to know.

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

We DO have someone for whom to vote…enthusiastically!

JSobieski

First, its easy to prepare a one sentence “X is repealed” bill.

Second, how is holding a position an accomplishment? Kind of like Obama claiming his campaign as an example of executive experience.

Third, if Bachmann wants to lead the country, she should tell us where she wants to lead us and how.

As the Wallace interview shows, Bachmann does NOT have a titanium spine. She is NOT politically courageous. She has told us less about specifics than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.

Hate to say it, but Bachmann is the right wing version of hope and change.

theone3434

just the ones you don’t agree with. Can surveys be manipulated to show what you want or at least bend the truth, certainly! HOWEVER, when poll after poll after poll show that military personnel as well as the general public respond positively to whether or not gays should be able to OPENLY (note: they can ALREADY serve in the military) then it’s not the case of one bias poll.

I noted that they already serve because this in and of itself is the slow change that you talked about. You act as if we didn’t have a single gay person in the military prior to the repeal of DADT. Obviously, that is not the case. This is just like any other desegregation, there will be immediate push back followed by general acceptance and, finally, indifference. If anyone is willing and able to serve in our military, LET THEM. I don’t care what your sexual preference is, if you are willing to honorably serve your country, it is your right to do so.

annie54

crazy about Jeb Bush. Herbert Walker Bush’s legacy – ahhhhh – 2 sons, 1 father POTUS.

acat

is that you presume to know my position.

Mew

romansdaughter

Maybe Scope got the quote wrong, cause I read that he said the people of New Hampshire say They are not going to let the people of Iowa tell them what to do. Of course I couldn’t get the video to work to hear it verbatim but in the article that was the way it was worded so possibly he wasn’t that arrogant. Sorry!

theone3434

no relevant contradictory evidence. Your only evidence is your own opinion. You don’t want gay people serving in the military…too late…that started well before DADT. You can be mad or want it to be turned back but by repealing DADT (which the congress did) they elected officials did the will of the people (or so they believe). You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and beliefs but offer them up as so…not evidence to the contrary.

acat

my point regarding the revisions required to the UCMJ.

Asking me to ignore you is .. rather unusual.

Mew

acat

DADT goes back much further than the history of the U.S. of A.

I have no problem with gays, nor with anybody serving in the armed services. As I’ve said, I’ve got family in every branch.. except the coasties.

I have a rather large problem with using the armed services as a lab for social engineering.

Your presumptive arrogance leads you to false conclusions.

Ask more questions, shoot your mouth off less.

Mew

thosjefferson

Bachman: IRS lawyer, Congresswoman
Gingrich: Congressman, lobbyist
Santorum: Senator, political commentator
Perry: Democrat official, Republican Governor
Paul: MD, Congressman

Not one of these has raised capital, started a business, managed employees in the private sector, dealt with government regulations, etc. The closest might be Paul, if you consider a doctor’s job an example of capitalism .

True, these “conservative” candidates have run “businesses” consisting of writing books and giving speeches–just like our current President. But beyond that, they’re all talk.

Only Romney and Huntsman have actually walked the walk of capitalism.

theone3434

People of faith are free to practice their religion. In just about every aspect of day to day life we can see Christianity and/or Catholicism in America. How are Christians forced to suppress their religious identity any more than a gay person? Give me some examples? Are Christians not allowed to join the military or openly speak of their faith? Last I checked, that certainly is not the case. I just don’t see the raising up of homosexuality but covering up of religion like you are seeing. The example that Perry sites in his ad regarding prayer in schools was settled by the Supreme Court in the 60′s…has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. There has been plenty of time to enact a constitutional amendment (although you would have to repeal the 1st amendment) if you wanted school sponsored prayer.

thosjefferson

Gingrich has been caught pretending to be his own “adviser” giving off the record comments to the Manchester Union. He’s the most dishonest candidate still in this race.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrich-and-the-union-leader-partners-in-fooling-the-voters/2011/12/12/gIQA8ngmqO_blog.html

tngal

may be whittled down a little after that .

7 states aren’t holding their primaries until June. 20-plus are going in March or April. Only ten will be in Jan or Feb.

This year the later states are suppose to be on better footing than at times past due to delegates getting stripped from states who bumped ahead when they shouldn’t, but still, Spring is a long way off.

You’ve got plenty of time to either sit and let things shake loose before you have to make up your mind, or use your time now to help your favored candidate.

znjs

Isn’t the social engineering trying to create an environment where gays have to stay in the closet? That’s not how it is in real life. Some choose too, but trying to recreate this “idealized” area where gays have to hide seems more like social engineering then allowing them to choose to reveal or hide their nature.

gekster

Unless, of course, you are the only one to misinterpret or mosread something, and I know your not, as I have the same affliction, alot.

and my friends use a little g

thosjefferson

You’re so right on this that none of the so-called “conservatives” on this blog, including Erick, can refute what you’re saying.

Nice post.

morstar150

When Reagan ran against George H. Bush he lost the Iowa caucus but won the most delegates.

There is plenty of time to make our selection. I will make mine on January 31st. I disagree with your view that Newt is not the right selection. He should be in the middle of this race until the end just because he defines the debate against the philosophical premise that the system is unfair. The main issue is not whether the govenment should help even the field but the economy and jobs. Obama cannot win that argument no matter how many times he tells us that it was “jobs saved” that mattered.

IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID! Ironically, the message of Clinton will be the message of victory. Obama is just, quite frankly, a disaster. The message is simple.

I can accept that you may want to look at other candidates. I cannot accept that Rick Perry is one of them. I will not trash talk him here but the reasons are clear. I also agree that we as Republicans and conservatives should take a long hard look at Huntsman. He has been a solid performer as governor and has strong foreign policy experience as an ambassador.

Unfortunately, I see ads on this site asking people to vote on whether we should move to a head to head debate, even though the “lesser” candidates bearly get enough time to give their names in these debates. This thing is not over by a long shot. But one thing we need to do is stop selling the conservative message short as if redistribution of wealth is now an acceptable idea. Eric I am concerned that your exposure to CNN has made your lose faith that OUR message is the strongest!

trickamsterdam

Ike = liberal Republican (two terms)

Goldwater = conservative Republican (landslide defeat)

Nixon = liberal Republican (two terms)

Ford = liberal Republican (close defeat, and right after Watergate)

Reagan = conservative Republican (two terms)

Bush 41 = moderate/liberal Republican (one term,, but hard to hold the White House four terms in a row)

I won’t go over the rest, but I like how you say of Bush 43, he barely squeaked by”. He still won. Twice. And whatever the MSM thought of him,, most people on this site know what he was: a moderate.

The success of conservatism is overrated by conservatives. That being said, I’m supporting Newt as the most conservative electable. And I do think he’s a conservative, whatever anyone else thinks.

Perry is not electable. People say debating and speech making is a small part of the President’s job, but it’s a BIG PART OF GETTING ELECTED Perry is like Jack Kemp, great on paper, but could not get it together (for completely different reasons).

As to the gays in the military thing, the ad could hurt him w/ soccer moms and young people, whereas everyone who likes it will already be voting Republican.

Then again, Perry won’t be the nominee, so all this is somewhat (but not totally) irrelevant.

morstar150

I DON’T GET IT? Why are people trashing our candidates. There is only one bad choice and that is OBAMA!

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

If you’re going to get the vapors over people participating in the primary process, instead of letting their betters choose for them, maybe you need a new hobby.

Try knitting.

gekster

Butters like it.

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

…he has consistently exhibited these values.

Scope

I apologize for the Newt misquote. I was only half listening to Fox last night, and only caught the part that I quoted. Very sorry. I expect Newt to shoot from the lip, it is a habit of his. I should have looked it up though. If you add the part that people in NH say that they are not going to let Iowa tell them what to do, does he still mean that he is not going to let the people of Iowa tell him what to do, and is agreeing with the people in NH?

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

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mitt-flips-on-ethics-flops-on-the-campaign-trail-58175482.html

Common_Cents

sheesh, there used to be a shoot birthers on sight policy here, but nothing has been mentioned about this.

There was a front page diary on an unsolicited endorsement of Gingrich by the SC loser a few weeks ago, but not a peep about an open birther.

How is that going to help, again?

Please help me understand.

acat

Not hard to understand after all, eh?

If we accept Jason’s survey results, that 70% of the people currently serving are fine with openly serving gays, that still leaves 30% who are not fine with it… and we’re talking about a particularly hostile, high-stress work environment where unit cohesion is critical.

I have no problem with DADT; as a policy it’s been around longer than the U.S. of A., after all. Go read up on the British Navy circa 1700.

The problem is, integration should be managed by those whose jobs, whose lives depend on it, not by congress, nor the white house, nor some political apparatchik appointee at the DoD.

The politicians – of all sides – are attempting to force changes to a culture that must be rigidly hidebound.

Mew

Scope

do things, it doesn’t guarantee that what he is advocating is the right or correct thing to do. He obviously persuaded Freddie Mac to keep backing home-ownership for low income people that lead to the housing crisis. He also persuaded the Republicans in Congress to vote in favor of Medicare Part D, yet another entitlement program, when Medicare was already headed for insolvency.

tngal

Gingrich 22, Ron Paul, 21, Romney 16….etc. Gingrich dropped a boatload in his favorability as well, while Paul is more popular.

As I’m not a Paul fan I thought this question very telling.

What is more important to you when deciding
who to vote for: a candidate?s ability to beat
Barack Obama in the general election, or their
positions on the issues?
A candidate’s ability to beat Obama……………. 32%
Their issue positions ………………………………… 56%
Not sure …………………………………………………. 11%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1213925.pdf

avagreen

Agree with everything you just said.

Well put.

acat

no particular argument. 67% is about what I’d expect.

I expect to get closer to 75% in favor within 20-30 years; although Gallup didn’t break it out by age anywhere I could find, fear of gays is quite generational. Hatred isn’t, though, but .. well, we still haven’t stamped out racism, have we.

To reiterate, my concern is that we’re changing the armed services faster than we’re changing the external society .. and that doesn’t tend to result in an effective military.

Mew

avagreen

That’s what I like about country-bred and country-grown men/boys. Clint Eastwood types.
They have such self-deprecating humor and put-downs, mixed with a honesty that is breath-taking. Makes for a dangerous opponent who isn’t swayed by silly sophomoric sideswipes by commentators high on cough-syrup or Eastern college-educated preppy types such as on the last debate.

znjs

Again, the attempt to keep gays in the closet seems the more overt “artificial” policy.

As far as who should be in charge of making the decision, fact is it resides with the commander and chief. Even if all the troops wanted it they wouldn’t have the power to force integration. That’s the way it’s set up. DADT was signed into law by a president, and now it has be revoked.

And as far as unit cohesion, that’s a dangerous argument; you can start arguing for a lot of horrible policies with that argument. Maybe unit cohesion could be improved if no one was allowed to discuss their faith and hide any evidence of religious belief. No Bibles, no Korans, or anything of the like. Nothing. See where this goes? Forcing everyone to be alike or hide any differences in the name of “cohesion” is not a step that conservatives should be arguing for.

red_oakster

And I agree with you about Utah being the determining factor. Why were both Carter and Clinton moderate governors? Because they couldn’t be anything else in Georgia and Arkansas.

But I do think Erick has been trying to rationalize a move to Huntsman and I happen to think , he’d be a lot worse than Romney. But all of this grows out of Perry’s failure to launch and the absence of any other conservative in the race who could win. Acat, as you know, I content myself with the real possibility that this will go all the way to the convention and a conservative will jump in late. And as long the results are scattered, it’s a real possibility.

supergirl2911

and irresponsible.

jasondallastx

you’re so enamored with your own perceived cleverness that it’s nauseating having a discussion with you.

And that’s the last time I comment on one of your posts.

avagreen

The Merck question has been addressed over and over……..Don’t where you do your reading. But, here it is again.
From Seventeen things that critics say about Rick Perry:
There are still some who are convinced that Merck contributed more than a paltry $6,000 to Perry. They are simply wrong. Merck gave two checks, one for $1,000 and another for $5,000 to Perry in the 2006 election timeframe (in 2008, they contributed a whopping $2,500). Here is a source to view all of Perry?s contributions: ProPublica. In fact, Merck has only contributed $23,500sgtrong>, not exactly George Soros money. For comparison, from 2000-2006 Merck gave $2,460,000 to state politicians across 40 states.

(And, not even close to the donations made by other entities…..look at the deviant organization, Texas Medical Association, it gave a total $55,000 in 2006 to Gov. Perry, and $25,000 in 2008, and even more in 2010……probably a conspiracy going on there.)

FYI, here is the website that’s mentioned in the above article:
http://projects.propublica.org/alec-contributions/candidates/42

For further education, go this the website I mentioned above:
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

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

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/12/13/the-rick-perry-i-know/

rightinthemiddle

I think history has chosen where people of ideas/plan has taken us..

Debate: No building nations
Result; Building two nations

Debate: read my lips
result: you all know

All this is because there is no conviction along with plan. I want a person who has more conviction and decide the right plan with experts later..

If Obama’s “Hope and Change” drags the country to far left, why not our version of “Hope and Change” drag it back to the center or better still to the right?

If nothing else, she could have Newt or Perry as VP who brings all those experience like Mr. Cheney to the ticket.

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

how to get in touch with the campaign:

We are still looking for volunteers to be on the ground in Iowa for the caucuses on the night of January 3. For more information regarding volunteer opportunities relating to this Strike Force, please e-mail strikeforce@rickperry.org.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

avagreen

I worked/lived in the Andrews, TX area (which is where this dump site is located) when this was a question and prior to the issue being settled.

The town of Andrews was all for this issue and wanted the business. I don’t know what the complaints are about…….if the town/county approved and wanted this in their county, it’s their business. It’s not like they were hog-tied and drug into this agreement.

But, if you want further info, here is an article which answers your questions:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09/24/3394208/perry-critics-say-waste-license.html

And,
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=26652

ihateliberals

The Republican party has been infiltrated with liberals. Just like our country is being destroyed from within so is our conservative party and the worst part is we are sitting back and taking it with out a fight. Mitt Romney is one of the Worst choices we Republicans have had since Bob Dole. Mitt is an admitted Progressive. How much more liberal can you get. He designed Obamacare. He believes in taxing the Rich. My little dead dog is more conservative than he is. The youth of this country have never been taught the values of the Free Market and freedom in general. Through the liberal school system they have been taught that conservatism is mean and against poor people. They have been taught that the government should pay for poor people to have health care, unemployment benefits, and all sorts of programs for the people not that people should take care of themselves. They have not been taught about the constitution or very much about the founding fathers. Just as bad they have not been taught about the USSR, China, North and South Korea. They aren’t allowed to talk about God and what the 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution mean to us. With this kind of and Army against conservatism it does not have a chance to survive.

acat

The guy whose idea for keeping the GOP in control was “increasing the handouts”.

See, if we could get a *conservative-dominated* GOP-led congress, that’d be one thing, but .. I’m expecting the legislature to look more like Texas or Indiana, not Utah… a mixed bag with some good ideas but lots of bad ones.

Mew

acat

You and I have come to know one anothers’ positions pretty well, so can guess pretty well where the other is headed.

I could see Huntsman doing well in a brokered convention, especially if he’s closer to Sen. Bennett (Porker-Utah) than previously mentioned. He could have plenty of gutless D.C. GOP favors to call in.

Mew

avgjo

I don’t think Americans want homosexual people beaten up or denied rights to property or to see their close friends. I was just trying to make the point that I don’t think it ranks very high on the list, and so won’t hurt Perry that much.

avgjo

I don’t think Americans want homosexual people beaten up or denied rights to property or to see their close friends. I was just trying to make the point that I don’t think it ranks very high on the list, and so won’t hurt Perry that much.

acat

There’s also the UCMJ, which is a law unto itself, passed and changeable only by Congress. It cannot be overruled by Executive Order.

I’m not sure why you’re leaping to compare homosexuality to faith – the two issues seem pretty discrete to me.

I also note that you’re still confusing the armed services with a free society. People who take up the service of our country give up a number of their freedoms. That you don’t get this tells me a few things.

Mew

avagreen

Combined with a complete lack of knowledge of what you’re trying to talk about.

But, a lot of wishful thinking and a thinly veiled attempt at smearing a candidate with a lie.

acat

Thank you for giving me the last word.

Mew

avagreen

The “first impressions” that you both have generated doesn’t look good, either.

Just sayin’.

rightinthemiddle

It is either Mitt or Newt? And conservatives have to choose between them? oh man!

Time for Conservative Talk Radio Hosts including Erick to start endorsing conservative candidates or “carry water” for lighter version of Obama thru the election..

Common_Cents

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Discussing strategy with Fox News? Campaign Carl at a defense technology company in Londonderry, N.H., Gingrich noted that New Hampshire and Iowa ? the first two voting states in the nation ? often pick different winners.

New Hampshire voters often say ?I?m not going to let people in Iowa tell me what to do,? the former House speaker said.

avagreen

**
Wished I lived closer.

Scope

my post where I said I hadn’t picked up the whole quote. I can’t watch videos so save your time there. In my follow-up post I asked, and I ask you from your written quote, is he agreeing with the NH voters that he is not going to let the people in Iowa tell him what to do? Why yes, yes he is.

romansdaughter

Yes, it did sound like something he might have said as he does have a tendency to spout off. I never could get the video to work for me so couldn’t hear what he really said.

johninohio

the medical privacy law, you’ll find that this “hospital visitation rights for gays” is a red herring. It doesn’t matter who you are, the patient has to give permission in writing for you to visit or learn anything about their condition or their treatment, including friends and relatives. The only people who can get access to your medical records without your written permission are insurance companies, those in the medical field and agents of the government.

In case you haven’t noticed, this pretty much makes a mockery of the word “privacy” doesn’t it?

As far as gays in the military, sure there have always been gays in the military, and they have always known who to tell and who not to tell, because getting that wrong could cost you your life. DADT was simply an institutionaliziation of that personal policy. Repealing DADT will likely raise the incidence of mysterious off-the-base deaths of gays, and tragic friendly fire mistakes in battle.

Unit cohesion is served by avoiding “us vs them” in the ranks. What do you think will result when gays will indulge in in-your-face demonstrations of their new found freedom in the barracks and on the base? Like touchy-feely in the showers? Or wearing intimate underware in front of the guys? Suggestive comments? Publicly holding hands and kissing/hugging? Pin-ups of guys on the walls? Or having midnight rendezvous in the bunk next to yours?

Will they have separate living quarters the way female soldiers do? They had better!

Get ready for the all-gay military!

Common_Cents

If you can’t verify by posting a quote or video, maybe you shouldn’t post it if you casually heard something.

Now you have a half hearted apology of false information saying you know what is in Gingrich’s head. Oh swami, what are the lottery #s for tomorrow night?

Are you that desperate and intellectually dishonest? Does Iowa determine the nominee? Are you going to tell Perry to quite if he doesn’t win IA? Or tell him IA isn’t the sole factor to being the nominee? Of course any candidate would say the first caucus doesn’t.

If you had bothered to even look at the interview Gingrich says winning in IA actually in not good for candidates in NH.

You should stick to bashing Gingrich for cheating on his wives or something and quit making stuff up. LOL.

JSobieski

If you ask someone who is a big “budget cutter” what they will cut and they don’t have an answer for you, you pretty much know that they will fail in budget cutting.

Having a plan doesn’t guarantee success.

Not having a plan guarantees failure.

Bachman has a “titanium” spine in the land of theory but a “tin foil” spine the land of reality

annie54

as has been stated by Senator Tom Coburn, et al. Newt’s the smartest man in the room. If you don’t believe it, ask Newt.

JSobieski

Is having a patient “indicate” that they “are going to be held accountable” something that you find objectionable?

When did not fulfilling one’s financial responsibilities become conservative?

I’ll bet I can find a Reagan quote where he says something similar.

“GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I?ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance OR you post a bond OR IN SOME WAY YOU INDICATE YOU ARE GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.”

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

Common_Cents

I want the most evil selfish mean SOB we can put in DC.

Seriously folks.

Where did all the nice Republicans get us but deep in the ditch since Gingrich was Speaker.

romansdaughter

Record counts for me too.

Scope

which has been reflected in most of your posts. The problem with Gingrich is that he has proven to be the most evil, selfish, SOB when he was the Speaker, and he managed to throw his own colleagues under the bus using that tactic, sometimes simply by sending them out on a task, and never bothering to tell them he already changed his mind, and had a different idea before the end of the day. Thy guy is spastic, and that is never a quality that is desirable for someone with his finger on the red button.

avagreen

If he was giving a “one-note” message, he’d be criticized for that.

Look, Perry and his team have a far more professional view of how to run a campaign (hasn’t lost one, yet) than an amateur like you or me. They start slow, study the field, research what will work, and than go for it.

This isn’t some sort of haphazard willy-nilly approach. This is the way Perry campaigns. The result? He’s climbing in the polls, the others are going down in the polls. This is typical Perry-style.

The only, ONLY thing that held him back initally wasn’t the “paper bag” I saw mentioned in an earlier post…….it was his back surgery, still an ACTING governor of one of the largest states in the U.S., and fighting wildfires (look up retire05 and gracie’s excellent posts on this…….that is IF you want to know the facts).

If you want, I can look up their posts and let you read them.

Any other points you’d like to be covered?

JSobieski

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, hospitals are “mandated” to provide emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. This law was passed in 1986. Unforgiveable action of big governmentby President Reagan?

In 1986, COBRA was passed. It is a “mandate” on employers that they must allow ex-employees to stay on their health plans even though they are no longer employed.Unforgiveable action of big governmentby President Reagan?

So now that we have established that to evaluate what mandates are good, what mandates are bad, and what mandates are merely so-so, we need to actually look at what is being mandated.

Newt’s version of the mandate is satified by: IN SOME WAY YOU INDICATE YOU ARE GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

People through around words like “cuts”, “amnesty” and “mandate” as if these words can’t have a wide range of different meanings in different contexts. Precision matters.

Common_Cents

then I’m all for it.

I could give a crap about DC elite insiders feelings.

Again, tell me Scope. how has DC succeeded for America since Gingrich left?

hastert?
pelosi?
boehner?

They did wonders now didn’t they after they got rid of the mean Gingrich.

JSobieski

2 observations:
(1) Don’t we want the opposite of Pelosi?
(2) Isn’t it interesting how many people are recently quoting Coburn who a month or two ago were chastising him for being a RINO, sellout, etc?

I am a big fan of Coburn, so I take what he says seriously. However, a lot of people who don’t really respect the guy seem to be quoting him now.

http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

I have full access under the hood there too, “Lookitup.”

Time to unpimp… ze… auto…

bzip

Don’t you think it is worse that Newt says great things about FDR, sits on the couch with Pelosi pushing a liberal agenda and appears to support or had supported many issues that aren’t exactly conservative.

We seem to have pattern: Coburn – no on Newt; Rep Peter King – no on Newt; Beck and Savage – no on Newt; Rand Paul would rather have Romney over Newt; Ken Cuccinelli draws serious concerns with Newt.

Newt Gingrich is NOT a Conservative [Episode 678] – He Loves FDR
http://youtu.be/LjVfEesPNwc

ffc99

Beck and Savage are clowns. Who cares what they think? And you’d likely be screaming about how big of a RINO Peter King (who’s also a well known terrorist sympathizer) is if he wasn’t saying something bad about Newt.

JSobieski

You miss my point. I am not saying that Newt is the most conservative person in the race. However, when I see logic that consists of he praised FDR or used the word “mandate” in discussing healthcare as negatives, I am going to stick up for some semblance of sanity.

Newt does however have the most impressive conservative achievements in DC.

The guy is a total wild card high Beta stock—you could make a fortune or lose it all.

Its weird how I acknowledge all of his flaws (which is why he is NOT my #1 pick), but his detractors are unable to acknowledge any of his accomplishments.

A lot of lefty statism is evidence in one simply stat—government spending as a percentage of GDP

Refresh my memory on the direction of that statistic during Newt’s term as speaker, an event brought about by Newt more than anyone else (people thought he was “dreaming” when he talked about a R revolution).

Newt says less conservative things than Bachmann, but accomplishes more conservative things than Bachmann.

I want results. THe country needs results. Who has the best track record of achievement in the context of an active leftist opponent?

Huntsman and Perry are governors in red states and did great jobs.
Romney seems to have been on retreat most of the time.
Bachmann has accomplished nothing and proposed nothing.
RIck is a great social conservative who was far weaker on spending than Newt

Newt delt with the national media and a crafty president.

Newt isn’t going to win, but he is needed to take out Romney’s inevitability. Perry has no chance without Newt…at least for a while.

paladin1

with Huntsman that cause conservatives much concern, both social and fiscal:

Supported cap and trade:

http://www.grist.org/election-2012/2011-05-12-jon-huntsman-now-disses-cap-and-trade-like-other-republicans

Not only supported the stimulus but thought it was not big enough and supported the payroll tax cut:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/huntsman-thought-obamas-stimulus-plan-wasnt-big-enough/

Civil unions/gay marriage (read mainstream as moderates/liberals, NOT evangelicals):

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/huntsmans-positions-on-gay-rights-are-within-the-g-o-p-mainstream/

Health care and a basic overview of his positions:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=911

And by the way, he was not at the Iowa debate lastr week either; his poll numbers were too low.

znjs

I’ll take a look later when I have more time.

znjs

If your point is “integration should be managed by those whose jobs, whose lives depend on it”, whether the change comes from congress alone, or congress and the president, it’s not being made by those within the army. That is the system. Those inside the army don’t get a vote (except obviously they can vote for their representatives). The fact is that these decisions aren’t made by those within the army.

I used faith as an example because whenever I say “blacks” people complain that blacks can’t hide that they’re black, while gays can hide that they’re gay if they want to. And the fact that solders give up some of their freedoms while serving doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or fair to force them to give up more of them then are absolutely needed.

acat

The government and the armed services are separate from society at large. The armed services serve and are shaped by the government, but … there are boundaries. Specifically, the government says “jump” and the generals say “we have a plan for that”.

Consider Truman’s order to integrate the black units into the regular army, or the various Reagan, Bush, and Clinton changes to allow women in non-combat roles, the decision was political, the implementation was pure DoD.

The reality, at this point, is that Obama has told the generals to prepare a plan, but until Congress votes through some changes to the UCMJ, it’ll be on file next to the plan to invade Canada.

While I don’t have a problem with gays serving, openly or quietly, I do have a problem with liberals pushing changes so fast that they render the armed services less capable, especially when I can see several confrontations we’ll need to have full availability for on the horizon.

Mew

romansdaughter

Utah isn’t that tiny.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…then what is appealing about an open convention full of smoky rooms? Pot, meet kettle.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

As neither one of them might make the final cut, as Newt has plenty of time to show off his unscrupulous and arrogant side and Romney looks like he’s not going be able to finish twelve rounds against Rick Perry.

http://www.tinfoilhelicopter.com lunaticrex

And you may say it is specious all you like, I care not. I served this great nation for over 23 years on active duty. Now, my brothers-in-arms and I did not discuss this issue much if at all most of the time, because I retired 19 days before BO took office. So there had been no real consideration of whether to repeal DADT at that point. What I CAN tell you is that neither myself, nor anyone I knew on active duty, was supportive of openly gay people serving (please note I served during the fight over implementing DADT, and we were concerned what the new law might bring). There are manifold reasons (non-specious ones) we would never want to serve with openly gay people. The reasons didn’t have to do with moral or religious objections, at least in most cases. People had those thoughts, but we never got that far. Didn’t need to.

Because you see, we know our history. It was right both other times in memory that the military was used as a social experiment, those being the integration first of blacks into combat positions, and more recently, females. It was right, but it wasn’t easy. The reasons military people would prefer not to integrate homosexuals, whether you or any of your progressive friends want to accept it, is that it makes no sense from a military effectiveness perspective.

Start with this one: All military installations now require either unisex latrines (all personnel using the same facilities simultaneously), or four distinct latrines, one for each ‘sex’ or sexual preference. Deny this if you wish, but you are wrong to do so.

Anecdotal, maybe. But my sample size is huge, larger than Congress. And this is a relatively simple issue to resolve. There are countless more important and more difficult ones.

‘Most’ do NOT want the nightmare of integration with homosexuals. Believe it or not, and I’m sure you won’t, but most military personnel are not ‘homophobic’ (whatever that means – I’m not scared of Nathan Lane). We simply understand at ground level what it will take.

One final note in this diatribe: You seem to have very many military friends, inasmuch as you can say “most” military people. Most is a big word. Check the DoD personnel roster. You personally know more people than live in Montana – uniformed military personnel. That is a big circle of friends.

I was just about to cancel this comment due to its being off-topic. Then it occurred to me that it is at least tangentially related to Erick’s piece. I believe the repeal of DADT is one of the worst things that’s been forced down the nation’s throat in the past 3 years. I do not say this due merely to tradition; the military is nothing if not flexible. We adapt, overcome. But this is, with apologies, a bridge too far. This is just one policy among many which continue to show how critical it is that we elect not to elect BO again. Under any circumstances.

cbartlett

Do you think if Perry places in the top 2 or 3 in Iowa, the media (all of them, including Fox) will have to quit ignoring him?

cbartlett

BUT – unfortunately, we here at RS are not the only ones voting. I am way more concerned about the 54% of this country that is NOT paying attention. But, as we say in the public involvement portion of our business, “they can all vote and breed”. If we can’t get the media to at least quit ignoring Perry, how on earth will these people even know that he IS a contrast to the Newt/Mitt model? I guess it will take lots and lots of money for ads?? Sigh.

lghman

Remember that Conservative who we often refer to fondly as “the great communicator”?

So, you don’t have me sold on the idea speeches and debate performance are unimportant even though relatively little of a president’s time may be spent in their performance. More important though, is the ability to do the public and behind-the-scenes “arm twisting’” to necessary to move an administration’s agenda forward. Part of this arm twisting is speechifying and debating. Remember LBJ was the modern master of arm twisting as POTUS. Granted, arm twisting LBJ style had its seamier side as well, but still speechifying and debate are part of it.

Let’s not forget exercise of the “bully pulpit” either. Recent Republican leaders seem to have been reluctant to make significant use of this tool.

Common_Cents

nt

cbartlett

This may have been posted before – not sure – been reading for a long time now. My father-in-law just emailed this to me. Looks like a pretty good summary of Gingrich past issues. The Dems could certainly use this material. Just saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Jeey4otKc

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

Gary Busey

cbartlett

I posted this link above – a Ron Paul commercial about Gingrich. Very interesting compilation of past issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5Jeey4otKc

cbartlett

And I think the Obama group and the media are afraid of having to run against Perry. That is why they are choosing to ignore him. Obama hates Perry – he has been dumping on Texas since day one. Perry has been figting with him on border control issues, EPA rules, drilling in the Gulf and, of course, the complete idiocy known as Obamacare for years now. Perry would eat BHO alive in a debate – I don’t care how he has performed in these wimpy circus debates. One-on-one with BHO without his teleprompter would be very entertaining! We just need to get him through these primaries and on that stage!

cbartlett

I’ve heard that the Bushes very strongly supported Kay Bailey Hutchison in the last Governor election here and were more than a little disappointed that she didn’t win against Perry. IMHO she came across as too much “big Washington” for most people. Not sure what the Bushes would say as far as this race is concerned. I think any good Republican like them will be Anybody But Obama in the November race. But it might be better if they just don’t say anything now – they might tend to be a little “elitist”??

cbartlett

I’ve heard that the Bushes very strongly supported Kay Bailey Hutchison in the last Governor election here and were more than a little disappointed that she didn’t win against Perry. IMHO she came across as too much “big Washington” for most people. Not sure what the Bushes would say as far as this race is concerned. I think any good Republican like them will be Anybody But Obama in the November race. But it might be better if they just don’t say anything now – they might tend to be a little “elitist”??

Scope

of getting DeMint drafted as the nominee in a brokered convention? It was a bad bad idea in the first post, and it is just as bad an idea now. DeMint already said he is not interested. Get over it already.

cbartlett

EVERYONE should go look at this!

katem

I was referring not to his debate errors but rather what Perry communicated to voters through the debates — namely that he had not prepared to be a presidential candidate before deciding to run. This is unusual as most candidates spend months and often years learning national and international issues and developing policy proposals. I’m not positive but I think Perry had ruled out a run for president earlier in the year and then was persuaded during the summer to get into the race. It took weeks for him to put forth economic and energy plans and by then he had already stumbled in a couple of debates. Maybe he can stage something of a comeback in Iowa but many people think it’s too late for him to get much further than that. Perry does not attract independent voters the way Huntsman and Romney can. And, fairly or not, he reminds a lot of voters too much of George W. Bush, who is still unpopular.

arthurjake

I did not decide on that issue. As for 70 percent there are ways to fudge numbers when surveying people. I tested equipment for the Army for a while and I know when higher ups already have made up there mind on what they want the way questions are asked reflect on that. As for the 70 percent that number drops dramatically anyway when people in combat arms are being surveyed. I can think of at least a half dozen different problems off of the top of my head that will result in this getting forced down our throats.

arthurjake

There has already been an MP running around in a dress in his off time in the town surrounding my post. He got told he couldnt wear the dress anymore but he is to damn dense to know saying things like “I want to f… you in the a..” to just returned infantrymen is not a bright thing to do. If your wondering no he was not shut up when politely asked. The guy he was bothering had self control and there was no incident. I guess it is ok for him to sexually harass his peers. It will be a hate crime though when some angry and drunk just returned home infantryman gives him a punch in the mouth to shut him up.

I can not see how they can not have separate living quarters. I would not want to share a room with that above mentioned soldier if I was in his unit. It will have to be split up for the same reasons men and women are split up. Also you cant stick them together for the same reason you can not put men and women together if they were attracted to each other. So I guess if you dont want a roommate in the barracks better just say your gay or bisexual.

dpmapper

… although, is Utah’s GOP really that much more conservative than Texas’s? Their most prominent politicians until recently were Hatch and Bennett, who are basically the definition of “establishment”.

And on a lot of things, a GOP congress is enough. You’re not going to get cap and trade through, for instance.

Finally, you’re not paying enough attention to what Huntsman is actually proposing. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, lowering tax rates, anti-ethanol… there’s a lot to like.

barleycorn

I am painfully aware that we have all sinned and that is why I believe the statement “Rick Perry is a moral man. Newt Gingrich is not.” is corny at best.

Unless the poster knows both men very well he/she has no real idea about their comparative morality.

All we really know is that Perry is still married to his first wife while Gingrich is decidedly not. While that one metric is very much in Perry’s favor it does not in and of itself mean Perry is more moral than Gingrich.

barleycorn

My purpose was not to say “Hey look King David sinned and everything turned out great so we should elect Newt Gingrich.”

My purpose was to show that even a good man can commit a grievous sin.

Bottom line, Newt Gingrich, myself, and all the anonymous posters here and elsewhere who are tut-tutting about Gingrich will all have to face the Maker one day and we all will be found to have fallen far short.

barleycorn

The point remains that King David did a very naughty thing.

westcoastpatriette

(nt)

elayman

He wasn’t at the Iowa/ABC debate was one of the two I referenced. Unfortunately for him a 12/12 NBC/WSJ (?) poll that has him at 5% was released a matter of days late.

When discussing with my friends the Repubican candidates, they ask me if I prefer Romney or Gingrich. I say what about Huntsman. They say, yea, he would be the best man for President but has no chance, he is too low in the polls. I think many people feel this way and are dismissing his chances. If Governor Huntsman can get some traction and it becomes a Gingrich-Huntsman contest there will be a huge bandwagon effect and he will probably move to the top.

acat

is that much more conservative than the Texas statehouse. Sure, the same people vote ‘em in, but .. there’s a tendency to send guys to D.C. to “bring home the bacon” that does not apply in local districts.

What Huntsman *says* is pretty good. I’m not thrilled to give up my mortgage interest deduction, that’s going to keep demand for houses down, and mean I’ll have to wait for inflation to get me back to zero, but .. I’d be willing to live with it. If he wins the nomination, fine.

The problem is, he’s made a number of strange moves … running to the center to win the nomination has never worked, for instance … that make me wonder whether what he *says* is just campaign fodder.

Mew

paladin1

is his stance that he supports the stimulus and that it should have been larger. If the results of the Obama train wreck have not destroyed enough of the economy, then Huntsman is definitely the man to finish it off. Then there is his support of the payroll tax cut. With SS teetering on collapse in just a few years, and no one with the guts to try to fix it except Governor Perry, why would we want to hasten the demise of that program even more so? If it is funded from the General Fund then we have only succeeded in cutting off the foot of the blanket to sew it to the top. The amount of money needed is the same no matter where it comes from.

These issues may not eliminate him from consideration by you but it has surely been enough to eliminate him from consideration by the overall group of primary voters, especially the conservatives. His funding (except his ability to self-fund if necessary) is nonexistent as is his poll numbers. He ignored conservatives at the beginning, has held semi-Obama-like opinions in stimulus and SS, and is a dead man walking to conservative voters.

I note in your reply that you did not address any of the information I sent except the debate attendance. Did you look at it and is it still not a problem for you if you did?

paladin1

Are you ok with that too?

conservativemusician

Latest Perry post from H/A today:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/14/perry-hits-the-road/

Scroll down in the article and they have a link for the latest American Research Group poll.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/

It does appear that Perry is building some momentum now, so I really hope it is not too late for him to make up enough ground to finish in 2nd or 3rd in IA. His ads as well as his excellent debate performance last weekend are garnering a lot of attention from folks on other blogs who had originally written him off but are now reconsidering him.

Scope

he sent to Obama saying something to the effect that he was a great leader. That was when he was serving as China’s ambassador as an appointee by Obama. If he thought that Obama was a great leader, would he try to emulate him if he had his job?

earlgrey

I don’t get the joke?

znjs

Accidentally got the name wrong when talking about how he’s doing well in one of their polls.

elayman

t some point this becomes a branding or marketing problem.

He isn?t for cap and trade or another other massive intervention in this economy (just like Gingrich and Romney). In 2011 Huntsman said, ?Cap-and-trade ideas aren?t working; it hasn?t worked, and our economy?s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn?t the moment.? Not only that, but his suggestion that we drill from Alberta oil sands actually creates significantly more in the way of greenhouse gases than does producing conventional oil from drilling.

I am at work and don’t have time to address the budget issues. Sorry. Although I believe the stimulus funds he was holding out for were some kind of capital start up or business tax break, not the handout pork it ended up to be.

rwgrammy

is still the most logical choice.

znjs

You are correct sir. That certainly would be suicide.

Common_Cents

No excuses coming out of the Perry campaign about his back. That would have done him in. He took the hits on poor performance like a man. Any excuses and he woulda been raked over the coals as unfit.

dpmapper

You and I are different, I guess. My take is that perceptions – “center” vs “right” – are malleable and subjective. (Although it’s clear he’s less ideological than, say, Bachmann.) Policy papers are less so.

I definitely grant you that it’s not the strategy I would have chosen. But if the “Make noises so that the media think I’m a centrist, but put out conservative policy positions that are too complicated for the talking heads to analyze and realize that they’re pretty conservative, and then wait for some GOP voters to come around to them and everyone else in the field to implode” tactic works, you’ll have to tip your cap.

trutexan

What is reality is that most States vote to make it a law that marriage is between one man and one woman. However, if the federal government makes it OK for gays to openly serve, then two servicemen men can get married in MA or CA. Then it’s OK for them to go to the Personnel Office and apply for Joined Spouse assignments. Nobody can say “no” now. So they both get assigned to a base in Texas. Are they only married in MA and not married in Texas? Or are they only married when a federal installation and not married while off base? So yes, lifting DADT absolutely is using the military for a social experiment and forcing the States to accept gay couples.

And you are also correct regarding the bogus survey. The AF may have been OK with it but not the other services with boots on the ground. I work for the DoD and I haven’t found anyone who is not gay who supported it.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

3 Weeks And Counting. Are We In a Suicide Pact?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL