nicely done, Ben, nicely done …

That’s a winner right there.

Look what that eventually did for him…

All nasty barbs have had an affect to be sure but we have to get serious now about issues not percieved personal misdeeds and charachter flaws, which are most irrelavant anyway.

When Bush Sr made his famous “no more new taxes” and then went back on it, the conservatives wet their pants and voted third party thus bringing about Slick Willie and 8 years of Democrat controlled WH. Boy did we teach GHW Bush a lesson.

It is this low rent reasoning that will bring about ANOTHER well reasoned and thought out GHW BUsh lesson unless we get serious, which too many are not. We have to decide if there is anyting that Romney has done that will keep him from beating Obama. The same for Newt. THAT is the question and nothing else.

ALl this other crap is just that – crap and meaningless.

..

Makes obvious sense in the hindsight. Duh.

Most people don’t know jack about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and what they believe or what their values are. It is about time some of you knot heads do just a little homework so you don’t sound quite as stupid in the future. www.lds.org and www.mormon.org.

And let’s not turn this into a meaningless, nonsense debate about theology and who is right and who is wrong.

…Ron Paul attracts a lot of young, rabid conservatives, libertarians, and independents. No candidate wants to alienate them as long as Paul doesn’t have a real shot at the nomination. If he starts to threaten, then we will see the charges start flying (911 truther, anti-Semite, etc.).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

Believe it or not, there are plenty of us who welcome the vetting process for Ron Paul.

I’m socially and fiscally conservative, and up until I came across Paul four years ago, I hadn’t found a candidate I could support on either front. I became convinced he was right for this country by doing my own homework, and I think that’s how other people may be persuaded, too.

Re: the charge of Paul being anti-semitic or believing that 9/11 was an inside job, I have found no compelling case nor evidence that he is either. There may be some vocal supporters who are, but that’s not most of us by a long shot. The beauty of the freedom movement is that it brings together people of many persuasions together on issues that we can agree on.

So bring on the vetting of Dr. Paul. He isn’t perfect and I don’t agree with every vote he’s made, but the questioning process is healthy and essential for determining what exactly you believe and who you can support in good conscience.

that what a typical conservative would deem as a weakness, true libertarians regard as being consistent with the mantra. Are you going to say he is an isolationist?? Libertarians ARE isolationists. They believe that we shouldn’t meddle in other countries matters and just take care of ourselves. Are you going to say he all but called U.S. at fault for 9/11. Libertarians believe that by going into Iraq (Bush I) and continuing to intervene in the middle east, the U.S. indirectly is at fault.

Right or wrong (I lean toward wrong) there isn’t a whole lot that you can bring up to them that would steer them AWAY from Paul. He is as consistent inside the Libertarian mantra as you can possibly get…and his supporters love him for it. The only reason they align with the GOP is because both believe in a limited government. Other than that, the glaring differences would have driven them into a third party a LONG time ago.

Paul just recently said that Israel was to blame for all the problems in the Middle East…is that considered vetting? Oh…sshh…don’t tell Glenn Beck…he just may endorse him..lol.

The media has been whining about the crop of Republican candidates ever since the founding of the Republican Party.

They laugh and poke fun at Republicans. Yet, in 2007, there were a bunch of wacko running for president and none of them were Republicans. You had an untested newbie who couldn’t remember how many states there were and whose “autobiography” was ghost-written by Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist who had spent time on the FBI’s most wanted list. You had a first-time presidential candidate who cried when she lost the Iowa caucus. You had a guy who made a sex-tape with his pregnant mistress WHILE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. And you have a various assortment of other wackos all of whom had one thing in common: none of them were fit to be president.

But the media never stopped heaping praise on how intelligent, fun, cool, and creative they were.

I would ask people to please stop paying attention to TV and the LSM. Please fact-check everything you read in the Times, Time magazine, and Newsweek, and then bias-check it to make sure that they give Democrats the same ration of crap that they are giving the Republicans.

…because the type/profundity of alleged-imperfection must be weighed.

Compare/contrast Perry’s [presumed] blank-stare with the other stated-faults.

This is a PG site. Do not use that language here.

NT

…and, thus, the theme of nix’ing Romney as a priority, this is what must emerge ASAP after the first of the year.

and pretty quickly at that.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9188-how-speaker-newt-gingrich-betrayed-the-republican-revolution

if it doesn’t apply to you.

If you’re not acting like a 3 year old, then he’s not talking about you.

If you are…..

…but this shtick you’ve developed of whining at Erick is starting to get boring.

Intelligent, informed, dispassionate criticism is great. Emotionalism and name-calling is not.

If the candidates remained issues-oriented [recognizing the Jeffersonian reference], there would be no grist for tangential articles. Regardless of whether the focus is overt [Romney] or covert [The Newt], the carping is notable. Perhaps I don’t mind it ["a pox on both your houses"] because I’d love to see Perry benefit [rising like a phoenix from the morass].

But he’s the smartest man in the world, tasked to lead the nation in a time of crisis, fated to stop the seas from rising, the ice caps from melting, the unions from failing…..

He’s not an idiot. He’s…….ok. He’s an idiot.

He turned the Marine Corps into the “Marine Corpse”.

But the media’s got his back so it doesn’t matter.

…as per Tom Hanks.

Seriously, the overarching message that must constantly be kept in-mind, particularly when forcing one’s self to listen to PMSNBC, is to maintain a distinction between objectivity and “cheering” when assessing the evolution of this [or any other] competition.

So, EE is well-equipped to handle the presumed onslaught for, if nothing else, discussing how he reacted has served to amplify prior observations.

But there’s a diff btwn whining and complaining.

Whining is complaining when it makes no difference.

Saying that someone like Gingrich is unelectable is not whining. It is just pointing out a fact that is borne out by several polls.

It’s like saying Ron Paul will never be president. That’s not whining. It’s just a fact.

EE has biases. You can see them when he posts.

…so here is the relevant hyperlink.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2011/12/misundertanding-problem.html

*

This, surprisingly, is in the text:

“…Perry is somehow still operating under the delusion that he is a candidate.”

*

This is the $-quote:

“What the American people want now, is a man of principle, and guts, who WILL reverse the current collision course with the dumpster we’re on, and roll back the idiotic excesses of the current congress and administration…

“…but not someone so radical that they’re going to try to end social security (or for that matter change it in any meaningful way) or put in a flat tax or… well, anything radical or transformative at all really.”

*

This is the rather cryptic conclusion:

“They want the guy who will put things back to the way they were around 1992 or so; just, you know, winning this time.

“Unfortunately for the RNC… that guy isn’t running.”

Then we have Mr. Limbaugh who has become all but a moderate, trying to bolster BOTH WILLARD and Newt.

Have you actually listened to Rush’s program or are you just venting? Rush has been doing nothing of the kind. In fact, I hear people complaining about Rush because of how much he has criticized Romney. He’s been a little more supportive of Newt, but killed him for his comments about Romney and Bain. The only thing he’s done that could be considered “moderate” is insist that all of the candidates are better than Obama. I can’t speak for Hannity because, well, he’s intolerable. But if you want to go after squishy talk show guys look no further than Medved. To include Rush in this rant is absurd.

He needs to change his voters card to “Moderate”.
Hannity does not back conservatives in this primary race.
If he did he would back Perry or Santorium.

Hannity is friends with Cain and gave Herb a platform, even though
Herb was a disaster.

I diifer on your view of Rush. He does not support Romney.
He leans to Newt but says he backs no one. He was a Cain
apologist and I stopped listening for awhile until the Cain Train derailed.

Guys like Rush and Hannity just don’t understand Perry or Texans in general.
Most of the country thinks Texas is just “lucky”…..

Well wouldn’t it make sense to let Perry have 4 years of trying a Texas size
solution for the US? Obama’s Marxist Vision has failed. Only a true conservative non-politically correct President can get America working again.

An Obama “light” candidate won’t cut it.

But I’m listening to Rush right now and he’s all but saying “Please vote for anyone but Newt and Mitt.”

Did WaPo publish it?

…which I have also articulated on RS; indeed, if memory serves, I was going to dedicate my diary [once the opportunity were to emerge] to vetting the conservative-media, to dig into what might be motivating them.

Essentially, Rush is constantly supportive generically of all Republicans; he has opined that he is reticent to endorse because then he would feel the compulsion to support/defend anything/everything the chosen candidate might say/do.

Hannity dummys-down for the masses, repeating messages dependably; he’s not truly the “next step in the process.” [Remember, however, how vigorously he supported Perry last year.]

Medved is a problem, recalling his support for amnesty; I cross-examined him on this topic [along with other visiting Radio-hosts from Salem Communications] in the fall of 2010 and, to-a-man, they “candidly” claimed this was the sole salvation of the GOP. [Go figure.]

In any case, do not fear. As long as people such as EE help the electorate pare-away the problems [here, Mitt], the PROCESS will be healthy!

Rick Perry yesterday and it was great. Perry had all but lost me due to his stum
bling and mumbling and the canned answers I have heard him give. If I hear the term ” boots on the ground” one more time from him I will scream, Hannity really let him shine though, it definetly turned my head.
I also heard Rush give a very powerful speech against Romney and his need to campaign more to the right. He has attacked Krauthammer and Rove, I think he has really stood up to the establishment Republicans.
Now Ann Coulter…that is an entirely different story. She is killing me, I feel like I have been dooped for years by this woman.

Six months ago, I thought he was the best choice to fix our economy, and I still do.

Six months ago, I thought he was the best choice to reassure Independent and swing voters that he is solid and stable enough to be trusted with the Executive Branch, and I still do.

Some folks want to nominate someone who can make an ideological case against liberalism. My view is that if Romney can fix the economy after Obama failed, that will show that the economy is best not left in the hands of liberals. And that is the best case we could make against liberalism.

Nothing succeeds like success.

Hi, I Rick Perry.

You know my opponents, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich?

Yeeeaahhh…..I’m not either of those guys.

Vote for me.

I approve this message.

Earlier thread…I made the same point. However, Romney will capitulate to the Liberals on everything to stay in office. Go look up his record on the Big Dig. The man needs a spine…and right now…he’s just waffling around without one,.

sorry, this was intended for another thread. feel free to delete, mods.

sorry, this was intended for another thread. feel free to delete, mods.

is because we be so smart.

All joking aside, though, the support for Perry is not contrived by conniving moderators or front page writers. It is a natural conclusion to draw if you have intelligently vetted all of ‘em.

(Also like the other Rick.) But I certainly do not blindly hero worship the guy. He’s the best of a mediocre lot, but I think he understands better than any of the others the fundamental issues facing this country.

And the comparison to GWB is a little weak. Other than being Texas governors, they are not the same. I had qualms about Bush as far back as 1998. I went so far as to support McCain because I actually thought he was the more conservative candidate. Whoops But even if I was wrong about Bush vis a vis McCain, I was right to worry about his conservative credentials. I don’t have anywhere near the same concerns with Perry.

for everyone but Perry. We get it !

There is no hero worship. The admiration that some of hold for Rick Perry is based on his record. When GWB burst on the scene, no one was talking about how he had managed to increase the number of jobs in Texas, reduce the Texas budget to WWII levels, and get certain conservative issues legislated on a state level.

I can give you article after article where those who watch finances and the nations economic indicators, and most economists talk about how well Texas is doing in a down economy. There is a reason for that; leadership that knows when to lead and when to get out of the way of the free market.

I will not dismiss Newt Gingrich’s leadership (although he did have times where he seemed to wander off the farm) but his day has come and passed. We are now in an era where a Marxist has been elected to the highest office of the land, and the damage done will have to have a strong hand to slam on the breaks from the progressive march.

Here is a question for you: if Newt Gingrich wanted to be POTUS, why did he wait until now to run? Why didn’t he run in 2000, or 2004? Why didn’t he run when he was Speaker? Can you say, with certainty, that Newt will not have another Pelosi/couch moment if elected? I CAN say that about Rick Perry who was more conservative as a Democrat than Mitt Romney is now after changing his mind about issues in 2007 for political expendiency.

…to equate Perry with “W”!

Did Bush-’43 ever write a tome [before/after his double-term] comparable to “Fed Up!”???

EE does not have a slant on Rick Perry…some of the bloggers on this site do. That is fact. EE has not endorse anyone.

Don’t even go there concerning Perry and Bush. The only thing they have in common is GWB did have some of his upbringing in the same part of Texas…THAT’S IT. GWB…was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, went to Harvard and Yale, owned a baseball team, was in the oil business. He was and is rich. GWB also finished what Daddy Bush did not…Sadaam Hussein. Today, I don’t know what the truth is about Iraq…I do know he was right concerning Afghanistan.
GWB used the phrase Compassionate Conservative…but it was code for “let’s spend money”. He did not use his veto pen and that was another problem. He never cautioned Congress to “stop spending…and the Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors.

Perry on the other hand, grew up poor…dirt poor. We all know his story concerning tenant farmer’s child and not having store bought clothes. Rick Perry volunteered for the Air Force and served his country for five years. Rick Perry did not go to an expensive college in the NE US…he went to Texas A&M. Rick Perry believes in “thrift”. If you don’t have the money…you can’t have it.

He is not a rich man by a politician’s standards and he does have humility. I have yet to see his Texas swagger…but I have seen it with Bush.

See, Tomatin…Perry can feel and see what every tier of society feels…because he has been there, excepting the very rich. He knows what it is to be poor. His wife worked to help support his family. He is middle class America. GWB…Not So Much.

And again you show you have no clue as to politics, or opinion writing.
Keep telling yourself you do. I’m sure you can convince yourself someday.

…your observation, today, befits the general model that I’ve promoted.

Once The Newt eliminates Mitt, then he can become targeted.

Again, it’s not unreasonable to hope that the Family-Coalition endorsement can go to Perry after tomorrow’s debate [recalling that they had been reticent to support any one person, as recently as a fortnight ago].

Add the latest polling [Rick 13, Bachmann 10, Santorum 7...if memory serves] and it is possible that Rick wins over The Newt and Paul…in Iowa.

Then conjure the sandwich-job on Mitt in NH [with The Newt and Huntsman assisting].

Next, conjure a SC event with Perry as the lone true-Conservative dominating The Newt…and Mitt not making it past Florida [after a brief Nevada foray].

We could have our nominee by Ground Hog’s Day!

[And we will have the ongoing input of EE to thank [dominant, particularly when compared with others of comparable repute], for having facilitated the serial recognitions that have been needed, during the past half-year].

And may I note in passing that nobody ever seems to ask Erick – or any of the rest of us, really – if he/we want to take up residence inside their heads? It’s very rude, being forced to be the absolute center of someone else’s wretched, meaningless life.

Sheesh. And shoo.

remember that, in ’68, Johnson actually beat McCarthy in NH…but not by the anticipated margin?

I would think that Mitt not winning by at least double-digits could help sink him.

.

There is a legal distinction between state mandate and federal mandate.

Romneycare is still a bad idea. It is a move away from free markets.

The “it’s not illegal” defense isn’t relevant when the questions are:

What about Romneycare is good?

What did Romney do to make Romneycare better? (or did he just sign a D bill)

Everybody understands the difference between state level vs. federal level, but guess what—increased bureaucracy and regulation is bad at both the state level and the federal level