I have to disagree about Bachmann. I never do like her performance. I say performance,because that is what it is. As a woman I am harder on the women. I want to see more sophistication in the soul. She tried and I guess she had some effect but there is no doubt in my mind that the country needs the savvy and the brains of Newt Gingrich. He is realistic and knows the way of the world. He will surround himself with bulldogs that can straighten out this mess we’re in. Niki Haley is wrong to endorse Romney. She dropped in my eyes with that endorsement. He is a yes man and that is the last thing we need.
I thought Ron Paul was senile. I always agree with Santorum.
I believe Newt had a great night. Anytime you spend that much time in Washington in that responsible of a position,you will not please everyone. He can get it done. I wonder about Ron Paul’s supporters.If there are that many Ron Paul supporters in Iowa, I wonder about Iowa. How is Ron Paul going to strike 1 trillion dollars off the budget? He has not given any explanation and he would be to the left of Obama in foreign policy. Romney says nothing. He deflects questions with rhetoric.

Canadian crude to the “Houston Refinery Complex”??????

Oh puhleeze, as only one medium sized refinery in Houston has the ability to very heavy crude, Lyondell. I guess he means the offices of refiners in Houston. The pipeline terminates exactly where it needs to, Nederland, TX where it can the be transferred to pipelines traveling to two (out of 4) of the very heavy crude refining centers, Port Arthur, TX and Lake Charles, LA where it can kick Venezuelan imports to the curb.

Perry had already stated that it replaces Venezuelan crude

Another “Big Idea” like a pile of cow flop on the dining room table.

Newt is unquestionably part of Washington Establishment which includes both Dems+Reps. But Newt’s DNA is saturated with rebellion. But it’s also saturated with a drive to know and to be correct. Obviously, he’s not always correct, but he also can listen and observe when the People’s righteous indignation speaks out. He can correct his course despite the impression of arrogance he gives. Where Romney might cave-in, Gingrich will fight until he figures out a way to acheive the principle and the right course.

There is concern about Newt building a devoted team to keep him on the tracks that he won’t estrange and undermine with his view of his correctness. He need relationships with people that are separated from him and that will hold him accountable. It seems he will nearly always lose confidence of those who work with him and get tired of his taking them for granted and being dismissive. This is speculative however, but consistent with what we see from the outside. Maybe this is his fatal flaw.

Okay, I’ll say that last night was the first time I’d actually seen Romney display any kind of animation to speak of, and I thought that was a good thing.

But good looks? You think good looks will help him in the general? Against the left and Obama? You think that’s what will draw people to him?

I’m a female, and there’s next to nothing about Romney that I find attractive. Then again, I’m the kind of female who doesn’t buy into evaluating people on the basis of superficial elements, like “good looks”. I look more at character, substance, demeanor, how they respond to situation, what their priorities are, how they present themselves, what their goals are, etc.

In the context of character, Romney is a moderate at best and says so himself. He’s got a history of making decisions based on what’s popular at the time rather than what is actually the best option or the wisest course of action to take (Romneycare being a great example). More or less, what that tells me is that man is someone who can be very easily swayed…far more so than we need at this time.

The only way I’d vote for Romney is if my options are Romney or Obama. That’s all, and that’s because I want Obama out of there, not because I would actually CHOOSE Romney.

Did you really mean to say this? I think they would both do well against Obama but “Romney’s age and good looks” will help him in the general.

Given the problems our country faces today is the best we can do is nominate someone because we think their physical appearance will help us win the election? I assume you are a woman. I have heard similar comments at times from Republican women that somehow Romney is “good looking”, more “manly” than the other candidates, or somehow the “alpha male leader” This is boirne out in polls where woman far more than men state a preference for Romney.

Let me let you in on a secret, women. This candidate you describe as a “good looking, strong leader” is actually a wuss. He is a people pleaser; will say anything to get what he wants. He has no backbone or convictions whatsoever. Women always get fooled by men like Romney who are slick salesmen. Men evaluating other men, on the other hand, see Romney for what he really is and will vote accordingly. Women, choose the real thing, an authentic, strong, conservative leader, and don’t fall for the player who pretends to be these things but is actually the opposite.

If I am not mistaken (and if I am disregard the rest of this comment), this new application of labor laws ONLY applies to incorporated farms (ie not family ones). And if that is the case, then incorporated farms should be treated no differently under the law than any other corporation. They should not get to say “hey, we want all the benefits of being incorporated, but we don’t want to follow the rules other corporations have to”.

Very interesting, in that you start to get Conservative politicians whom many of their enthusiastic supporters are strong conservatives seem to be endorsing the candidate who is having a very difficult time connecting to those types of supporters.

John Thune and Nikki Haley come immediately to mind. Just going to be interesting to see who else comes out.

Just out of curiosity? Who are Newt Gingrich’s major endorsements?

Very interesting, in that you start to get Conservative politicians whom many of their enthusiastic supporters are strong conservatives seem to be endorsing the candidate who is having a very difficult time connecting to those types of supporters.

John Thune and Nikki Haley come immediately to mind. Just going to be interesting to see who else comes out.

Just out of curiosity? Who are Newt Gingrich’s major endorsements?

……….ain’t werkin’ .

It’s very telling when they list candidates and manage to get the other “lower tier” candidates like Huntsman and Santorum, but somehow forget Perry. They only seem to remember him if they incorporate it as an “oops” moment.

Just sounded like Bill Clinton or George Bush…..

Everyone in NOT entitled to a home, unless they can pay for it.
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac is at the root of our depression right now.
The democrats have skimmed billions of the top and Newt is defending it. That was one thing Bachmann got right last night….These GSE’s must be killed.

what VA Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli said after the Huckabee debate, which was the best debate. He was asked the next day if he was satisfied with Gingrich’s answers, and he said that Gingrich never did answer some of the questions. He opens his mouth, and Newt has never been at a loss for words, but he just proceeds to say words that have no meaning. As you said, he tries to change the subject, and bring a focus on what he wants to focus on. If only we had more debates with people who are not willing to allow any of them to babble on and on, just to evade the question, and are smart enough to know it, and say it.

Newt is the best communicator in the field and has some awesome zingers, but he would be a disaster in the general once the euphoria of not nominating Romney wore off.

This is the problem I have with pundits/writers who are (rhetorically) screaming that Newt is unelectable. A lot of them are the same people who declared his campaign over and still act like it’s a big surprise that Gingrich is the current frontrunner and has been polling at as high as 40% nationally.

Newt

1. led the Republicans to their first House majority in 40 years,

2. rose to third in line to the Presidency,

3.passed 4 balanced budgets

4. acheive the only significant entitlement reform of our time, (at the National level

5. who is known for his intellect exemplary speaking skills – and particularly his debating skills

6 has spent substantial time out of office studying policy and developing think tanks

It really shouldn’t be surprising that a guy with those kinds of acheivements and abilities would do well against:

1. a couple of congresspeople with no significant legislative achievements

2. a one term Governor who governed more like a Democrat, lost seats for Republicans and had no hope of re-election and who lost decisively in 2008 despite outspending his opponents by large margins and having a chief rival who was deeply distrusted by the base

3. a guy from Obama’s administration who doesn’t seem interested in attracting the support of the base

4. a guy who has never previously held any elected office

and

5. a very effective Governor who could be a strong candidate but came in late and not fully prepared.

That Newt would be at least a competitive candidate (if Perry failed to come in and outright dominate the race) was entirely predictable. I’m not surprised to see him as the current front runner – nor, I expect, is any from-the-start Newt supporter. That so many pundits — and even (reportedly) the Romney camp are caught by surprise does not speak well of their foresight.

To call Newt an “utterly implausible Presidential candidate” when his actual accomplishments utterly dwarfs those of any other candidate in the race – strikes me as absurd.

There is no room in the party for Buchanan protectionists.

Tariffs are just another form of government subsidy – and a form of both corporate and individual welfare.

NAFTA was a small step in the right direction…. We’ve since followed up with many, many more such agreements, to the tremendous advantage of most Americans.

Yes, unionized manufacturing has suffered, but that’s what should happen to the bloated zombie-firms that can’t compete on the open market without govt knocking out their competition…

If you’re against free trade, than maybe you should be a union Democrat….

…without being repetitive and while retaining key-references.

I’m now vetting the accuracy of what I wrote with input from other sites [after everyone enjoyed a good night's sleep], starting with politico.com.

…as long as the Evangelicals “do the right thing” later-on today.

n/t

No doubt with promises, promises, promises of future support and cash.
Just the way the unions and mafia works….

The Tea Party will bid adios to Haley if she endorses Romney….

So much promise for the future, thrown out and for what???

Obama “light” – who will go down in flames???

…far more “telling” will be the Evangelical endorsement, for what happens in Iowa will have follow-through effects far in-excess of whatever might now be occurring in S.C.

Remember, if Romney [who was sucked into investing in Iowa] does predictably poorly in the caucuses AND is sandwiched [in NH] by Huntsman/The Newt, he may not survive January.

She’s making a tough choice from a lousy selection.

First off no one wants to deal with her potential baggage. I don’t believe a thing Will Folks says, but it isn’t the type of background chatter you want in a president.

She is rather unpopular in South Carolina. Her endorsement carries some weight and will be a boost to Romney here, but she would get killed if she ran against Sheheen again today.

It would be much more important in our state to get Jim Demint or Tim Scott’s endorsement. Haley will help, but those two guys are the heavyweights in this state right now.

I really liked her but I see now she is becoming one of the establishments.

1. Mitt Romney is not going to be the nominee
2. If by any bad fortune he became the nominee no matter who he put as his VP he is going to lose to Obama. A Wall Street financier is not going to win the Presidency in this environment.

Makes “cents” to me. No wonder Romney is getting so many “endorsements”, follow the money trail and guaranteed he’s donated at some time.

I’ll take Rick Perry’s vet real-life, real men (or women) endorsements any day over Romney’s paid for establishment picks.

www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/06/ and Politico both reported that Romney contributed $42,000 to her campaign. What’s that old saying about following the money? The SC Ethics Committee investigated but allowed Romney a pass in the end. His federal PAC donated the max of $3500 to Haley, then each of his 5 statewide PAC’s donated the max of $3500. Critics raised the question of ethics when in essence all entities were the same, run by he same front office as it were, etc. So, with a $42,000 history between them, its no surprise she did what she did. Here’s what’s not clear, though:

Is Nikki Haley disloyal, dishonest, intentionally ill-informed or a political capitulator? In her gushing comments this morning on Fox she said she’s backing Romney because of jobs creation. Wait, Mitt stated last night its not govt that creates jobs, but the private sector (and he’s correct).

Which candidate in this race was one of the first, if not THE first to go to SC and stand with Haley in the Boeing situation? Rick Perry. Which candidate has been very vocal in opposition to the govt about this and has spoken boldly in debates and on the campaign trail, citing the courage and conviction and backbone of Nikki Haley? She actually had the gall (or serious lack of facts) to say today that she’s supporting Romney because we need jobs in this country and she’s going with the guy that has a record of creating jobs, not just talking about it.

Where’s Gov Haley been? Has she been under a rock and not heard which of the candidates on the debate stage has a record of creating the environment and reducing the regulations and taxes that facilitated the creation of 1 million jobs since 2009? Has her staff hid from her the fact that Texas got a higher rating from S&P in ’09 for their economic stability and projections of continuing that trend? Did somebody forget to tell her that Rick Perry signed a balanced budget and reduced small business taxes again this past summer? How many jobs has Romney created since ’09? None, other than security and campaign staffers. Oh, maybe Jennifer Rubin, too, but no money trail at this point to know if she’s being paid or not.

Gov Nikki Haley sees the possibility for her to end up in the same hot seat as the Govs. Walker and Kasich are sitting in and if that happens, she wants to run for cover. The only sure thing is the warm and welcoming arms of the Establishment, corporate RNC. These tea party turn-coats better not come calling across the country asking for our hard-earned donations next time.

Pour your tea down the drain, Gov. Haley; its grown quite cold and rancid.

Disloyal? Dishonest? Intentionally ill-informed? Political capitulator? I’m going with all of the above.

Conservatives will bring him down. Even if he manages to buy the nomination, conservatives will bring him down in November. America is on pretty steep decline right now, but I don’t think we’ve sunk to the level yet where a Mittens Willard can get elected President

Conservatives will bring him down. Even if he manages to buy the nomination, conservatives will bring him down in November. America is on pretty steep decline right now, but I don’t think we’ve sunk to the level yet where a Mittens Willard can get elected President

This kind of humor is best consumed without hot coffee in your hand. I just got burned!!!

This kind of humor is best consumed without hot coffee in your hand. I just got burned!!!

HE looked absurd.

Can I ask a question of an obvious (as opposed to oblivious) Romney supporter?

We’re told he’s so smart. We’re told he’s so well thought-out. But then we’re also told he had to “soften” his positions (i.e., lie in the “sound bites”) to get elected in MA.

Um, has anyone ever asked him why he chose to run in MA? As opposed to NH, where he wouldn’t have had to “soften” the positions? Or Michigan? Or Utah?

When he had obvious ambitions for the Presidency? And should have known being pro-choice etc was potentially fatal nationally?

Because the only answer I can com e up w/ is he’s as liberal as he always claimed: he just completely misread where the party was going nationally. So see, he’s not only a liar, he’s rather poorly planned-out and quite dim too (even dimmer than a government-approved light bulb).

Of course he’ll probably be the nominee because conservatives in Iowa will divide their votes, instead of just going w/ Newt. But that makes Romney lucky, not good.

I am very disapointed in her endorsement of Romney. It seems like a complete betrayal of the prinicples that she ran on. Even worse, it appears to be a “payback” endorsement because he contributed to her campaign.

A wiser move would have been to simply not endorse anyone at all. My respect for Gov. Haley has taken a nose-dive after this endorsement.

When I was finally able to get back here to RS and read that she had endorsed Willard the Rat, I almost got physically sick. I thought she was such TP Governor and was pushing the conservative values and then she throws them under a bus and endorses Willard, who isn’t even really conservative. Man, did she ever go down in my books. Her TP fans should be outraged…I am outraged and I am not TP. I am like trying to grasp…why Willard paying people off is okay for their votes, etc. It sounds shady to me.

Personally, I get a weird feeling in my stomach whenever I see one–it’s a completely knee-jerk reaction because most of my ancestors were slaves. Nevertheless, I recognize that the Confederate flag is almost never used as a racist emblem (there are always a very few idiots out there), and I defend the rights of anyone who chooses to fly it. And it ticks me off when liberals get all ugly about flying the flag at government buildings or whatever in the South.

You mention that Romney’s home state is Michigan. I live here, and I always forget that because he, to me, just epitomized the Northeastern blueblooded RINO. If Perry does well in Iowa, picks up some key endorsements (come on, DeMint!), and racks up some successes before the Michigan primary, I’m thinking that Romney might not be able to carry Michigan. That would be very, very awesome!

she is of course, a serious candidate

His numbers are soft, though he still leads the “take it to Obama” pack, because he debates superfluously. I think he would cave though eventually with a series of Bachmann attack debates, I think she gets under his skin akin to Perry and Romney. His record and the continuity of negative ads that highlight every blemish he’s ever had is going to wear him down. When msm starts going after Callista, he is going to blow.

He gets indignant, or readily dismissive deeming his critics as beneath him, dollar wise and intellectually. He is, or was, an unregistered lobbyist that made millions. Bachmann was right to go after him, enjoyed every minute of it. She moves up higher in my rank, just doesn’t have the executive experience I think that’s needed. I also find myself wanting to fact check everything she says, which is not a good feeling. Didn’t appreciate at all the Gardasil flap, loses credibility.

She would kill Obama in a debate on style however, just kill him, so long as she stays clear of clutter like “serious candidate” and “Politifact”, and rhetoric of the same. Her shrill shrewd take no prisoners mentality is a force to be reckoned with, makes her debate “friends” want to dig a hole and stay there, lol.

He was thrown fluffballs.

What part of Wyoming are you from? I lived in Kemmerer for a short while.
Brrrrr….those -40 degree nights were murder.

Doesn’t matter where you put him or where he’s from. It’s in his core principles.

As to Haley’s endorsement; every single Republican Governor, save for Sandoval and Jindal, 100 senators, save for Inhofe, can come out and endorse Mitt Romney. Doesn’t make him a better candidate, and doesn’t change my opinion.

She obviously turned her back on the Tea Party, somebody suggested she wants a VP slot. The same has been said of Michele Bachmann, remiss of attacks on Romney in these God-awful format debates. Who knows, who cares.

Lower taxes, less regualation, an appreciation for business. You lose, you pay law suits… Gas and oil are a big factor in Texas, but they aren’t the only factor…..Our medical is above and beyond. Doctors would rather practice here because of our law suits then any where else. At&T, American Airlines, J.C Penny, Texas Instrurments. Frito Lay, Burlinton Northern Sante Fe, Dr. Pepper Snapple group, Kimberly Clark… That’s just to name a few… many are fortune 500 companies. We have far more then just gas and oil that make our economy strong. That is thanks to Rick Perrry and his treatment of and appreciation for business. He gets it!

Do some research and find out how many Fortune 500/1000 companies that are not oil & gas are headquartered in Texas.

It’s about being right-to-work, having pro-business, pro-taxpayer tax policies and the climate you create. The northern and rust belt states are in deep do-do because they are anti-business and pro-union, pro-centralized government.

For example, there are at least as many people employed by auto makers in the US as there have ever been. Michigan and the surrounding states are full of empty manufacturing facilities and have high unemployment rates. North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee are booming – every 3-series BMW sold in the world is built in the US, in North Carolina – because they are rtw states with a pro-business climate.

The economies of such ‘blue’ states as MI are unsalvagable – but there’s no way that the GOP takes MI in the next election… Write it off…

MOST of the ‘Red’ and a good number of ‘borderline’ states do not have economies married to ‘zombie manufacturing’, and thus will do fine if regulation is relaxed, tort limits imposes, and the tax code reformed…

In fact, merely changing administrations is likely to kick off a significant economic change…. The money is there, thanks to the FED’s policies over the past few years – but the anti-business policies of the Obama administration have discouraged banks from lending and other firms from expanding….

A pro-business adminsitration, just by getting elected, would likely trigger a wave of growth…

Mitt Romney hasn’t. Newt Gingrich hasn’t.

How is it that Perry has this extra burden on him? His tax plan alone is 10x better than anything promoted by any of the other candidates.

companies that have moved to Texas are simply all in the gas/oil industry? Austin has become the second Silicon Valley, and more and more companies, not oil/gas related are moving to Texas.

You see, what has been done in Texas, can be done by any state. You just have to get the taxing agencies, and the unions, out of the way. Michigan is a basket case because it has been overrun with Democrats, and UAW members who seem to think they never get enough. It is the right-to-work states that are seeing job increases, and more companies move out of high tax Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, et al to friendlier territory.

Also, companies look at states that have no income tax because their employees are able to take home more of their earnings. Housing costs also factor into the equasion.

follows along with I think it was 48 out of 54 endorsements from politicians (congress, Senators, Gov etc) that benefitted from campaign contributions from Mitt Romney when they were running. So I guess it is payback time. Flopney donated and endorsed her when she was running for gov of SC. So sad that they will compromise themselves to back him especialy the ones that were supported by the Tea Party. Nothing worse than to turn your back on principles after getting into public office.

I guess you are overlooking his record. He is getting better at these debates. Maybe you equate glib and polished with adequate leadership. That just smacks of superficial.

Believe it or not, there is a voting populous out there that believes a man’s record of executive experience, substance, is what actually governs, not 30-60 second soundbites. Say anything less, and it has zero credibility.

EXACTLY do they stand for. I’m really sick of this paper tiger. Independents won’t stand for his…. independents won’t stand for that………..well, I wish someone would outline what ” Independents” do stand for.

about his wild days of sleeping on Hollywood starlets couches. He admitted to partying when he was “young”, except that he was 40 at the time.

Romney still supported abortion when he was 55 years old. Are you telling us that Romney didn’t “grow up” until he hit 56 because if that is the case, the one thing you can say about Romney is he was slow to mature. And you ignore the fact that, as a Mormon, Romney’s faith believes in marrying early (at least in their early 20′s) and having children quickly, and often. Romney had grown children, but still supported abortion and only changed his position when it was necessary to try to run to the right of John McCain in early, 2007.

*That’s* the problem.

The bottom line is that when he needed to be “pro-choice” for the sake of political convenience, he was. When he figured out that that position would get him quickly eliminated from primary contention for national office, he magically became pro-life.

He absolutely flip-flopped, and for the most disgusting of reasons – getting elected. The guy has no core beliefs at all.

Romney didn’t – as you apparently have – “mature” into the understanding that life begins at conception.

I trust Obama more, when it comes to doing what he said he’d do, than Romney. Actually, Romney’s “pro-life conversion” is no more believable than Obama’s conversion to Christianity. (And no, I don’t think he’s a Muslim – I think he believes in Obama and will do whatever it takes to be and stay President.)

After all, he was the one that falsely stated that Reagan “flipped.” Why bring that up (even if it was true)?

He is pretty clearly in support of earmarks and wishes congress would do more directed spending not less. It would be inconsistent for him to introduce bills to eliminate earmarks.

His position is that congress should direct spending rather than defer decisions to the federal bureaucracy. I don’t think it’s hypocritical.

Earmarks are pretty transparent and easier to dig down into – they get a lot of negative press because some of the spending seems irrational. I suspect that if we were equally able to drill down into various agency spending we would find some pretty odious spending that’s less transparent.

LOL!

to his answer, I would have started supporting him immediately and probably would have given him some money too. I loved the Tebow line! Bronco fan . . .

That’s what a lot of people do to their detriment. Hang in there it ain’t over yet.

there I said it again because it is true. You read too much Alex Jones and Prison Planet. Ron Paul will not be the nominee. The voters are not into committing suicide by electing an 80 year old raving lunatic.

Seeing as Paul is more radical than Jefferson, who was the ‘far left’ of his day (Hamilton would have been the ‘far right’)…

In American political parlance, Ron is indeed an isolationist. The term ‘non-interventionist’ is a ‘Politically Correct’ re-naming of a very obvious historical position: In US political history, an individual who opposes US military involvement overseas is an isolationist. Scientific definition or not, that’s what we call them. And beyond that, what Ron calls ‘sound money’ would result in the complete obliteration of US foreign trade… No one would want to deal with us, if we maintained a deflationary currency…

As for the ‘entangling alliances’ comment, it was WASHINGTON, not JEFFERSON who said that – and he said it in the context of our abjectly powerless position as a new agricultural nation – the warning was against us being the junior-partner to some European nation’s imperial ambitions – with the potential for re-colonization.

It absolutely does NOT apply to the modern USA as the ‘senior partner’, having replaced Britain as the world leader.

Paul’s policies would condemn us to poverty & irrelevance….

Remember: The US was MASSIVELY in debt when we were founded, and it was Hamilton’s Federalists – not the Jeffersonian and later Jacksonian Democrats from which Ron Paul & Pat Buchanan derive their ideology – who advocated paying it off & presented a plan to do so…. A plan Ron would have opposed.

…is an insult to raving lunatics. Even the Martians disown him.

I get tired of Paul supporters trotting that one out if you disagree with, i.e. “if you are against Paul on [insert issue] you are against the founders.” Let me toss some names at you: Hamilton, Washington, Jay, Adams, for starters. Guess what they all have in common? They supported the Bank of the U.S. Something no self-respecting Paulite could countenance. Yet they are founders. Jefferson, though suspicious of the bank, didn’t tamper with the first BUS during his 8 years in the presidency.There’s just a bit on the “founders” for you on a single issue, so stop tossing that canard out there; it is disingenuous.

I missed it all and so appreciate seeing how much better Rick Perry seems to be. He is so much more engaged and I personally loved his Tim Tebow comparison. He definitely is getting over his back surgery.

The only reason Rick Perry isn’t still in first place is because of debates. Conversely, the only reason Newt is the frontrunner is because of his ability to debate. If you fail to recognize that, you haven’t followed this primary at all.

So are you demonizing “Romney the CEO of Bain Capital” because he believes in capitalism? What leads you to believe that class warfare will win the election? Last time I checked, an overwhelming majority disapprove of the Occupy movement.

I’m not Romney supporter, but I’m willing to call the shots as I see them — unlike the anti-Romney movement who refuse to give the man credit where credit is clearly due.

I don’t know who your dog is in this race, but I’d like to hear your argument for why they will win instead of resorting to name-calling.

That’s exactly what I said to Hubby this morning about Cavuto…. I like Neil, but that was priceless, I thought.

I love the idea of a part time Congress, though at the federal level I do think it needs to meet yearly. The less they meet, the more important each meeting becomes. Coupled with a balanced budget amendment that means they will be spending most of their time coming up with a budget and less with “nanny state” laws or pandering to special interests. I also think emphasis needs to be placed on how laws are written. They need to be readable and shouldn’t involve dozens of other tomes as citations.

I think it’s a back-door way of encouraging his 10th Amendment stance. Rather than making a frontal assault on Congress, he attacks their waste of time in spending days talking about naming a building in Erie after an ex-Congressman (which I heard once while watching C-Span) or naming post offices, allowing more of what needs to get done by government to be done in its proper sphere at the state level. Simultaneously, it makes Congress less attractive for those who wish to profit through unethical means like insider trading and influence peddling.

As we are seeing with the omnibus bill sometimes deadlines are just used to push bad deals that the voters don’t know what is in. I understand that paradoxically sometimes having less time means you get more done, but Congress is so broken at this point I just wonder if they’d do their jobs worse.

And again, there is zero chance that congressmen will gets jobs that allows them to understand what regular americans are going through. They will get “jobs” as senior advisers or some other nonsense title for businesses that like big government as long as it’s on their side. I still think term limits are the better way to make sure they don’t get too far away from their roots.

but like all things which eventually come to pass it must first be suggested. He is starting the conversation and even though it may be years down the road we are at least talking about it.

Other than keeping the train on the tracks, what achievements did Rick Perry have in Texas. He is Gov. of a deep red state, with a republican legislature, which was low tax, low reg., etc.. Other than Keep the train going straight ahead, what has he accomplished through legislation in Texas?

which is what Perry is basing his idea of a part-time legislature on. The Texas legislature sits in one session every two years. Oddly, the state doesn’t go down the toilet without them being there 24/7/365 are our federal congress seems to do. What do the so-called “professionals” bring to the table? The ability to find new ways to take away liberties and more ways to spend our money on stupid programs? Reducing the time they sit, and limiting the session length reduces their ability to do damage. Besides which, if there is truly a crisis, they can be called into special session, as happens here in Texas when need arises.

Don’t kid yourself that the same pros won’t be in those seats, either; most have the independent means and/or connections to get elected. What’s more perhaps we could even do with more “amateurs” like Ron Johnson.

Because Congress was, at the time of our Founders, a part time, citizen-legislature job. Not the full time job it is now. Hell, even Ben Franklin thought they should not be paid for their time spent in Congress.

Texas is not the only state that has a part-time Congress. And it wasn’t always the “red” state that it is now. At one time in recent history, Texas would have been considered a solid (D) state.

You say Congress does a job. Then explain why we are three years without a Constitutionally mandated budget and keep passing Omnibus Bills? It seems that if Congress has a job to do, they are failing miserably at doing it.

is that it increases the relative power of the individual statehouses….

and dilutes the effect of lobbyist dollars…..

and makes it much easier for conservatives to actually get somewhere because we can finally engage on more suitable ground – D.C. is a narrow place where the liberals can concentrate their money and win, conservatives will fare much better on a wide plain where our superior numbers can come to bear.

Note that Perry also brought up the idea of each state as a laboratory, trying different solutions to the ills of our time – that only works if the Libs can’t successfully “make a federal case out of it”… it’s part and parcel with reducing the power of D.C.

Remember that our founders first set up a confederacy of States, they didn’t go back and strengthen the Federal Government until 1789, and did so then only hesitantly. We’re pretty far off their blueprint.

Mew