He has deep flaws that actually matter to the voting electorate, unlike Perry and Gingrich. Aside from a few holier-than-thou on our side, Gingrich’s personal flaws don’t mean jack to people who see the value of their dollar in the toilet and no substantive increases in employment. Gingrich was the man in congress the last time that chain of events took a turn for the stars.

Perry is really the X-factor now. He has the money, organization and record of success to take us home. The real question will be how he handles the pressure of a national campain in front of a national audience against a skilled opponent. I am beginning to think more and more that he will be up to the task should he make it out of this ugly primary.

In the end, I think we may see a Perry/Gingrich ticket when the smoke clears…and what a ticket it would be! But I’m not betting money in any direction right now…

He has deep flaws that actually matter to the voting electorate, unlike Perry and Gingrich. Aside from a few holier-than-thou on our side, Gingrich’s personal flaws don’t mean jack to people who see the value of their dollar in the toilet and no substantive increases in employment. Gingrich was the man in congress the last time that chain of events took a turn for the stars.

Perry is really the X-factor now. He has the money, organization and record of success to take us home. The real question will be how he handles the pressure of a national campain in front of a national audience against a skilled opponent. I am beginning to think more and more that he will be up to the task should he make it out of this ugly primary.

In the end, I think we may see a Perry/Gingrich ticket when the smoke clears…and what a ticket it would be! But I’m not betting money in any direction right now…

Perry cleans house in his campaign org. Offers top spot + Admin. Chief of Staff (if/when he wins) position to NEWT!
We get Best of Both Worlds!

Why are you afraid of debating me on the merits? I find Erick’s article disingenuous because his main criticism of Romney is that he is unprincipled. And yet, the first point Erickson makes is that Romney is evil capitalist who gleefully laid off workers while enjoying millions of dollars. Right out of the Democratic talking points play book. Oh he says, “we on the right will say this is okay” with apparent acceptance of such practices. But we’re not buying your interpretation Erick. Bain Capital should be celebrated as a Conservative example of job creation. My friends on the mushy middle Right, you need to listen more to Krauthammer and less to Erickson. How are we going to win with friends like this as Paul Ryan would say? You people need to really tone down the negative attacks on Romney because you are effectively creating a path for Obama to retake the White House and to finalize the American decline which will certainly come if Obama is re-elected. Then America will be much worse than Greece could ever be because of the scale and scope of the US Economy.

Its about time that conservatives start explaining and defending CAPTALISM instead of attacking our capitalist cadidates.

Bain Capital invested in Staples when it was a tiny Massachuessets retailer. Now its a 2000 store monster of success employing over 50,000 people.

Romney–what a shrewd and successful CAPITALIST!

Mr. Erickson, If you are truly concern about the Obama team airing interviews and commercials with every person ever fired or laid off by Bain Capital. Take heart, the Romney team could air interviews and commercials with every person that had a job saved and every person that had a job created because of Bain Capital and Mitt Romney. It would be no contest to tens of thousands jobs CREATED to the left’s argument of jobs lost. Mr Erickson, you are asking people to fear the left’s argument that capitalism and free enterprise are evil. I don’t believe that many Demarcate’s believe that, since many own businesses.
If we conservatives can’t win the Risk/Venture Capital, Free Enterprise and Capitalism argument here in the United States of America, we will no longer be a prosperous nation and domed to second world status.
Mr, Erickson, with all do respect, It is clear to anyone who can be objective and follows your blog, that your problem with Mitt Romney isn’t his Governing record, when examined fairly is a conservative record in a very very liberal state. It is my opinion that your problem with Mitt Romney is one of a more personal nature, that of who he is, or to be more direct, his faith. I know, Jon Huntsman is also a Mormon, but you most likely feel very confident that Jon Huntsman doesn’t stand much of a chance of becoming the GOP nominee. If I’m wrong, you have my apologies, but only you know for sure (well only anyone who’s mortal).

what more can one say

If the social conservative leadership which narrowed the list to four now moves to support Perry, he would finish in the top three and might even have a chance of winning. They need to tell their fellow activists that a vote for Bachmann or Santorum is a wasted vote and that uniting behind Perry is the way forward.

Proving this outlandish claim is true. I don’t even feel I need to pull out points proving otherwise. But check out his website (including his counters to every outlandish “Newt is a RINO” claim”), and see if you can still say this.

for picking a President? When did the RNC decide to team up with the legacy media and turn the nomination contest into an almost unwatchable reality TV spectacle? Is this really a sane way to pick a nominee? in the end, one of these candidates is very likely to end up as President and will have to govern. With the exception of Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry is the only candidate with a successful record of governing. That and, more importantly, what he has accomplished in governing make him the clear choice for President.”

Giving Iran nuclear weapons is not an option.

Why isn’t Paul included?

As I’ve said before, because
this is Ron Paul speaking on foreign policy.

He would do intolerable damage to our national security, global order, and ultimately the world economy and U.S. economy.

We are the party of peace through strength, not the naive, idealistic, hippie notion that if we just “mind our own business” everything will be just fine.

note, he’s been in the Congress 20+ years and hasn’t been able to garner one Member to support his domestic dreams – what makes you think he could do it as President (only two possible answers: drugs or alcohol).

You, Jim, are an idiot of the first order.

that Rick Perry is the only guy out there I can support. He is conservative and knows how to run a government, which is important.

no^text

What a pathetic weasel ad. It’s a race to the bottom of who can come up w/ the worst ad.

Neil is right, smacks of desperation.

Is he going to be endorsed by OWS soon?

So what? This ad doesn’t impress me either way. It’s not bothersome, but it doesn’t say much either. It has no effect on me either way.

It’s a good thing none of his investments led to layoffs or are in companies offshoring like crazy.

as much as the stories from those people who will surely be tracked down plus the amount of money made will affect some voters. It doesn’t bother me but the Obamabots have sworn to play extra dirty since BO has little else to run on. BO’s campaign money won’t matter as much because people once again are tired of negative ads and I’m confident they are tired of being told success is a bad thing.

I don’t like Romney but tend to disagree that he will lose because people won’t Obama gone. Sacrifice is easy when you don’t give a damn for the incumbent nor the media. Hatred and mistrust of the media is one of the GOP’s hidden strengths because the corrupt liberal media pretend its not a factor…..they thought the same with the 2010 election. People would unite behind a moderate just to oust Obama.

The sole criteria of “under-performance” is profitability.
Not WHETHER the target is profitable, but whether the profits are HIGH ENOUGH.

No one should delude themselves into believing that Private Equity acquisitions since 1978 have had ANY other objective than HOW profitable.

I barely survived the first nine years of Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts Leveraged Buyout of RJR Nabisco in “Barbarians at The Gate”.
The Del Monte Foods division was bled dry because 2% net profits were UNACCEPTABLE. Never mind that 2% net profit would be just fine for a family-owned company, or, some kind of co-operative by the farmers and canners, and that the canning of fruits and vegetables is one of the technological miracles that minimizes waste and spoilage, and is the foundation of America’s highly productive food supply and distribution.

I can provide a list of bad examples of where “Is it profitable enough?” was the SOLE criteria for the NOT ALWAYS “creative destruction” that destroyed MILLIONS of jobs and lives between 1978 and 2002, the era of the LBO.

Was Bain Capital less destructive than Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts? Perhaps.

BUT, one also has to consider Bain CONSULTING, who peddled a BIG IDEA in the 1990′s that ALSO caused the destruction of millions of jobs at small manufacturers of intermediate goods used by bigger companies in the manufacture of finished goods. The BAIN BIG IDEA was to consolidate supply chains into sole source for intermediate goods. Not only were purchasing professionals “downsized”, replaced by algorithms or MBAs with zero product knowledge, but I am still haunted by the Connecticut paperboard mill shuttered when Milton Bradley went to sole sourcing for the paperboard used in board games, the ONLY segment of toy manufacture that always stayed in the USA.

Bain’s BIG IDEA to sole source was a theory that never proved itself.

There are millions of us destroyed by the rise of the MBAs in 1978, when American Can decided that manufacturing was not profitable enough and started the transformation into financial services with the very first industrial asset leveraged buyout. I was there in 1978, and I was on a technical consulting team at a forest products consultancy at the end in 2000.
So many profitable paper mills and converting factories shutdown solely because they could not also pay off the mountains of debt layered on by the MBA-whiz kid LBOs.

I have BA from an elite college and three master’s degrees, yet I was just as disposable in 2001 as my former papermill worker with a High School education neighbor next door. The only difference is that I understand what happened, in detail that still gives me nightmares.

Hopefully, this is the post and comment thread that survives Erick’s duplication

If Bain had solely been in the Venture Capital business (Staples), maybe I would not be so hostile about Romney, BUT I would rather still have that paper manufacturing base in the USA supplying Staples than buying my copier paper Made in Indonesia, from a low wage retailer.

Nah – I do NOT want another Harvard MBA nor another Harvard lawyer in the Oval Office. Have yet to meet anyone with those degrees who has ANY clue about the REAL ECONOMY. When the MBAs took over from the engineers who had built America’s industrial base, that is when the Great Decline started. 1978. When you got 10% interest on your savings in any bank.

THAT 10% became the new paradigm for measuring whether ANY company was PROFITABLE ENOUGH.

and while what you write here is in essence true, the Obama camp will do a marvelous job of twisting the facts. As EE adeptly puts it, the airwaves will be full of ‘victims’ of Bain along w/ that famous photo of a young Romney all smiles as money rolls out of his pockets. We’ll be treated to photos of his mansion in La Jolla being demolished simply because it was too small and footage of the new super-sized mansion being built. And that’s just ONE of the Romney homes. Remember the fluff made of the fact that the McCain’s owned several homes and of Mrs. McCain’s beer fortune? The poor, lowly Obama’s only owned one mansion in Chicago and when our side tried to reveal the truth of that real estate transaction involving Tony Rezco, he was whisked off to prison and the media excused Obama.

If we are naive enough to think that Team Obama has not been hard at work gathering photos, interviews, etc. on Romney for the past 3 years, we are beyond help. The Dem’s know how we roll–we always give the nomination to the guy that’s next in line; the guy that has waited patiently for his ‘turn’. They knew Romney would be next up at bat come 2012. What’s sad is that the RNC never even tries to pull off a surprise.

Perception is reality. That’s what killed Herman Cain’s campaign. He may well be innocent as a newborn kitten of the many accusations but as long as ‘victims’ with woeful expressions kept trotting forth, it didn’t matter if he was innocent, kinda innocent or just plain guilty. He could not survive the onslaught. Once the leak in the damn occurred, the Dem’s made quick work of it, didn’t they? Even the power of the Golden EIB microphone and the 24/7 opportunities Cain had on Fox and with Hannity and Levin and Boortz couldn’t save his campaign. This is the Big League.

Mitt Romney, contrary to the gushing endorsement of Nikki Haley, has not created a job in the midst of this recession. Yes, he’s hired security people for himself and his family, lots of campaign staffers, communications/media hacks, more pilots and drivers and chefs and hairdressers but these, like the shovel ready jobs of Obama, are not permanent nor long term. He cannot stand on a debate stage opposite Obama and claim any recent or current jobs creation. By contrast, Rick Perry can recite, chapter and verse, a number of counter attacks he presided over during Obama’s reign of fiscal destruction. Perry can draw a clear defining line between his state which has prospered and moved ahead in spite of the course of federal govt which has put policies in place which have inflicted great harm on our economy.

Mitt Romney ‘s only claim to being aware of middle class issues and having empathy for the plight of the young family struggling, the elder doing without healthcare services or the military family that can’t find gainful EMployment post DEployment is that his daddy grew up in the middle class. Most of us are not particularly touched to know our future president ‘gets it’ regarding where we are because as a little boy he sat in a luxurious living room hearing his dad talk about what its like to not be really rich, or something. We may also expect the dirty trick of bringing Romney’s dad’s record as gov of Michigan into the general election. His father, a Rockefeller Republican, pandered to the unions and helped set Michigan on a path of decline, from which they have yet to recover. If Team Obama can make the case that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, that won’t help Romney much either.

EE also brings up a very important point that many of here have tried to make and that is, since when does miliitary service not matter? During the Clinton and GW Bush years, it was always a topic of leverage as to whom was the better suited to be Commander in Chief. It got lost along the way in ’08, too. Perhaps when a nation becomes war weary, serving one’s country becomes less admirable?

I read a blurb in an Iowan newspaper a few days ago that said that Rick Perry should pay attention to 2nd Amendment voters because in states like Iowa, that still matters and thus far, none of the GOP candidates are touching upon it. Hopefully, somebody in his campaign caught that same blurb and put it on his radar. It’s Rick Perry that supports gun rights probably more than anybody else on the trail. He’s in favor of Constitutional Carry. Quite a contrast to Mitt, “I’ve hunted small varmits before” Romney.

of Bain and its operations. It operates much more like an Turkish slave raid than a surgeon.

1. Bain was an initial investor in Staples. It wasn’t called in to rescue it.

2. The M.O. in the “rescue” cases is

–Pick a weak company, not a failing one.
–Buy it
–Install your management team
–Charge the company exorbitant rates for themanagement team which Bain can direct as it owns the company.
–Sell off the profitable parts.
–Cut staff, wages, benefits.
–Take all the cash you can out of the company.
–Take on massive debt so the company can buy back the Bain stock at a premium.
–Sell the company.
–Watch the company go into bankruptcy.

There is nothing illegal with this. There is a great deal of question about whether it actually helps the economy.

Whether it is moral or not depends on your morality.

stating the obvious which escapes many here. Romney made his living “fixing” companies in trouble and many times that meant cutting the fat and getting back to the companies core business. This resulted in less employees of course but the surviving entity was leaner and meaner and could actually compete in the marketplace. Can any of you think of a corporation that is in dire need of restructuring? How about the United States Government. I’m not actually a Romney supporter but the BS that flies around here needs to be challenged sometimes. Romney’s job was to SAVE the corporation, not kill it. Geez.

1. Where is the RedState Army?

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

2. How could The Newt excite a base that has to tolerate his self-imposed quotations [regardless of the negative-ads] regardless the judiciary [e.g., arresting judges]?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316386

3. How have Ray Sullivan and Joe Allbaugh injured Perry beyond what is publicly known?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31ttperryweb.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/09/joe_allbaugh_disaster_pimp.html

4. Are there other RS-bloggers [with Front Page statuses] who have also refrained from endorsing?

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/12/19/dont-settle-rick-perry-for-president/

5. Noting that “Mitt Romney is hell bent on winning this thing without conservative support” and that he was allegedly panned when he tried to recruit TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Support support via ‘phone on Sunday…and that it is implausible to accept Coulter’s insipid rationalization for this rather-universal conclusion…so could it be reasonably anticipated that he fails sequentially in Iowa/NH [sandwiched respectively by The Newt and the Evangelicals, and The Newt and Huntsman]?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/romney-makes-pitch-to-tea-party-activists/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ann-coulter-tea-party-ignores-romney-because-theyre-looking-at-who-is-calling-obama-a-kenyan/

6. Why do people keep pushing the totally-irrational candidacy of Paul, particularly because any 3rd party run [which Politico keeps touting] would destroy the career of his son?

[see their reflex-supporters, already emerging herein]

*

After having posed the six [supra] NON-rhetorical questions, it is tempting to “rest” [Biblical reference] but, instead, it may be helpful to synthesize the views of many RS-bloggers who support Perry by projecting what could transpire today…a major PIVOT-POINT.

As it may be recalled, the Family Leader [remember the pre-Thanksgiving Saturday-p.m. get-together with Frank Luntz...whose website inexplicably forced voters to choose only between Mitt and The Newt?] has not endorsed.

It was not going to do so, a month ago, but last week it was announced that it would do so; yesterday, it was noted that Plaats [its leader]] likes The Newt because of prior support of efforts to dislodge three Iowa Supreme Court justices.

Yet, despite meetings on Friday/Monday, nothing has yet emerged, perhaps due to the fact that some pastors have endorsed others and Plaats needs to be un-convinced of his fealty for The Newt [for obvious reasons, self-imposed].

Is it now possible that some hardball will emerge, just before the Holidays, as people confront the need to unify against The Newt and Mitt?

Noting the “public” nature of the caucus-voting, it is clear that people [with their neighbors watching/remembering] will be reticent to support an anti-Israel/Semitic Paul [with their pastors in-attendance] and two supporters of the Individual Mandate,

That Mitt is a Mormon and that The Newt has marital-issues, these could provide the backbone for rejecting their candidacies…among the 40% of Iowans who are Evangelicals.

The CRUNCH will, therefore, be played-out between those who don’t want to hurt Santorum/Bachmann and those who realistically recognize the urgency of banding-together ASAP behind the candidate with deliverables and a track-record [particularly focused on jobs]/jobs/jobs]…projected to “have legs” due to $$$-resources.

Let us hope that this group of Huckabee-supporters can draw upon sufficient gumption to “do the right thing”!

*

Those who adhere to the “only electable candidate” will, it is hoped, be forced to confront the realities of a 2-man race, for the criteria as to which people are invited can be tightened ["helping" those who remain in single-digits to hang-it-up]. Even if Paul is on-stage, it will be to enhance his sense of inclusion and, thereby, militate against his temptation to run as a Libertarian [where he would automatically be placed onto all 50 ballots]. And, certainly, any TPM-support for Paul would be undercut with Perry as the GOP-nominee.

RS has provided a community-service that appears both unique and unprecedented; a perusal of other right-leaning sites has not revealed BOTH the intense-debate [among adamant supporters of myriad candidates] and the strong-consensus [among adamant supporters of Perry] that has flourished [through thick/thin, including my overnight foray positing the "DeMint Gambit"].

What appears not to be obvious to some people who are Commenting [here and elsewhere] is that EE is focused on revealing essential-truths, gleaned from myriad sources and shared candidly with this fortunate audience. He invokes a disinterested posture–as does Rush–to employ rejection of Mitt as a foil that allows him to demonstrate his credibility and foresight. Thus, the focus here should not be to second-guess EE if it serves only to obscure the key-dialogue [among sincere thinkers/doers]; rather, it must remain a think-tank @ which the most potent candidate against BHO will emerge by consensus.

and discussion by 5 major media outlets. Credibility is growing because ERSS has a perspective on the candidates that resonates with the majority who want anyone but Mitt. You’ll get over it. Romney isn’t a conservative by conservative standards, read up on what it means then you’ll understand why Mitt isn’t liked by many.

Perry doesn’t debate well but he doesn’t need a teleprompter yet he outperformed Obama and Romney on job growth, greater freedoms and fewer regulations.

Romney raised taxes and called them fees, sounds like something a democrat would do, because they have.

When you start off a rant about someone’s mental capacity with:

Whatever intekectual [sic] capital you have

It pretty much signals that the rest of your comment can be safely ignored.

that so many people are seeing through Romney as a big government, personal mandate, re-writer of his own personal history, so that instead of flocking to him they are turning to other candidates. Tell me, with all the rise and fall of the others in the race, has Romney ever gotten more than his ceiling of 25-27% support? I thought not.

So, maybe it is you who have an issue with relevance as a political commentator and not EE.

Even Fox has done its share of boot licking.

Erick’s been told it’s obvious he’s backing Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney at various times.

Here’s my thought on this jkoran…We have to have a candidate with a polar opposite of Obama TO WIN. We have high unemployment, we do not have solutions (Except Perry) , we have a top heavy government, Obama is taking away rights a day at a time. We are hurting. I don’t give a hoot what the MSM says. There was an article in either Politico or Drudge that talked about the amount of money that goes out of EVERYONE’s pocket for energy…gas, heating oil, etc. Pumping gas does not create jobs. Having more money to spend eating out or going on vacation does…excuse the trickle down theory…however, it does work. Sir Isaac Newton…with his theory on gravity should be a clue. But not for Obama..he thinks money is going to rise up. Excuse me…dumb POTUS…the rising up of money is our TAXES. We are stimulating ourselves!

Perry is the polar opposite of Obama. Texas accent and all…the man is sincere…he has the answer to our problems and he’s no dummy on foreign affairs either. He…rather than the others nailed the problems concerning our problems abroad. Perry can claim he created an environment for jobs…and the record will bear him out…Romney will incur the hatred of OWS and people out of work, and Gingrich appears as though he might change the Constitution via fiat.

No, what I want is proof…it is there for anyone to look at and your remark about beating Obama is the only thing that matters…well…yes…IF THERE IS IMPROVEMENT. OBAMA AND ROMNEY are alike.

Another little thing…Mr. Romney gets upset too easily. If Perry can rattle him…can you imagine what Obama will do…questioning his pristine credentials? That’s HIS BUTTON.

Huntsman’s rejection of Enhanced Interrogation mirrors his having carried out a deeply-flawed Chinese policy; he is unctuous, and exhuming his prior conservatism doesn’t mitigate his having heaped scorn on the ["non-scientific"] set of competitors from whom he has consciously/consistently alienated himself.

This recession has made people less conservative in some ways. There’s less stigma connected to food stamps, having a bout of poverty reveals that cops treat the poor differently (read worse), more consideration for the homeless, Poverty doesn’t generally effect ones view of foreign policy, war and most social issues.

Rush Limbaugh’s discussion of the liberal versus his view of the homeless is excellent: The liberal offers the homeless a free shopping cart and sends them on their homeless way. Limbaugh says “You can do better than that. I want you to learn how to access opportunity”. Notice Limbaugh’s doesn’t judge the person’s past.

This guy should be banned:

“Perry was a Democrat not long ago”…prior to 1990.

“[Perry] has been labeled a racist already, etc.”…an attack from WaPo which has been discredited.

“He gets no more chances from me”…not we @ RS from you.

“I’m about to move to the left of Obama, since Republicans have run off Palin and Cain, and are now trying to run Newt off. If Republicans successfully run Newt off, I’ll probably vote Paul in primaries…if Paul loses, then I’m moving to the far left for another dose of Obama.”…which documents violation of RS-guidelines.

stereotypes that hurt him from day1.
Jon Stewart, and a host of Texans of every political stripe killed that n-rock story by mid-October. Stereotype #1: “all white Southerners are racist” NO LONGER APPLIES to Rick Perry. Never underestimate the influence of Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” on the entire spectrum of punditry.

Stereotype #2: “male Sarah Palin” I sense that Rick Perry has thrown this one off as long as Sarah Palin does NOT endorse him until he is the official GOP nominee. There is NOTHING about Rick Perry and his family that screams”reality tv-show”, nor is Rick Perry a “quitter”. For any of the Palinistas reading this, I again disclose I am a disillusioned fiscal conservative registered democrat who liked and respected the Sarah Palin before her nomination as VP, and wonder what happened to her.

Stereotype #3: “another Texas governor dumber than W”
Perry’s great challenge. I do believe he has proven to many that he is the REAL Texas governor, and he needs to keep hammering that 1) Texas is the 13th biggest economy in the world by GDP (comparable to Russia’s GDP), and 2) Texas is the USA’s #1 exporting state for eight years in a row.
The New York Times has done some investigative articles that actually note how Rick Perry has successfully reformed several aspects of Texas government functions during his eleven-year tenure.

the “dumber than W” is the remaining hurdle. Bush43 is not dumb, just not very curious, but most Americans do not understand the difference.

Rick Perry is not “dumb”, but all the thoughtful interviews, and very creative outside-the-box thinking has been lost in the early debate gaffes.

I wish Perry had had the debate opportunity to discuss the F35 Joint Strike Fighter’s impact on both national security and the longterm Federal budget and deficit. The F35JSF is a Four Trillion$ over ten year program.

Why? Because when Rick Perry starts talking hardware, he blows everyone off the stage.

BTW, I am exactly the swing voter that Huntsman wants. I followed his campaign from before day 1. Yet, I really can not stand to listen to him – he sounds so angry and gloomy.

As for Ron Paul – his ‘base’ is growing from migarnts from Obama’s base, some Russ Feingold anti-Patriot Act dems (and I understand that), but also the most vile of the anti-war far left. personally, I wish that group of Code Pinkies would all emigrate to Norway, but the GOP, and real Libertarians, are going to have to decide if they really want the same anti-war left that destroyed the Dems in 1968, and agin in 2008.

Last night, I chose Fred Thompson filling in for Hannity versus Piers Morgan interview with Jon Huntsman (I just can not bear to listen even though I would vote for Huntsman over Obama in the general election, while I will NOT vote for Romney or Paul even as a protest vote).

Fred used the term “protectionist” when he meant “isolationist”. (Biggest gaffe ever!) Isolationism is a very durable American principle – avoiding foreign entanglements started with George Washington.

the dilemma in 2012 is that the USA can NOT undo history since WW2 – and the GOP needs to re-invent their foreign policy plank in order to find a different path for the 21st century between Obama’s naivete/appeasement, Ron Paul’s 18th century isolationism, and Bush43/Cheney’s neocon policeman of the world Freedom agenda (which Romney has embraced).

Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, and Gingrich are the only candidates trying to redefine that plank.

you mean 25 years, then yes. Otherwise I have to assume stupidity led you to make that comment

Huntsman has already been debunked [supra], so perhaps those brief reminders will serve to help you “see how Huntsman doesn’t come out on top, especially in debates.”

The Newt also makes the D’s smile, and many R’s view his ideas [no matter how much he tries to tie them to History] as dangerous [as also cited here/elsewhere regarding his unconstitutional war on the judiciary, particularly contrasted with the approach adopted by Perry] .

Comparing either to past/present POTUS-GOP candidates serves only to obscure fundamentals of which the RS-community is already quite aware.

Giuliani as mayor instituted the broken window policy. Which the main stream media at the time, not only categorized as nuts but racist. The idea that such a simple policy of arresting vandals for breaking windows of abandon buildings, would lower crime was insane. On top of that since most of the abandoned buildings were in poor neighborhoods, Black neighborhoods it was racist. This was the opinions of the intellectuals of the main stream media, (both information and entertainment) They could understand that empty buildings with windows made a neighborhood made it look much more attractive than one with a bunch of broken windows. They couldn’t understand that the people living there might think “well if the police are going to be there to enforce such minor infractions they will be there for other more serious crimes“. What a turn around, from one of the murder capitals to one of the safest cities in the country.
The media, especially the news media and the government are so intertwined as to be one ruling class. The most insane pronouncements can be made by politicians and no one investigates if it’s true. Case in point Black parents don’t care about their children’s education. So if they are out there demonstrating for school choice everywhere, don’t report it. In fact don’t investigate, being part of the fourth estate, (the watch dog of government) can be difficult plus we have that party to go to once a year in Washington. So how do they fill up all that news time, reporting on the latest polling data. Polling data on everything. Polling data that was so wrong it didn’t even come close to predicting what happened in the midterm elections. The ruling class has given their propaganda wing, (the main stream media) it’s marching orders. Take back the political conversation. There is only one candidate running for the Republican nomination that the media knows is capable of drawing their blood. Just a couple of remarks during the debates, confronting the media’s moderators and you heard a loud cry of FOUL! If Gingrich gets the nomination it’s all over for the ruling class.

…because it is correct to note the focus defaulting on “sanity” BUT it is also strategic to recognize Perry’s priority of trying to unite the Evangelicals ASAP.

Remember, regarding the former, it’s almost as if The Newt has self-destructed prematurely, prior to having KO’ed Mitt.

Remember, regarding the latter, it’s vital to recall that Perry has a multi-faceted approach that remains available over time [federalism,, jobs, military, etc.] that his competitors can only covet.

This is why I’m still curious about what EE knows of Perry’s advisors; although one of the supplied hyperlinks is to the NYTimes, it appears to provide a disinterested roster. [For example, when did Perry consciously portray himself as a potential "third Bush term"?] Thus, as Mitt gears-up for the long-haul and no other candidate has the $-reserves to match him except Huntsman [who will remain 0-ed out] and Perry, it seems a 2-man race [the same one envisioned in August] will emerge shortly after the New Year.

Of course his polling went down, that was the official “Get Newt” debate. Each front runner that gets close to Romney in the polls undergoes a get em debate. None of the others have survived after they were attacked.

Besides, these are not actual debates, they are beauty pageants that pay candidates in poll numbers for savagely attacking one another, but little payoff for stating your own positive positions.

In a real debate, and in making a speech Newt is terrific. I just fear that he has burned so many bridges, attacked so many other people, said so many squirrely things, and has so much personal and financial baggage that he is unelectable.

As has been repeated many times, people don’t really start paying attention until much closer to the first caucuses. In the last debate, and the final one before Jan. 3, Newt exposed some uncomfortable positions on some serious issues, for those actually listening to his words, rather than how passionately or bombastically he spoke those words.

When Newt was pressed on his Freddie Mac ties, he said that “he has always supported home-ownership” and that he believes we should all support home-ownership for “all” Americans, meaning even those that can least afford to own a home. It’s as though the housing crash never happened, let’s just move along and keep doing the same thing. Then of course there was the exposure of the 2007 Freddie Mac tapes, where Newt advised Freddie not to change their business model, as there was no (government) support for such a change. The news broke, very untimely for Newt, that the SEC is suing 6 of the Freddie and Fannie executives for their practices while Newt was very much so on the payroll of Freddie.

In that same debate, Newt made his proclamations that as president, he would haul the federal judges, by subpoena, to testify before Congress as to why they decided certain cases as they had. He may very well have meant that only those decisions that affected unconstitutional decisions would be threatened , but that is not what many heard, and it sure isn’t how it is being spun by the left, as well as many many on the right also. He doubled down on Face the Nation and said that if those judges ignored his subpoena’s, he would send the Federal Marshall’s to pick them up and arrest them. That should send shivers down the spines of those that believe in the 3 separate but equal branches of government. Newt has proposed that the Executive and Congressional branches of our government can usurp power, deny equality to the judicial branch, and set a horrific precedent that can one day be utilized by any future liberal presidency and Congressional majorities. To think of a president Obama with those powers gives me the creeps. To think of an undisciplined and unprincipled president Gingrich with those powers gives me the heebeejeebees.

For those reasons, plus the major ad buys against him in Iowa, with him having no funding to ward off those charges, is what has sent Gingrich spiraling down in the polls. I don’t believe for a second that he has reached the bottom yet, that we will soon see.

…that EE is correct is to recall 1980.

Also, your hyperlink…
http://www.ombudizen.com/
…relates to DADT, which must be perceived as a strategic military decision [noting, for example, how combat-troops reside for extended periods @ close-quarters].

Patience, patience….

What groups would that be?

don’t forget that Romney will be fighting uphill, against the Dem house organ news media, who buy ink in sufficient volume …

They can and will find everyone who was laid off by Romney, and – unlike those laid off “by Obama” – they will be in high rotation on the nightly news.

Mew

…so that the struggle becomes one of “I know you are a job-killer, but what am I,” like taunting schoolkids, rather than the contrast that others would provide as having created almost as many jobs in the past decade as the entire rest of the country. Who would you rather have making a job contrast, someone who was part of a corporate chop shop or someone who presided over an immensely successful decade of job creation through shepherding friendly regulatory clients and a low-tax environment. It’s not a hard option.

And there are other candidates, and not just one, who could make a far better contrast concerning tax expertise. Why go with someone who has to hide or obfuscate their record when one has the opportunity to go with someone who can point to their record all the time in contrast to that of the current tenant in the White House?

…Perry is increasingly channeling RR.

How and when were Consrvatives ever in charge of – or had a major influence over – the Republican Party? They lost what little influence they had when Reagan left in 1988, and George Bush – to be sure a logical choice, but not a Conservative (Remember “voodoo economics” ?) immediately ran things into the ground by “compromising” with Democrats.

His son, also not a Conservative, did Conservatism no honor by placing the word “compassionate” in front of it and thereby implying that Conservatism is not compassionate by definition.

And remember those nominees in ’96 and ’08? How were they Conservatives? I don’t see establishment Republicans as anything other than slow-motion Democrats who promise to ruin the country with increased spending and to take away liberty by allowing the government to become a Leviathan with an unelcted bureaucracy micromanaging our lives to ever greater degrees,

See for example the “Federal Offenses” series in the Wall Street Journal: yesterday’s issue had an update saying that the number of Federal regulations is now 29 feet long!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204903804577082770135339442.html?KEYWORDS=federal+crimes

…have proven effective.

I think Bachmann could make an excellent Congresswoman for years to come and could move up the ranks to serious presidential consideration down the road. But she has really soiled herself in my eyes with this campaign. It’s unfortunate because she is a lot keener than I would have even given her credit for being before the campaign started.

…has been refreshing.

I’m quite content to allow the Lord to judge the hearts of these candidates and believe in the edict of “judge not, so you will not be judged”. I don’t get caught up in waiting breathlessly for one Christian leader or another to play God and determine which candidate is the most holy. These folks can no better see into the hearts of our candidates than we can and we can look at how they live their lives and evaluate their words just as well.

As Christmas approaches, its time for a stark reminder that we are ultimately judged by God and what men say or think is irrelevant. If Christian voters in IA walk away from a candidate because of what a Christian ‘authority’ says against them, perhaps they need to reflect and examine their own values and return to The Word for advice and counsel. Would it not be far more useful if Mr. Vander Platts and/or others that claim leadership status in IA to say that any and all of the candidates in this race are loved and forgiven by God. If elected president all of them will be guided by faith and yet, each would fail to honor the glory of God simply because of their humanity. There is something very un-Christian-like about one man being able to possibly change history by either a nod of approval or a rejection. He cannot look into hearts. If Mr. Vander Platts wants to help change the course of American history and sit on his self-constructed judgment throne when it comes to who is “Christian enough” to be president, it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on our current president. Rather than espouse his superior knowledge of which candidate suits his ideas best, how about he use his influence to talk about the creeping of Sharia law into our courts and society? How about speaking up boldly in defense of Christmas and prayer in public places? How about proclaiming the Word of God into every far reach of this globe rather than narrow himself to simply passing judgment on one man or woman or another.

If Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich haven’t talked enough yet about their faith journeys, their moments of being humbled before God enough yet for Vander Platts to see that all, including Paul, Romney, and Huntsman are people of deep and abiding faith, then enough will never be said. This is another example, similar to whom Sarah Palin is going to endorse, where people sometimes get a bit too caught up in their own importance, believing they hold the key to something far more intellectual than the rest of we idiots can fathom.

Whether its Ted Haggard, founder and betrayer of New Life Church in Colorado Springs (and significant contributor ot the defeat of the GOP in ’06 in my humble opinion) or Mr. Vander Platts in IA, we, as Christian Americans have the ability and duty to select a candidate that most lines up with our own values.

Select your dream candidate, Mr. Vander Platts, but please do so with humility and the knowledge that in your kingmaking endeavor you may be getting it wrong. That’s a big responsibility. Hopefully, you’ve secluded yourself in prayer for a very long time before making your announcement. Some will follow your beck and call and some will reject it knowing they are able to evalute the candidates on their own. It seems you’d better served the voting public if you’d ‘endorsed’ all of them and allowed God to be the judge.

…notwithstanding your goal, for you try to be outrageous without recognizing the potential down-side of your attack-mode.

EE explained his rationale in the above-hyperlink; unless you can refute it, you should allow him the space to act individually that you would claim for yourself.

…because thematic in EE’s postings is the answer to your kicker-query.

“NO!”

And, BTW, Michele would not mirror a Colbert caricature; he has been tart regarding everyone.

…from Obama’s miserable record to hunting down communists in congress and other “winning” ideas.

We don’t need shrill and irrational right now. We need strong, principled AND electable. Bachmann becomes the issue if she is the candidate…and given that her record doesn’t extend beyond the House and includes some really dumb statements, I’m not willing to bank the future on her.

…so he focuses on direct answers to questions, during the debates.

Other times, he elaborates.

And people do have short memories and attention spans. The electorate has forgotten that Perry has had to deal with a slew of natural disasters, including the infamous Hurricane Katrina. A huge amount of those leaving New Orleans came to Texas and Texas took on the task of feeding, housing and educating thousands.

I was living in central Texas at the time and teaching. We had several students from New Orleans and their educational challenges were pretty daunting.

…is that like the world’s shortest books: Great Bolivian Victories, or Great Bulgarian Victories, or the ever popular: Great Italian Victories?

The SAS, the British special forces, have a motto: “Who dares wins.” Unlike Mitt, Newt dares — and he may yet win. As the old Dem bumper stickers used to say, “Newt Happens.” -mark steyn

Perry has as much of it as any of our candidates- more than some, even. More than Obama certainly. Why repeat that same old tired liberal media lines? I think it’s fine if you don’t prefer the man as our candidate- I don’t care for Mitt Romney, but let’s make it about the issues. If you’ve lived in Texas for the past ten years and seen Perry deal with natural disasters first hand, the gravitas comment would not have passed your keyboard. Requisite intelligence? What is the requisite intelligence for the job, and how are you measuring it?

See the Ace of Spades post.

I do not see how, given the current candidates, Romney can be the “best one to make that case”.

Yes, Obama is weak, but .. so were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and we won only one of those….

Mew

We need a fighter that will marginalize the media and destroy obama in debates and challenge obama to several debates to make him look foolish and chicken if he doesnt show.

Why? because debates (hopefully some lincoln douglas) are the only media that our candidate won’t be edited to look as dumb as possible. Millions will be watching. We cannont afford not to cream Obama at every single debate. We need those huge victories to offset the billion dollar media smear campaign.

I just finished listening to Politico’s Mike Allen discussing the books that Rick Perry has been reading on his bus tour of Iowa, in detail about “Currency Wars”

Jon Stewart LIKES Rick Perry since Perry’s visit on Nov 10, 2011.
Jon Stewart stopped that WaPo n-rock story cold in Oct, 2011.
When Jon Stewart satirized the Romney hand on Perry’s shoulder debate moment, Perry was Clint Eastwood as tough cowboy, and Romney was secret human hidden in a robot’s skull.

Perry even charmed Christiane Amanpour in an online short interview when he answered her question “favorite music” with Beethoven.

No need to worry about the liberal media. Bush43 was proud he did NOT read books.
Rick Perry mostly DOES read books, so far, has not admitted he watches television although I am sure he is a secret NCIS fan.

Bush43 was faking being dumb (he was mostly NOT-curious) and pretending to be a Texan.

Rick Perry is the Gary Cooper of governors. The real deal. who is intensely curious and likes to read books. My, my.

(and I’m beginning to think he might just WIN Iowa) I believe he’d still win South Carolina. He has a lot going for him there, including his military service and his good ol’ Southern charm. (I say that as a proud Southerner who appreciates strong gentlemanly men!)