# The Debate: Perry wins; Newt survives; Mitt loses

Another debate has come and gone with corresponding poll numbers sure to follow.  Let’s jump in.  Mitt Romney is seeing his presidential nomination slip away to Newt Gingrich while conservatives are getting a last ditch effort by Perry and Bachmann to not kiss the next five years away to Barack Obama.

At this rate, Newt could be right — the race could come down to “Newt” vs. the “anti-Newt.”

All three conservatives on stage (Governor Perry, Representative Bachmann and Senator Santorum) had great nights.  But Perry is the guy who has hit his stride, is our voice, possesses the war chest and has built the infrastructure to bring home the W.  Let’s jump in.

Mitt Romney.

Last night Romney failed to stop the hemorrhaging from his formerly inevitable nomination.  Mitt Romney isn’t as strong of a debater when he is facing worthy opponents.  With both Newt and Perry on their game — Mitt ran into some trouble.  Governor Perry asked Mitt why he suggested an individual mandate might be the best healthcare option for other states to adopt in his book, No Apologies.  Mr. Romney strangely replied by proposing a $10,000 bet to Governor Perry that the book was being misquoted. Romney was being slightly misquoted, but the principal is true. Romney suggested that a mandate was right for other states and then slyly took it out of the later version of his book. Perry nailed Romney on it. Romney’s solution to problems is allowing the free hand of the market to provide healthcare options, but that free hand must also be holding a government stick so that Uncle Sam may threaten to punish citizens if they don’t buy into his “free market” mandate. The most frightening portion of the exchange occurred when Romney asked Perry to bet him$10,000.00.  Seriously?  Mr. Romney: do you have that much money to throw around or is this simply a sign of how irresponsible you are with money?  Come on.  Romney flippantly joked about an amount of money that may not be much to him but that is the equivalent of three months salary to the voters he is talking to.  We can’t blame him, Romney is a country club republican who cannot possibly comprehend what it is like to not have money.  He has never not been apart of a family that didn’t have a million dollars in the bank.  That is fine, but we have an election coming up and he isn’t inspiring hope that he “feels our pain.”  President Obama was paying off school loans as recently as 2004.  With a populist sentiment sweeping the nation, how does Romney expect to beat Obama with that kind of talk?  Romney is supposed to be the disciplined candidate, yet every time he is challenged he shoots off his mouth irresponsibly.

Mitt also looked weak when indicating that he would call Benjamin Netanyahu to ask what he needed to say.  If you are POTUS, you don’t need to ask anyone anything before conducting an interview.  Here is what Mitt should have said, “Newt made a true statement that was irresponsible.”  That is it.  But Mitt has never been a guy to make political decisions based on his conservative instinct of right-vs-wrong.  Mitt is a guy that relies on focus groups and consultants to form his opinions so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he won’t talk openly about the Israel-Palestine problem.

All in all, Romney was less disciplined than Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann combined last night.  Raise the campaign alert level to Red, because Mitt is in danger.

Newt Gingrich survived last night’s debate, he can’t really be praised much beyond that.  No one knocked him out of his frontrunner status, but Newt has a number of unfavorable views and character flaws that he is going to have to run from to win this Caucus with social conservatives on January 3.

Newt lied about his support for government mandates last night.  He tried to argue that the idea of a mandate was only an answer to Hillarycare in 1994.  The truth is that the threat of Hillarycare subsided in the mid-90′s.  Yet Newt spent the next decade advocating a mandate.  Now he wants Iowans to believe differently.

But in a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Mr. Gingrich wrote, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” An “individual mandate,” he added, should be applied “when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed.”  This wasn’t in response to Hillary, this was Newt all the way pushing big government mandates.  There are a half dozen quotes from Newt supporting a mandate since Romney signed Romneycare in Massachusetts.

Last night, Newt implored Iowans to understand that at one point a mandate was what was necessary to defend against Hillarycare.  That is the problem.

Conservatism can’t be defined by Hillary Clinton.  It is proactive not reactionary.  If Newt was the ideas guy he claims to be, he would’ve been proactive in finding ways to lower healthcare costs.  As it happened, Newt followed.  Newt took action reactively at first, in response to the Clintons and then spent the last decade advocating a government mandate, proactively.  This shows a fundamental lack of understanding on what it means to be a conservative.

Boiled down, modern conservatism stands for the inherent good of decreased government power and increased personal liberty.  Newt Gingrich cannot tell us what was so difficult to understand about this concept.  Will there be future problems that a President Gingrich might think only increased government can solve?

On the merits, Newt failed last night.  But no one landed a blow on him and thus he lives to fight another day.

Michele Bachmann came out surprisingly strong and fiery, but we already knew she was passionate, what we didn’t know and still don’t know, is whether she is ready to lead.  Last night, Bachmann failed to demonstrate that she could pass anything.  We know she can repeal the last three years, but she can move the ball forward on offense?  We know Bachmann is a hero to the tea party but can she work with Democrats on anything.  There is no one I would trust in their first 100 days of office more than a President Bachmann.  No conservative can doubt she would overturn Dodd/Frank, Obamacare, EPA regs, etc.  But what happens after that?  We raise taxes nominally on poor people under the Bachmann tax plan?  What for?  We implement the “Win, Win, Win” plan?  I don’t even know what that is.  Bachmann talked more about Herman Cain’s stupid tax plan than she promoted her own.

If Representative Bachmann,  can serve a successful term as Governor or Senator of Minnesota first, she should be our nominee, but where is her ability to appeal to independents, or work with Democrats?  She is certainly more disciplined than ever, Bachmann has proven that she should be in an important leadership role in the House, but unfortunately, she hasn’t proven that she is the able to win this nomination.  Her tax plan is uninspiring and no one even knows what Win, win, win even means.

Rick Perry walks away with the biggest gains last night.  He is on the rise in Iowa while barnstorming the state and spending like crazy.  A 6 or 7 point boost will create the momentum he needs.  Last night could give him a couple of points.  Most of the debate, Perry wasn’t talking to the country, he was talking to Iowans.  The Governor of Texas reminded Iowa Christians that he was the family man of one wife in the race that has also been consistently conservative.  The Governor also gave credit to Representative Ron Paul for calling out the Federal Reserve for stealing wealth and creating and manipulating economic bubbles.  Make no mistake, this was a call to soft supporters of Paul in Iowa, that there is someone that hears them.  For the first time, some Paul supporters may be able to peel off and go to another candidate.

Perry took it to Romney over the Massachusetts healthcare mandate.  He sounded strong and presidential.  While Romney threw out the juvenile, “well you were for mandating that young girls get vaccinated,” Perry didn’t get sidetracked.  He stayed on message.  In the next 25 days, no one is going to care whether Perry signed off on an executive order he never should’ve signed on.  He has apologized and it never went into effect.  On the other hand, Massachusetts continues to bare the costs of Romneycare.

Conclusion.

This may have been Romney’s worst debate thus far and Gingrich did himself no favors either.  If anything, Bachmann’s comments on Newt-Romney will be remembered by Iowa voters.

The debate is now over, most of the country will have to seek out a cable news channel for republican presidential coverage.  Not so for Iowans.  Iowa is in the midst of being inundated with advertisements from the Perry and Paul machines showcasing Newt Gingrich’s conservative heresy’s over the years.  If Gingrich can successfully play defense, he may eek it out long enough to win the primary before torpedoing the party in the General, but if we’re fortunate the Perry comeback will continue and we can run the jobs Governor against the anti-jobs President.

• Money

And not just because I agree that Perry should be our nominee. The Romney ship has been taking on water for a few weeks now, and last night may have been the point where the “inevitability” followers finally decided to jump overboard. For all the Romney people out there who don’t think he’s conservative enough, but at least he’s electable, watch last nights debate. He got his butt kicked by Perry (his book), Newt (on Palestine), and Bachmann (on everything). It’s time for you to pick a winner, and mercifully, he ain’t it.

• trevorb

Romney was the clear loser tonight. I felt Perry did very well and it was probably his best moments. we’ll see what it does in the polls. Gingrich did all right, and honestly, deflected attacks far better than Perry did when he was still in the top position. Nevertheless, his personal life and the mandate are going to be a big problem for him.

• trevorb

last night; probably should have looked it over before I posted.

• johnnyredstate

I actually liked this debate.

Everyone did well for the most part, no big gaffes unless you include Mitt’s bet. That’s nothing compared to Perry’s brain freeze.

I’m looking forward to the next debate, any word if the debate will still go on without Trump? Perhaps all the GOP candidates will show up?? I think they bailed over the fact Trump was gonna be the moderator.

• Xasteius

Merck money to mandate Gardasil because Romney mentioned the HPV vaccine just before the bet comment.

Don’t think the comment turned out quite like Romney wanted it to, though, to judge from the reaction of the media.

• greyeagle

The law was never passed and no vaccine ever given. So NO mandate was ever in effect.

• http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

ninguno texto

• dpmapper

I disagree that Newt kicked butt on that argument. I’m sure he loved being able to compare himself to Reagan, but the analogy is completely flawed. In the Cold War we needed to be the rhetorical leader against the USSR. In the Israel/Palestinian conflict, we are the support – Israel is the lead. It’s fine for private citizen Newt to make his statements, but presidential candidates need to be much more circumspect. Santorum and Romney got it right.

• haumea

He indirectly tied Palestinian terrorism to overall Islamic terrorism against the US by pointing out that, well, these folks are all on the same team.

• center77

the only negative I see is that Romneys liberal buddies are out in force trying to limit the damage by saying Perry would have lost the bet, that’s complete non-sense and Romneys own communications director stated he took it out because facts changed. Romney said his law did not affect 92% who had insurance, except those people have been affected.

It’s time for the truth brigade.

• center77

my friend, but small buttons and a gardalsil filled auto correct strikes again.

• Common_Cents

I just got a samsung epic touch and the voice to text is speedy and accurate. Hardly any typing ever for me with web/email/text on my mobile

• lizzie

Will someone please explain when Mitt Romney had dreams of playing in the National Football League?

As far as the public record, the only sport Mr. Romney ever engaged in was cross-country track during his prep school years. Not even Little League baseball.
Also, if his parents DID make him work for anything, the details would be useful.

I was curious about his sports background, because a CEO once told me that he considered participation in Team Sports, at some point in life, was a good criteria for management hires.

Mr. Romney seems unaware that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is most likely very aware that his Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon has an official “State of Israel” Youtube channel with three, so far, videos to clarify history, usually only the 20th century era. Video #3 is excellent on the Refugee Problem
Here is the official channel:

At the 48 second mark of video #2, MK Ayalon starts to make the same exact point made by Newt Gingrich:

“Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank”
July 12, 2011 “Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon explains the historical facts relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The video explains where the terms “West Bank”, “occupied territories” and “67 Borders” originated and how they are incorrectly used and applied”

Considering that President Obama just officially celebrated Hanukkah, not on the first night of December 21, 2011, but on December 8, 2011, coincidentally the 24th anniversary of the Furst Intifada launched from Gaza, I think it very important to have a President who is willing to support the Israeli government in acknowledging real history.

Many thought the Obama White House was offensive in changing the date of Hanukkah for a photo-op, and lighting all eight candles at once.

I find it treacherously insulting to “celebrate” the Jewish holiday that commemorates, as Pragmatist (citation at end) wrote, “The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
* The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C.”

on the anniversary of another palestinian ‘rebellion’
against ‘Zionist “occupation”‘.

Obama just declared War on Hanukkah!

As to tonight’s debate, I thougt Gov. Perry took this question and really hit it out of the park, while still agreeing with Gingrich at the end.

And, apparently a few pundits noticed the same (Liz Cheney on Fox and Marc Thiessen at National Review in my very brief time online today)

Ok, I watched Perry’s interview with Chris Wallace this morning, and think Perry needs to pace himself during his bus tour in Iowa (and is his bus Made in The USA?).

CITATION:
Historical citation from the best single historical timeline of the actual history of the re-established nation of Israel, comment #4. Pragmatist
:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/10/a-unexpected-wager-an-invented-people-and-a-private-sector-historian-recap-of-the-gop-debate/?singlepage=true

• avagreen

At one time I spent almost a day researching this point in order to reply somewhere, but of course, cannot find it now. This link puts it all together in one spot, which I’m going to bookmark.

The one thing this poster alluded to, but did not put into words is that a PLO executive member said that Palestine were not a people, but the name existed for political purposes only. And, I’ve read somewhere that Arafat said the same thing,but can’t find the link.

Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:

• lizzie

although when it comes to keeping track of the ‘palestinian narrative’, it is now an impossible task
my personal dilemma as a longtime reader of what used to be more balanced sources. Israel’s 2006 Cast Lead ‘war’ to stop the missiles from Gaza really flipped a lot of American writers.
I joke (with sadness) about it elsewhere as “fill in a name misses the invites for the glitterati Manhattan dinner parties”

I recently read a travel memoir by former SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas, compiled from various road trips he made in 1952-54 through Lebanon, Jordan, actually crossing the barbed wire barricades that still defined the 1949 Armistice Line through the heart of Jerusalem. He included some time in a refugee camp. No one expected the camps to still be there, 4 or 5 years later. It was a powerful read.

One thing that stuck in my memory was that Justice Douglas only saw Jerusalem through the eyes of a Christian, moved by retracing the – oops- sorry – I can not remember what Christians call the path that Jesus walked and am too tired to look it up, my sincere apologies (I am recovering from being highly angered by a blogpost on Newt’s “invented” palestinians by David Remnick at The New Yorker) .

Nor can i remember the title of the book. I had already read Douglas’s 1957 epic travel memoir “West of the Indus”, where he and his wife drive 75,000 miles in a station wagon from Karachi, Pakistan north thru the Khyber Pass through northern Afghanistan, some of Iran, then through Kurdistan into Anatolia to Istanbul, Turkey.
The nicest people were in Afghanistan, and the Kurdish areas.
Quite a read, when one considers what all these places are like today.

Closing out with Carhartt ad slogan:
“Stands true when others break down”

so very Perry

• avagreen

You sound very well read!

Also use my drafts in email for things I want to save, but back when I did that particular research, I didn’t. I’m thinking it was comfortably saved under my name on a political forum that just went out of business last week. I could look back and see my sources that I’ve used.
Sad to see the old place go.

Yep, so very Perry. Bless his little pea-picking heart.

• nancysabet

I\in the debate was when Perry took the question on Israel and criticized Obama’s foreign policy in ME. Liz Cheney did say the same on Fox. He received the longest applause for his response .

• boonerdan

Good thing they didn’t ask him how many justices there are on the Supreme Court of the United States.

• thirstyboots

I thought he “just” didn’t know the names of them all. Which is still pathetic enough, of course.

• sunshinek67

• Scope

despite your hatred of him. By all accounts, both left and right, Perry was the winner. Sorry that that hurts your heart and your brain. Take a couple deep breaths man, you’ll get over it soon enough.

• retire05

there are eight justices, and one chief justice, for a total of nine.

Perry was talking about the eight judges (justices) that ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional. The problem is that the ruling was, itself, not consistant with the Constitution which places no limits on prayer in the public sector (First Amendment rights) and does not deal with education (a 10th Amendment issue).

• gekster

The amendment was put in words that are as plain as day.

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This part:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Does not say, “except in schools, public places, or anywhere some idiot might be offended by religeon”.

The ruling is unconstitutional on it’s face.

• Langley

You won’t hear it mentioned in the media, but Perry is quietly regaining steam in Iowa polling. I read about an ARG poll this morning that had Newt at 22, Romney 17, Paul 17, Perry 13, rest in single digits. Perry clocked 11% in a poll last week.

Polls are lagging indicators, and often the static numbers of a given poll are less important than the movement in numbers compared to previous polls. Newt is still on top, but has lost some ground. Romney’s lost some ground and will probably lose more after Saturday night’s performance sinks in more. Perry on the other hand is quietly picking up support a few digits at a time.

Perry is also doing a bus tour of Iowa over the next few weeks where he’ll hit 42 cities. This ain’t over for Governor Perry.

• http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

This is far from over. Secretariat just got let out of the gate.

• http://theconservativehand.com Brookhaven

Earlier this year, the people running 140elect.com pointed out that the number of Twitter followers a candidate had was a reliable precursor to how they would be doing in upcomming polls.

If a candidates Twitter follwers went up, in a week or so they would start to go up in the polls. If their Twitter followers went down, they soon went down in the polls. Every time I’ve checked it’s been true.

Cain’s followers dropped like a rock several weeks before his polling numbers dropped through the floor.

Newt’s followers skyrocketed about THREE WEEKS BEFORE his poll numbers took off.

If Perry really has turned the corner and is back in the race, then his Twitter follower count should be going up sharply NOW.

• carolynr

I don’t get this. The only reason…Ethanol subsidies. He’ll “buy” the vote. This man has clearly chosen NH as his priority and has snubbed Iowa. Gee….Iowans who read this…can you imagine what he will do to you if he were president. In fact…I bet he screws of NH also.

• nancysabet

in NH, I bet 10,000 on it.

• Scope

Very interesting article from 1995 on Gingrich from his childhood through 1995. And this is what so many want to elect as the next president of the US, and the free world. As stated in the article, and I am paraphrasing, Newt is always ahead of the curve with his populist positions, if the country was moving left on something, Newt would lead the charge. Hence the often spoken idea on Newt, he is not disciplined by any core principles, therefore he just comes up with ideas after ideas, because the left and right positions don’t constrain his thinking.

• Common_Cents

Are you going to quote DKOS next?

I don’t mind brainstormers. Brilliant thinkers contemplate all kinds of ideas. That’s newt. Look at his record of what he accomplished, second to only Ronald Reagan himself.

• Scope

I don’t think I have to link article after article with Newt supporting the individual mandate during Hillarycare. It’s everywhere. He only recently decided that there should be some choices like, buy medical insurance, post a bond for your medical expenses, the federal government can send vouchers for you to purchase medical insurance. How does that get the federal government out of the health insurance business where they don’t belong? His “solutions” are more federal government involvement. Even with his voucher idea, it is still a federal government solution.

Newt said that neighbors shouldn’t be responsible for their neighbors healthcare costs. Do you really believe that those who currently have medical insurance aren’t paying for their neighbors healthcare costs. I’ve had healthcare insurance for more years than I like to remember. I haven’t used, knock on wood, anywhere near in medical expenses what I have paid in health insurance premiums. My premiums are already covering those that have used far more in medical costs, with serious illnesses, that my premiums are paying for.

Newt was paid money from pharmaceutical companies, companies involved in the medical delivery system, and it includes his companies payment from GE Jeffrey (Obama) Immelt health insurance company.

In short, Newt is on the side of the issue that is paying him to be on that side of the issue. It goes from Freddie Mac, helping to get mortgages for low income people, that lead to the housing meltdown. He was on the side of the big pharma etc. that lead him to agitate for support of Medicare Part D. He has earned money from a company that lobbies for ethanol subsidies. Newt Gingrich is on the side of the issue where he is collecting money from, period.

There has been much talk about Crony Capitalism in this campaign season. Newt has been a true and indifferent Crony Capitalist, depending on who pays him the money to be there on their particular issue.

I don’t care if you chose to shot the messenger in the article linked. There are many times that the messenger is much more accurate, especially if they have interviewed many many to write their article. I am now more often on CNN than Fox, and CNN is a leftist news channel. Fox has left much to be desired with respect to the GOP candidates.

Sorry that the article impeded on your all Newt, all the time sensibilities. Most are willing to look at many sites, references, and cable news channels, to chose their candidate. It’s the difference between the Perry supporters, and the supporters of Newt or any other candidate. The Perry supporters are willing to admit when Perry has been wrong. The Perry supporters have not tried to make a Messiah out of their candidate. That’s the stark and bold color difference between the Perry supporters and the supporters of other candidates.

• JSobieski

at the time they were referred to as MSA (medical savings accounts) which are currently referred to as HSAs.

Newt opposed Hillarycare, which didn’t include a mandate.

Newt spoke about having HCFA “wither on the vine”—HCFA is the original death panels, and they control all Medicare pricing.

Since you like CNN so much

Attack Newt for a variation of the mandate if you wish. Just as Perry admitted his vacination issue was a mistake, Newt has said the same thing.

Newt has been a conservative reformer on the health care issue for decades. He was the first DC politician in a leadership position to talk about reforms that are now standard conservative positions.

There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Characterizing Newt’s views on health care reform as being anything like Hillary’s or Obama’s is silly.

it would be far more accurate to say that people like Mike Pence have adopted 90% of what Newt’s health care reform ideas were from the mid 1990s.

You like CNN’s reporting on this because CNN reports based on one word labels–its their trademark

Remember how CNN reported on the “draconian cuts” proposed by Newt during the Clinton administration.

Well, we both know that there were NO CUTS. Only reductionsin the rate of increase. I humbly suggest that you factor that in to your processing as you absorb what the MSM says.

Politics is more than a team sport, what we say about policies matters even if the one particular candidate is favored over another.

• Scope

Newt’s long arms are everywhere.

• JSobieski

“When the SCHIP program was enacted by Newt Gingrich in 1997, its goal was to make sure states had the flexibility to address the health problems of children within their borders by any means available. Today, the goal must be the same – to give states the tools to reduce the number of uninsured dramatically, not creating new sets of barriers penalizing states for doing the right thing for children”

Kind of sounds like what Perry wants to do with SS—give states flexibility to address problems. Ronald Reagan was a big proponent of block grants, as is Mike Pence.

Of course, none of this even relates to the facts I raised above:
(1) Newt opposed Hillary Care? Check
(2) Newt was one of the earliest proponents of MSAs/HSAs? Check
(3) Newt wanted HCFA, the original death panel, to whither on the vine? Check

Newt has done and said a lot of things worth criticizing. Healthcare is not however one of them. Much of the Newt healthcare agenda is now firmly established as conservative reforms.

Focus less on people and more on policies—-it will make you a more effective advocate.

• JSobieski

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=56615334&category=views&id=20100610221358

So is SCHIP good because Perry likes it, or bad because Newt started it? Kind of like how you supported “Pence private accounts” but opposed “Ryan private accounts”?

“In 1993, Rick Perry wrote a letter giving passive support to Hillary Clinton’s efforts to reform health care in the United States through a system of mandates on employers. In 2001, he spoke in support of cross border insurance that would insure Mexican citizens living in the US.

Despite these efforts in support of government programs and increasing federal power, Governor Perry has supports state based solutions to health care while in office. He has opposed programs imposed by the federal government without state flexibility. With this in mind, Governor Perry supports the SCHIP program that matches state funds for children’s insurance, and opposed the 2009-2010 health care reform efforts. He opposes a public option or single payer program.

Governor Perry started a program called TexCare to promote the SCHIP program. Enrollment peaked in May 2002 and was reduced due to a 2003 budget shortfall. A law was passed in 2003 that required enrollees to prove their continued eligibility every six months, as well as pass an assets test, and a 90-day waiting period before enrollment. These provisions were overturned in 2007. In 2010, one out of every three children in the state of Texas received their insurance through the SCHIP program.”

Now as a reasonable person, I am not going to jump all over this and start saying Perry is some kind of statist who favored HIllarycare and wants to socialize medicine. I won’t do those things because I am a big believer in facts and in context.

• retire05

Perry’s letter to Hillary. Why is that? Is it because you have never bothered to read the actual letter? How could Perry, or anyone else for that matter, have supported Hillarycare in April 1993 when the plan was not revealed until September? Perry simply brought to her attention the farmers of America. Perhaps you don’t understand the dilemia that farmers had in regards to emergency medical care at that time?

Romney likes to blather on about how many people in Texas are uninsured. What he doesn’t say is that there is not one resident of Texas who does not have access to medical care. Or that under a Governor Perry, who pushed tort reform and “Loser Pays” laws, Texas has seen a marked increase in not only doctors, but hospitals, as well. I remember when I first moved into my home, located in a small town in central Texas, I had no access to Life Flight and the nearest ER was 48 miles away.

For someone who claims to be a “big believer in facts”, you presented damn little of them.
If you did say that Perry favored Hillarycare, you would be lying. No one, at the time the letter was written, knew what Hillarycare would entail. If you wanted to be honest, you would acknowledge that Perry, doing the job he was elected to do as Ag Commissioner, tried to bring to Hillary’s attention the plight of farmers/ranchers who were in deep caca with no access to quick, and local, emergency care.

• http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

Scope, I’m clapping on the other end of the internet Haven’t met a Perry supporter yet who thought he was perfect, or who tried to cover up for his very real mistakes (like Gardasil). Why that is, I’m not sure–I’ve been trying to think what sets the Perry Posse apart from other candidate support groups and I haven’t hit on the common denominator yet.

• greyeagle

But there are so many comments I hardly know where to start. I don’t believe that Newt started SHIP. They had that in Florida about 1993. That is a state program used for children. The letter Perry wrote Hillary was very general and was asking questions. Hardly an approval. The cross border insurance was a business issue that was explored, but never happened. It would have allowed businesses to sell healthcare insurance on both sides of the border. Couldn’t work because of differences in laws, so did not happen. You seem to say that Perry is favor of Socialist medicine. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You favor Newt” Go ahead. However please don’t trash Rick Perry with trumped charges that are not the truth.

• JSobieski

Perry did embrace SCHIP for use in Texas. Does that make him a big government statist? No. But I I can focus on an isolated word here and another word there and argue silly things like “Perry is no different Hillary–they both support SCHIP”.

Nobody on the Republican side favors socialized medicine—not Newt, not Perry, and not even Romney.

Newt’s ideas on health care reform have become mainstream conservative solutions in 2011, but they were not so back in the mid 1990s.

It is no better to use “trumped up charges” on Newt than it is Perry.

I have favored Perry since he entered the race. I am against what I consider unfair “trumped charges” against all candidates, not just the candidates that I favor.

• http://www.RightFace.us dkolonia

Perry did not win the debate although he had a good debate for him and I was glad to see that. I feel Newt did very well. They all ganged up on him and handled it very well. I am also troubled though on his support for the individual mandate but even Ron Paul suggests that if someone has really changed their view it is hard to say bad things about that. I am not sure though that Perry can win anymore. He is very damaged. Lets hope he gets back in it though as he says many good things. But there are some who say he is no conservative also.

• center77

I am not sure how they can say that, and many probably are supporting Newt, which makes no sense at all. Perry is the most consrvative electable candidate by far, when you are a governor of a stte that is creating so many jobs, then you are a threat to take it all. That is just the truth, even if it does not happen, it does not make him not the best option.