« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Perry for President: A Post-Mortem

Why is Rick Perry out of the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States?

Because the man and his Campaign messed up. Bad. He had the opportunity to introduce himself to the nation that any candidate would give his right arm for and he flubbed it. It was like watching a slow-motion trainwreck. Worse is that it was not the media’s fault, it was not the so-called “Establishment’s” fault, it was not the fault of either Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Cain, Huntsman or Bachmann, it’s not Obama’s fault , it’s not even the fault of those damn RiNOs in Iowa and New Hampshire – the fault was and is entirely in the hands of Rick Perry and his campaign.

Let’s not forget that Rick Perry entered the race to an incredible outpouring of support – he was clocking 40% in some polls and he was the immediate recipient of torrents of cash. That wasn’t some “Establishment” plot. He had it virtually sown up. All he needed to do was deliver a Bachmann-level performance at the debates or just simply tout and defend his record of service, and it would have been a two-man race between him and Romney – with Romney firmly on the bad side of the bet.

But, of course, the Perry Campaign entered the race with the odd (and fatally arrogant yet firmly held theory) that “Debates Don’t Matter” and decided to forgo any semblance of debate prep or wargaming to figure out his weakspots and most importantly, figure out a proper defense and counter-strategy to neutralize them and get them off the table. Whatever else you may think about the quality of the debates (and the moderators), the fact that millions of people (AKA voters) all across the nation were going to be watching them, and afterwards even more millions would be seeing snippets of them on the news broadcasts, and the fact that they’ll be on YouTube (gaffes, warts and all) for all eternity, made them matter.

That the Gardisil, instate-college tuition rates for long-resident illegal immigrants and Trans-Texas Corridor issues obviously caught the Perry Campaign by surprise had me scratching my head in confusion. How the #@ck could every single upper-echelon member of the campaign have failed to warn the Governor about these issues when they were front and center of almost every Perry “Will-He?-Won’t-He?” discussion online and on talk-radio for weeks? How could his only response, whenever statistics were called out by moderators to make Texas (the only reason he’s on anyone’s radar) sound like some Third World country was “… blah blah get America working again …”?

The truth of the matter is, with the sole exception of their fantastic handling of the infamous 53-Second Oops moment, no campaign team has so ill-served their candidate on the national stage, and I’m including Cain’s platoon of bumbling amateurs. But thanks to “Debates Don’t Matter” coupled with a cookie cutter campaign and utterly non-responsive devoid of any kind of innovation (seriously – just take a look at the farce that is rickperry.org), Rick Perry’s 11 year record of achievement in Texas – a record that has every other candidate on the stage green with envy – never became a (much less the) factor in the race that it was supposed to be.

Even worse, it seems the entirety of the Perry Campaign missed what everyone else (even a thorough non-professional like me) was worried about when we were still at the “Will-He?-Wont-He?” stage; will the voters be ready to send another Texas Governor to the White House so soon after the last one left under such a (largely self-inflicted) cloud?

Of course, every Republican candidate, to some extent during the general election campaign, would be forced, in some way, to disassociate themselves with George W. Bush. Even if the Obama Campaign neglects to mention it (highly unlikely) at every opportunity, his Amen Corner in the Press certainly would not i.e. “Willard Newt Perry, a Republican, like George W. Bush …” Perry would have had a much harder time of it of course, given that not only do Rick Perry and George W. Bush come from the same party, same state, and hold the same office in Texas before seeking the Presidency, they were even on the same ticket.

Nonetheless, being a Republican, a Texan and a Governor of Texas like Bush, even being George W. Bush’s Lt. Governor, all of which would be helpfully pointed out early and often by many journalists in breathless and ominous tones, is something any competent campaign can survive. Being also perceived as dumb – “like Bush” – in addition to the aforementioned things in common, is, I submit, something else entirely. It still stuns me that despite the Press telegraphing their intended narrative template when covering Rick Perry i.e. stupid, with multiple liberal columnists and talking heads all chiming in at the same time (Journolists in action) with articles bearing helpful tell-tales titles like “Is Rick Perry Too Stupid To Be President?”, the Perry Campaign still needed three debates to finally decide that debate prep was a worthwhile investment.

Of course, neither George W. Bush nor Rick Perry is dumb – the United States Air Force has never been in the habit of putting multi-million dollar pieces of equipment which can kill lots and lots of people in one single moment of carelessness in the hands of low IQ individuals. But this is politics, and in politics, perception trumps reality. Otherwise, how the heck could a first-term Senator, with no history of accomplishment, all sorts of questionable associations, virtually no paper trail, and certainly no executive experience of any sort, win the Presidency of the United States?

Because the simple fact of the matter is that the number of voters who go out of their way to research candidates’ records and scrutinize their every word and deed is actually very very small. What is at least a heavy plurality, if not a majority, of voters (even among the generally more engaged and knowledgeable Primary electorate) are political morons who vote based on gut feelings and impressions of the candidate that they get from watching coverage of the candidates on TV and from a quick glance at the headlines of newspapers and magazines at the checkout counter. For many Americans, that is the full extent of their research into who gets their vote to be the Leader of the Free World. And there’s not much to suggest that Republican Primary voters are really that much different.

The problem here is that the Primary voter who casts her vote for Mitt Romney because “he looks Presidential” counts just as much as the politics junkie voter who decided to give her vote to Rick Perry after her careful objective line-by-line scrutiny of every candidate’s record. A successful candidate needs to figure out how to appeal to the bulk of voters between these two extremes. In other words, a candidate needs to figure out that combination of style and substance to get the voters’ attention, win them over and keep them on side. Think of it like running a successful restaurant, taste (substance) matters above all but so does presentation (style).

Instead the Perry Campaign came up with “Debates Don’t Matter” and of course that came along with the bone-headed resulting lack of preparation over not one, not two, but three debates. Then they decided that debates may matter but only in the service of repeating the same campaign buzzphrases (i.e. “Get America Working Again”) and talking point of the day irrespective of the question asked. By the time they figured out that the debates (no matter what you may think of them) were actually quite important, Rick Perry – with a record in executive office any Presidential candidate would envy – had been tuned out by most voters as a dud, and is now basically seen as either just another dumb Governor from Texas who just happened to be around when Texas was doing good.

This – that a Presidential Campaign needs to appeal to more than its base of support and tailor its messaging and delivery to suit its intended audience – is something many Perry supporters online seemed incapable of understanding. So when anyone pointed out, at least here on RedState, that Perry was not doing a good job on the media and communications front (especially at the debates) with fence-sitters, the typical Perry devotee response was that Perry had them convinced so anyone thinking Perry should make any adjustments should go pound sand. One particular lady thought it was good idea to repeatedly tell people who (no matter how politely and/or carefully) expressed any concern about Perry dropping the ball at the debates, or simply mentioning his precipitously dropping poll numbers, to shut up and “vote for someone else!”

Well, a lot of people obviously took her advice in IA, NH and apparently were going to do so in SC. I’m still not quite so sure how telling people to “vote for someone else” helps your candidate but I dont’t doubt there was a lot of passion but not quite as much logic involved.

Speaking of which, and again, focusing on RedState and its more passionate Perry supporters, Perry won every single debate, every (usually non-responsive) answer was a home run, every move his campaign made was a distillation of brilliance in its purest form. And of course, the drop in his poll numbers was a sign of some vast Left-Wing Media and GOP Establishment conspiracy to get Romney elected – the debates (which didn’t matter because “Debates Don’t Matter”) themselves were a part of the conspiracy to bring him down because “everyone” apparently knew he would flub them and stubbornly refuse to change course until it was too late.

Of course, the reality is rather more mundane; his campaign – quite apart from its boneheaded approach to the debates – sucked. A competent campaign, upon seeing that their candidate is not good at debates, would have flooded the zone with videos of Perry in other forensic formats (i.e. one-on-one interviews, townhalls, etc.) that he’s obviously more comfortable with. A competent campaign would have had a better website than the plain sad one that was rickperry.org. A competent campaign would have responded more aggressively to the Washington Post’s “N#$%erhead Rock” hit-piece.

A competent campaign would not have failed the simple task of securing enough signatures to get on the Primary ballot in Virginia.

There are many knowledgable Primary voters in IA and NH, who went out to research his record and genuinely would have loved to vote for Rick Perry. But they ended up voting for other people because just simply observing his campaign, it was clear that there was no way he could beat Obama’s billion dollar machine.

That’s why Rick Perry is back in Texas today.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • pjpetzold

    And it’s one of the things that depresses me most about politics. The fact that he could mess up at a debate and keep on rolling was just another thing I loved about Perry, about a man I had deeply researched, and who I knew would be the best choice for the next POTUS. It was something that made him all the more real, and more like your average American.

    The problem is that this is the public willing to elect Obama to be our Leader. The problem is that the people voting don’t care one iota about who would really do the best job. Our race is more like American Idol than the election of the Leader of the Free World. Style over substance.

    I wish a lot of things. I wish Rick Perry had been more prepared, though I do think his late entrance hurt him there, I also believe that he could have done infinitely better had he and his campaign taken things seriously and properly prepped. And I can admit that a part of me is insulted that he didn’t take that time to prepare himself for anything, but I can forgive that because I know that he was the most capable candidate on that stage, regardless of speaking gaffes.

    I pray that he’ll run again with this experience to bolster his perception, and I mourn the loss of my naivety. How foolish I was to think that the most able person should be elected to do the job. Should an accomplished mute run against a eloquent fool, I think we all know who would win; I think that is, more than anything, something to be ashamed of.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com;http://news.unifiedpatriots.com/ Beaglescout

      The thing that blows my mind the most is he entered the race less than a week after he had spinal fusion surgery. That is a painful surgery. It requires heavy duty drugs to recover. Of course he was going to be dopey in the debates. He was recovering from surgery. He should have either delayed his entrance or played up the surgery angle, that he cared so much about doing the right thing that he entered the race before he was ready. Add in a one hour tearjerker special about him that ends with the story of the surgery and he would have turned the handicap into an edge.

      • Flagstaff

        After that, what is the excuse this time?

        As usual, Martin does a bang-up job.

        I wonder what advice he might have for Romney? (I say that, even though it looks to me like Romney is the only one of the bunch with a glimmering of an idea about how to run a national campaign.) How does he stop himself from speaking in sound bites made for Democrat TV?

        I amend my earlier two questions that primary voters are considering in the back of their minds:

        “Can Newt, or Mitt, beat Obama?” and, “If so, which one will leave his wife while in the White House?”

        • carolynr

          I am a Rick Perry supporter. He is exactly what we need to lead this country. PERIOD.

          Now…about this spinal fusion business. I guess you don’t know people that have had this procedure done…do you. However, before I get into this…this is what I did.

          I wrote Perry’s office repeatedly and asked him to get into the race. I would say that his wife had some influence also…not to mention all those people that have SEEN, like I have, what can be achieved.

          He made some very good points in his debates…but nobody listened to him because they had painted him as another dumb Texas…like Dubya. I blog on the major sites…what do you think they all had in common…Perry was dumb…and this was before the first debate! Oh…and that goes for the papers ALSO.

          Now…about this spinal fusion thing. He should never have listened to any of us…because that particular operation does not always take the first time. So…Flagstaff, while I enjoy your posts, I have to tell you about first hand experience…because these days…that is all I can count on with all the misinformation out there.

          My insurance man had this performed. He was in pain before the operation…but after..WOW. He was able to go for three…four hours and then…home, lying on a board until he had to go into work the next day. He did his business lying horizontal on the board at home.

          Another surgeon tried it again…result…the same thing. More pain and he had to hire more assistants to do what he normally would be required to do. Couldn’t even participate in his son’s sports…and he was very sad about that.

          Third time…it worked and he was free of pain. This entire process took OVER TEN years!

          Here’s where you really see the man’s character. He never once complained…he wore the back brace…and yes he was in pain. He never blamed the press or his back for how he was painted. I learned this info through his son Griffin…not Perry.

          He got in too early. Reason…we all wanted to see the country in the same condition as Texas is…and…because I am a firm believer in first hand knowledge…GO VISIT.

          The man bowed out with grace and dignity … why can’t you just leave it at that…enjoy kicking someone when they are down?

          With the two people who will probably run against each other…Martin has the audacity to compare Perry to either one of those people? One is a Marxist and the other is a greedy, slick wall street profiteer and a liar that used the system to get rich and that is why he will (1) lose or (2) use the system to get even richer at our expense and he will lie during the entire term.

          Our choice…MARXIST OR LIAR…THAT’S HOW SMART WE ARE!

          NUFF SAID

          • Martin Knight

            So part of your objection to Romney is that he has made too much money?

            But this is a digression.

            I’m not happy Perry is out. He was my first choice. But he ran a bad campaign that failed to gauge the political terrain and adjust his strategies and tactics accordingly.

            Being mad at me that most Primary voters (as has been the case for decades) didn’t go do their research and pick the guy with the best record in office (Perry) is pointless. Might as well blame me for Hurricane Katrina.

            Be mad at the Perry Campaign for not figuring out how to present that record effectively and give voters the impression that he was their best choice for the next President of the United States.

            Either we examine what went wrong now and get it across to the next conservative superstar so we can avoid this next time … or we can bury our heads in the sand.

          • carolynr

            Perry got into the race too early with his health issues. There’s that is simple. This was main reason for the poor debate performance…that somehow changed with his final four. The man was “blacked out” on Fox News…or if he was mentioned…at all, there were negative innuendos about Perry. I know all of this because I am on other blogs besides this one…and it is the talking points of all of the major papers…from the GET GO.

            What I have a problem with is this. Do you kick someone once they are down? What is the motive? Is this to help other Conservative candidates learn from Perry’s mistakes? In this case, some of them were mistakes not for his self-interest but those of the country’s. Do I think that he should have stayed in Iowa all that time…NO. He wasn’t going to win that state because he was not for Ethanol subsidies…and that is the end of that story. However…why did he stay? My theory…When announcing for the presidency he rained on Michelle Bachmann’s parade and Iowa’s big straw poll. So, he promised the people of Iowa that he would spend as much of his time as possible. So…he did what he promised. One could argue that it was stupid…or we could look at it like this…the guy did what he promised…HOW REFRESHING…do we have anyone doing that NOW????

            I need to make something very, very clear on this board. I am for the free market. I am for making as much money as you can WITHIN THE LAW and WITHOUT USING PEOPLE to get there. I have owned three businesses. I made money. However, I did not use the misfortunes of other people to make it…nor did I lie about scandals wherein it cost the taxpayer millions of dollars because of my appetite for money over ETHICS.

            I was not happy with your post because I don’t believe in tearing someone down who tried for you, for me and for this country to bring to them what he did for his state. Every candidate makes mistakes…how about WILLARD’S whopper with his class warfare statement concerning the poor? However, Willard is still running…perhaps we can do something about that as an electorate. But to condemn Perry for mistakes when we can’t change anything is the past is a very omnipotent view. Nobody has been able to go back in time and change it. So, it still comes back to motive.

            Did you write it to help Perry understand how bad he was? How many times do you think “revisions” have gone through his mind?
            I guess I can sum this up like this. A person does something wrong, they know it, they feel ashamed of it, not happy, etc. and when it is apparent that they cannot right the wrong, they bow out, knowing that they didn’t do it right. Then along comes the “echo chamber” from someone else to repeat it over and over again so it becomes “fodder” for the talking heads should he ever decide to run again. Meanwhile…We’re stuck with Romney..A Progressive with a R behind his name.

          • avagreen

            Great post, carolynr.
            How many times must this be posted before the critics quit rubbing their hands together in glee b/c Perry didn’t win, or b/c he backed out (with grace and like the gentleman he is) of THIS race.

            Even when he’s gone, the hatred continues. Has any other candidate got this much reaction from his enemies, or his supporters? Don’t think so…….since on other person ran for the presidency. No need to even mention his name.

          • Martin Knight

            {shaking head.}

          • avagreen

            to which I was venting about, which after I read it, wasn’t very clear.

            My apologies. After I read it, I was aware that it could be taken both ways.

          • avagreen

            at your calling it “Perry love” when his supporters defend him.

            so……maybe I wasn’t that far off after all.

            \\*
            …….(
            //*

          • Martin Knight

            Demanding that we all pretend that the Perry Campaign did everything right or that we should all just shut up so as to avoid “kicking him while he’s down” does nothing useful.

            You probably weren’t around with those of us who watched Fred Thompson enter the race in 2008 only to collapse because his campaign couldn’t get past the media narrative of him being lazy.

            Watching someone with an even better record like Rick Perry stumble and fall in an almost identical way four years later means lessons were not learned.

          • Scope

            I was a big time supporter of Fred in 08. There is a world of difference between Fred and Perry. Fred was riding high in the polls, but, Fred couldn’t get off his arse when that tide was high, and he held off, and held held off, and then he held off again. By the time he finally decided to get in the race, much of his support already left him, just the same as Palin’s teasing that she was not sure, not sure, until they teased people enough to leave them, and go to another candidate. Fred truly didn’t even try, beyond the most basic elements, to prove to many that his heart was in it, hence the no fire in the belly perception that ensued. I couldn’t see past that as a Fredhead, but, when I finally realized that Fred really didn’t care if he won or not, I was as angry with him as the next Fredhead.

            There is a world of difference between the Fred and Perry campaigns. First off, Perry didn’t tease anyone for months that maybe he will get in, and maybe he won’t. Just a few weeks before Perry got in the race, he said that he was thinking about it, but, it only took him a few weeks to jump in, after the Texas legislature finished their work. In hindsight, Fred did the same teasing game with those that supported him, as Palin did with her supporters, except for the fact that Fred eventually did get in. Fred’s heart was not in it, and those of us that supported him, kept trying to fill his gas tank to get to the next state. Now, think about it. Fred came in third in Iowa, and he came in third in SC, with only having done the bare minimum of campaigning. Fred still got out. He didn’t fight, he didn’t try, and he didn’t have Romney’s Wall St. money machine running a scorched earth campaign against him. As a former Fredhead, Fred really did turn out to be a dud head.

            If you can compare Perry’s race to Fred Thompson’s, then you are more dishonest than anyone I know. Yup, Fred got some negative press, with his trophy wife articles in the NY Slimes, but, I don’t remember him being blocked out of any news or interviews on Fox. Fox was very very different back then. McCain had much positive press with the liberals channels, because he was a “maverick” and a “rogue” which pleased the leftists. He thought he had that advantage, and he did, until he became the nominee. Then the tables turned. The tables will turn on Romney in this cycle, and it will be so brutal, even the voting public will be left bleeding from the stab wounds. The media has so much more to go after Romney with, they haven’t even waited until he has been annointed as the nom.

            Do not, in any way shape or form compare Perry to Fred Thompson. Again, as a former Fredhead, even he didn’t hold a barely lit candle to Perry. Perry did put his heart, soul, and being into his attempt. Fred put his little bit of nothing into his race.

          • Martin Knight

            And here I am again comparing Fred Thompson to Rick Perry.

            They both ran bad campaigns with horrible communications. They both lost Primaries and had to drop out. Worse, Thompson never topped the polls and never had the money Perry did.

            PS: I believe Romney is going to get savaged by the Press beyond anything we’ve ever witnessed. They’re going to go after his wife, his children and his grandchildren. They’re going to call him a racist and make him out to be a Nazi Klansman. They’re going to publicize any accusation against him irrespective of whether it’s true or not …

            He was watching in 2008. Unlike McCain I doubt he’s under the illusion that his friends in the Press are true friends. I suspect he’s prepared.

          • Scope

            and as so many long old time RS members, many believe that because they have been here forever they have more credibility. I do think that went out the window Martin, when the Kracken came to town. No? Whatever………..

          • Scope

            Isn’t that also why RS removed the dates that people signed up at RS? Wasn’t that to take the wind out of the sails of the Old Guard that wanted to use their seniority as a tool?

          • Scope

            and decide it’s time to go home and get some sleep. Bar Room brawls are never pretty. Let it go Martin, and let the whole Perry thing go while you are at it.

          • Martin Knight

            On Perry, though, I’m not.

          • Martin Knight

            All I know is that you seem to think you can ascribe positions and motives to me simply because you are emotionally invested in one particular politician and my analysis of his Campaign (not even him as a person) was not the equivalent of waving pom-poms.

            Sometimes I wonder if I’m talking to an adult woman or a teenage girl in the throes of “Bieber Fever.”

            By pointing out that I’ve been around for a while here, I am pointing out to you that I have a record, and I can back myself up. I’ve written entire series on media bias and political communications, criticized campaigns (Perry isn’t my first) and even had emails forwarded to me from some big GOP names who wanted to pick my brain.

            I’m not saying I’m right about everything. I’m human so I can be wrong, even on your beloved Rick Perry. But I have made my position clear on things over many years here – so calling me a “moderate”, or of publicly supporting Rick Perry because I knew in advance he’d be such a poor campaigner is frankly, ridiculous.

            Let’s end it here.

          • Flagstaff

            by the text of everything he’s written here at RS. Like anyone else, he can make a mistake, but in general he’s as reliable as that old Walter Mondale speechwriter that appears on Fox Cable every day. I am always impressed by the logic of MK’s arguments.

            If you look above, he doesn’t demean Perry the man, but he does find fault with Perry the candidate, as do I.

            All that drama above about his back surgery, etc., is just that–drama. Drama that illustrates unfortunate decisions made during his campaign. Indeed, if he had done as carolynr suggests, maybe he’d still be in the thing. But he didn’t, and that was his, the candidate’s decision.

            Perry the candidate was the man who stumbled out of the blocks, and who failed miserably (sorry to say it) in some responses to questions about his performance and decisions in and out of office. He got a pass from me on the Gardasil issue–it was technical and he didn’t handle it badly, and Michelle Bachmann’s slide started when she so unfairly piled on him for making a reasoned executive decision. I defended his statement and position on in-state tuition for illegal immigrant college students (under the files he also stated), but here was no way to defend his “heartless” comment.

            In general, he simply made too many mistakes in campaigning to overcome them with his ample war chest, and even he knew that, so he dropped out. Nobody is gleeful about it, but we do understand it. What I don’t understand is your own objection to facing the facts.

            Another thing I don’t understand is why you can see these shortcomings in Mitt Romney, and even admit they have occurred in Newt’s campaign, too, but for some reason they only matter when Mitt is the culprit. IMO, Romney’s oral mistakes are nowhere near those of Perry, but even if they were, the public in general doesn’t seem to think so either.

            Martin commented about Mitt:

            “He was watching in 2008. Unlike McCain I doubt he?s under the illusion that his friends in the Press are true friends. I suspect he?s prepared.”

            I think we all hope that’s true. We haven’t seen it in action (except against Newt, and last week’s “concerned about the very poor” episode isn’t encouraging), but it’s the one concept that DTrump latched on to with his endorsement. We know that Newt can be Nasty. I want to find out that Mitt can be Merciless–when it comes to the anti-Obama campaign. Voters will accept “merciless” even when they have a problem with “nasty.”

          • Flagstaff

            Mrs. Flagstaff has two Herrington rods in her back as a result of a riding accident years before I met her. She understands the pain first hand, even if I don’t. I’ll ask her about it in the morning. I do know that she is still leery about crossing a busy street, simply because it brings the thought of another long period in a body cast.

            My thoughts on the pain thing are included below, since I didn’t really write about them in the comment you replied to. In fact, I wasn’t even writing about Perry, but responding to Beagle’s idea of using the condition tactically to gain sympathy.

            Depending on what was done, I observed that it might work once. Just as Newt’s attacks on the questioners are starting to fall flat (a longer effective life because they play to our baser emotions, I think), a candidate can only get s limited amount of mileage out of a personal physical condition.

            But nobody is attacking Perry. This was an rather intellectual analysis of why his campaign failed, why (and how) the others should take a lesson from it, and why it’s a waste of pixels to bemoan the loss of candidate Perry now.

      • sandiegovoter

        If the news of his surgery came out, it would have made him look weak. Presidential candidates must convey the idea of physical and emotional strength and youth as much as possible.

        A guy emerging from spinal fusion surgery doesn’t convey the idea of strength, although one could argue that only a strong individual could campaign while suffering from such pain. (Side note: LBJ ran for Senate in 1952 while suffering from kidney stones that would have incapacitated a normal man.)

        I had many problems with Perry from the beginning. The Gardasil issue made me question whether or not he was a conservative. I never bought his explanation for why he did it. He apologized for it but that was too little, too late. The damage to individual liberty had never been done.

        Then, to make matters worse, he used a very bigoted evangelical pastor to call out Romney on his religion and try to turn that into an issue. That is shameful. If Romney had been Jewish or Catholic or anything but Mormon, that mistake by itself could have ended Perry’s campaign.

        So by the time Perry exited the race, I agreed with the overwhelming majority of Republican voters that it was time for him to go. The fact that he endorsed Newt Gingrich right before the South Carolina primaries shows that he is still making bad decisions. Newt Gingrich will not be president. Ever. He has made too many bad choices to even be considered for the role.

        I’ll take a conservative who practices what he preaches over Newt Gingrich any day of the week.

        • Martin Knight

          Sorry, but if the Gardisil EO that he rescinded which had an opt-out and which did not penalize anyone for refusing made you question whether or not Perry was a Conservative then you obviously have your head so far up your nether regions that you’re seeing through your mouth.

          RomneyCare is a significantly more brutal assault on individual liberty.

          It’s okay to support Romney over Perry – you don’t even need a reason. But to pick such a lousy stupid reason makes you look like an idiot.

          • JSobieski

            Romneycare is so much more a significant violation of liberty in comparison to the aborted Gardisil eo, it is like comparing a nuclear bomb (Romneycare) to a hand gernade that never goes off (Gardisil).

            If people don’t try to evaluate conservative blemishes in some kind of rationale context we will end up with a primary seasons of 2008 and 2012.

        • Martin Knight

          … would not have made him look weak. In fact, it would have created a wellspring of sympathy. Contrary to popular belief, the American people don’t expect their Presidents to be gods.

        • Flagstaff

          I accept it now, too, but I didn’t take any stand on Perry’s back surgery. At the time, I wasn’t aware of it, so I assume that many other voters were not aware either.

          Since you asked by implication, I’ll say that he should probably have cancelled his appearance in whichever debate(s) it affected, with the explanation that he was taking strong medication for pain as a result of surgery and wouldn’t be able to stand for that length of time. Of course, that wouldn’t have been precisely true, but it would have sufficed. IMHO, he just didn’t seem groggy from drugs in any of the debates, though. But it’s certainly possible that without them he’d have swatted the gardasil and tuition questions out of the stadium and he’d be the front-runner today.

          “(Side note: LBJ ran for Senate in 1952 while suffering from kidney stones that would have incapacitated a normal man.)”

          LBJ let a lot of things pass that would have incapacitated a normal man.

      • CarolT

        I have had two cervcial fusion surgeries. They take a very long time to get over. I thought it was a few weeks later that Rick entered the race, but he should have waited at least a month. There was plenty of time.
        I think a one hour tear jerker would have hurt more then help Rick Perry, People are cynical and would think he was doing it for pity.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …but what I see was Perry’s downfall is what has always been his Achilles heel – his cronyism i.e. reliance on an inner circle of confidants. They did not serve him well in his effort to run a national campaign.

    I don’t know if this is endemic to Texas politics, as this is the same besetting sin that doomed Bush’s presidency.

    The gardasil incident was an notable example of the cronyism, with Perry’s relying on a political crony who was also on the drug company’s payroll, who ill-served Perry.

    If Rick is to have a future in national politics, he’s going to have to open up his trusted advisors outside of the existing inner circle.

    • avagreen

      The gardasil incident was an notable example of the cronyism, with Perry?s relying on a political crony who was also on the drug company?s payroll, who ill-served Perry.

      Merck contributed a grand total of $6,000 to Perry?s reelection campaign. While it is unseemly in its timing, $6,000 is barely enough money to get noticed, much less to buy the support of a governor, least of all a ?high roller? like Perry?s critics claim he is. That Merck contribution amounted to .00025 of the $24 million dollar campaign funds that he received that year.

      There are still some who are convinced that Merck contributed more than a paltry $6,000 to Perry. They are simply wrong. Merck gave two checks, one for $1,000 and another for $5,000 to Perry in the 2006 election timeframe (in 2008, they contributed a whopping $2,500). Here is a source to view all of Perry?s contributions: ProPublica. In fact, Merck has only contributed $23,500 to Perry over a 1998-2010 span, not exactly George Soros money. For comparison, from 2000-2006 Merck gave $2,460,000 to state politicians across 40 states.
      If you’d like to see more trash being put out about Perry, have a look:
      http://peskytruth.wordpress.com
      /2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

      “Cronyism” is relying on an inner circle to help with an election? How is that any different than any other candidate?
      It is not unusual for a politician to surround him- or herself with highly-qualified subordinates, and to develop social, business, or political friendships leading to the appointment to office of friends, likewise in granting government contracts. In fact, the counsel of such friends is why the officeholder successfully obtained his or her powerful position .
      Additionally, he changed his team later, but I hardly call his using his trusted allies as “cronyism”, which is the practice of appointing friends to high-level, esp political, posts regardless of their suitability .

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

        That has never been an issue with me. Rather, I was talking about Perry’s lead advisor who pushed him into making his ill-advised executive order – that person had a conflict of interest with Merck, and ill-served Perry.

        I know that cronyism is a loaded word these days, with the implication of corruption, but it seems like the best word to describe someone who placed undue reliance on a too-ingrown inner circle of confidants – which throughout history has been the undoing of well-meaning politicians.

        The point of my comment wasn’t to condemn Perry (or to call him corrupt) as to identify a weakness that did much to sandbag his campaign – and to indicate the antidote, which is to expand his base.

        After all, Rick did have the best conservative credentials of all. Martin I think did an excellent effort in identifying what went wrong – which will be important to understand if Rick is to have any future at the national level.

      • aesthete

        Is there evidence that Rick Perry’s campaign staff could have that description applied to them?

    • aesthete

      Not only the Bush admin (which was a hybrid of East Coast establishmentarians a la GHWB and of Texas good ol’ boys), but the LBJ administration had huge problems with cronyism. Really, all of the Southern states have problems in their governments with cronyism, and have since Reconstruction — both because they’re some of the oldest states, and because of the racket that was post-Civil War politics in the South.

  • avagreen

    and the wildfires in Texas that he fly back/forth between the first two debates. What is so laughable, some were criticizing him for NOT caring enough about Texas because he off “campaigning” for President for his own selfish self-interest while property and people were being destroyed. And, then when the news came out that he WAS doing both at the same time and had in fact cancelled one forum early on, the criticism was that he was “trying to avoid debates and would take any reason to do so”
    http://www.news-journal.com/news/perry-skips-forum-to-return-to-texas-amid-wildfires/article_03af1b6e-d7eb-11e0-a350-001cc4c03286.html

    Do ya think any of this type of media coverage had anything to do with the views of the uninformed across the nation of Perry, perhaps?

    • oldlady

      And missing you (fellow Perry supporter) at DDR….

      • avagreen

        ??

  • sulmak

    because they had not planned on running a campaign until about a month before they started. When Perry was asked if he would think about running shortly before announcing he said “Yes, but I think about alot of things”. I don’t think he seriously considered running until his polling was already starting to surge.

    • Risky

      His problem now is that he is now starting from behind in any future campaign as he needs to clear the smell of incompetence that his campaign gave out.

    • romansdaughter

      I think it is always fun to critique people or candidates when you are not in their shoes. I look at the whole campaign and how courageous Perry was to go on when his back apparently was killing him, he was trying to raise money, having to keep going back to Texas for the wild fires raging etc and actually still being Governor while the rest of the candidates apparently didn’t have jobs and two of the candidates had been running for President for years. And guess what those two were the only ones that made it on the ballot in VA,,,something not right about that?? Then apparently on top of that the pain medication made him a little dopey and stuff.
      He has never said it was anybody elses fault but his own. I find this more attractive for a leader than most of the other candidates who seem to whine about things and blame others. So if you are trying to convince me that Gov Perry is done, I don’t believe it and I feel that we will all be hearing from Gov. Perry again.
      USA Today put out an article on how once again Texas was the state with the best economy. Then just today the news is that 300 new jobs were created in Sequin, TX I believe. So I will stand by Gov. Perry even though I am not from TX as he is to be commended. I feel certain that two years from now we will all be wanting to go to TX,

      • trevorb

        is that he and his staff were used to running campaigns in Texas, where they know him. A national campaign is very different and I don’t think he was fully ready for what it would entail. It was quite a shame too, because he had a strong record as a job creator. Reagan didn’t win his first time at bat, either.

        He may be out of the race, but his ideas are not gone, even if Obama and his crowd would like them to be.

        Come 2020, he’ll be ready for another show armed with a new knowledge of national campaigns along with name recognition.

        • Flagstaff

          but the idea that he’d try to run in 2020 (or even 2016, Gawd forbid) strikes me as laughable, given his hilarious attempt this time.

          I was on his side until he quit. I just never saw ANY of his supposed strong points made manifest during his campaign. He didn’t even try to use his money to convince us he was serious.

          • romansdaughter

            What’s laughable? Are you kidding me? You will see, when we have 4 more years of Obama and Rick Perry is in TX still leading in job creation and economy while the rest of the U.S is going to pot. Then we will see who is laughing.

          • Flagstaff

            I genuinely like Rick Perry and wish he’d been a better candidate. It isn’t even clear that he knew what he was doing in a national campaign, even though he has done a great job campaigning in Texas before. And he seems to have been a fine governor for Texas while he was at it.

            I give him credit–he got out when he decided he should and before he’d spent a lot of money. Maybe he will come back on the national stage, but if he does, he needs to bring his A game with him. I didn’t see it this time.

  • WA_Cowboy

    except your paragraph bashing most of his supporters here. while some of us probably were a bit over the top, it certainly wasn’t a case of thinking he ran a perfect campaign.

    Your earlier paragraph explains where most posters here were in regards to Perry. They were the hard corps political junkies, who researched his record and stance on the issues. Anyone who looked at the issues had to consider Rick Perry, even if he had run a WORSE campaign. His record and stance on the issues demanded that. All that the Perry Corps wanted was people to vote rationally and informed about the candidates and the issues. Which shouldn’t be too difficult a task on a website dedicated to political activism.

    Some who researched his record and issues felt that his “oops” moments would doom him against obama and voted elsewhere. But the majority of voters failed to do their job and instead voted based on who “looks more presidential” or who “would cream Obama in a debate” or who was the latest “flavor of the month”.

    Yes, the campaign deserves its share of the blame. But so do the GOP voters. We’re supposed to be the ones who care about issues, records and things like that. Turns out we care of those things just as much as the average american.

    • Martin Knight

      … but RS posters constitute 0.000001% of the GOP base.

      Professional campaign hands should have known that the bulk of voters are ignoramuses who do NOT do research and developed a campaign plan geared to address that.

      My criticism of RS Perry supporters (some, not all) is on their failure to acknowledge this. That many of these ignoramuses are watching the debates for their first glimpse of the candidates so Perry needs to do well.

      Complaining that voters didn’t research a particular candidate’s record is like complaining about a mountain in your path. What made you expect any different?

  • runner12

    The Perry campaign made some mistakes, there is no question. Namely, that they agreed to the debates too early following major back surgery. I also believe that they were too naive when it came to the vitriole that would come from those in their own party.

    But there is no way that anyone can discount the media bias against Perry and their attempts to take him out. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it was too blatant to ignore. They set him up to be attacked out of the gate by Bachman and Santorum, who sadly took the bait and ran with it. They virtually executed a media blackout on Perry. Perry represented the biggest non-Romney threat and therefore he was targeted. Plain and simple.

    An argument could be made that the Perry campaign should have been prepared for this, and they probably should have. But even I have been taken aback by the conniving of the Establishment to push Mittens on us.

    Despite the missteps and gaffes, Perry and his staff are looking downright brilliant compared to the geniuses left in the GOP race now. After Mittens’ horrible gaffe, somehow Perry’s seem like no big deal…..

    • oldlady

      in his post here. I think it was a big factor as to the reason Perry couldn’t get any traction, even with some excellent debate performances and a great ground game in South Carolina. The establishment saw him as the only REAL threat to Romney and therefore had to crush him before he even had a chance.

      Suffice to say that when talking about the media elites, that those in that catagory be them Republican OR Democrat appear to want Romney as the candidate. Both for easily to discernable to many reasons. The GOP elites because he has been their pre-annointed next-in-line candidate for the past 3-4 years now, and the Democrats because they believe Obama can beat him like a drum and have already planned their entire campaign strategy with Mittens as their target. What does everyone think the OWS movement is all about???? Obviously Mittens is the epitome of the 1%!

      • oldlady

        fit the image of the 1% whom the Democrats have already begun targeting.

      • runner12

        elections. I never realized how much until this election cycle. I knew the Left had its shills, but I was unprepared to see it coming from the GOP side. The media had a large role in taking out Perry, no question. Valid questions can be raised as to whether or not his team should havd been prepared for it though.

        I think that is the sticking point with many non-Romney Conservatives. His record is bad enough, but when people who love liberty like we do feel steered and manipulated towards a candidate it builds resentment.

        Conservatives do not like being told who to vote for.

      • Martin Knight

        Here.

        There was no Perry media blackout – any time he wanted he could have gotten on a Sunday morning talk show. He could have arranged interviews with Ingraham, Levin and Rush. He could have granted interviews to small town newspapers and YouTubed them.

        He had $17 million worth of advertising cash.

        Perry took himself out. Blaming the media here is only cathartic, not true.

        • oldlady

          we are referring to the fact that the FAUX News employees were not allowed to even mention Perry’s name. Day after day they would do the rundown including all of the candidates names blatently excluding Rick Perry’s name. Apparently you did not witness FAUX hacks like Hannity, et al heading off guests when they either mentioned or were GOING to mention Perry’s name. If you missed the resounding silence surrounding even Perry’s very name you must have had your head in the sand some place.

          Yes, when his campaign bought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ads he was a ”guest” a few times. That is all! Obviously you were not a FAUX News watcher.

          By the way…. I am now a FORMER FAUX News watcher. I will NEVER forgive the so-called ”fair and balanced” station for what they did to Perryl Never! Who would have thought this conservative would rather watch CNN or MSNBC than the cesspool of FAUX News?

          • oldlady

            If you didn’t notice the media blackout that people mention above, the only thing I can figure out is that you spend all of your time online and don’t watch TV or listen to the radio very much.

          • Martin Knight

            Perry’s debate performances dropped him from a first tier to a third tier candidate. Third tier candidates don’t get the same Press attention top-tier candidates get. Sucks, but that’s life. It really is not the media’s fault that he stumbled and couldn’t get up.

            It really is not the media’s role to help him, and unfortunately, the man running his campaign, Dave Carney, as a policy, doesn’t believe in making his man accessible to the media.

            Second, any time Perry wanted, he could have been on the Sunday morning talk shows – as a legitimate Presidential contender, he would be a prime get no matter what. He could have gone on talk radio, he could have used YouTube like Christie does.

            The long and short of it is that he could have created enough buzz to have him featured on the nightly news.

        • runner12

          respectfully disagree.

          I am not stating that it is all of the media’s fault or that they were solely responsible for Perry’s decline. The Perry camp made mistakes, of which I stated above.

          But there is no way anyone who watched the coverage of Fox News can say that they did not ignore Perry as much as possible. There were many times when his name was not even mentioned. When covering debates, the campaign trail, etc. his name was either a). not mentioned b). mentioned negatively or c). given a 2 second sound byte.

          I am not venting my spleen here for catharsis, though I was a Perry supporter. I am simply analyzing the Perry campaign as I saw it. We simply have a difference of opinion on this issue.

          • aesthete

            that Perry faced an uphill climb with the media — and I think that Martin does, too. To quote the relevant part of Martin’s post: “It still stuns me that despite the Press telegraphing their intended narrative template when covering Rick Perry i.e. stupid, with multiple liberal columnists and talking heads all chiming in at the same time (Journolists in action) with articles bearing helpful tell-tales titles like ‘Is Rick Perry Too Stupid To Be President?’, the Perry Campaign still needed three debates to finally decide that debate prep was a worthwhile investment.”

            There was no blackout of Rick Perry, either: the late-night shows covered him with bated breath, he got a great opportunity to rebound on the Letterman show, and (of course) his debate performances got a prime-time slot on the political comedy shows like The Daily Show. I remember that, until after New Hampshire, Perry was still being interviewed and covered by the media. Granted, he wasn’t given the fawning treatment that Romney, Dauphin of Massachussetts, or Jon Hunstman got — but there was no blackout. The Perry campaign simply did not utilize his debates very well, and for the most part wasted his appearances on talk shows, as well. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum got much less coverage from the MSM, and both managed to get into top dog status for a little while (only to be undone later, of course). Want to see a real media blackout? Look at Gary Johnson, who wasn’t listed in many polls, who wasn’t invited to most of the debates, and who was mentioned only in passing as the “pro-marijuana” guy. I’m not going to cry for Johnson — he didn’t run a particularly inspired campaign — but that is what it looks like to have a candidate shut out of the process.

            Perry ceased to be mentioned when he ceased to be a factor in the race — after Iowa and New Hampshire. He got a ton of coverage before entering, and quite a bit before his first debates.

          • runner12

            ignored by the media, even more so than Perry. While Johnson came across as sort of creepy at the debates, he should have had a fair shot at being heard. His record is quite good, fiscally speaking, in NM.

            Gingrich and Santorum survived with less coverage because they flew under the radar. No one really took them seriously for awhile. Perry was the leading non-Romney, so he was attacked then marginalized.

            My point is that when he began to struggle a bit, the media dropped him and he was heard from no more. I literally heard reporters listing all of the candidates names, except for Perry. The media decided he was “too stupid” and swept him under the rug.

          • acat

            You’re not confusing him with Huntsman, are you?

            (Does Huntsman’s head look injection-molded to anyone else? It’s just creepy creepy! His hair. It. Doesn’t. Move. …)

            Mew

          • runner12

            Johnson participated in an early Fox debate. He did not get a lot of attention. But I do recall that his answers were pretty good. His mannerisms were just odd.

          • JSobieski

            He wasn’t even included in most polls, so he couldn’t reach the required poll thresholds to be in the debates, so he wasn’t included in most polls . . . .

            Johnson was literally not mentioned at all on Fox News that I can remember. Even Fox Business had few mentions.

            When it comes the media, I think it is important to distinguish between conspiracy theories and idiots living in a world of group think.

            Johnson’s non-existence and Perry’s “stupidity” were both the result of a media class that was very self-contented with what they knew, and blissfully ignorant of what they didn’t know.

            If you think Perry was ignored (and think back to before he announced, the incredible attention he received upon entering) compare it to Johnson.

            Johnson had fewer mentions even though he entered months earlier than Perry and is still actually runnning for President now.

            Johnson was a 2 term governor of a Blue state with a very impressive red state record. The guy racked up vetoes like Rambo did dead bodies. He grew a one-person handy man business into a thriving construction company with more than 1000 employees. In his spare time, he runs marathons and climbs mountains.

            Was the guy even mentioned 5 times on Fox News?

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

            But the loony fringe stuck with RonPaul.

            There’s no blackout if a toy candidate doesn’t get serious coverage.

          • JSobieski

            Did the media exclude Johnson because OPTION 1 he was an addict, or did the media exclude Johnson because OPTION 2 they are lazy, totally uncurious about what people outside the bubble think, and overestimate their own knowledge?

            The facts would suggest OPTION 2.

          • carolynr

            Better be clear about that one.

    • greyeagle

      Was trashed on numerous web sites all using the same talking points that partially showed up here. Supporters of Romney, Ron Paul, Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain. I don’t know where the talking points originally came from, but likely Ron Paul and they were just copied over and over. FOX News was the worst in denigrating Governor Perry. So yes, there was a lot of media bias and blackouts. Perry had 3 bad debates and the rest were excellent, but the media constantly focused on the three bad ones. I don’t know why the RNC set up all those debates with liberal moderators. People have quit watching.

      • nancysabet

        Media killed his candidacy, because he was a real threat to Obama.

    • cheetah2

      I saw the conservative media giving their all to prop up other candidates that were polling poorly and were unqualified for the job to boot. Perry got support occasionally but was ignored far more than the other candidates, including the lower tier ones.

      None of us that support him (and I for one still do), deny that mistakes were made, but there were explanations for them and they should not have sunk him when others have had their problems too and are still hanging on. (Why not do a diary on the mishaps and failures of the Gingrich campaign, for example?)

      The bottom line is there is no excuse for the conservative voters and the conservative leaders not getting behind the most qualified candidate and the one that would actually do something to get us out of the deplorable situation our country is in right now. They have ill served the true interests of the American people. If there was ever a time for everyone to be informed and make a wise decision and to put selfish concerns aside, it is in this primary election.

      I had planned to be supporting another candidate when Perry suspended his campaign, but find I cannot do so wholeheartedly when I look at the poor choices we are left with.

  • aesthete

    It boils down to low-information, rationally-ignorant voters every time. Advocacy for a policy or candidacy must, therefore, be targeted at this voter: this voter is not an idiot or otherwise unintended, but he or she is not paying a lot of attention and you must make your case in a concise, clear, and memorable way in order to effect change. This is true whether the issue is entitlements, foreign policy, or explanation of candidate records: you don’t need to insult the intelligence of your audience, demean them, or patronize them, but you must endeavor to boil down explanations to their core and simplify things in keeping with the low priority that most Americans place on their democratic obligations.

    • WA_Cowboy

      just about 100%

      it’s too bad our democratic obligations are such low priority. but that’s the way it is.

      • acat

        Too many people can vote but don’t.

        Too many opportunities for fraud.

        Too many people who think their vote doesn’t matter, so they don’t participate.

        Perhaps we need to thin the herd a bit. If you can’t be bothered to file an IRS 1040, you don’t get to vote.

        That’s simple, straightforward, easy to enforce, and arguably fair – as in “whoever has the gold makes the rules”.

        Mew

        • txpat

          n/t

          • acat

            Less often.

            Mew

  • Scope

    what role the media played in the Perry campaign, even before he entered the race. Karl Rove sat his ass on Fox, right before, or right after Perry got in the race, and bellyached and whined and moaned, and cried about how Perry was “disrespectful to him and the Bushies, because they were responsible for his election wins, way way back then. He refused to lick W’s boots, and those of Rove when he had the freakin’ nerve to say bad things about W, like that he wasn’t a fiscal conservative as Texas Gov.

    When you are that horse-blinkered, and refuse something that played out right in front of your eyes, you have nothing else of importance to argue beyond that. And most certainly nothing anyone with two eyes saw played out. What was Perry to do, crash the news-sites, armed, and demand to be interviewed, or at least acknowledged in some sort of positive way? You have gone on and on about how the media wasn’t a part of any of it with Perry, and have yet to acknowledge that he was blacked out by the media, long before his opps moment. He was bashed for calling SS a ponzi scheme shortly after he entered the race. The damn rock story came out many long moons ago, via Chris Wallace, and pushed along even before the story was ripe by Herman Cain. Did you ever read the story about one of the early debates, where Wallace and Baier banged heads on how they were going to take Perry down in a debate? Wasn’t it in one of the first debates that Bachmann attacked and attacked on the Guardisil issue, to the point that she looked like a loony bird, only to be backed up with Bachmann and Palin making him out to be a dictator that strapped down poor innocent little girls and forcibly injected them with mental retardation vaccinations. Malkin piled on. He apologized for going about it the wrong way, over and over, nope, no aplogy accepted you dictator, and crony capitalist who got donations from the drug company, to the tune of a peasly $5,000. Then that’s turned into that Perry can be bought off, but it would take more than $5,000 to buy him off.

    Did you freakin watch him slammed by Santorum, again in an early debate as an amnesty supporter, where that had no basis in truth whatsoever. Santorum had to be pulled in by the leash, and was asked to at least allow Perry to answer his insane ranting and charges. Romney comes out swinging against Perry and calls him an amnesty lover, yet he gets the majority of the Hispanic votes in Fla? Go figure. I guess Rubio had a lot of influence with those spanish voters in Fla, when he told Newt to pipe it down. Un freakin belivable. How about that conservative stalwart Jason Chaffetz crasing Newt’s townhalls, just to let the attendees know how awful Newt reall was. Chaffetz especially, but to a degree Rubio also, have been more than a little disapopointing. As far as I’m concerned, not only has Chaffetz been a disappointing with some of his non-conservative votes in the house, but he put his damn self out there, as a total political hack, just to bak his fellow mormon candidate. There I said it. It’s true. I hope he loses his next election.

    Do you think for one second that any of the leftist debate moderators were going to give any of our candidates a pass. They were all made to look like freakin idiots, who weren’t capable of answering anything beyond thick crust or deep dish.

    Do you remember the debates where the infighting wasn’t only approved, but was incited by those leftists monitors, that knew that fighting between the candidates on stage would make for great ratings, and tons of sound bites the next few days to keep the trash going. Did you approve of that? If so, you must be in trash and garbage media sales. The more mud flung is always a big seller in out sick and warped society, even when trying to choose a presidential candidate. The American Idol society, where the most brash and outlandish succeeds, over those creepy serious people who are more concerned with someone’s record than how loud or ghastly they can prove to be for media purposes. How long do you think Gingrich fighting with the moderators would go on, before he got major pushback from those moderating the debates. When Blitzer was ready for Gingrich, he folded like a cheap suit.

    You are very much entitled to your own opinions, and what you judge candidates on, but your philosophies, particularly deleting the media role in this cycle is more than a little disturbing. Your opinions that the debates are the end all, hey we are in a media controlled society, are again disturbing. In that case, forget the debates, forget the media, let’s just facebook, or tweet our candidates into office. Or better yet, let’s just enter them all into Dancing with the Stars. Just don’t ask them to enter into singing contests, because then our frontrunner would lose, big time.

    • lapert

      Actually, all indications are that voters won’t take politicians seriously whose primary means of engagement is trivial social media and reality TV – that is why Sarah Palin is irrelevant to the political conversation today.

      Frankly, blaming the media at all is ridiculous. Complaining that voters just weren’t as informed as you is pathetic and constantly blaming the customer because you couldn’t make a sale is laughable – and that is what some of you lingering Perry supporters have become, laughable. The absurd posts about him restarting his campaign, or your sillyness about him doing the best among the others who dropped out in Florida meaning anything at all are nothing more than the tripe we have to put up with as noise when searching for the actual insight on the internet. Luckily, your stupidity is enough to keep me mildly amused for a few moments.

      • Scope

        And if my stupidity didn’t keep you amused for a few minutes, what would you do then, slit my throat. I’m just waiting leper for you to go all balistic again on me, and then I won’t count on RS to stop you. I will go much further than that, I promise.

        • Scope

          I have been saving every response you have made to my posts.

          • avagreen

            ….well, maybe even another one at large.

            Strange times.

          • Scope

            that is a part of the Louisiana Office of Public Health, La. Performance Effictivness Review Tool- LAPERT. You did write a diary here back in 08 where you addressed a bill coming up concerning “fat people” where you do say that you are really not into fat people, but….

            Why yes, I do believe that I am picking up a trail here. Stop stalking me or I will embarrass you in places where you really don’t want to be embarrassed. I don’t depend on anyone else to cover my back, I do it all on my own.

          • lapert

            Not that guy, don’t live in Louisiana nor work in public health. But I am intrigued on how you think you are going to embarrass me – or this guy you think is me. Definitely enticing enough to keep at this.

          • Scope

            definitely enticing enough for me to keep after. We shall see won’t we.

        • lapert

          If you didn’t keep me amused I’d find something else online that did – plenty of ignorant tools scattered among useful information to bother for a bit.

          So, did you ever correct your misunderstanding of the exit polls? Did you vote for Hilary in ’08 and then storm away from the democrats when she lost?

          • avagreen

            I think I’m seeing “lemur”. ;)

            Every time! I see those huge big eyes…. that lemur’s have.
            Cross-my-heart.

          • lapert

            Have you ever driven through the jungle in Madagascar with a spotlight picking out their eyes in the trees – it’s pretty cool (works with bush babies in other parts of Africa too).

      • runner12

        I am a former Perry supporter and I am not stupid, silly, nor laughable.

        If you think we have an informed electorate, then how do you explain our current WH occupant?

        Lastly, after Newt’s moon comments and Mittens doozy of a gaffe today, Perry’s miscues pale in comparison.

        • romansdaughter

          Bulletin boards are going to start popping up all over the country. As Obama cuts more and more jobs and jacks the debt up in this country. And Mittens;Newt, Santorum and Paul all go by the way side with their no brainers. Then there is Rick Perry still leading his state in job creation, economy and conservative issues. We are all going to be wishing we were in Texas. What fools we can be.

          • circlegranch

            if there’s any good coming out of the antics of the last few days, it serves to pardon Gov Perry more and more for being human. Mitt Romney is human; he doesn’t always say everything according to political correctness. Between a media that loves to set the bait and hope a GOP candidate will take it and the human condition of not always being on top of your game, Romney didn’t get much time to enjoy his FL victory. There are no do-over’s.

            Best regards to Gov. and Mrs. Perry. Hope all is well. You are missed.

        • lapert

          Note I didn’t say all former Perry supporters are laughable – if you are one of them who think the media or the voters are to blame for your candidates failures well that is a different story.

          How do I explain the current President? He ran an optimistic campaign in a period of great pessimism and people wanted to believe it – really isn’t so difficult to understand. That doesn’t mean the elctorate wasn’t making an informed decision, I think they absolutely were and the caricature of the electorate as some flimsy bunch that is programmed by the media is both demeaning to America and flatly silly given how close most elections are (either we have brainwashing only working consistently on half the population or some degree of informed decision making be done at the individual level). If anything, the cult of personality ‘base’ that has swooned for Perry, Cain, Bachman, Palin and even Trump are the ones who have shown less grounding in reality and more of an emotional whim. This republican primary has mostly been a circus not because of an poorly informed electorate but the circus of media characters that have roused up a small, but hyper base of populists that don’t reflect traditional Republican or conservative bases.

          • runner12

            “absolutely” a reflection of an informed electorate? And you call Perry supporters delusional?

            Did you happen to see Stossel ask people in my generation to identify the GOP candidates? They could not name one nor identify them by their picture.
            When Leno would go out on the street and ask people who the VP was, 80% could not do it.

            The percentage of people who actually vote in this country is abysmal. I know people who voted for Obama because it was “cool” and they are college educated!

            Our electorate is largely ignorant and uninformed. They vote on the AI model and who looks good on t.v.

            Oh and the cult of personality thing is why Obama won, and is much less prominent on the GOP side (although present).

            By the way, who do you support for President?

          • lapert

            Just because you don’t like what the informed electorate decided doesn’t make it any less a reflection of their choice. You are right that out voter turnout number is low (though it has been ticking up) but those that do vote generally are informed when they do it (and no, Leno’s man on the street or whatever Stossel digs up doesn’t change that – they aren’t doing analysis they are cherry picking for comedy or journalism).

            Despite your assertion that they vote on who looks good on TV, you are wrong. Even in 1960 Nixon got nearly half the electorate – for your premise to be correct you have to assume that either half the electorate don’t fit into your model (invalidating it) or that they thought Nixon looked better on TV, and I have never met anyone that would cop to that.

            It is an easy rant for an editorial or a lazy answer for losing candidates, but the reality is that when someone loses an election it is because they failed on the margins to connect with what the voters cared about and sell their solutions.

            As for who I support, well it looks like it will be Romney come November.

          • runner12

            You are jumping to conclusions for one thing. I never correlated Perry’s loss to an uniformed electorate. His loss was multi-factorial in nature, with the media being just one of those factors.

            Leno may be cherry picking, but Stossel is one of the very few honest journalists out there. I would hardly characterize him as a hack who invents things to get ratings. He was booted from one of the MSM networks for being a little too honest.

            We have an uninformed electorate. Period. I say this not because Perry lost, but because it is true.

            How many people can name the 9 justices on the SCOTUS? Can name the Speaker of the House? Can name the three branches of government? How many people know what the “Fast and Furious” scandal is even about? Precious few, unfortunately.

          • lapert

            I don’t know the answer to your questions. The last data I remember seeing on naming the three branches of government was 50% of adults, which could of course be close to 100% of voters.

            But I think your view of an ‘informed’ voter is different from mine. From the studies I have seen, most voters when they make a choice actually do align the candidates to the issues that matter to them. If someone doesn’t care about ‘fast and furious’ because it has zero impact on their lives that is fine and exactly what you would expect from a democratic republic of this scale. I don’t think it is unfortunate that most people’s interests revolve around the impact on their and their families’ lives – that is humanity.

            Oh, and Stossel is as much a hack as the rest of them with a style I find abrasive. He also wasn’t booted from ABC, he left of his own free will to the Fox family. But like all media, he is mostly noise that isn’t worth putting up with for the little substance which can be better had by reading primary sources yourself.

          • runner12

            government is not trivia, it is fundamental the survival of a republic.

            I consider an informed voter to be someone who knows a candidates’ positions before he/she votes, who knows how our system of government works, and is literate on what the Constitution of the United States actually says. This list is not all encompassing, but it is a starting point.

            The Fast and Furious has an impact on all of us, so we should all care. It is a sad testament to our society if we do not. It is the duty of every responsible citizen to care that our government has been illegally running guns into Mexico. Their actions have resulted in the deaths of the brave border agents who place their lives on the line to protect us. Not to mention the many deaths of innocent Mexican civilians.

            As to Stossel, you have a right to your opinion. I find most of his pieces very thought-provoking and absent of much of the other fluff of other reporters.

          • Martin Knight

            A significant number of voters go to the polls with no more solid knowledge about the candidate they’re voting for than his name and the way he looks.

            I read in 2005 that a Professor and his student went to various polling stations during the November (2004) elections and asked people standing a couple of questions.

            Nearly 40% of the people polled couldn’t name the then Vice-President (Dick Cheney).

            More than 40% of them couldn’t tell who controlled Congress, the difference between the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader, name their Governors or any of their Senators.

            Multiple talk show hosts had staff go around and randomly ask people on the street about why they were voting for Obama versus McCain and vice versa in 2008.

            One guy ingenuously attributed all of McCain’s views on abortion, the War in Iraq, taxes, the environment, etc. to Obama and asked self-identified Obama supporters if they supported “his” (McCain’s) policies.

            Every single one of them said yes.

            The truth of the matter is that some people will vote Democrat no matter what, some people will vote Republican no matter what. These partisans, though certainly not all, tend to be the most informed voters.

            Independents/”Undecideds” tend to be the most ignorant and also tend to constitute a plurality. Unfortunately, they also tend to decide the winners.

            PS: Note that no one is saying these folks are stupid, a lot are highly educated people – but despite the fact that they feel that it is their civic duty to vote, they just are not bothered with politics like us politics junkies.

    • aesthete

      and suggesting how conservative Republicans can improve on Rick Perry’s failed performance. We could either do that, or whine about how mean everyone was to Rick Perry and learn nothing the next time a conservative superstar decides that he wants to run for President.

    • Martin Knight

      … do you tell him to go study harder or do you rail against Pythagoras?

      What I find funny is your definition of the media being against Perry. All your examples of things that the media did (supposedly) specifically to hurt Rick Perry are frankly … not very convincing. In fact, they sound more like a coping mechanism.

      If I get you right, these unprecedented terrible things were done to Rick Perry; 1. Karl Rove said bad things about him, 2. Chris Wallace reported the “N@#%erhead Rock” story (first pushed by the WaPo), 3. Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann attacked him at the debates, 4. Jason Chaffetz attended a Newt rally, 5. the debates had liberal moderators, 6. the debates were too superficial, 7. American society is sick and warped … and so on.

      To be perfectly honest, all your complaints above don’t pass the laugh test. It brings to mind a little girl stamping her foot and whining that “it’s not fair!” that another little girl has prettier hair.

      If Rick Perry cannot survive any of those things, then there was no way he would have won against Obama – heck, there’s no way he’d be heading into his 14th year as Governor of Texas.

      First of all, Karl Rove’s whining didn’t stop Perry from leaping to frontrunner status and $17million in donations – and it sure as hell wasn’t Karl Rove that led to Perry losing them both.

      Seriously, are you actually arguing that being attacked by rivals in a debate is something that no other candidate in history has ever had to deal with? Were the other candidates not also faced with the same liberal moderators?

      Was Perry somehow uniquely too pure and delicate to survive in the same environment as his rivals?

      What was Perry to do, crash the news-sites, armed, and demand to be interviewed, or at least acknowledged in some sort of positive way?

      Perry was all over the news shows right after his Ooops moment. Proving that if he had wanted to be interviewed, he could have. He was a legitimate Presidential contender and a serving Governor – hard as you may find this to believe, most news outlets would have jumped at the chance for a one-on-one.

      You just seem determined to not get it because for some reason, you simply are loathe to admit that your Rick Perry messed up. He’s human and his campaign was staffed by humans. Humans mess up.

      There really was no conspiracy. His campaign misread the battlefield and failed to adapt in time.

    • avagreen

      ^^
      ..

      • Martin Knight

        Basically she’s whining that Bachmann, Rove and Santorum were mean to Perry and he simply wasn’t capable of surviving the rigors of a national campaign.

        Think about it, do you honestly believe he’s not going to face worse head-to-head with Obama. At least here, the media is hostile to everyone – with Obama, they’re clearly going to be rooting for one side and it won’t be Perry’s.

        Seriously, if he can’t survive Bachmann attacking him, what makes you think he’ll be anything but toast faced with Obama and the media that loves him.

        • avagreen

          on Scope’s article?

          She was right on the money, as far as I’m concerned.

          If it was so baseless, why put so much energy into disproving it? If it is so “damaging” to Perry, why not just let it stand w/o your critique, ya know?

          NO ONE can win an election if the media is against them. If this is not true, then why do the propaganda machines use the media so extensively in changing minds? Some folks have thrown around Pravda on this site…….why would the Communists have used Pravda for it’s mouthpiece in the early days if media is so unimportant?

          What are your thoughts on this, and why would this step be important?:
          20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
          http://www.tldm.org/news7/CommunismInAmerica.htm

          Or, do you even consider this a valid question?

          • znjs

            If the media is as all powerful as you claim (it’s not) and was as determined as you believe it was to destroy Perry because he’s a true conservative (it wasn’t), then there’s no reason to keep fighting for a true conservative leader. It’s over.

          • avagreen

            sanity.

            Once people realize that the media is being used to guide opinions rather than report facts, the media will become LESS powerful.

            Are you really discounting the effect of propaganda in the political world?

            Really?

            If so, clue in 5th Avenue……..they spend billions on trying to do just that.

          • avagreen

            Outsell Inc. published a report Estimating budget for advertising and marketing in the USA 2008 at $412,400,000,000

            Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_was_spent_on_advertising_by_all_the_advertising_companies_in_2008#ixzz1lKlz3tGp

          • znjs

            I said it’s just not effective or prevalent enough in the US to destroy a candidate who had all the advantages Perry had – namely the huge war chest he got instantly after jumping in. The candidate has to help his own destruction along. And Perry did that with flying colors. The media being against him (and it wasn’t as against Perry as you like to claim) isn’t enough.

          • znjs

            While I’m not a fan of his, Perry never came close to being attacked like Newt has, especially by the conservative voices. Newt had periods where the press ignored and/or dismissed him. Newt didn’t have the war chest that Perry had. Yet Newt beat Perry in Iowa, a state that was a better fit for Perry then it was for Newt. Then he did the same thing in NH, and then surged and won in SC, whereas Perry had to drop out. While I doubt he’ll end up winning the nomination, Newt is currently running 2nd in delegates with more people gunning for him then Perry ever had to deal with. If the media really chose our candidate Newt would’ve had to drop out by now.

          • avagreen

            Perry was not.

            Unless he made an error or something that could be used to ridicule him.

            He was FLAT IGNORED! When I USED to watch Fox, I’d wait to see him get his turn………didn’t happen. Cain got discussed. Paul got discussed. Newt got discussed. Huntsman was discussed while being low, low in the polls. Sanatorum got discussed (even when he was barely making 5% or below)……while Perry? Nada.
            The excuse can’t be that he was a 2nd tier candidate as I’ve seen used before.
            So was Santorum, but he was discussed. As often as the front runners. I’d get madder and madder each time when I tuned in. Even on the debate on which Perry gave his best performance……..not one damned word about it, while ALL THE OTHERS WERE DISCUSSED…..who didn’t do nearly as well. Perry got the silent treatment. Hannity was the pukey commentator afterwards. Not one word about Perry and one of his best debates…..

            No matter what your “opinion” is, the facts make you wrong.

          • znjs

            The idea that Perry wasn’t the center of tons of positive press when he jumped in the race is just selective memory. The “facts” prove me wrong huh? Do you have any data stretching over the race from the time Perry entered until he left to back up that Perry received worse media treatment, or just you remembering some perceived slights on your personal favorite candidate whom you were emotionally attached to?

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • Martin Knight

            If it was so baseless, why put so much energy into disproving it?

            I’m not using much energy at all. When it comes to Rick Perry, Scope is all emotion and no logic.

            NO ONE can win an election if the media is against them.

            Reagan and Bush II successfully did it – and Reagan got no less than 44 states both times. And Reagan didn’t even have talk radio or the internet to help him get his message out.

            Are you really that ignorant?

        • Scope

          and obviously Romney fits your description of the ideal candidate. You’ve come up with one excuse for his negatives after another, as though you are channeling Ann Colter, or maybe she’s channeling you.

          As has been said elsewhere in the comments section, there really wasn’t any need or necessity for you to even address Perry at this time, he is no longer a candidate. It seems that you read a small thread going on elsewhere, where I and some other Perry supporters talked about a future for him, and bam, here is a diary talking about how dumb he is, what a horrible candidate he was, and trying to insure that his memory remains just that, a memory. Your passive/aggressive comments about Perry are transparent. He must have scarred you more than you are willing to admit, as he was the clearest anti-Romney choice. I assure you, you may want him so destroyed that he never has the chance to rise up again, and that he is so burned to a crisp (figuratively speaking of course) that he never has the opportunity to challenge anyone in the future, but it won’t work. Those that supported Perry did so with conviction and principle, and based their support on more than who was the only “electable” candidate, but put much more weight on his record, his successes, and his closely held conservative principles. That doesn’t just disappear because the candidate suspended. He still is who he is.

          I really didn’t feel it necessary to respond to your diatribe against my post above, where you claim that I am just a little whining girl, who is stamping her feet and saying stop. You’ve seen many post similar observations as me, with respect to his treatment by the media. It doesn’t fit your narrative, so you just keep holing your hands on your ears, and you keep your blindfold on, and you just simply keep refusing to acknowledge that the media played any part in the Perry campaign. You are more than welcome to live with that delusion, it’s still a free country.

          To answer your question above as to what I would do if I had a child that got a D on their report card, I’ll tell you what I would do. If my child was forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth, and then was tested on it, and said this is not proven science, and was flunked because of it, I would give my child a gold star. If my child was forced to learn that if Johnny wants to become Janie and it’s OK, and they say no that is wrong, and gets suspended for it, I would give my child another gold star. If my child is forced to learn re-written inaccurate history in history class, and answers test questions accurately, and then flunks, again I would give my child another gold star. You get my drift. Likewise, if someone tries to convince me that Mitt Romney is a conservative, and I say no not even close, and that you are either knowingly lying, or drank the liberal Republican cool-aid, I know I will get many gold stars for standing up for truth and principles.

          Again Martin, you are entitled to your own perceptions, opinions, and ideas, just as the next guy is. You can do what you will to try to convince the Perry supporters that he was such an awful candidate, ran one of the worst campaigns, and is just an idiot, so he never rises with any supporters again, by telling his supporters that they are just whining little girls, with no more intelligence than Perry himself, but, I can promise you, you have and will continue to fail. With every post, including your Perry campaign post-mortem, you only manage to prove that you, and your moderate buddies supporting Romney, were scared to death of Gov. Perry. I would love to be able to say “told you so” when Romney loses in a landslide to Obama, but, unfortunately we all are going to have to live with your unintelligent and disastrous choice. Trying to shove a candidate down our collective throats is so yesterday.

          • Martin Knight

            This is the title of a diary I wrote in May 2011; Why Rick Perry should be our guy for 2012.. Three months before Rick Perry finally announced his entry into the race.

            Hard though you may find it to believe, I am not clairvoyant, I did not support him in May 2011 because I somehow knew that he would run such a poor campaign as part of some fantastic convoluted plan to help Romney win the nomination.

            But I guess I can see where your confusion is coming from. Newsflash; liking Rick Perry doesn’t mean I have to hate Mitt Romney and hope he loses to Obama like you obviously do. I just hope you’re not going to go round the bend and actually donate money and pound the pavement for Obama just so you can say I told you so if Romney wins the nomination.

            In fact, I’m betting you’d be shocked at what I’m planning to write next about Governor Perry. Hint – it involves him withdrawing his endorsement of Newt, unsuspending his campaign and getting back in to the race.

            Either way, it’s obvious you simply are incapable of seeing beyond your all-consuming love for Rick Perry to even bother reading and comprehending what other people write.

            All you do is just attack and attack and attack if you see even one word that suggests that Rick Perry is not some perfect god specifically targeted and taken down by some far-reaching conspiracy.

            For example, I never wrote that Perry “is just an idiot” or that he was not intelligent. That’s all you. This is what I wrote about Perry (please read the highlighted part);

            Of course, neither George W. Bush nor Rick Perry is dumb ? the United States Air Force has never been in the habit of putting multi-million dollar pieces of equipment which can kill lots and lots of people in one single moment of carelessness in the hands of low IQ individuals.

            Fact; if Perry cannot survive the debate attacks of Bachmann and Santorum, Rove badmouthing him and the media not being fair to him (as if they are fair to any Republican), then there’s simply no way he could have beaten Obama in the fall.

            Oh … I asked what you’d do if your child got a D on Math, would you blame Pythagoras (of hyp2 = opp2 + adj2 fame) or ask him to do better?

            But you were so caught up in your Perry-love, you somehow managed to bring in Al Gore and gay marriage. I’m still confused how you got from the exact science of Math to the pseudo-science of global warming …

            … but I guess that’s Scope defending her Rick Perry. There’s bound to be collateral damage.

            By the way, anyone who has been here on RedState since 2006 would tell you that calling me a “moderate” is hilarious. I know you prefer the “Ready! Fire! Aim!” approach but the fact is that I’ve been picking fights with so-called “moderates” from the moment I signed up on RS in 2005.

          • CarolT

            Do you really think Rick Perry will take back his endorsement of Newt and get back in the race? He was the best candidate with the record but he did not do well at all. I am a Perry supporter and was very disappointed that he crashed and burned.
            Carol

          • runner12

            I do not think Martin is a moderate who loves Romney. Anyone who is giddy about Romney being the nominee needs their head examined and/or their Conservative credentials taken away.

            My issue with the diary is not that it critiqued Perry’s campaign staff. They did make some major mistakes. They failed to get his name on the ballot in VA and agreed to too many debates too soon after major back surgery. I think they were also very naive regarding the attacks that would come from the other GOP non-Romneys. Contrary to the opinion of some, I do not think they were rubes enough to not be prepared for Romney and Obama. They just simply overlooked the others. This was a big mistake.

            The problem I had was the dismissal of the role of the media in Perry’s decline. It played a significant role. It was clear from the beginning that the media was not favorable towards Perry. Just because he received some air time at the beginning, does not mean that it was not manipulated to his disadvantage.

            Avagreen made some good points in that the media is a powerful force in politics today. If it were not true, people would not spend millions of dollars on advertising and campaign ads.

            The bottom line is that if we blame the media for everything that went wrong with the Perry campaign, we cannot learn from the mistakes the campaign made. Conversely, if we blame the Perry campaign for everything and dismiss the power of the media in propping up/tearing down candidates, we will lose to the media every time.

            Never underestimate the power of the media.

          • Martin Knight

            The media hates all Republicans and would gladly have watched every one of them burn.

            But I find it hard to accept that they specifically targeted Rick Perry for destruction. If you read the litany of things Scope listed, you’d notice there was nothing that she pointed that was uniquely faced by Perry and not faced by any of the others.

            And even if they did target Perry, the fact that they succeeded so easily at this stage only says that Perry would have been creamed in the general election.

            PS: I wrote an entire series of posts called The GOP & The Press a while back. If you are interested, here’s Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, if you’re interested.

          • Scope

            “Perry?s debate performances dropped him from a first tier to a third tier candidate. Third tier candidates don?t get the same Press attention top-tier candidates get. Sucks, but that?s life. It really is not the media?s fault that he stumbled and couldn?t get up.

            It really is not the media?s role to help him, and unfortunately, the man running his campaign, Dave Carney, as a policy, doesn?t believe in making his man accessible to the media.

            Second, any time Perry wanted, he could have been on the Sunday morning talk shows ? as a legitimate Presidential contender, he would be a prime get no matter what. He could have gone on talk radio, he could have used YouTube like Christie does.

            The long and short of it is that he could have created enough buzz to have him featured on the nightly news.”

            Any time Perry wanted, he could have been on Sunday talk shows?
            Perry was not a “prime get” he was a “Prime threat.” You keep saying things that simply are not true, unless you are the scheduler of the MSM shows. This is what is making me so angry with you, and many others by the comments I’m reading. You just refuse to believe that the media was in any way at fault. As I said, we must be living on a completely different planet than you with respect to the media. Fox refused to ever even mention his name when talking about the race. That is a fact. Even when he made a million dollar ad buy on Fox, they still acted as though he was the red headed step child. You are starting to make me think that your skull is made of titanium.

          • aesthete

            Get over it, and deal with that reality. Plenty of candidates faced down worse and came out winners — Reagan, for example.

            I wonder how long it will be before someone makes the ludicrous case that how the media treated Perry was somehow worse than how they dealt with Reagan.

          • Scope

            If you are willing to sit back, and accept the total takeover of the media by the leftists, for the leftists goals, and willing to destroy “any and all Republicans and conservatives” then you are welcome to live in that current reality. I chose to fight against the propagandists, thank you very much. Fox has joined in with them. The 2012 GOP presidential primaries have been made into one long media event, with us now deciding our candidate depending on how well they preform leftists circus tricks, or how well they can dance and sing for the liberals enjoyment. If that is acceptable to you, go for it. BTW, the media markets are very different now, as well as the culture in society, than when Reagan ran for the presidency. There is no comparison between Reagan’s years and now with respect to the media. Thanks for stopping by anyway.

          • Scope

            When Reagan ran for the presidency, Al Gore had invented the internet yet.

          • aesthete

            years before I was born — or before you were born, for that matter. The media has been owned lock, stock, and barrel by socialists or corporatists of various stripes since before the turn of last century. Whether I accept that fact or not is quite irrelevant, since it is a fact.

            And yeah, you’re absolutely right that the media is different today than it was in Reagan’s time. Back then, Goldwater was called by one of the three major news networks a full-blown, honest-to-God Nazi a week after starting his Presidential campaign, and 15 years after WWII. The other two networks contented themselves with calling him a racist piece of trash who would start a nuclear war with the USSR and blow up the world. I won’t even go into what they called Reagan. Mind you, this was before internet, Fox News, radio talk shows, and the Reagan Revolution, and when charges of racism and such were considered much more egregious and likely to be true than they are today. It was much, much worse in Reagan’s time for conservatives than it is today, and the MSM was both more liberal and had more of a monopoly on the news than it does today.

          • Scope

            they have expanded their outreach, and even get people to pay extra for it now with cable subscriptions.

          • Martin Knight

            … for conservatives today than it was before.

            Reagan was dealt much rougher treatment than Rick Perry and he didn’t have talk radio or the internet to help him get his message out, but he was able to.

            You really need to get over the idea that in the history of Presidential politics, no one has ever been as hard done by as Rick Perry.

          • avagreen

            These folks will never admit what the media has done and did do during this last election.

            Blinders are beautiful……keeps the peace.
            Ahhhh, comfort and peace

          • Martin Knight

            Perry wasn’t any more hard done by than any of the other candidates – and even if he was, so what? You adapt, you redirect, you find a way to change the storyline.

            Reagan was continuously portrayed as a senile bloodthirsty segregationist just itching to press the button to start World War III during the 1980 Republican Primaries. John Anderson was the media’s Golden Boy.

            One of the reasons Reagan is called the Great Communicator is that he had a crew that knew the media hated him and they ran their campaign with that in mind.

            Go read and find out who Mike Deaver was.

          • runner12

            I should have been more explicit. You are correct when you say that every GOP candidate is roasted alive by the MSM. It is to be expected and Perry was no exception, neither were any of the other candidates. They were all equally attacked by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc.

            I am specifically calling out Fox News, the network that claims to be fair and balanced. They were in the tank for Romney from day one and as a result against Perry. Do I think it was personal to Perry? For some who like the status quo in DC, maybe. But by and large I think it was due to Perry being the leading non-Romney candidate at the time. Had it been Pawlenty I think he would have received the same treatment.

            Fox News is not necessarily conservative, but they have not been as blatantly biased towards the Left as other media outlets. But in this case they clearly spun things to favor the guy they backed. Their coverage was hardly unbiased.

            I think this just one aspect of the Perry campaign I will just have to agree to disagree with you on.

          • Martin Knight

            … so it’s very possible you’re right that Fox News was a bit harsher on the non-Romneys than otherwise.

            Either way, it was the job of the Perry Campaign to notice this and address this issue. That’s my beef, really – a bad campaign.

          • Scope

            to make my case, please. If you go to whatever limits to defend Romney, and his record as Gov. of Mass., as happened in the Sixty Five to One diary, where many challenged him on his positions for excusing Romney for many things, up to and including the excuse that he was working with a majority D legislature, I cannot come to any other conclusions. Quite honestly, I’m a little tired of excusing R’s for supporting liberal positions, because they live in liberal areas/states, and the notion that any R is better than any D. Scott Brown is the poster boy for that. Isn’t that doing major harm to the conservatives, when you have to allow any R’s to cross the aisle, more often than not, just so we can keep an R majority. What good has it done when Brown voted for Banking Reform, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and most recently wrote Obama a letter praising him for his recess appointment of Cordray? Do you ever see any D’s crossing the aisle and voting with the R’s on any major legislation?

            Unless you live in VA, and/or have followed the ballot access mess as closely as I have, you wouldn’t be faulting Perry, or his campaign for not being able to jump over a 100ft. obstacle. I’ll let that go right there.

            Much of the faulting of Perry was because of his bombing out in the early debates, the back surgery doesn’t matter to many. I remember very well many of us, and others, begging Perry to hurry and get into the debates. He missed the first few, and that was already seen as a negative, even though he got into the race late. If we agree that the back surgery was a factor, then I can excuse him for not being on his toes in order to fight back with the early debates when Bachmann and Santorum wanted blood. Do you remember the first few debates? I was about to go to sleep with some of them as it appeared in one at least, they were all ready to endorse one another they were so lovey dovey. Do you remember that? I’m sure Perry watched those debates, and had reason to think they would be the same. No? Wasn’t it one of Perry’s first debates where we read that Baier and Wallace were planning on how to trip Perry up that night? Why only Perry?

            And yes, the fact that some are so willing to deny that the media had anything to do with Perry’s campaign is more than a little disturbing. It is as though we are living on different planets. To say that he could have had interviews he wanted, and to use the day after the oops moment when he was everywhere on TV, of course he was, and he was just as ridiculed on TV that day as before. I watched him on CNN the next morning, being interviewed by one of the really liberal beeitches, don’t remember her name, and when Perry came on smiling, and saying I really stepped in it last night, and he chuckled, she was aghast that he could even smile about it, and mocked him saying – and you are laughing? How dare he humble himself, and make fun of himself. Yup, just like Obama would ever even admit that he blundered, hundreds of times. Perhaps Perry’s campaign already knew that he would be walking into enemy territory, particularly with Fox.

            Runner, my original post was with pointing out the media obstacles Perry faced, as he had to burn through his money just to get his face and name out there. To keep denying that the media had anything to do with Perry’s failed campaign is ludicrous. I have said, many times now that Perry’s campaign was not perfect, but I don’t agree that his campaign made the biggest mistakes, as Martin said in another post. How about Gingrich’s early campaign, how about Cain’s campaign, how about Bachmann’s campaign, how about Santorum’s almost non-existent campaign. Can anyone really honestly say that Perry’s campaign made the “biggest mistakes”? I don’t think so.

            I also resent the fact that because I argued, passionately, against what I saw as a more than a little harsh critique of Perry’s campaign, especially with respect to the media, and especially now that he is no longer a current candidate, and I was called a little whining girl, just stamping my feet. After Perry backed out, and for the most part, I haven’t been here going on and on about Perry. I’ve actually said that I am glad he is not in this nasty, vitriolic, pig fighting, destructive race. I even posted those sentiments when someone posted a comment about trying to get Perry to unsuspend. I’ve said that he needs to take the next few years to prepare, in many other ways, for another race in 2016, or 2012. Yet I am the worst Perry supporter, and the little whining girl, who doesn’t have a lick of sense?

          • Scope

            that Perry never had the opportunity to get his message out. He was asked in the Fox debate, I think, why he had not released a Tax plan, when he had been in the race only a few weeks. When he did, it was ignored for the most part by Fox and the MSM. If it weren’t for the WSJ, no one would have known that he had the best tax plan. His energy plan was all but totally ignored. If Perry had gone on Fox in the beginning, lnowing the guns were out for him, any message would have been destroyed, mocked, ridiculed, and then ignored. He campaign was doomed from the get go. I think his early staff knew that. Hiring Bush people to get him on track was a disaster. Next time I am quite certain he will be much more prepared.

          • Martin Knight

            Still stamping your feet I see …

            Well, I believe Perry should unsuspend. So there’s another part where we disagree.

          • Scope

            of the little girl stamping her feet while acknowledging the “truth” which you seem unable to do. Thanks for playing. I won the media arguments, simply because I don’t deal in delusions. I don’t wear a blindfold, nor do I have on horse blinders.

          • Martin Knight

            … the “I love Rick Perry more than you …” competition you’ve got running all by yourself.

            The media attacked all of the candidates and goaded them to attack each other. Others survived, Rick Perry didn’t. Because they ran better campaigns.

            PS: The media has been biased for decades. Any Republican who fails to plan for that has only himself to blame.

          • jakeofalltrades

            and looking for an explanation other than mass insanity.

          • Martin Knight

            The job of curing them of that ignorance was botched.

            Bad campaigns tend to do that.

          • Scope

            your passive aggressive posts with respect to Perry are transparent. You are being more than a little creepy when you say that you want Perry to take his endorsement back from Gingrich, and to unsuspend. That is so laughable it is pathetic. If you ever honestly suggested that Perry unsuspend, and get back into the race, it would only be so that you, and so many others could insure that he is even more damaged goods, and truly in a position to never rise again. You are a despicable, dishonest poster. But I will give you one thing, you are very cunning and complicit.

          • Martin Knight

            … are all emotion and no logic.

            So when I endorsed him in May, before you probably even heard of him, I did so in the knowledge that he would damage himself by refusing to prepare for the debates and fail to qualify for the ballot in Virginia? Do you actually think I have access to a time machine?

            He wasn?t invited on the MSM until he ooopsed, then they were breaking down his door to get him on.

            Perhaps you don’t know, but candidates don’t wait for invitations – their people call up the producers and arrange appearances a lot of the time. That’s how it works. No campaign operates without a schedule (do you think rallies, fundraisers, townhalls just happen without any planning?) and news appearances are very much things that need to be penciled in.

            And if you were actually thinking, an MSM determined specifically to take him down would not have allowed him on to ameliorate his Ooops moment. They would have just repeated it over and over again and refused to allow him to make a human moment of it. If anything, that was one moment when he got all the Press Coverage he needed exactly when he needed.

            PS: Unsuspending his campaign and getting back in would result in one thing; mountains and mountains of Press coverage with producers begging him for interviews. From there it would be (mostly) up to him to make a success of it or not.

          • aesthete

            Honestly, watch politics enough and you see that the inarticulate conservative/libertarian who could have run a great campaign (but didn’t) is a fixture in national politics. IMO, Martin and people like him who advocate for alternate sources of news to the MSM, but also talk about the importance of wargaming and other strategies for media relations, are crucial to having this be a less frequent occurrence.

            We all wanted Rick Perry to do better — we all wanted him to win! Perry had a great record, was promoting great ideas, and had a great message. As opposed to the people on this board who seem to think that it was fate or malice that caused Perry’s demise, and that not much could be done about it, we believe that some things can be fixed in Perry, Fred Thompson, and other conservative campaigns to make them effective vehicles for candidate promotion and conservative activism, rather than moribund examples of how not to run for the Presidency. Making sure that the Rick Perrys of the future are more savvy about media relations doesn’t start without informed critique; informed critique doesn’t start until you realize there’s a problem in the first place.

          • aesthete

            First, the complaint was that he couldn’t get on shows, and now it’s that he was made fun of (which of course never, ever happened to Santorum, Newt, Ron Paul, Bachmann, or Romney).

            OK, then.

          • Scope

            He wasn’t invited on the MSM until he ooopsed, then they were breaking down his door to get him on. If you don’t see the difference, you are not looking very hard for it. Alrighty then!

          • Martin Knight

            All emotion, no logic.

          • runner12

            and I agree that there was real media bias against Perry. I am not saying that emotionally. I am saying that purely based off of my own observation. It quite frankly took me by surprise a little at the lengths Fox went to shove Perry aside and push Romney. The MSM is always going to be hostile to conservatives, so there was no surprise there.

            My main point is that both you and Martin are right. One cannot argue that the media did not target Perry, they did. But we cannot argue that the Perry campaign made several big blunders. Several of which was not being prepared for the media GOP establishment onslaught.

          • aesthete

            for being the rational dissenter. I agree that the media was more biased against Perry than against, say, Huntsman or Romney. I’m not sure that it was any more biased against Perry than it was against Cain or Santorum. I’m of the opinion that it was less biased against Perry than it was against Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, or Johnson.

            Gingrich found a smart way to attack the media without it sounding like a whine, and generally found ways to articulate his points despite the media. Bachmann went crazy lady on us. Paul… is Paul. Johnson didn’t deal with a media blackout effectively at all. Perry, as you note,

            There were several campaigns this year that were more worthy than Gingrich’s. I wish that they had had his success at dealing with the media, but I (and Martin) believe that there is a way to make weak campaigns with great candidates more of an outlier than they have been in the past — i.e., that it’s about more than the luck of the draw.

          • runner12

            I think that the Perry campaign was prepared for the attacks from Obama, the Left, and Romney. But they neglected to be prepared for the GOP establishment attacks. Which is surprising given Perry’s defeat of Rove, et al in Texas.

            They had an uphill climb from day one from the GOP establishment media. Not fully embracing this fact was one of the Perry camp’s biggest errors But if any good came out of it, it opened up voters eyes that even the GOP establishment media can shill for their candidate and attempt to sway voters through manipulation.

            Every Tea Party/Conservative candidate should take note and realize that some of your worst attackers will come from within the GOP.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            smile

          • avagreen

            of what you just wrote.

            A clear eyeopener to the corrupt mindset of both parties. Sadly many of us were ignorant of that prior to this race.

            No more. They’ve shown their hand. Too bad for them.
            Fool me once…….

    • nancysabet

      treated Perry and his candidacy. The best I’ve read so far in this site. I remember as soon as Perry appeared on national stage MSNBC Chris Mathew was the very first pundit who saw him as a real threat to his guy obama.. One could tell from his comments that he was even threaten by Perry’s physical appearances , he was talking about Perry’s chess , hair , his gesture and how strong he looks.. then it was MSNBC Mathew who started digging into that ?racist? comment on a rock? etc..

      • znjs

        Because as we all know Hardball gets amazing ratings, especially among Republican voters. And I can certainly see how Matthews complimenting Perry’s appearance would hurt Perry’s chances. How could Perry be expected to survive such attacks as Matthews saying he looks strong? !

    • CarolT

      I can’t believe I missed this Wednesday. You are 100% right, Rove started it a day or so after Rick Perry announced.
      Do you have link to story of Baier & Wallace? I missed that one.
      Thank you,
      Carol

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    Only one person knocked on my door the entire Presidential primary Season, it was Romney’s guy. Romney and Paul had the best ground games in NH and it showed. It is not rocket science that the more time a candidate spends in an early state like Iowa or NH the more likely they will win. It is also not rocket science the bigger the organization (and I m not talking about paid staff) I am talking about local volunteers like Precinct Committeemen in Iowa and Town and Ward Committee members in NH, the more likely the vote will get turned out.

    Perry bought a lot of ad time in NH. In my large Town with over 7000 registered Republicans, Perry got less than 40 votes on Primary Day. That is pretty sad for a successful Governor of the largest Republican State in the USA.

  • nancysabet

    Every body stabbed his back, I mean everyone! Now that he is not in the race they have realized there is really no one else out there to stop Romney or Obama. They all Back Stabbers !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzTeLePbB08

  • daveoconnor

    The above are the title and date of my post concerning Perry’s debate debacle.
    Here’s the nub:
    Rick Perry’s debate outings have caused his poll numbers to plummet. He appears inept. I am sure that in a great many ways he is very competent. That doesn’t matter just now because most Republicans are seeing him for the first time. You only get one chance to make a first impression. For better or worse the so-called debates, glorified news conferences really, are how candidates introduce themselves. And with all their flaws these events give voters an idea of the various candidates campaigning abilities .

    And Rick Perry simply never recovered. He spent a ton of money in Iowa and finished poorly. He was out of the running in NH and with his hard-core support on RS predicting that conservative, southern, evangelical SC would be the turning point…Perry ended his campaign. I felt badly for his supporters. Their passion was real. I wrote two posts supporting the governor, the last predicting he would do better based on a Fox “Center Chair” session where he shone. But I was wrong. His early lead evaporated for good because of those first three debate outings culminating in the opps moment.
    Now we’re getting what is essentially a “Perry was so good he was too good for you stupid, crooked, RINO s***heads.
    Please, give it up.

    • Martin Knight

      [nt]

      • avagreen

        That’s why our country is so great.
        Even the looney tunes that refuse to see the truth before their eyes.

        Romney made mistakes…….hear about it much on Fox, MSM? I didn’t think so.

        • Martin Knight

          Blaming Romney for Perry’s mistakes is not a sustainable line of argument.

          • avagreen

            the subject was the treatment of media of Romney vs their treatment of Perry.

            Talk about stampeding a point and jumping the gun.

            ‘guess you are a Romney supporter, correct? A little defensive, eh?

          • Martin Knight

            Perry’s Campaign made bigger mistakes than Romney’s Campaign – the news coverage reflected that. One campaign took the debates seriously while the other did not. One campaign collected enough signatures to get on the ballots in every state while the other did not. And so on …

            PS: I supported Perry – I endorsed him before he got in the race, supported him to the end, and hoped that he’ll climb back in the polls before he dropped out.

            While I respect your right to do so, I’m just not ready to light candles and build a shrine to him in my home.

          • avagreen

            + +
            -o-
            [---]

          • avagreen

            +….+
            –o–
            /[---]\

            which upon reading, you just did.

            (I’m still doing the review of Gov. Scott Walker recall and not really paying much attention today. And, it shows. Two mistakes I’ve made.

            Good news, though.
            Media Trackers is reporting that after a “naked-eye look at just a handful of the Scott Walker recall petitions, numerous errors [are] quickly revealed.
            http://mediatrackers.org/2012/02/initial-look-walker-recall-petitions-reveal-numerous-errors/

        • nancysabet

          Once Perry was out the whole GOP field looked profoundly ridiculous. It consisted of three unemployed politicians, one with a lot of baggage, one a pathological liar millionaire, and a slick Santy who, and an elderly lunatic congressman ..go figure.

          • romansdaughter

            Gov. Perry for what he was. You must read this article, http://www..Jewish World Review.com
            It is called Welcome back, Gov Perry. I cried when I read it. It is truly beautiful.

          • aesthete

            Please refrain from making support of a great candidate at the Presidential level sound like a cult initiation. It makes the rest of us sane Perry supporters look bad.

            kthxbai

          • avagreen

            Are we telling you how to run your campaign, or your candidate?

          • jakeofalltrades
          • aesthete

            that sounding like you’re about to light the incense candles at Perry’s tomb makes this site and Perry supporters look as batty as when people start talking about “Dr Paul” reverentially.

          • Scope

            on how to run a better campaign, and ask him to stop the whining about not getting enough media attention. Didn’t you say the media is what it is. Didn’t you also remark on how Johnson never got any media attention? It is what it is, right.

          • JSobieski

            There were three people in the race who were multi-term governors:
            Perry, Huntsman, and Johnson.

            Johnson was the guy kept off of the polls, out of the debates, and was virtually never mentioned.

            Perry could get on any TV show that he wanted upon entry into the race. It was only after his numbers plummetted that he couldn’t call his own shots.

            Perry was a great candidate who ran a horrible campaign. He picked the absolutely wrong fights.

            Instead of arguing about Romney’s book, he could have talked about how Romneycare made healthcare more expensive. Perry brought up the book issue in those debates, not the media.

            If Perry had talked about healthcare at any level of depth, he wouldn’t have been characterized so unfairly. Hopefully Perry will be back in 2016. Even if Romney wins, we will need a primary challenger for him.

          • Scope

            when he consistently ranked below a full 1% he was dropped from polling.

          • JSobieski

            from all polls, and subsequently all debates.

            Definitely was not given the treatment that a two term governor would customarily receive.

          • JSobieski

            http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/cnn-removes-gary-johnson-from-poll-two-weeks-after-he-outpolled-huntsman-and-santorum-in-their-own-poll

          • aesthete

            He should stop whining about it, too. He does have some legitimate beef against them and the RNC, but winners find a way to win despite opposition. Johnson may have been locked out, but he didn’t respond to it effectively.

          • JSobieski

            how Perry was not screwed by the media… particularly in contrast to Johnson.

            The further to the right the candidate, the less fair the media—and that is always true.

          • Scope

            We are current Perry supporters, even though he has suspended.

          • romansdaughter

            I guess “sane” as you put it is in the eye of the beholder. I must not have been paying attention, I had no idea you were a Perry supporter.
            I don’t know you and you don’t know me so what’s it to you who I support or what articles I like or think are beautiful. And why does that make it a cult initiation? Grief! Go back to your preferred candidate and please don’t tell me what to do.

          • avagreen

            Sorry to all the grumblers out there. No, actually I’m not.

            A salute from one proud man of faith to another

            http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Welcome home, Mr. Governor. You have fought the good fight. You have earned a few scars, gained a few wrinkles, and absorbed a few blows. And you have nudged the country, ever so slightly, in the right direction. For that we are grateful…

          • lizzie

            http://jewishworldreview.com/0212/welcome_home_perry.php3

            hope you do not mind my correction, but I DO appreciate your guide to news aggregator:
            www.JewishWorldReview.com
            mostly because it is hard for me to download The Jerusalem Post, so I sometimes miss Caroline Glick’s scathingly brilliant editorials.

            Took me awhile to find the post you intended for us.

            I was actually hoping to find someone had finally written that Rick Perry, since 1992, has done more for Israel’s economic growth which supports Israel’s national security and sovereignty than ANY other elected official from the USA.

            But, no one has (yet) written THAT story.
            Another by-product of Rick Perry’s being a doer, not a talker.

            and why it still really bugs me that Jen Rubin and her former colleagues at Commentary (that means you Wehner and Tobin!) shill for Romney who still can not confirm his opinion as to whether apartments in Jerusalem that happen to be east of the 1949 armistice line are “settlements”.

            I wonder if Romney even knows that Texas technology companies are deployed, having helped discover that Israel has as much shale oil as Saudi Arabia has drillable oil.

            You want a gamechanger in the entire global economy and geo-politics?
            Have Israel be the equal to Saudi Arabia in oil.

          • romansdaughter

            that wasn’t quite right.

          • bzip

            Kind of like the three stooges that all have one thing in common – big gov’t. We sure got stuck this election; Newt the mandating baggage loving insider, Santorum the ear marker and gay rights activist along with the ever well known progressive liberal Romney.

            Boy, you think we could make it any worse then this.

        • lapert

          You are entitled to your wrong opinions. Unfortunately your wrong opinions in this case make it impossible for you to learn how it can have better results next time.

          Luckily, the real politicians and activists know that losses are their fault and they learn from it – the ones who play pretend politics on the internet just don’t seem all that capable of it.

          • avagreen

            Romney made mistakes??.hear about it much on Fox, MSM? I didn?t think so.

            He’s being talked about now, for sure…..but back then……..nada.

            Lemur, lemur, lemur…….open your big eyes to look at the whole picture/post I wrote.

          • lapert

            It was all over the news today – the media loves nothing more than a front runner’s mistakes.

            But your obsession with how the media has wronged blinds you to the real reasons why Perry’s campaign failed and Romney’s is succeeding. The media coverage is a trailing indicator, not leading indicator.

            Open your eyes, the big picture is candidates fall off the rails and down to 5% in polls because of their own mistakes on the trail and inability to close the sale not anything talking heads on cable news networks watched by a tiny percent of voters say or don’t say.

          • runner12

            he is outspending his opponents and putting out attack ads. But no campaign can make up for the world class gaffe he made the other day.

            What is ironic to me is that I believe that had Perry made this gaffe you would be calling him every name in the book. But if it is Romney- well the media likes to attack the frontrunner.

            Pot meet kettle.

          • lapert

            Romney’s campaign is succeeding because it has done more ground work to line up the important structural pieces (infrastructure, ground troops, advocates, donors etc.) of a national political campaign. I wouldn’t say it is the strongest campaign in recent history, but he doesn’t have to be candidates of the past and against the ones here today he is lapping them..

            And if Perry said the same thing Romney said I wouldn’t call him a single name – I don’t know why you think I would. At this point if he said, no one would even hear it – heck if he said the week before he withdrew it would barely get airtime because the media no longer cared because he had made his campaign irrelevant.

          • avagreen

            Romney?s campaign is succeeding because it has done more ground work to line up the important structural pieces (infrastructure, ground troops, advocates, donors etc.) of a national political campaign.
            With the help of the media covering his gaffes (until now, ’cause he’s the top runner and he’s got to be destroyed now).

          • jakeofalltrades

            and the presidency is his acorn. His campaign may even have been responsible for breaking up Pangea:

          • avagreen

            *+ +*
            _O_
            [_______]

          • lizzie

            :) :) :) :) :)

            am not as fluent in emoticons as avagreen.

            well, looking forward to Martin Knight’s post about Perry un-suspending.
            am particularly curious about timing.
            post CPAC?
            or after March 24 Gridiron dinner?

            He does need some rehab with a finely tuned coherent message, which he almost had in Perry, Iowa and the pivot to Leadership in SC.

            I think his 4Q2011 fund-raising slump can not be revived until Rick Perry knows that Romney is sputtering for real, Paul can be neutralized from launching another cyber-war, Santorum has had to suspend, and Gingrich really can not sustain the battle into April.

            Tactical retreats are time-sensitive. So are tactical insurgencies!

          • romansdaughter

            nt

  • ncconservative2007

    I guess John Connolly back in 1980 fared even worse, but gosh, this was still one for the history books. It would have been him vs Mitt with little work, but he bungled it. I am so tired of people blaming his staff – the campaign was a reflection of a candidate who ducked debates and real scrutiny in Texas and thought he could do so nationally. It’s so painfully obvious now why he wouldn’t debateKay Bailey – he never would have won the primary.

    • jimmyg

      I tend to agree with you that the Governor’s staff is a reflection on him, but when you look how they succeeded for him in Texas, how would he have known that it would not have worked for him on a national scale.

      I was early to criticize Gov. Perry’s staff, and campaign. Early on it was the amateur hour. It started with calling SS a ponzi scheme. It was fine to do so, but when you are not offering any solutions, and only call for having a conversation about SS, it would seem like he has been living in a cave. We have been having a conversation about SS for 30 years, if not longer. He was running for president, brings up a subject, in such a way as to create medial attention, and then offers no solution. It showed me that he was not really prepared to run for president. That does not mean he was not qualified to run for president, just that the campaign staff was such that he was not prepared to run a national campaign, and the Governor himself had not really given a lot of thought to running for president.

      As to the Virginia ballot disaster, it was discussed on this forum for several days, and conspiracy theories abounded as to the fact that Gov. Perry had collected over 11,000 signatures. The conspiracy theorists alleged that Gov. McDonald and his Lt. Gov. Bolling, had somehow had Gov. Perry’s petition signatures thrown out for the benefit of Gov. Romney. (you conspiracy theorists know who you are)

      As it turns out Gov. Perry had in fact collected over 11,000 signatures but his staff has lost or misplaced petitions containing close to 6,000 signatures. This came out shortly after he had lost at the appellate level. I did not mention it earlier is that the issue was dead and I did not want to rub salt in the wounds of Perry supporters.

      “A footnote in the state officials’ filing also indicates that Perry may have had the required number of signatures to make the ballot, but lost them due to errors on the part of his petition circulators — furthering the argument that acquiring enough signatures under the current law is feasible:
      Governor Perry personally certified 11,911 signatures to the State Board of Elections … despite now acknowledging that approximately 6,000 signatures were filed. … According to his campaign manager, Governor Perry based his certification upon a claim of the vendor. The unexpected hospitalization of the vendor’s Virginia agent left the campaign unable to determine whether the other 5,911 signatures were in fact collected. Hence, it may be that the circulator limitations did not even conjecturally prevent the Perry campaign from collecting 10,000 signatures. It is entirely possible that the critical number of signatures were simply lost.”

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/va-officials-respond-to-perry-ballot-appeal-110936.html

      I could go on and on but a book may be written at some point detailing Gov. Perry’s campaign as a how to book on how not to run a presidential campaign.

      Gov. Perry’s campaign staff was truly the gang that could not shoot straight.

  • lizzie

    I agree with most of Martin Knight’s post-mortem, with some real exceptions:

    1) Perry’s back surgery was July 1, 2011. He only took painkillers for ten days, but it was ten weeks before he got back to running. He was clearly uncomfortable standing for two hours in the first 2-3 debates, but he could have rebounded from THAT. It was not until an early December online one on one interview with DMRegister’s Kathy Obradovich (a terrific 27 minutes!)where Perry finally admitted that ten weeks HAD slowed him down, but, being the kind of man that he is, he immediately changed the subject by saying
    “No Excuses. It is what it is”.
    So, with all that money spent in Iowa, why was THAT not his main ad. Better than Truman’s “Buck Stops Here”

    2) His website was terrible. Zero mention of campaign when and wheres.
    Using Facebook to “vote” for best lines. Homepage automatically starts playing ad of the day? How many visitors still using dial-up were turned away by all that? Rural, low income – I only got dial-up in late July 2011 and only because Verizon finally offered it, for now, for $2 extra per month.
    After Iowa, I begged them to stop with the begging for $250,000for SC, and instead embed Perry’s speech to the NH Legislature. I got an answer: not their priority!

    3) Perry mobilized veterans too late. THAT should have been #1 ground game.

    4) about that n-rock story? Jon Stewart likes Perry, from his 11/10/2010 book tour interview. Stewart shut down that n-rock story with a brilliant “Amazing Racism – Geographical Bigotry” on Oct. 3, 2011.

    5) well, I do not blame the entire spectrum of media as much as most Perry supporters here. Jon Stewart has more echo than anyone.

    Perry had to know he faced three powerful stereotypes:
    “another Texas governor dumber than W”
    “male Sarah Palin”
    “all white southern men are racists”

    Why he decided he had to go for the social conservatives to get a ticket out of Iowa is beyond me. He was already perceived too moderate on abortion, and “evil” for having endorsed Giuliani in 2008.

    Why he did not focus solely on Leadership (fuels Confidence was my take), and stick with fiscal conservatism: jobs and debt, why he never articulated any foreign policy message that combined Jackson (Kill them) and Hamilton is still sad for me.

    Why Rick Perry did not zero in on how Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid is a real threat in 2014, and hammer away at specific examples of EPA over-reach, and why Rick Perry did not just BE Rick Perry is what went wrong. He did rebound from those early debates.
    His Iowa strategy in December was fatal.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/01/the-truth-about-electability/?print=1

    THIS is Rick Perry on New York 1 cable news on Nov 19, 2011. THIS Rick Perry is who America needed to see ALL the time. Two minutes, watch it and wonder why THIS Rick Perry disappeared and decided that a part-time congress was his ticket out of Iowa (when what Perry needed was Rep Steve King’s endorsement):

    http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/ny1_political_itch/151141/ny1-itch–a-monday-itch-as-perry-parries

    Perry’s legacy WILL include:
    never run for president unless you can spend at least one fulltime year.

    I do belive Rick Perry will make a fine SecDef in a Gingrich administration :)

    • avagreen

      He’s still our Governor, and we want him back!
      I think it would be a step down to do so, personally.

      He’ll be gearing up for the next election, though. That will be easier done here in Texas than in DC.

      • lizzie

        I do believe he would serve as SecDefense, in a Gingrich administration.

        SecDef would be real hard for Perry to turn down.
        He would have a real voice in foreign relations and national security on the global stage, if it is Gingrich.
        Lot of waste to cut – it was Truman’s Senate investigations into wartime contractor corruption that made Truman’s reputation for integrity and fiscal conservatism.

        Perry could also find Sec Homeland Security hard to turn down – a mess of bureacracy, deal with the border, AND a potent 10th Amendment platform.
        or maybe Interior (the key to energy plan)

        avagreen – hope you defeated that cyber-war :)

        • avagreen

          started by a former banned member here?

          or the wrongly attributed posts she and another poster took the time to scour the web to post?

          The first: not worth my time. The sane folks that post there, post elsewhere. She? Again,not worth my time. I know she lurks here.

          The second: Yes, it was traced to Alabama (at that time)
          http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/166.147.76.27
          But, the bad news is that…..
          Geolocation by IP address doesn’t really work on cell-data device. Ultimately the person could be anywhere in the US.…..per the same person in a later post. It could be anybody.

      • nancysabet

        They all can go to TX , where the jobs are, get a job and work/live under Gov. Perry’s leadership after it’s all over and Obama is re-elected. Perry has a big heart and will forgive all you fools and morons.

      • JSobieski

        Governors who take on cabinet positions are either politically dead or technocrats with no real following.

        Possible exceptions would be defense or state, but neither of those positions would really take advantage of his strengths.

    • Martin Knight

      I was going to include things I thought he should have done or done better but the post started getting too long so I just cut them out.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      Part of why Romney is successful right now is because of his experience both bad and good from 2008.

      Perry now has that experience.

      If he discovers that he has the drive to be President then he can run in 2016 (if there is anything left to run after a 2nd Obama term) or in 2020 after two Romney terms and he will do a much better job.

      Would like to see him leave the governor’s office if Romney wins and start a successful business so that he could come back in 2020 and say “I’ve lead a state and I’ve lead a company. Now let me lead this country.”

      Or perhaps, he does become the SecDef in a Romney or Gingrich administration and then he’ll have the foreign policy to go with the domestic resume.

      • lizzie

        Perry was a farmer for years – no need to start a business.

        Romney can NOT beat Obama. NO WAY.

        lowest turnout election ever, and Obama will win.

        ‘devil you know’ syndrome…

        the only reason Romney has polled as “electable” is name recognition.

        Plastic Vultures never win.

        • Change Jar Conservative

          The key for Romney will be to select a tea party type of VP.

          That will bring the Tea Party to the party.

          Romney will win the moderates. They want anyone who doesn’t scare them.

          While I’m not sure how I’d sleep at night AFTER the election, I actually think Romney/Rand Paul would win handily. Rand would be a proxy for Ron Paul and also for the Tea Party.

          So there you go.

          • buster93

            I have no idea who I see as a Vp pick for Romney. Can we start all over. How about Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio. He would be a strong candidate establishment Republican with a Tea Party VP. Jeb is very pro Education and a great governor of Florida and Latino vote
            Nervous with Romney . Its anybody but Romney in the Primary but nobody in the general election. He just got endorsed by Trump what does that mean to the Average American or the poor. The rich just got richer and as being poor we are being taken care of .Not real encouraging , NANNY NANNY STATE

          • kegan05

            Hmmm. Jeb has been an advocate for Amnesty. Not good.

            He also has the last name of Bush. Not good right now.

            I dunno. I think I would choose Mitt over Jeb.

        • nancysabet

          AMIN

        • snowshooze

          Just making sure everyone understands that.

      • buster93

        Yes I am from Texas and I like my governor very much. I have not commented since he stepped out and came back to Texas.
        We have our own issues that effect all Americans .Outsourcing for American Airlines for repairs with individuals from other countries that can’t read a manual to repair our planes. Hopefully there is some resolve with the Unions . Many out of work. Not good!!
        I am one that met Ronald Reagan in 1980 and met the true conservative and life was good.
        Do I think we will beat Obama in 2012 with Romney as the Republican saying he is not worried about the poor. I want everyone to move up a class and not to be in a safety net.
        Perry has made all the issues but was not accepted because he was not elite Republican. I hope for the best for Americans whether
        it is Romney or Obama . But that is what I said after Obama was elected and now we are in 15 trillion in debt and people that are still poor.

        Gotta love Rick Perrys pick recently .Back at the shooting range.
        Back in Austin we all still love ya Rick.
        God Bless America
        Patriot and Conservative 2016

        • nancysabet

          and that is why I love him.

    • carolynr

      Unless and until we recognize that money trumps everything these days…we will never find the solution. Get rid of greed and put the country first…and maybe we might recover…So…Martin..how do you like your choices…the Marxist in Chief and the Nominee of the Republican Party…the Rich Liar. That is WHAT OUR INTELLIGENCE has taken us to.

      So…if Perry is dumb…I’ll join the club because at least “dumb” has character.

      This is a hit piece on Perry and why. He’s gone. What’s your point? Are you as sadistic as say…Dick (right name) Morris?

      As far as your points in your original post…too bad that you don’t get on the major blogs to find out that your premise is anything but true.

      • cheetah2

        Not because I have anything but admiration for his resolve and the rightness of his stand, but because I felt sure that he would never prevail against the self interests of Iowa voters.

  • Common_Cents

    It’s only serving to divide at this point. Perry is out. We need to move on. Discussing it down the line to learn any lessons is smart, but doing it now isn’t helping our cause much.

  • hls87

    Nor was he the hapless victim of media bias. These are just dueling delusions. The truth is much uglier and much simpler. Rick Perry touched the third rail and his campaign died. It was the flap over characterizing SS as a Ponzi scheme that touched off the death spiral.

    In general, Perry presented himself as a threat to the Washington status quo. That’s not what voters wanted, even in GOP primaries. Perry was the only genuine alternative to Romney. Voters decided they really didnt want to rock the boat. They chose continuity instead of change, either by voting for Romney directly or by registering a meaningless protest vote for a joke like Gingrich or Santorum.

    Perry’s campaign was no more accident prone than Newt’s and not much more than Romney’s. People voted for what they wanted and unfortunately they didn’t want a serious conservative.

    • hls87

      characteristic of the left. For progressives it’s never the message that fails, only the messenger. We need to do better than that. It wasn’t the messenger it wa the message, which means we face an even more daunting challenge.

    • daveoconnor

      is not only artless and needlessly scary, it happens to be inaccurate. SS is certainly very flawed but it isn’t fraudulent. Anyone who wants can read about the entire program in exhaustive detail. It never pretended to be a high return investment.
      Perry’s part-time congress was also a complete non starter: Let’s see my son in the Army isn’t getting something or other so I’ll call my rep; oh wait the office is closed for a month.

    • Martin Knight

      First of all, it’s far too simplistic to turn that one issue into the be-all end-all even if it played some part (I’m agnostic on this) in mortally wounding Perry out of contention.

      The problem was that Perry made no effort to adequately defend his statement. To me, this is failing Campaigning 101; do not make controversial statements you’re not willing or able to defend.

      • lizzie

        not the early SoCSec or Bernanke-treason comments.

        I hope Gov. Perry reads Martin’s post and this thread because one never knows what might happen in March, 2012, or even at a brokered convention.
        Perry needs to repair the damage, unfair and/or self-inflicted NOW.
        Candidates can un-suspend campaigns.

        What happens when Gingrich releases his medical records?
        What happens if Romney’s “electability” polling tanks in February?
        What happens when the GOP finally realizes the strategic depth of Ron Paul’s ground game – how many Romney delegates are actually Ron Paul people?

        Ron Paul waged cyber-war against Perry from day 1. Perry was a democrat.
        Who do you think edited Perry’s 10/28/2011 NH Cornerstone speech and uploaded it so fast and made it go viral? Perry was mimicking Ron Paul in that speech. It took maybe three days before the entire speech was online, and then it all made sense.

        I want Gov. Perry to demonstrate his finest qualities, of leadership, and his intelligence, when he is in a one-on-one interview by doing at least two things:

        1) really tackling the Texas water plan

        2) being part of a tv program that gets echo (I never watch 60 Minutes, but they do seem to get echo) by discussing his back surgery and the use of his own adult stem cells, and the importance of post-op rehab discipline.

        What I still find so sad is that the very issues that made Rick Perry seem unelectable are precisely the issues that make him totally electable:

        1) yes, he was a democrat until 1989. so are most of 2012′s independents!

        2) in-state tuition. That is pure 10th Amendment, and the initial drop in Perry’s polling over this really shows the GOP in a bad way.

        3) HPV vaccination. Just because HPV is an STD does not mean that this ground-breaking vaccination should be exiled by the GOP. Does the GOP complain about college students being forced to get menningitis vaccines?
        HPV is a serious public health issue. I assume it can be transmitted via blood transfusions, just like HIV. Perry was stereotyped as anti-science from day 1 – and the GOP made itself look anti-science by allowing this attack on Perry to stick.

        Two of the 20th century’s best presidents were “accidental” , and became presidents only because they had reluctantly agreed to be VP: Coolidge and Truman.

        It was always Perry and Gingrich versus Romney and Paul. Still is.

        The GOP is delusional if they think a TEA Party VP will help Romney win.

        well, just hoping Rick Perry is reading this.

        and the GOP stops using today’s polls to decide who can beat Obama.

        I saw “The Iron Lady” yesterday, about Margaret Thatcher. Highly recommend it for anyone who thinks they know how to articulate Conservative values.

        • kegan05

          Thanks for the great post on my favorite candidate, Rick Perry. He was the real deal but he did make that fatal blunder telling people “they had no heart” if they objected to In State Tuition, etc.

          He never quite recovered after that. The Oops thing would not have been blown out of proportion if his rating had been higher.

          He was the only Veteran other than Ron Paul and would have been a REAL Commander in Chief. I hope he gets a good Debate Coach and runs again. He would make a great President, IMO.

    • irishgirl

      “People voted for what they wanted and unfortunately they didn’t want a serious conservative”. “Serious” being the operative word.

  • bzip

    Personally I haven’t given up on Perry and I won’t till someone has the nomination.

    If fact I just started a new website/blog with one of the goals being to: re-draft Rick Perry;
    http://teaandfedup.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/re-draftting-rick-perry-at-cpac/

    • Scope

      Quite honestly, I am quite happy to see Perry out of this mess that has become the 2012 Republican nomination. No doubt much ink will be spilled on some of the shenanigans that have played out over the last year, and will continue in the coming months. In hindsight, I give Gov. Perry credit for ducking out of the mud wrestling, or Pit Bull fights, early on while he still was able to retain his principles and credibility. I’d love to see him just keep doing what he has been doing in Texas, getting involved in downticket races for good conservative candidates, and speaking out about conservative/federalist principles for the next few years. After Reagan’s first loss, he went back home to CA, and continued taking his message directly to the people. Perry will be wise to do the same. He can hone his speeches, focus his message and delivery, while keeping his name in the public.

      Funny thing is, many were on pins and needles, worrying if Perry would say something wrong, or flub in another debate. Now many are on the same pins and needles, waiting to see if the frontrunner Romney will screw up whenever he opens his mouth. Seems has has been opening his mouth lately, only to exchange feet. And he is the “inevitable” other one we were all waiting for.

    • lizzie

      that seems to be his relaunch on the national stage.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/03/why_romneys_rich_gaffes_will_cost_him_113014-2.html

      Interestingg analysis of Romney’s “rich” gaffes, and noting Rick Perry’s role in cracking the plastic mask of rihis rich :)

      now that debater-in-chief and poll-driven ” electability” are no longer fuelling hysteria, the lower voter turnouts, and what IS presidential leadership may become bigger storylines after Super-Tuesday.

      as for Scope’s observations below?
      Perry made a tactical retreat at the right moment.
      Not necessarily same as “ducking out of the mud wrestling”.

      as I wrote somehwre else, where a few of us were into Civil War analogies because the post had Romney as Grant grinding down Gingrich as Lee – and I disagreed – this is Tennessee before Vicksburg.
      Romney is no Grant (more like the arrogant, cautious McClellan)
      and Newt is not Lee.

      so, wait for March 24.

      and then there will still be contests to go.

      • avagreen

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/03/why_romneys_rich_gaffes_will_cost_him_113014.html

        • avagreen

          (* *)

      • romansdaughter

        http://www.Jewish World Review.com It’s called Welcome back Gov Perry. It was excellent and made me cry.

    • romansdaughter

      Pretty new to twitter stuff but I went to your website/blog and I was very impressed. Way to go. Nope I am not giving up on Gov. Perry God is going to use him mightily yet, Yes, I am glad that Perry has still got his integrity in tact and I think people are going to be hearing from him…he isn’t going away.

      • avagreen

        fear he WILL come back.

        And, by gosh and by gorn, his supporters just won’t hush up like good little beaten campaigners are supposed to do.

        “Let’s beat them down now and just make them be quiet!!!!,” seems to be the new motto.”

        • Martin Knight

          … to get back into the race.

          Put them on YouTube and try and get a million views.

          Start a petition and set a target for signatures offline and online.

          If you want Perry back, you’ve got to think outside the box – much like he does.

          • bzip

            I might suggest checking out the blog I just created for doing something like this;

            Tea and Fed Up
            http://teaandfedup.wordpress.com/

          • lizzie

            much like he does.”

            I agree with that point, but not sure your Youtube/petition concept will work in 2012.

            The Perry2012 Youtube Channel reveals some interesting “hits” history,
            Except for “Strong”, it was all downhill after mid-Nov. And “Strong” went semi-viral because it was deemed “controversial” Perry even had to stop wearing his Carhartt jacket after “Strong” – I still wonder if Carhartt asked him to stop wearing it.

            Another online strength cue was Perry’s Facebook followers surge-plateau-mini-surge, but still barely over 180,000 when he suspended via tactical retreat on Jan 19. On that day, Romney had 1,282,764; Paul had 693,398, Gingrich had 225,717, Santorum 59,733, and Huntsman 31, 621.

            Online is over-rated because of the 100% myth of Obama’s online success in 2008. I was inside that website for five months, and all it was was a phony fundraising machine. He never had what 13 million emails? No way. All a myth. I have the proof, but just take my word for it.

            I continue to see Perry’s tactical retreat as part of the Perry-Gingrich versus Romney-Paul battle during the primary/caucus voting.

            Perry’s wording on January 19 was full of clues.

            I believe Rick Perry will un-suspend his campaign under certain conditions, which is why his headlining the March 24 Gridiron Dinner may be one of them, IF Romney’s self-inflicted damage does dent his “electability” myth.
            If Gingrich needs to pass the baton back to Perry after Super-Tuesday.
            If Santorum finally suspends his campaign.

            If nothing else, Rick Perry knows he has to re-boot his image to finally throw off that “another Texas gov dumber than W” stereotype. And that requires a national stage to prove he is a Leader, and smart enough, with the temperament that we all know is one of his greatest leadership qualities.

            I have read this thread, and do want to make one point about “the media” – they always gave Romney a pass for “being Presidential” in all the debates, even when he had his Mitt Fits. But, Perry was winning over even what y’all here call the liberal media until that oops moment, and even then he still impressed them with his resiliency and good humour. Jon Stewart NEVER savaged Perry after his Jan 19 tactical retreat.

            And, to those who disagree with my contention that Perry would accept SecDefense in a Gingrich administration, that is because I am not sure Perry would agree to run as VP with Gingrich, but SecDefense would be an offer to serve at a critical moment in history that I think Rick Perry would possibly consider it even if offered by Obama, who is already at the point where he can NOT get anyone confirmed for anything, and, in the event of a second term, Obama would be in much worse shape on any confirmations.

            I still do not believe Romney is electable, with ANY VP pick.

            And, if the GOP convention is not clear, then you can bet draft Rick Perry would be far more palatable than Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels.

            Kind of interesting that Bachmann, Jindal, and now Sandoval still not endorsing anyone.

            We just have to wait for Perry’s re-boot on the national stage – and that is the tactical insurgency I await :)
            just hope it does not include part-time congress!

          • Scope

            with your opinion that Perry would accept a VP spot with Gingrich, and I disagree even more with him accepting a spot as the SecDef, even in the Obama admin???? Gov. Perry made it very clear when asked about a VP spot when he said that VP is worth nothing more than a warm bucket of spit. Why ever would a current Gov. of the second largest state in the US step down from that position, to become what Fred Thompson so aptly described as nothing more than one who’s job it is to attend funerals for foreign dignitaries, in far away places? If Perry was willing to lower himself to VP, or SecDef, I would be more than a little sad and disillusioned with someone who has so much more to offer than that. I seriously give Gov. Perry a whole lot more credit than that, and consider him much smarter than that.

            I just love how all of the armchair quarterbacks have come out with ideas and solutions as to how Perry should have, or should in the future run his campaign, as though he and his staff are just scouring the internet for ideas from those that comment on a blog. Everyone is more than welcome to talk about anything they choose, and to play what I see as something akin to a video game. When you win the video game, what does it get you? Yes exactly, nothing. If Gov. Perry is not capable of running a campaign, and making his own decisions as to what is, or what is not, and hasn’t learned himself what may have worked, and what didn’t through on the ground experience, then I daresay he won’t be awarded with any come back, or a future win in any election. Those commenting on a blog as to how he should do things is not going to promote, or insure a future President Perry.

            Sorry, don’t mean to be harsh or insulting, that is not my intention. Just saying this is Gov. Perry game to play as he sees fit. This isn’t his first time to the rodeo.

          • Martin Knight

            By the way … this is the last time I’ll have anything to say to you, at least on this subject.

            I just love how all of the armchair quarterbacks have come out with ideas and solutions as to how Perry should have, or should in the future run his campaign, as though he and his staff are just scouring the internet for ideas from those that comment on a blog.

            Do you know the reason RedState went from nothing to being practically the only Conservative being regularly read on Capitol Hill and in many state capitals across the country?

            Because we do analysis. We criticize. We call out. We make recommendations. We even insult. We armchair quarterback. And we did it well. We did it so well, your beloved Rick Perry decided to announce his entry into the race at a RedState Gathering.

            If we were to stop armchair quarterbacking, criticizing, recommending, suggesting, analyzing, etc. then why bother having a blog at all?

          • Scope

            since we are armchair quarterbacking. From my memory, Perry was invited tp speak at the gathering, but, unless it just wasn’t posted, no one at RedState knew it was going to be his announcement day. Perry gave the “honor” to RedState, but then got slapped around by EE mainly with his posts including the one where EE had in big bright bold letters, in the right hand column, that if Perry lost, something to the effect that if Perry lost the nomination, he would be going back to Texas as a complete loser. I still get tears in my eyes as I remember that ultimate insult. Many have had problems with EE asking Perry to drop out, and to endorse Gingrich. I was numb to that call already, after the Perry will return home to Texas as a loser if he loses the nomination post. Then low and behold, we find a post a day or so later saying that we are in deep trouble with Romney and Gingrich.

            My last post to you also Martin, because I simply find you to be a bore at this point, who thinks he has all the answers. If you had all the answers, you would be running campaigns, not talking about what they all should or shouldn’t be doing in the comments section on a blog.

            Have a good night Martin. Sleep peacefully.

          • lapert

            So, you are numb because Eric as giving an analysis that turned out to be prophetic? Have you seen what Perry’s poor campaign has done to his approval in Texas? Eric was urging the campaign to recognize it was failing and adapt or realize the costs would go beyond not winning the ’12 nomination – he was right to do so and they would have been better served to have paid attention. A helpful supporter wouldn’t have gone numb at the messenger but tried to relay it to the candidates team.

          • Scope

            Get an fing clue, get an fing life, and get the f off my back. You have yet to add the first ounce of anything of value to this site. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. We all know you hate Perry. You have made that so very perfectly clear, not a soul can miss it. You even more so hate every Perry supporter here, obviously some more than others. Get an fing life you total loser.

          • lapert

            Do you touch your kids with those potty hands of yours that would type like that?

            I don’t hate Perry, I just have no respect for a small subset of his sichophantic followers whose relationship to him is more like teenage girls to boy bands than educated adults to political candidates. In fact, you in particular, have not only added no value but seem to detract value from this site with every post – people like you make the whole movement look bad.

          • pttx333

            you don’t “hate Perry?” I’ve been reading your stuff.

            I live in Texas, have voted for Perry all of these many years and remain in his camp – totally. Now, I’m 71 years old, so does that also make me a teenage girl rather than an educated adult? Hmmm?

            Pardon me, sir/ma’am, BUT why is it so wrong to speak up for the person you know to be the best candidate (JUST AS YOU ARE DOING!)? Would you care to enlighten us? I just do not “get” your holier-than-Thou attitude and approach to others.

            One further thing, it wouldn’t be a very good idea to mess with a very, very well-respected fellow RS’er, Miss Scope. No. 1, it offends me greatly, and believe me when I say that I’m not the only one. Why don’t you just take your toys off to the corner and consider a different approach to others – regardless of their candidate, except of course, yours that is. You do not win any fans by beating others over the head – it just doesn’t work out too well. Understand?

          • lapert

            I do not hate Perry, he is just a politician, I didn’t think he was the best candidate for President, I do think him and his staff ran an awful campaign, but none of that comes anywhere near hatred. And in fact it is the people who ‘hate’ or ‘love’ politicians that I think make for poor advocates.

            There is nothing wrong with advocating for the candidate you think is best, there is something harmful when that advocacy turns to dogma and you refuse to see any shortcoming on their part, or you constantly create conspiracies to excuse their failing campaign – it is akin to the sports fan who instinctively blames the refs after every loss.

            Our politicians are not gods, they aren’t even priests. Their chosen careers almost guarantee that they will have very significant human failings – whether it is Clinton, Perry, Gingrich or Obama when in the course of advocating for them you cross over to starstruck fans as if they were rock stars or athletes instead of political leaders you go past what is helpful to what is harmful. You no longer are in touch with reality, you can no longer positively advocate on their behalf and definitely turn from them and their losing campaign to advocate on behalf of the party in the long run.

            It is that line, that Scope has long crossed. It isn’t personal, it is politics, and making it personal as she has prevents her from contributing positively to the political outcomes that actually matter.

          • Martin Knight

            Thank you for that.

          • Scope

            Teenage girls to boy bands, oh my!

          • lapert

            I’ll be here all week, don’t forget to tip your waiter on the way out.

          • avagreen

            Calling names and losing your kewl……..

          • greyeagle

            Frankly, his approval in TX with the voters is the same. The only thing is the liberal media in the state (and there is plenty) is trying to stir things up for Obama and the liberal Democrats. I am from TX and leaned early to ignore the media there.

          • lapert

            Unless you have another poll, the one I saw last week suggests otherwise.His approval rating are his lowest ever and a majority said he shouldn’t run for reelection.

          • Martin Knight

            … otherwise you’d not be here.

            Sleep tight.

  • Eyeofnewt

    Bzip & Mr. Lizzie,
    It’s time to let go of this weird idea of Perry getting back in the race. Why R U doing this? I find it intriguing that none of Bachmann’s, Cain’s, Huntsman’s people droned on and on for 18 days after said defeat.

    • avagreen

      are complaining that Perry’s supporters still support him and whatever his future plans are.

      That is what is a weird idea.

      As this has been a whole different kind of race….anything can happen, in addition to one of the candidates frankly buying the election with help of friends in high places, Perry and his supporters are free to do whatever they choose to do. At least it’s being done honestly. More than what Romney’s people can say, or Paul’s people.

      • Scope

        that you are replying to. Who was the one that always used the R and U code speak in all their posts before they were banned?

        • pttx333

          I’m back somewhat … missing my friends and wanting to keep in touch.

          Miss Scope, I agree with you on the retread – I remember the one who used the shorthand code-speak and everyone would tell her/him to knock it off. Just can’t remember which retread! ;-)

          So good to see you, ladies … I’ve been busy, busy with apt. hunting and upcoming move. You both know how to contact me, so feel free to do so at any time. Later, dear friends …

          • avagreen

            ……but this personality has been posting since January 14……and i can’t remember when the popuups/sock puppets were last banned. ??

            pttx, I hope you get your apartment and soon so you can get some rest. Being ill is a stressor. Hunting for an apt is a stressor! I commend you on your bravery and stamina, girl!
            I have family (dtr of my recently deceased sister) that live in the Houston area, whom I have visited several times. What a congested place to live. I can’t imagine what a job it would be to find a place to live there.

            I do have to say that some of these folks just can’t stand the fact that Perry’s people are still supporting him. (what a laugh)…….If he wants to run again, that’s his business.

            They need to get a life and quit worrying the bone about him and his supporters. What skin off their nose is this costing?

          • pttx333

            Perry … whoopee! And that is strange because … ? Smacks of pure loyalty to me – I know a good man when I see one! Pffffft on the naysayers … they have their opinions, and I damn well have mine.

            The Houston area is truly congested, but where I will be living is in a small community about 20 mi. south. So I knew the exact area I wanted (lived there before) and went from there. You don’t even realize you’re near a big city while there. Everything you need is right there unless you choose to venture off to another area just for the heck of it. I do love to go over to Galveston Bay for some of the fantastic local eateries (not the touristy places) for the freshest/best seafood, but that is even farther away from the inner city. I don’t go into the Houston proper unless there is a need to do so. Commuted downtown for many years and loved it, if you can believe that. Not the commute, but working downtown was great! Yeah, I know, I’m weird.
            Yep, I’ve been under a whole lot of stress, and I’m talking a LOT of stress.

            Currently don’t have water here in this house where I’ve been house sitting! The executor has had major surgery and lives in FL, so I don’t want to bother him … nor do I have any authority to do anything about the utilities. I’ll be soooo glad to be outta here! I’ve been in contact with a sister-in-law, but she has no authority to do anything either. Yucky situation. But it won’t be long until this nightmare is OVER.

            As for the naysayers, may I venture a guess that perhaps Perry is still the one they fear will upset their little status quo apple cart?????

    • bzip

      You may look at it that way of not letting go but I look at it differently.

      First, I think Perry was given a very raw deal by many. Given that he drop out with only 2 states weighing in and most voters not even given a chance to weigh in themselves – that is downright lousy.

      Secondly, till a nominee is selected/elected I refuse to give up. No, I am not going to live in a fantasy land and think that there is a good chance for Perry to re-enter and win but I?ll be darn if I will give up without a fight.

      You see to give up without a fight is to surrender our country to the liberal progressives such as: Obama, Romney, Newt and Santorum. Let?s face it, can anyone here honestly say that Newt with his record and his support of big gov?t ways or Santorum and his record of big gov?t ways is something we should be inspired by and support.

      Anyone who thinks that any of the candidates who now running is some kind of wonderful fiscal conservative needs to really open their minds up and look at the facts and records. Giving up now without a fight is surrendering our country once again to big progressive spenders.

      In addition to give up on what Perry stands for, the principles he stood for and the general ideas in his book Fed Up are like giving up on conservatism entirely. I am proud of what Perry stands for and what he brings to the conservative movement and you better hope and pray for the sake of our country that those same principles are talk about and put into play in 2012 and further down the road.

      No, I won?t sit still and play dead. No, I won?t give up fighting for my country and for the principles that Perry stands for which are at the heart and soul of saving this country.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I’d hop right back on the bandwagon. That’s how much I like and respect the guy.

    But just about everything Martin says above is true. We can try to rationalize it all we want, and he had many obstacles like the media and the GOP elite, but he should have known it and been prepared for anything.

    He wasn’t.

  • romansdaughter

    • oldlady

      Good to see Perry still in the good fight for states rights.

      • romansdaughter

        We are going to see him coming out more and more. I think he just needed to rest up a bit and now he is back in the fight. You can’t keep a good man down.

      • znjs

        It’s not since he dropped out.

        • romansdaughter

          thought it was recent. My bad. I think I thought that cause I had been discussing a recent article that was in the Texas Tribune and then this friend sent me that and I just presumed. My apologies.

  • Scope

    One of the first options is Martin Knight with what looks to be a book called Bush*Perry. Click on the picture, and it leads you to all of Martin Knight’s diaries. Make of it what you will folks. Martin, do you consider Perry to be just another W?

    • pttx333

      How ’bout that? Bottom line, who is Martin Knight? Why does he consider W and Perry to be one in the same? Interesting …

      • Scope

        that when Mr, Knight said that he was going to put up a diary where he was going to ask Perry to call in his endorsement of Gingrich, and unsuspend, it was all hogwash. But I think we all knew that. He was just hopping to get the support of those that can’t tell a sham from anything, or the naive. He did get some. Ha.

        • pttx333

          wants to get something going here. b.o. supporter? paulie? Just who is this dude – certainly NOT a Perry fan. Which is okay, but do not go around stirring up trash with those who are supporters? What in the holy hell is going on around here these days anyway? I don’t get it, and don’t want to either! I figure he gets whatever is coming to him doncha know. ;-)

          • jimmyg

            from when they ran for Gov., Lt. Gov in 1998.

            http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bush+perry+98+campaign+poster&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1252&bih=591&tbm=isch&tbnid=Pwez1sfwBrBMkM:&imgrefurl=http://www.tennrebgirl.com/cgi-bin/display_Items.asp%3FCat%3D18%26Sub%3D240%26page%3D2&docid=olmzjYRzmNoMfM&imgurl=http://www.tennrebgirl.com/images/store/bushperry.jpg&w=480&h=529&ei=YegtT8yRBMWbtwfxj4zgDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=953&vpy=242&dur=3140&hovh=236&hovw=214&tx=100&ty=149&sig=115063247502206904014&page=1&tbnh=124&tbnw=135&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0

          • pttx333

            To link together that W = Perry? That is how it would appear to me since it is ancient history at this late date.

            Thanks again!

          • znjs

            I was not finding anything when I tried the search.

            Detective Scope solves another case!

          • jimmyg

            Did you read what she said about the picture, which she thought was a book called Bush Perry. She did not want to clear anything up, she wanted to discredit Martin.

          • znjs

            nt

          • Scope

            I said it appeared to be a book. You supplied that it was in fact a poster of them both. Thank you for clearing that up. It doesn’t take anything away from the fact that Martin has tried to tie Perry to Bush. We all know that’s a big negative that he tried to exploit, right on the Google page, eh.

          • znjs

            That’s it. Pointing out attacks that will be used means you’re endorsing those attacks now?

          • aesthete

            The truth about Martin and the international Jewish bankster conspiracy to topple Rick Perry must be uncovered!

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            that Martin is now Jewish or that he is international!

          • Scope

            Martin pulled in an old poster of Bush and Perry, which most have been using as a negative against Perry to paint him as another dumb Texan. That picture next to Martin Knight’s name is there because Martin put it there.

          • jimmyg

            I am not here to defend Martin, he can clearly do a better job of defending himself than me. I am also not going to do any more research for you as to why the Bush/Perry poster is next to Martin’s name. You are on your own..

          • Martin Knight

            You, despite commenting multiple times in it, obviously did not. You were just desperately looking for something, anything, to discredit me. {shrug}

            I think you’re intellectually useless at this point – at least when it comes to Rick Perry – you’re too emotionally invested.

            Furthermore, the fact that you went to the extent of googling me just to find my RedState diary (which you could have navigated to by clicking my name here), is more than a little … disturbing.

            You might need some help, my dear.

      • trevorb

        was unfortunately the stereotype Perry had to deal with from the very beginning. It’s far from fair, but politics never is. Considering the kind of hatred people still have towards Bush, it was a strong weapon.

        Even if he’s out of the presidential race, I don’t think he’s done.

        • pttx333

          the stuff Perry had to deal with. Man, it takes a real fruitcake to truly believe that two men from one state (any state) are the same because they have the same accent and have an R after their names. That is sorta like having to decide which man/woman to marry … if two are from the same state, have the same accent, well then, it really wouldn’t matter which one you choose to marry. How stupid is that?

          Oh, no, Rick Perry is not done. Trev, he is like a dog with a bone … he won’t stop fighting for conservative causes – that is just who he is.

          • trevorb

            if he ever decides to run for president again, and he may very well do so, he’ll have the experience as to how to run a national campaign. Didn’t take him too long to endorse Gingrich.

            it would be kind of like saying he and Romney are alike, or Perry and Paul just because they’re republicans.

          • pttx333

            sorts of stupid comparisons that this = that and it still wouldn’t be anything other than stupid!

            Perry’s political career is not anywhere near over, trev. My grief has been that we need him NOW, but unless a miracle should occur, that isn’t likely at this time. Nope, it is not the last you will hear of him … not at all.

          • trevorb

            he’ll run in 2016 if by some horror Obama gets reelected. He made his share of mistakes in the campaign, true, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t want to take him out.

            Much as I hate to say it, Romney will likely be our nominee. I still hope Gingrich can pull it off, but I have serious doubts.

          • pttx333

            Mitt. Guess I’ll have to go with Newt, but only because the others are so horrid – he’s the least horrid. ;-)

          • trevorb

            and Perry did endorse him, so he’s got to have something going for him. Granted, I’m not real fond of him, but I prefer him to Mitt Romney.

            Only good news is that I don’t think Obama is going to get a second term. I’m crossing my fingers on it, anyway.

        • avagreen

          …..and in fact, through Karl Rove, have been successful in downing Perry at every chance.
          1. Daddy Bush is friends with Romney.
          http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/bush-41-backs-romney-for-president-admits-hes-not-gingrichs-biggest-advocate/
          2. The Bush family wants Jeb to run in the next election (and of course, couldn’t if Perry was President this time round)
          http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2012/01/laura-bush-says-she-and-george-wanted-jeb-to-run-for-president-this-year/

          • pttx333

            Jeb in there. Man oh man, I will fight that tooth and nail! But I’ve never cared for Jeb, unlike W. I did like W the first go-round but was sooo disappointed the second one. And GHWB/Rove will stop at nothing to achieve that!

            I’m so very disappointed in the Bushies, though I’m not overly sure that W goes along with them – he’s very quiet. I damn well don’t want another family dynasty to get up and running – either party. We’ve had far too many of those!

    • Martin Knight

      The fact that you actually commented on that post, multiple times, completely escaped you, right?

      Wow.

      PS: Please do not tattoo Perry’s face on any part of your body. I think even he would be completely weirded out by you right now.

    • BigRedConservative

      That is, Rick Perry Withdrawal Withdrawal Syndrome? Symptoms include refusal to acknowledge that Rick Perry has left the race, a verging on the weird fanaticism and loyalty to the man, and the creation of bizarre conspiracy theories about anybody who opposes him.

      I supported Rick Perry. He bombed. He dropped out. Let’s stop fawning over the man, and move on to the next best thing.

      • kegan05

        he needs to get a good Debate Coach and try again in 2016 or 2020. He will have my vote because I think he is a deep down good man. He loves this country and will do what is right.

        I was disturbed when he got behind Newt Gingrich, however, because I don’t think Newt is a true Conservative. He is on Video saying all kinds of nutty, crazy stuff. “I am a Wilsonian Progressive” “I greatly admire Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” “FDR is my favorite President.” Our Constitution is “obsolete.” On and on and on. He has more Liberal idea’s than Conservative, IMO. Here’s the video in case anyone wants to watch it. IF you have the stomach for one hour and 3 minutes of Newtisms!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eyeB36ctO5I

        I have decided to support Mitt Romney because he can beat Obama and has the expertise and the character and integrity to LEAD this nation out of the darkness and into the sunshine. JMO.

  • CarolT

    I am just as disheartened by the Perry Campaign as most of you are, but there is always the next time. I wish that the GOP nominee will win this year but I doubt it.
    I was sad the day that Rick Perry suspended his campaign, but read here that he was out of money and he and Anita would have had to go into debt, We do not want that. Rick will finish his term as Governor and he should watch to see what happens on election day this year, I hope I am wrong but I see Obama winning if Mitt is the GOP candidate.
    If we lose then Rick can start quietly running for POTUS in 2016. Romeny has name recognition becuase he’s been running since he was sworn in as MA governor. Mitt cannot defend Romenycare and the independents won’t trust him to repeal Obamacare. Congress & the Senate have start the process.
    Let’s try to elect true conservatives to the House and Senate. I wish I coudl here in MA but the only R we have is Scott Brown, he is a vig disappointment, the last straw for me was when he supported Obama’s recess appointment. I will vote for Brown but that’s it,not a second of my time making calls or donating money.

    • romansdaughter

      I think we are going to have another 4 years of Obama cause Mittens is going to be nominated and he is going to lose big time to Obama. That is what I fear. People don’t see enough difference between Obama and Mittens. The establishment has pushed Mittens on us and just like McCain it isn’t going to turn out. But we can still try to vote him out. Who knows my Dad and I could be wrong.
      I, too think we shall be seeing Rick Perry again on the national stage. So I continue to support him.

  • carolynr

    So, Martin…you are a Romney supporter. Nice. You know, I will have to vote for the &*&)(& to keep the Marxist out of office only to be replaced by Slick WILLARD…I hope.

    What a great record that Texas has compared to MA. Tell me, why are all the people moving South? Why are people moving to TX? Someone must have hit a nerve concerning your expertise because I notice in one of your posts that you appear to critique your own success, using time following politics,i.e., …since 2005. I’ve been at it longer than you have and that makes it nice because I got to watch many of the candidates over the year first hand instead of having someone interpret it for me.

    Let’s talk about your boy Romney. See….I think that the MSM has been in the tank for the Democrats for a long time…a very long time. Do I believe that they frame their comments to allow the listener to come to only one conclusion…YEP. Do I think that Obama’s czar, Lloyd is partly responsible for Fox’ leftward lurch…YEP. Do I think that Rove and the Bushies, hiding under the Conservative cloak are really globalists? YEP. The evidence should speak for itself on that…but I will provide some if you want. Do I think that via the UK, Rupert Murdoch is trying to be brought down? YEP. Am I 95% sure that Jeb Bush will run in 2014 as the alternative to Obama. YEP. Do I believe that Romney will lose to Obama….Chess pawns seem to indicate so.

    See, OWS is not a mistake. Obama’s minions called for this demonstration in all the major cities. Don’t you remember the headlines on Drudge. Even before OWS came to be, Obama was whining about the “Fat Cats”. Heck…we had our first hints with Joe the Plumber. His divisive posture along every possible line, racial, financial, region, urban vs country, religion…and I probably missed some. Obama has done everything possible to bring down this country. He has not created a climate for jobs. On the contrary, he has made it impossible to make a decent living. He is driving the rich out of the country and businesses that pay a decent wage. His answer to job creation is THE GOVERNMENT and solar power. The former has failed at everything and the latter is cost prohibitive and material comes from China.

    It is obvious that we cannot vote for this man again. However, as has been pointed out on this “diary”….the electorate is ill informed. Add to that the fact that they are easily swayed by superficial appearances rather than record and we have the making of WILLARD MITT ROMNEY. Oh, has the electorate been primed with ENVY and JEALOUSY of the Rich…and your guy…well, he rich. Besides that, he is condescending, hence the numerous catcalls by the media and Obama of being an “elitist”. Yes…he is set up for the fall to Obama. Why…because it is time for Bush again. Will the country go for it? Four more years of Obama and they would nominate Donald Trump.

    Your candidate, Martin, for lack of a better description is a Democrat with Democratic ideas and policies. Of course he says he can reach across the aisle…only problem is that his reaching is to the Republican side. So, if he is the candidate, I will vote for him simply because he is not a Marxist. If WILLARD is elected, his policies will drive us further into debt…but at a slower pace than Obama. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!

    Whoever the person was that had a problem with Perry calling SS a Ponzi Scheme isn’t living in the PRESENT. Today it is. In fact, we hardly have any money put in by younger people to be used by older people, wherein the younger people never benefit. Well, maybe it really isn’t a Ponzi Scheme any longer…they are just going to throw Granny/Grandpa over the cliff because they quit the Ponzi Scheme and won’t come up with the solution. Perry did have a solution. He spelled it out several times and it would put SS on a sure footing and also allow those 50 and younger to invest their money in various instruments or go with the current system (ha…ha…would you…knowing what you do now.). So, that was all misrepresented because Perry was too brash using that terminology…Ponzi Scheme…How Dare He! Meanwhile…WILLARD beats it out to Nevada to tell the retirees that Perry is coming to take their SS away from them. Such an ethical guy! Called for Bernanke to be fired. I would…0% interest is only MAKING MONEY FOR THE BANKS….NOBODY has jobs to buy houses. Smaller banks are being shut out. Meanwhile, the Middle Class are starting to suffer the pangs of INFLATION..cloaked as Fees and therefore the 0% doesn’t apply when explaining it to the uninformed, uneducated electorate.

    After receiving another documentation, citing pages on Obamacare, wherein Congress is EXEMPT from this travesty … I think that Perry’s idea of a part time Congress having to live under the laws they pass IS EXCELLENT. What have they accomplished thus far…CAN ANYONE SAY…Raising the Debt Ceiling or cutting the FICA Tax so SS runs out sooner rather than later.

    So..according to you Martin, Perry ran a lousy campaign. He could have done better. He got in too soon after surgery. But…as I have asked…What was your motive for allowing us to see this…or Perry to see this? Did you help us change our minds…NO. Do we love Romney….No. Is Romney running a LOUSY campaign…YES…because he is currently in it and it can be critiqued because it serves a purpose. So, with your candidate’s gaffe (one of many) stating that the poor had a safety net and intimating that they were of no concern….he has insured that all of the REAL unemployed, all of those on the government dole, all of those of minority backgrounds (because he has made that an issue) will fall solidly in Obama’s column. Romney will become a four time loser at worst and the stage will be set for Jeb Bush.

    I wonder what nice things Jeb and Family will have to say about Rick Perry should he decide to run again? Oh well, if this all comes to pass…don’t invest in the stock market…there won’t be any.

    Oh…one more thing…Santorum and Gingrich were Fox News Contributors and were CONSTANTLY on Fox. Paul was on Cavuto at least three times a week for one year….oh…but forget the manipulation…it wasn’t fair of us…right?

    • romansdaughter

      Thanks for writing that! That is exactly what a lot of us feel.

    • Scope

      Not sure that you want my high fives, as Martin has already decided that my support of Perry has lowered my IQ by was it 10 or 20 points.

      Thank you very much for pointing out that Ron Paul wasn’t just a guest on Cavuto’s show, he should have been paid as a regular. That’s funny as the Paul supporters kept crying that Paul got no media support. More than that, from the day Herman Cain announced, he, without doubt got the most face time on Fox. Fox did everything they could to promote the weakest candidates in the GOP field, so that Romney looked like a rock star in comparison. That was their goal all along.

      Thank you very much for articulating what I have not been able to do. I was appaled that anyone with two eyes, and two ears could honestly say, with a straight face, that the media had nothing to do with Perry’s campaign. None so blind as thought that will not see. It fits the Romney narrative of just deny and lie. Not only has Romney figured that out.

      • Martin Knight

        And it’s not your support of Perry that has dropped your IQ – it’s the teenage girl crush that has driven out all semblance of logic and reason.

    • pttx333

      I wouldn’t change, add or take away one single word! Thank you for posting this wonderful comment – should be a diary, in fact.

      I agree with Scope’s reply to you and will add that if her IQ has dropped all those points (in Martin’s mind, that is) for supporting/defending Perry, then so has mine.

      Thanks, carolynr, you said it all!

    • jimmyg

      http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/rick-perry-news-coverage-pew-research-barack-obama-/1

      The Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism did a study to determine what kind of coverage presidential candidates get.

      snip

      “Pew tracked stories over 23 weeks from 11,500 local and national news outlets — including newspapers, television and online reports — to determine what kind of coverage candidates get. It’s the largest study of its kind Pew has done.

      The big winner: Perry, whose coverage was 32% positive and 20% negative (the remaining 48% was neutral). He was covered in 17% of stories about the 2012 campaign, compared with 13% that concerned Mitt Romney and 2% that were about Herman Cain, who is atop some recent national polls.

      Getting hammered: President Obama, whose coverage was 9% positive and 34% negative. Not only has the poor economy been the top story of the past five months, but all the GOP presidential candidates regularly criticize Obama. “That’s a big mound of coverage,” says Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the journalism project.”
      snip

      This study blows a whole in the meme, and article of faith for Perry supporters, that the media was biased against Gov. Perry.

      The two things that blew up Gov. Perry’s campaign
      (1) his campaign staff which ran a terrible campaign
      (2) Perry’s campaign funding dried up in Q4 where he only raised 2.9 million.

      Congratulations to the Giants.

      • carolynr

        You cite numerous news organizations and then state…in so many words “See…there…Carolyn…I am right concerning Perry because these organizations said so”. Excuse me…when did “personal” decisions take a back seat to someone else’s opinion? The answer…a long, long time ago. Why? We are not taught to think for ourselves any longer. We are supposed to take the word of other entities that supposedly have more gravitas than we mere voters!

        If Perry received 32% positive coverage from media sources, it was not apparent on Fox, NYT, WaPo, Politico, late night comedy shows (that somehow are being projected as reality in America), The Boston Globe, the Tampa Tribune, The Palm Beach Post, The Hill, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS.coms, Yahoo, The Blaze, YouTube….should I keep going?

        I return to my original decision to back Perry. I was sick and tired of the media telling me what to think and do. I wanted to check out the facts…and the facts I found. I visited Texas and the difference from the last visit was a true metamorphosis …This was boom town!

        In order to get rid of the debt and deficit…we need two things to happen cut spending and grow the economy through private enterprise job creation because government jobs are…nothing but taxes on two legs. So…I came, I saw, I believed. Nothing and I mean nothing could change my mind because it was experienced…NOT EXPLAINED.

        Your proffer that Perry received positive media exposure is bogus…why…because all those media entities that are listed above, I blog on. Besides the opinion piece, 75% of the bloggers are left wing contributors…agreeing with the opinion.

        So, here you have a State’s Rights Guy running for POTUS trying to persuade the American electorate that “collective thought” does not work and the media squarely behind the “collective thought” ideology and you state that the man who is opposed to their entire mindset got positive feedback…I don’t think so. Your entire argument and the cited media conclusions can be summed up in one word: oxymoron.

        • trelane

          why you believe Perry received unfair treatment by the media.

          Back when he was running, anyone here who said anything other than blind praise for RP was subjected to an over-the-top negative assault by the ‘Perry Posse’. Even those who liked the man but supported someone else based on electability got branded as RINOs and fake conservatives.

          So yes, by your standards the media trashed Rick Perry.

        • Martin Knight

          So someone cites a study for you involving the tracking of news stories “over 23 weeks from 11,500 local and national news outlets” and you dismiss it because …?

          Goodness … y’all need to detox.

          • jakeofalltrades

            the period concerning which Perry supporters are complaining.

          • avagreen

            The Media Primary
            How News Media and Blogs Have Eyed the Presidential Contenders During the First Phase of the 2012 Race

            October 17, 2011

            Rick Perry received the most favorable coverage of any candidate for president during the first five months of the race, but now Herman Cain is enjoying that distinction,….

            Let’s see…….5 months back from October 2011 was…….May 2011, which is exactly what the study says at the bottom of the study.
            http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2116/media-primary-news-coverage-blogs-republican-presidential-race-barack-obama-rick–perry-herman-cain

            (btw, this is the graph that was a link from the article cited above).
            The complaints were about the treatment after the first 5 months. He was built up, and then tore down in the media.

            THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.

          • jimmyg

            Prior to his debate performances Gov. Perry was treated very well by the press as compared to the other candidates. Once he screwed the pooch at the debates he became a third tier candidate and he had to try and dig himself out of the hole which he had dug for himself. Once that happened the media stopped taking him seriously as a candidate.

          • jakeofalltrades

            And as we all know, control groups prove nothing.

            I look forward to the new study covering the period during which media bias is alleged. If the alleged bias leads public opinion rather than follows it, then we have a case.

            Right now we have half an experiment… and it’s not even the good half.

          • Scope

            You can educate me here. As you have said in the past, your of of the Muslim faith. Is it correct to refer to Allah as “lord” in the Muslim religion? I really know little about the Muslim faith, but I don’t remember hearing Muslims call Allah “Lord.” Please correct me if I am wrong in that.

          • jimmyg

            If you want to argue a point go ahead, but if this is an example of snark on your part, leave it out of your comments because you are not very good at it.

          • Martin Knight

            I like to take people at face value and it seems like she genuinely was asking a question.

            But thanks :-)

          • Martin Knight

            Allah simply means “God” in all its Majesty and Supremacy. The reality is that Muslims, Christians and Jews share the same concept of God – no blade of grass or grain of sand escapes His attention, He sees all, knows all and has Dominion over all of Creation.

            NOTE: There 99 names of Allah – among them is Al-Malik, meaning “The Sovereign Lord i.e. The King, The One With The Complete & Perfect Dominion.”

            Hope that helps.

        • jimmyg

          “You cite numerous news organizations and then state?in so many words ?See?there?Carolyn?I am right concerning Perry because these organizations said so?. Excuse me?when did ?personal? decisions take a back seat to someone else?s opinion? The answer?a long, long time ago. Why? We are not taught to think for ourselves any longer. We are supposed to take the word of other entities that supposedly have more gravitas than we mere voters!”

          Carolynr, I cited one study done by Pew which refutes the entire premise of the Perry Posse, that is that Rick Perry was the victim of media bias. In fact it is not true based on evidence, not an opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, but the study was based on facts, those facts being that Gov. Perry was treated better by the media than any other candidate, including Pres. Obama.

          “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts” You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Gov. Perry was treated badly by the media. The problem with that opinion that you and others hold, is that it is not borne out by the facts as revealed by this study.

          It is my opinion that Gov. Perry, more than most, is qualified to run for president. It is also my opinion that his campaign was bad on an epic scale. It is also my opinion that many of Gov. Perry’s supporters are trying to find someone other than Gov. Perry to blame for his horrendous campaign. It is popular to use the media as a scapegoat so why not go there.

          I do have one question for you, why do you think that PEW came to the conclusion that Gov. Perry was treated better by the media than any other candidate, if that conclusion was not based on the evidence?

          • carolynr

            I’ve been on the media outlet blogs and I have seen the write-ups. They were not positive..I cited some of the blogs I posted on. Now..despite what you might think, I am not a stupid woman. So I have a different interpretation than Pew.
            OK. The Pew Foundation has more gravitas in YOUR eyes than I do. Fine, but that does not mean that I change my mind after I experienced the bias just because some “think tank” said so.

            That’s how we got McCain…that’s how we are going to get Romney…someone told us he was the most electable. That remains to be seen…however…the point of this post is…”someone told us”. Not we made up our own minds…no…no…we’re too stupid to think. Heck…your candidate even thinks the majority of American are too stupid.

            From Jimmy: “I do have one question for you, why do you think that PEW came to the conclusion that Gov. Perry was treated better by the media than any other candidate, if that conclusion was not based on the evidence?”

            Why Jimmy for the various and sundry reasons that we now have 8.3% unemployment….someone told us so.

          • Martin Knight

            Who is this “someone” pulling our strings and making us do what we normally would not do?

            The Illuminati? The Bilderbergers? The Joooooos?

          • avagreen

            It doesn’t refute at all what carolynr is saying.
            Whoever used this is using old data that did not address the timeframe after October 2011 to the day Perry dropped out of the race.

    • Martin Knight

      Why Rick Perry should be our guy for 2012.

      I posted that on May 23rd. Before Perry even threw his hat into the ring and I’d bet it was even before Scope built her first shrine to him in her bedroom.

      I know this is probably next to impossible for you to comprehend; but I supported Rick Perry. Rick Perry was my first choice. I donated to Rick Perry. If Rick Perry were still running I’d vote for him in my state’s primary. I have the diary and the date and timestamp to prove it.

      Now Scope obviously believes I either have a time machine and went back into the past and posted that diary endorsing Rick Perry just so I can write this one critiquing his campaign or that I have mad precognition skillz and I knew from the onset that he would run such a poor campaign and wrote the diary endorsing him just so I can write this diary.

      However, Scope is beyond redemption – you may not be. So I’ll try and get this through to you as best I can.

      I supported Rick Perry. Let me type it again; I supported Rick Perry. Do you get that Rick Perry was my first choice for the GOP nomination? No? Let me try again; I supported Rick Perry for President of the United States.

      Are you still confused? I S-U-P-P-O-R-T-E-D R-I-C-K P-E-R-R-Y.

      • carolynr

        “I know that this is near possible for you to believe”

        Now…Martin, we already had a little tit for tat on motives. Why do you make a judgement concerning my ability to believe anything. Is this another way of stating I am stupid. To further that point, if I am stupid, why are you arguing with a stupid person? Just asking.

        Your second choice is Romney. Romney IS NOT CONSERVATIVE, IMHO. Want some stats on his record as governor?

        As far as the title of this post…..Birds of a Feather Flock Together.

        P E O P L E W H O T H I N K O T H E R S T O B E O F
        I N F E R I O R I N T E L L E C T A L W A Y S A R E O F A K I N
        T O T H O S E T H E Y M O S T R E S E M B L E..

        In your case…you and Mr Romney make a great pair.

        • jakeofalltrades

          I have an IQ in the 99.8th percentile, and after decades of talking with people who run up and down the scale, I’ve concluded that no one is truly smarter than anyone else. IQ is merely a measure of speed. If the test weren’t timed, almost everyone would ace it eventually.

          • jakeofalltrades

            I think intellect for most people is a choice and the consequence of those choices spread out over a lifetime.

        • Martin Knight

          … is not exactly a reflection of your intelligence.

          For example; your inability (or ability) to believe that the moon is made of green cheese reflects on your intelligence.

          Your inability to believe that someone can like Rick Perry and not hate Mitt Romney says less about your intelligence than it does about your extreme emotional investment in Rick Perry.

          Your second choice is Romney.

          And my first choice was Rick Perry. Thank goodness it has finally penetrated itself into your knowledgebase.

          Romney IS NOT CONSERVATIVE, IMHO.

          But he’s miles and miles better than Obama.

          Want some stats on his record as governor?

          Don’t worry, I’ve seen them all.

          Do you know this stat? 128 – 32. That’s the number of Democrats to Republicans in the Massachusetts House. How about this one; 36 – 4? That’s the number of Democrats to Republicans in the MA Senate.

          What about this stat; 800? That’s at least the number of vetoes issued by Mitt Romney and overriden by the MA legislature.

          So if you are going to show me some stats, make sure they’re in context. i.e. It’s not accurate to say that Mitt Romney raised taxes (for example), when the fact is that he vetoed the tax hike but his veto was overriden by the extra-supermajority Democrat legislature.

          In your case?you and Mr Romney make a great pair.

          Well, I certainly hope I get as rich as he is.

          PS: I doubt you and Rick Perry make any sort of pair. Because I’m guessing he’s actually a rational man who knows he made some bad calls during this campaign – unlike you, who believes he can do no wrong.

    • Martin Knight

      Mitt was my first choice for 2008 back when he was the Conservative alternative to John McCain and he had people like Rush and Levin solidly in his corner.

      He became my second choice after Rick Perry entered the race. I know you may think this defies the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and astronomy but it is possible to like Rick Perry and not white-hot hate Mitt Romney.

      I don’t think he’s a scumbag. I don’t think his wealth was earned via the suffering of others like many people who didn’t believe so in 2008 now believe. I don’t think his family is creepy now when I thought his clear dedication to his family was admirable in 2008.

      I’m willing to give him some leeway on his record given the political environment of Massachusetts i.e. unlike other people, if he opposed something but the legislature passed it over his veto, I won’t count it against him.

      And finally, I refuse to give up pre-emptively whoever the nominee is. Whether it be Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. Your joyful declarations that we should all take it to the bank that Romney is going to lose to Obama is a standard-issue self-fulfilling prophecy.

      That is your right – you may even go ahead and try to make it a reality by donating and GOTV for Obama so you can say “I told you so”.

      But I’m going to work as hard as I can to prevent it.YMMV.

      • demsaresatanic

        on what Romney vetoed. Did he only veto the far out crazy lib stuff, or did he veto ordinary crazy Democrat stuff, like automatic minimum wage increases, for example. Of course I’m poking fun at Romney for advocating automatic minimum wage increases, but I would like to know if there is a good database on the details of what Romney did or did not veto.

        • Martin Knight

          Not that I trust FactCheck that much, but …

          FactCheck.org independently obtained a complete list of veto overrides covering all four of Romney’s budgets. The overrides, it turns out, greatly outnumber the sustained vetoes.

          The overrides for fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 total 707 of the more than 800 line-item vetoes that Romney issued. So while Romney did indeed veto “hundreds of spending appropriations,” as he says in the ad, he had little to show for them.

          The fruitless vetoes include some that Romney makes a point of boasting about. On June 15, Romney gave a speech at the National Right to Life Convention Forum where he spoke at length about his vetoes of “pro-choice legislation.” He vetoed a bill allowing pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill without a prescription and another streamlining the process for scientists conducting embryonic stem-cell research. Both vetoes, however, were overturned.

          Romney also vetoed a minimum wage increase, and a bill that legalized over-the-counter sales of hypodermic needles. The Legislature overrode both vetoes.

          It’s worth noting the General Court, Massachusetts’ legislative body, was overwhelmingly Democratic while Romney was governor. Even now, the House consists of 141 Democrats and only 19 Republicans, while the Senate has 34 Democrats, five Republicans and one vacant seat. But in some cases even the Republicans went against Romney. His minimum wage veto was overridden unanimously, for example. In that instance the House voted against him 152 to 0, and minutes later the Senate voted 38 to 0.

          • demsaresatanic

            for getting back to me.

  • carolynr

    I know you may think this defies the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and astronomy but it is possible to like Rick Perry and not white-hot hate Mitt Romney.

    • Martin Knight

      PS: If you want to quote me, put <blockquote> before the text you want to quote and </blockquote> after it.

  • carolynr

    As defined by Webster: Analogy: similarity in some ways; inference that certain resemblances imply further similarity.

    Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which contradictory ideas, etc, are combined.

    but it is possible to like Rick Perry and not white-hot hate Mitt Romney

    Oxymoron was used as an analogy, using speech to state that your first choice of supporting Governor Perry and your second choice, supporting WILLARD are as alike as one using an oxymoron wherein contradictory ideas are combined.

    If you try to mix oil and water, they don’t mix.

    Governor Perry is a Conservative and WILLARD is a Democrat with a R behind his name and I might add…not a blue dog Democrat, not a moderate Democrat…but a liberal Democrat. Therefore, the only thing I see these two men having in common is a good marriage to their wives…and that is it.

    The two men…ROMNEY AND PERRY contradict each other’s beliefs.

    • Martin Knight

      “awfully good” is an oxymoron. Supporting Rick Perry followed by Mitt Romney is not.

      PS: You can call Mitt Romney a communist for all I care. Sooner or later someone here is going to say Romney has personally performed a partial birth abortion and forcibly married two heterosexual men to each other.

      Don’t mean it’s true. And it don’t mean I can’t have him for a second choice after Rick Perry.

      • carolynr

        Awfully = Romney

        Good = Perry

        It was an analogy using a figure of speech.

        The two contradict each other.

  • Juggernaut

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Puci1IXk2TU

    Videos of Romney speak louder than opinions .Nuff Said!

  • Pingback: Augustina Zielonka

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Kimiko Luzar

  • Pingback: Colin Yoeckel