for President since January 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/us/politics/04romney.html

the 60 second sound-bite system of the “debates” as opposed to an interview where he will really have to articulate his policies. Easier to stay “above the fray” that way.

when even the talking heads start noticing he’s using it to hide from them…

Mew

“who the heck told Mitt Romney that he was entitled to act like the nomination was merely a formality, anyway? He’s a former governor and a mortal being, not some sort of mythological figure.”

Now if he were a full-blown Obama-redux…well, then the deity-factor would need to be taken into consideration.

As a mere demi-god, however, he still has to obey a few rules

Really, once you get that Rove stamp of approval, everytrhing else matters little.

Bravely ran away. (Sorry, couldn’t resist with the Monty Python refs. lately)
It seems Romney thinks he can pull this tactic off – maybe he LIKES being stalled at mid-20′s poll numbers.
I’m wondering just what the brave Sir Romney thinks will happen if he hits the talk shows – what is he afraid OF?

would he get a soft ball interview by Chris Wallace?
Fox in the tank for Romney wouldn’t want him to drop in the polls.

The press would be all over them.. Romney has not sat for an interview since March of 2010? Do you need more evidence that the fix is in?

during the interview, Romney doesn’t need to appear. Perry handed it to him again.

Gov Perry as poised, confident, relaxed. His answers were geniune and he struck a very positive tone. Wallace wanted so badly to keep droning on about the prior debates but Perry stayed focus and eventually forced him to move on.

A front page article in the weekend WSJ says Romney has picked up several Bush supporters. Within the article, there’s a shocking phrase, “….Romney’s steady accumulation of support among party bigwigs, despite tepid enthusiasm for his candidancy…”

If Republicans are going to settle for a nominee inspite of having tepid enthusiam for that candidate, the party becomes more and more irrevelant.

I want to be very energized by our nominee. Reagan warned against pastels. We need bold color.

Gov Perry as poised, confident, relaxed. His answers were geniune and he struck a very positive tone. Wallace wanted so badly to keep droning on about the prior debates but Perry stayed focus and eventually forced him to move on.

A front page article in the weekend WSJ says Romney has picked up several Bush supporters. Within the article, there’s a shocking phrase, “….Romney’s steady accumulation of support among party bigwigs, despite tepid enthusiasm for his candidancy…”

If Republicans are going to settle for a nominee inspite of having tepid enthusiam for that candidate, the party becomes more and more irrevelant.

I want to be very energized by our nominee. Reagan warned against pastels. We need bold color.

Let’s not forget that Palin was accused of the exact same thing. At the time many defended her claiming that she has no need to bow down to the driveby media.

I think we can all agree that Romney has been purposely laying low with media to avoid mistakes. However, surely the campaign knows that it can’t do that forever. Sooner or later it will have to happen, but the Romney campaign needs to make sure it happens on their own schedule. Such appearances pose a great risk, but they can also be a huge plus. This gives the Romney campaign the opportunity to use such appearances when they will have the greatest effect.

Personally I don’t think November is the best time for such a strategy. People forget about the campaign trail during the holidays. A media interview blitz would have mrore effect in January when things pickup into full swing.

perhaps because my distaste for Wallace is so strong. That apple did not fall far from the tree.

I don’t know if Romney is making a wise decision in recruiting Bush supporters. Part of the reason Obama was elected was Bush/war fatigue. As I have said before, it is rumored in Austin that Rove is already working for Romney, but under the table, so to speak. Since Rove is virulently opposed to Perry, I pretty much think the rumors are true.

Perry was pressed about a letter he’d sent to the fed’s to support a nuke plant. Wallace only put up a line from the letter so without reading its entirety he should not have indicated Perry was specifically asking for federal dollars. Even if he did at the time, he’s right to have changed his position now. He’s a state’s rights advocate so he was doing his job as the CEO of Texas. As president, and working to balance the budget by 2012, every bit of spending is going to get a haircut, frozen or even eliminated.

There was a time where govt. subsidies may have had a role but no longer. We have no money for it, and we don’t need it when we can re-ignite our private sector to do the job. We don’t need govt dollars and we don’t need their interference. Get out of the way, abolish the EPA and we’ll have plenty of energy development.

brother. He has a smooth delivery until he gets excited about something and then he starts jibber jabbering and laughing too much. Little Barry has a smooth delivery until you take his teleprompter away from him and then he can’t pull a thought out of that empty head of his.
Rick Perry does best in a one on one situation although in the Chris Wallace interview you could see a point when Perry seemed to momentarily lose his train of thought. He needs to work on not getting distracted.
And the American voters need to get over their obsession with the smooth talker with nothing to back it all up. Our country won’t survive another 4 years of that crap.
Perry is right about the fact that you have to look at what a candidate has accomplished, and put that together with what they have planned for the future.

during the last campaign and I can see where this might happen again. The voters just don’t identify with him. Perry would make a good President but he just doesn’t express himself well during debates. Mr. Cain seems to be able to identify with the people and he is a good debater. He also has a business record that stands up well under the bright lights. I would like to see him debate Obama. His big test will be who he chooses for his Vice Presidential running mate. I would like to see him pick someone like Gringich, so shore up his Foreign Policy creds….

…don’t you think it just a little hypocritical to defend Perry’s decision to avoid debates completely (after getting decimated in them several times) and then attack Mitt a few days later for choosing a strategy that includes very few interviews (a strategy Perry’s been running since entry)?

Also, the blogosphere is going crazy today w/Perry’s NH speech on Friday, in which Perry is clearly intoxicated or bi-polar. Yet it’s not on Redstate yet… what a shocker.

In case you’d like to watch: h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4gz97Y9W8&feature=player_embedded

Huckabee is not afraid to talk with any journalist. He consistently answers any question that is asked of him.

Seems like the moneymen of the GOP backed the wrong guy again.

Or maybe they feel that they can get Romney to do their bidding since he lacks both courage and convictions.

I watched the interview and took notes for a column about it.

Perry did very well–his ideas should resonate with anyone who wants government downsized and our energy sector retooled.

One thing I noticed. Perry mentioned Sen. Coburn’s excellent Back in Black plan. I’ve written about that plan. It’s the best idea I’ve seen for reducing debt. No other candidate appears to know the plan exists and of course Obama wouldn’t mention it if you kidnapped his golf clubs and demanded he acknowledge it as ransom.

Perry got his game back on in my opinion. He handled Wallace very well and he stuck to his policy points. He didn’t take bait on bashing other candidates and the postcard tax return is something I personally would love.

Wallace missed a couple things. He should’ve pointed out, in criticizing Perry’s plan, information from Brookings (it was misspelled on the screen as ‘Bookings.’)

Many of us consider Brookings as a left-leaner nowadays regardless of their past or their claims to nonpartisan ideology.

I’d also like to see Perry expand on something most Americans miss. Federal revenue must be reduced or the government will continue to grow and liberty and wealth will continue to be reduced.

I give Perry a gold star for his engagement with Wallace and I believe the governor will soon see some positive impact in the polls. Perry was himself during that interview and that is what we need to see in these often banal debates.

I cannot for the life of me see why even the moderates in the party feel this guy should take on Obama or be president for that matter. If I was the establishment, I’d push for Huntsman, at least he is a consistent moderate with many conservative traits. Now I have watched Fox News push Romney for awhile, and I feel they pushed Cain to help Romney. Maybe they are seeing the folly in that position. Cain has been doing one giant self promotional trek across America, and has turned into a diva much in the mold of Palin and Bachmann. He is making money of his book sales, even to the point of using campaign contributions to buy books from his own company. I do not care so much, but his actions are helping the establishment get Romney nominated. There is a reason Cain has not even really tried to build a true organization in early states, because he seems to care more about being known that beating Romney. Since Romney and Obama are not much different, I’d say it important to beat both of them, and I do not think Cain gets us there. Its sad, sad indeed.

I don’t know why Romney is not going on the Sunday shows. He’s not bad at them – does he think that people don’t know that he flip-flops? At least going on those shows will give him the chance to explain his reasons for changing positions.
As for Perry, I did watch him. Wasn’t impressed in either a good or bad way, he was just…meh. I don’t think it will change anybody’s mind either way. Not sure why he had to hold it in a setting that screamed ‘Texas’ – he needs to get over that; he’s running for President of the US, not of the Republic of Texas.
But I very much agree – Romney needs to get on the morning shows. In fact, he should do several of them.

Romney’s gonna appear on 2 or 3 of these Sunday shows in the next couple of months. It will happen whether the hosts are whining or not (and frankly I’m sick of talk show hosts thinking they’re entitled to it).

Now, whether he’ll show up with Wallace might have taken a hit today when they gave some misleading videos between whether Romney personally thought man made global warming was real and his position on cap and trade and called it a flip flop.

Romney’s always been unambiguously against cap and trade. Fox News should be ashamed on that one.

Wallace made a point of bringing up Perry’s new campaign staff members, and pointedly stated that they were very negative with the Scott Walker campaign. Hint hint Wallace, Walker won, get over it. He asked if Perry was going to go negative on Romney (he really really wants Romney no matter how much he is trying to build up Cain as the anti-Perry vote) and Perry said that when you bring out the candidates records, that is the truth, and is not negative campaigning. Good one Perry.

Why should Mitt care what Chris Wallace says?? His focus, rightly, should be on Obama. Those that don’t like Mitt already are not going to be swayed by a Chris Wallace interview. Although it seems that some of the Obama true believers may have been exposed a bit by this weekend’s snowy October surprise … http://www.ombudizen.com/2011/10/30/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

Exclusive: Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html#ixzz1cJXxRiu5

This can help Rick immeasurably, just @ the best moment for his rediscovery by the GOP-electorate!

FYI

Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

Romney’s strategy the entire campaign is to be an empty suit, stay out of sight, create a sense of inevitability, and be the last candidate standing,

Refuses to ask hypotheticals posed to him in debates. Criticizes others, but never takes a stand on anything himself. Wimpers and cries when ever someone says something negative about him. Don’t bother him when he’s eating a waffle. Likes to vote present. Whenever he’s called on his flips he says, “Let me be perfectly clear. I’ve always been strongly for/against (fill in the blank). Writes a book that’s published as a hardback and a paperback. It’s different. No it’s the same.

Definitely reminds me of someone else that I want to forget beginning January 21, 2013.

For or against a flat test, Mitt? Guess you’re still waiting for the polling and how to wordsmith that one.

Real disturbing story:

h ttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html.

I feel terrible for his family.

nt.

Yes, it is true that my initial “commentary” was to link Cain’s loss to Rick’s potential gain…

“This can help Rick immeasurably, just @ the best moment for his rediscovery by the GOP-electorate!”

…but, frankly, I remain unapologetic!

We saw Herman Cain just get reamed for a political ad because someone was smoking a cigarette. How many times has CBS brought up Obama being a smoker?

These shows are simply a bloodsport where the contest is to try and catch the Republican candidate with a bad soundbite about obscure points that no real voter cares about. That is considered a successful interview, like when Katie Couric caught Palin in a bad moment when she asked her what magazines she read. Did any voter really care what magazines or newspapers she read? Of course not, but the goal was to make Palin look slow by peppering her with enough nonsense questions that eventually they would get a deer in the headlight moment.

They don’t question Democrats this way, you would never see them take this sort of tone with Obama, but now we have Republicans denigrating other Republicans for not agreeing to play this ridiculous farce.

Most of the questions asked are more about the horse race of the campaign or some obscure question like their thoughts on the morality of homosexuality or the belief in evolution. The goal is to make the candidate look bad, not get real answers on policy questions.

…is basically non-substantive.

During the past 2 1/2 hours , the site hosting Byron York has provided two substantive take-home messages; one was the reflex attack on the MSM/LSM ["shoot the messenger" a la Anita Hill] and the other was the potentially-realistic reaction to pay-off an accuser to make-the-case-go-away [particularly when the $-total is only within 5-digits].

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cain-responds-sex-harassment-allegation

During the past 2 hours, the politico site has only partisan-themed reactions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67200.html

THEREFORE, realistically, more data will undoubtedly emerge @ the National Press Club tomorrow [@ a speech sponsored by the AEI]…but I don’t think a non-denial “denial” will assuage the social conservatives who have undoubted;y constituted the backbone of his polling-surge.

BUT ALSO, realistically, one would anticipate that Rick’s hard work will be rewarded [as people "come home" after having sent Rick a message that no one can be taken for granted].

It seems if it were really left up to Chris Wallace, the entire interview of any GOP candidate would be about stuff like did you trim your nose hairs this morning?

Sorry folks, Chris Wallace has ruined the Fox Sunday for me. His interviews of GOP are basically reciting a litany of liberal left wing bumper sticker mantra questions in hopes of watching the GOP interviewee squirm or at least say something against a fellow GOP candidate.

OK. it’s true, Chris does a quality job showing how many of the GOP LOSERShip are pretty weak about defending their conservative republican positions — like that’s news?

What really sets Chris Wallace apart from many fellow liberal Sunday hosts is how he has developed his interviewing style into an art form of how to get GOP candidates to waste as much time as possible talking about relatively irrelevant Wallacesonian irrelevancies.

Perry handled Wallace pretty well,and didnt let Wallace back him in a corner because Perry wasnt having it.I dont see why “smooth debater “Mitt would have any problem.So far,the interviwers have been soft on Mitt ,its time for his turn to be put through the grinder.

Chris Wallace says his program has interviewed “all the major Republican candidates.”

Have they interviewed former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson? If so, when? I tried to Google it but there’s a flood of just ticker stories (e.g., AP, etc.) from the Fox News site on Governor Johnson that I can’t find it if it’s there.