He may seal this up soon. He is going to soon get the benefit of taking over the lead between Thanksgiving and New Year’s, when most people are more concerned about family things and parties than they are about politics. Then we immediately jump into the primaries. Assuming no major debate gaffes (and Newt isn’t likely to stumble here) and assuming that no new (or old) skeleton’s from the closet make a major media blitz, I can easily see Newt going 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and wrapping this thing up before February.

It sure appears at this point (with traction again being harder to gain over the holidays) that Perry is done as a factor and while Cain may still get a decent amount of votes in the first few primaries, he is likely out of the race as well.

…I cringed…thoguht it was gonna be a LOOOOONG night..but the questions were superb…

BTW, the first link is broken because of a missing colon after the “http”.

is the 2nd most pressing concern our nation has behind deficit spending. I actually appreciate Newt bringing his position to the forefront, but I don’t think he was being intellectually honest when he tried to frame it as only pertaining to people residing in this country 25 years. My guess is you go out that long you are talking 2 million or less out of the 11 million people.

The questions I want answered from Newt and the others who would agree to some sort of amnesty is the following:

1. How do you determine the age or qualifications cutoff for deportation as compared to amnesty.

2. Are you going to give every single illegal immigrant who receives amnesty access to social entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare?

3. How do you propose to actually once and for all stop the waves of immigrants from coming back over if we deport a few million.

4. If someone who has been a long term resident committed a crime 10 years ago and wasn’t deported do they get to stay?

I know good and well we can’t go out there and deport 10 million people. It isn’t realistic and it isn’t going to happen under any circumstance. However, I also believe that if they came over illegally they should not be entitled to the benefits our government provides to those who are citizens or legal immigrants who are on a pathway to obtaining citizenship. Perhaps it would be in Newt’s best interest to put forth a full policy statement and plan on how to deal with illegal immigration in the manner he proposed together with a statistical analysis on how many people qualify for amnesty under his plan.

You are expecting to see a “But” here but there isn’t one.

As for the still rather expansive field of candidates, I’m conflicted: I’d like to see the obvious “No Chance” candidates drop out and pick someone to support. OTOH, they are useful in that they give the media something to do and they, each, in their own way, contribute something to the debate. As you acknowledge, Michelle Bachmann made at least one good point as did Rick Santorum. The Ever Dour and usually entertaining Ron Paul keeps his followers tuned in and, presumably, paying attention to what the others are saying. All of them have a tendency to bend the debate in one way or another so, overall, I believe that, at least for now, there presence creates a positive influence on our cause.

Once the caucuses and primaries start to bite, those marginal candidates will begin to fade and fold and the eventual nominee will become obvious to all.

Hey Moe, Romney’s only been elected once but he only lost one election, too, to Ted Kennedy in Mass. The nomination process 4 years ago didn’t involve elections. So in 20 years, Romney won one, lost one, and came in second for the Republican nomination.

By contrast, Rick Perry succeeded Bush as governor without an election, won a term with 39% of the vote, and never ran for anything outside of Texas.

And his lunatic idea of a part-time Congress would leave the nation at the mercy of the administrative agencies.

I don’t think it is as narrow as his detractors like to claim. Everything I have heard/read has said that Perry has the best organization in Iowa of any of the non-Romneys. I think he either wins Iowa or comes in second if he can break the notion of not being a contender. He doesn’t have to lead, he just had to be viable. I think a top two finish in Iowa would destroy the motion that he can’t be the nominee, which seems to be the main point of resistance. I think he can then benefit from a preference cascade to the nomination.

How can we cut non-existent oil imports from Syria? To be honest Syria does in fact produce oil but it ain’t a lot. In fact, it exports less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the oil produced in the world. It exports LESS than Sweden.

I thought Newt did a good job up until he mentioned that he would approach immigration from a humane point of view. I agree with that, but unfortunately the majority of voters won’t agree with him on that. He tried to state that giving legal status is not amnesty but again that won’t fly with most conservative voters!

Romney was quite tough stating that giving any sort of legal status is a magnet and he would not support that. Am sure if he becomes the nominee he will flip-flop-flip on that issue to pander to Hispanics!

I’ve been looking at Hispanic voting demographics and the GOP cannot win if they get less than 35% of Hispanic votes. Bush got 44% in 2004, the highest a Republican has ever gotten. McCain got 31%, less than what Bush got in 2000 against Gore (35%). Obama got 67%. If Obama gets 67% of Hispanics and maintains 43% of the white vote in 2012, he will have a real short of winning again.

The problem with McCain is he started off in Newt’s position then flip-flopped to the tougher stance in the general. The reason is campaign donors would not give him money if he kept that position and so he had to go against a bill he co-authored with Ted Kennedy!

I predict Newt will suffer the same fate Perry did and he will start to fizzle out any minute now.

The rest of candidates have extremely low likability numbers and thus cannot really catch up with Newt/Romney at this point in a months time. Romney will probably now win IA, NH and thus SC and FL. It will be a short primary contrary to what many people think.

…reference is made to myriad aggregated-comments, overnight…
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/11/22/cnn-foreign-policy-debate-coveritlive/#comment-10650
…which parallel ML’s observations.

A few outlier-issues will be explored, in conjunction with above-comments.

1)–The more Paul participates, the less likely it would be that he would bolt to a 3rd Party [killer-to-the-GOP] approach; “keep your enemies close” and “big tent” quotations come to mind.

2)–One would think that the dynamics being experienced during the past few months would convince those who would want to freeze a moment-in-time to take pause. Newt could easily fall, again [noting myriad acute/chronic issues that are being highlighted], notwithstanding the upcoming Holidays.

3)–Pakistan exchange [by Michele/Rick] was precisely characterized by ML; few commentators have recognized these obvious forces.

4)–Cain’s ongoing participation also sticks-it-to-the D’s whenever he speaks cogently, pridefully; this helps recruitment prospects in the Fall, at least to the degree to which the AA-community may not feel overwhelming loyalty to BHO.

5)–Huntsman is a drag, in contrast; from start ["torture"] to finish [punting the "under-estimated" foreign policy issue query, by citing ubiquitous-$ forces], he acted the troll.

6)–Perry’s Monroe Doctrine reference was as mesmerizing [to the others, who validated it] as was his “zero-based budgeting” of foreign aid [to the others, who were forced to react to a popular concept...affecting perceptions of the UN and international-Islamism as well]; as a manifestation of concepts in “Fed Up!” and nurtured by being proximate to Mexico, it resonated “authenticity.”

7)–The fact that The Newt passed Mitt is VITALLY IMPORTANT when pondering how quickly the anti-Romney crowd WANTS to find someone to support aggressively; Santorum hasn’t had his place in the sun and, unless Iowa surprises, he never will…although the “other Rick” could rebound as a result, particularly in Iowa and S.C.

8)–Moderators remained in the background and concur that many more topics could have been covered [Europe, Libya]; nevertheless, allowing for the exchanges…and then the transition to “With whom do you agree?” to involve others, this worked.

9)–Adding an occasional “lightning round”-robin would be desirable, when yes/no can suffice; Cain would probably seek clarification, but the others could reply lucidly to a question such as “Blockade Iran now?” [knowing that it would take 6 months to be implemented, as per Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney of FNC [when I questioned him about this a year ago @ the ASMEA convention].

10)–The fact that the MSM/LSM/ELM boycott of discussing Perry has been GRATING on his supporters must be confronted aggressively,and he should not “take the bait” by engaging in attention-seeking-behavior [à la Santorum)
that could injure his credibility; this is why I’m blogging on multiple new sites….

I was hoping it could be the other way around but I think this ticket makes a lot of sense. These two seem pretty simpatico in terms of their world view. Perry gives Gingrich some Southern Evangelical chops and I don’t think anyone is going to say that a 10 year governor of Texas isn’t qualified. Perry could come along with his money and fund raising and help the ticket that way.

That is a ticket I could get excited about.

I will visit other sites and look for it.

…that there will actually be an election in November 2012. I — and a surprising number of historically reasonable people I know — have this persistent, gnawing apprehension that that may not come to pass.

Ayers, Piven, Jones, and a bunch of OWS leaders are pumping pretty hard for violent insurrection in the coming months. They’re outnumbered, of course, but it would give POTUS an excuse to impose martial law.

Gird your loins.

He couldnt articulate, he isnt very good at debates. I can still here his answer over and over and over again…”I got the message, the people want the border secured first”…OK John, then what, he never articulated a plan.

I think that a majority of Americans agree on 2 things with regards to illegal immigration:
1. Its impractical to send back 12 Million illegals, it just isnt going to happen.
2. They are not in favor of Citizenship being granted to illegals, I think sometimes people confuse Amnesty and citizenship.

Newt has mentioned this before in a few of the debates, that this issues is that we argue from extremes, neither of which has any chance of ever happening.

With regards to Newt, Im not sure how much of the “throw them all out of the country” crowd he was pulling anyway, I read something that Newt had pretty good support from highly educated Republicans, those who Newt appeals to, I think appreciates the articulation and probably deep down knows that something he is suggesting is likely the solution.

I think with Perry, you get into something else, which is not just simply staying here and living their life, but that many viewed it as giving a “benefit” to illegals. I think Perry and Newt are similar on this issue, Perry said obviously that the border needs to be secured but after that he believed you “could put something in place that keeps those families together”. Meaning, he like Newt believes there is a way to realistically make it work.

I agree with the hispanic vote point you made also, need to do better than McCain.

I was very comfortable with Perry. In fact…I believe this was one of his best debates…and here is why.

He showed through his remarks that he was decisive, presidential and committed to ideas.

1. Pointed out numerous times how Syria and Iran are linked at the hip. He iterated this over and over again. From my recent memory, I believe Syria did the dirty work with firing bombs over to Israel, via their newly conquered country, Lebanon. That last remark bears out what I am saying, they took over Lebanon, a mainly Christian country, btw. That sounds odd…but they are.

His remarks concerning all forms of sanctions concerning Iran
was spot on…including the no-fly zone. Willard (who forgot his
first name, talked about Syria having just tanks)….don’t think
so Willard…they have missiles and guess who gave them to
Syria…Iran. All options on the table for stopping Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon…ALL. That is better than what we are
doing now and it shows Israel that we are willing to do more
thank talk…or go through the good for nothing UN. Shut down
the Iranian Central Bank…this is the fifth time he has mentioned
this.

2. The country that we most need to be concerned about – China.
I did like Santorum’s Venezuela remarks…however, China is
the long view and the one with the money. Huntsman backed
Perry up on that.

3. The TSA…loved the remark. Get rid of the unions. This is
a national security deal…we don’t need some union boss in
there screwing up national security for a pension.

4. BIG…BIG….on national intelligence. He agrees with Patriot Act.
I liked Newt’s answers splitting foreign intelligence from private
citizens. I also liked Perry’s answer concerning Panetta
resign in protest concerning how poorly we have done with
foreign intelligence…not to mention the mega cut in military.

5. Ah… Bachmann…she gives me a pain in…well you know
where. I like Perry’s stance on zero dollars. We are paying
people money and they are funding functions against us. Un-
less and until they prove themselves…no money. However…
Perry was very good at this one…because he was thinking
about American business…create a trade compact with the
countries and let them benefit that way.. (which our companies
would benefit from also)…no money for enemies. If they are
not an ally of the USA…no money. He also made point that
blank checks led to further corruption instead of fixing the
problem…this came through with his answer about Africa.

6. His answer on the super committee. He iterated that he had
worked with Dems for ten years…Texas has a balanced budget
amendment. Perry’s solution…he would have been working
with them from the beginning..not just handing it off so that
Congress was left with gridlock. I believes his words were he
would work with Congress day in and day out to get it done
before this became a problem. He then iterated his 20% plan.

7. If there was a question concerning Perry and border security
and amnesty…that was cleared up with…the border must be
secured first, and he went on to say how. He also talked about
a working relationship with Mexico to sanction and shut down
cartels. Newt…and citizenship. It seems that Newt and Romney
are not that far apart in concepts. Now, Perry does not look
like the bad boy on the block. However….Perry missed a chance
to explain that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES
education of illegals and instate tuition is offered in order to
improve anticipated revenues AS LONG AS THEY ARE
APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP. Perry played it very safe last
night and Romney and Gingrich went at it…thus showing that
Perry was wrong only in his choice of words, i.e., not having a
heart.

Finally…what I really find very interesting is to watch the candidates when the National Anthem is sung. The only person ‘WORKING” THE CROWD…is Romney…I guess he likes sing-a-longs.

Cain did terrible last night and Bachmann states facts we are already aware of…very little in the way of vision…and that is her big problem. She is either anti-Obama or states already known information.

Oh…and one more thing…Perry did get in about China their abortions…but more importantly…their cyberspace activity which was backed up by all.

If you replay the debate…many people were agreeing with Rick and Rick did lead much of the debate…Go watch again…this was his best debate so far. Perry did well, his demeanor was one of confidence and I believe when the dirty laundry comes out on Gingrich, Cain’s inability to fathom foreign affairs that we are left with Romney. Hopefully…Huntsman will make him look as bad as he LIES….AND HE DID AGAIN LAST NIGHT…His ideas on Amnesty.

I get the issue. I don’t think anyone should be rewarded for breaking the law, either. On the other hand, doesn’t the US bear some responsibility for securing the border? It is like getting your car stolen after having left it unlocked with the keys in the ignition in a crime ridden area. Probably not a surprise we have people coming across the border, either, when we have done so little to stop it.

My question is, and I wish Blitzer would have asked Romney and Bachmann, what are you going to do with the 12-15 million people that are already here? Arrest them? Deport them? Does anybody really believe we are going to frog march 15 million people back into Mexico? How much law enforcement resource would that take? The fact of the matter is that it is not going to happen. So you better start thinking of some alternatives. I want to know what are you going to do?

That’s my preferred ticket. The reverse could work, if Perry would leave the Governorship for the Veep spot. I doubt it.
On illegals, Perry is strongest on border security. His plan is not an amnesty, but like Newt, he would allow a pathway to citizenship, but no preferential treatment. They’d get in line like the rest, but lose their slot with any law-breaking beyond misdemeanors. Really, folks, the in-state tuition deal is NOT a big deal, and is happily supported in solid Red State Texas.
Perry is getting stronger every week, but his West Texas speech pattern is off-putting to many.

either way Perry has done well in the last few debates, Newt went way farther to the left than Perry ever did, so will the electorate still fall for Fox news little game. I watched the switch from Cain to Newt pretty quickly after the scandal. They have divided the conservatives, and they will knock Newt down a little before voting starts, if so Romney gains from split field.

So I turn on Hannity this late afternoon and he is talking about Gingrich and Romney…both of whom have a similar view on illegals but Hannity does not mention that. He says that before any of this can take place the border must be secured. NOW…HOW MANY TIMES DID PERRY SAY THAT LAST NIGHT. Yet, Hannity never mentioned his name…NOT ONCE. I’m sick of this black out of Perry.

assessment of Nate Silver last night.

Disturbing.

Decided to wait and see if my views had changed. Nope.

Gingrich – A-
Huntsman – A-
Boffo. Huntsman comes alive. Gingrich executes one of his trademark lateral moves, akin to the attack on Ryan when he entered the race, intending to win geezers in Iowa. This move is to pick up Hispanics. In the Rep primary? Does not compute.

Romney – B+
Paul – B+
Bachmann – B+

Impressive. Paul has the most coherent foreign policy of any candidate. Wrong, but coherent. bachmann outstanding. If only. Romney competent but frankly bland.

Perry – B
Santorum – B

Perry showed range and passion. Santorum got fired up as usual with no place to go. Honduras? OK. Africa a country?

Herb – C
Gentleman’s C, what you get for showing up.

Romney has only won 1 election in 20 years of trying