These are as generic as I can make them.

Politicians lie. Let me repeat that. Politicians lie. Don?t be so upset about it: so do you.

–Why hasn’t Perry?

If the Iowa caucus was unimportant, people wouldn?t be obsessing over it.

–Iowa will yield a consolidation of the Conservative field in one [no more Michele] and perhaps two [The Newt's plummeting] ways.

If the Iowa caucus was all-important, we?d have it in August and combine it with the nominating convention.

–It initiates a balloting-process that will be a “marathon” [not sprint], per Perry.

When Candidate X?s supporter tells you that Candidate Y has a problem, s/he is not necessarily lying. But, yeah, s/he is very likely being a jackass about it.

–Not necessarily; the truth-telling by Perry [particularly regarding Santorum] has been statesman-like, right-on, and highly-effective.

Money, buzz, crowds, speeches, debates, polls, commercials, zingers, phone banks, ads, leaflets, and hand-knitted tea cozies with the candidate?s campaign logo on them are great? but not as great as winning the precinct votes. Winning precincts is also the only metric that goes up on the scoreboard.

–The prodrome yields an enhanced chance of achieving the latter; this is the
positive effect of organization.

When it comes to elections, the saying is inverted: defeat has a thousand fathers, victory is an orphan.

–[...sorta like BHO's rationalizations.]

Pollsters have reputations to protect, but they also know darn well that the acceptable margin of error in primary polling is larger than normal. Trying to figure out whether it?s the former or the latter point that applies in any given case is one of the things that makes life interesting.

–Pundits are constantly citing the 50%-undecided [or, rather, "not firmly committed"] figure as a potential “out.”

Reagan?s fabled 11th Commandment does not include the clause ??so you must forgive an over-zealous supporter for being an jackass.? I mention this because many people seem to have that clause penciled in.

–No one should be lionized/forgiven for what he/she advocates on behalf of anyone else; the candidates do “adopt by reference” @ their peril.

The Republican party has a large contingent (but not as large as it might think) of people who will answer the question ?What are you going to do, sit this one out?? with a flat ?Yes? if you push them too hard. If this happens, well, you were warned.

–Ultimately, both parties will subsume their bases…but a Mitt-nomination could provide potent ammo for a 3-rd party formation [of TEA Party Movement activists and Evangelicals].

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who noted that the idea is not to pray that God be on your side; but rather that you pray for help for you to stay on His.

–This may be why EVERY preparation-day of the Perry Campaign is preceded by [optional] Prayer!

Start Here:

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=6297336&start=1&currentPage=1

Let’s look forward to assessing the field after Michele and Huntsman are “history” within a fortnight…and The Newt’s nadir becomes neon-lit.

…via e-mail, directly to the head of the Perry Strike-Force!