« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

(Update) Rick Perry vs. Mitt Romney — Courageous Conviction vs. The Pandering Establishment

By: RealQuiet (Diary)  |  September 17th, 2011 at 06:22 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There are two kinds of public servants.  Those whom stick with a core set of principles and beliefs and those whom stick their finger in the pragmatic wind driven by the thoughts of the masses for their own political ambition.  The race for the GOP nomination has been a fun ride since Rick Perry entered the race.  The last two debates have been excellent with Perry having to go through the vetting crucible fired by the declining campaigns of his opponents.  What remains to be seen is if the crucible will yield some polling gold for Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann.

What has been fascinating to watch is the crystallization of what kind of men Rick Perry and Mitt Romney really are.  Probably the most telling revelation was the sparring that has happened over Social Security and how to address it.  This was expertly broken down by Freedoms Truth.  What happened?  Well, instead of Rick Perry cratering among seniors, his support is actually the strongest among people aged 50+ in the latest Rasmussen poll.  Then a poll in Florida came out showing Perry up by 9 over Romney AFTER the debate as Perry stood strong on Social Security being a Ponzi scheme.  Mitt Romney’s pandering wound up backfiring badly and once again showed that people follow courage.  Folks, if Mitt Romney doesn’t win Florida, Rick Perry will win the nomination going away.  Florida is Romney’s hill to die on.  However, also in that latest Rasmussen poll showed that Perry went from a 3 point lead in a matchup with Obama to a 7 point deficit.  Why?  Well, I believe that the Gardasil attacks by Bachmann and Santorum did hurt Perry.  Though it is known and documented that Perry relented on his executive order and admitted his mistake, the attacks were effective whether you think that is fair or not.  However, something very important was revealed there:

This issue showed that Perry had the courage to follow his convictions, showed restraint when the people and legislature voiced their objection, and had the wisdom and humility to say that he was wrong

How refreshing.  Friends, these are the hallmarks of great leaders.   Now conviction is a double-edged sword.  Perry’s stance on immigration was one that I had a big problem with and he got some boos from the crowd in this last debate.  However, I do have the confidence with so many good conservatives now gaining office in the House and Senate that Perry will listen to them and the people in regards to his immigration stances.  The great part about this vetting that Rick Perry has been receiving is that it is going to make him a very difficult opponent for Obama to have any chance of beating.  The vetting is getting all of any potential dirty laundry or skeletons that Perry may have so it will not be a deflecting issue in the general election.  What will be left is the discussion about the most important issues of this election:  Jobs, the economy, and government spending in which Perry has an awesome record on in Texas.

The most important lesson that we should always remember:  Choose a candidate that has guts

The last time we nominated a candidate that had guts and was unabashed about his conservative convictions was Ronald Reagan.  Back in 1980, Reagan was initially down big in the polling against Carter.  Reagan had both the Democratic Party and the GOP establishment personified as the Rockefeller wing against him.  Polls tightened up when Reagan became the nominee and it was very close until the final weekend.  It came down to independents breaking for Reagan as Carter’s impotence as president sealed his fate.  We need to play to win here, not nominate a pandering establishment candidate in the hopes that he has the best chance to win.  It will be nailbiting, but Rick Perry is the best candidate for the GOP nod, no doubt.

Forward.

(Update:  A great post this morning by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air about the red herring strategy of Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann.  Their only way to make up any ground against Perry is to direct the conversation away from Perry’s strength which is his economic record in Texas.  This is just further confirmation that Rick Perry is our strongest candidate.  There were also some concerns with an uptick in Texas’ unemployment rate.  This is simple mathematics as when you have a massive influx of people from other states in the country looking for work, this is bound to happen. Gaining four congressional seats from the 2010 census says everything about Texas’ population growth.)

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • iidvbii

    You make a great point with Reagan, the convenstional wisdom was that reagan couldnt win. Most people thought they were throwing their vote away. But enough people had the integrity to vote for who they truly believed in, whom they truly trusted to run this country. The result? We turned the tides on the Soviets, who just months before looked so unbeatable. We revitilized the American spirit and saw our people proud of themselves and their flag again. We saw the greatest period of wealth building in the history of the world. Yep friends you could say that Reagan just about did it all. Perhaps its time that we all take that leap of faith again. Perhaps its time that we vote our heart again. Maybe, just maybe we dont give in to that old tried and true saying. Vote for the most conservative candidate that can win. Maybe we follow our hearts, send the moderates to the bench and by god vote for Reagan, oops I mean Perry. Lets vote one more time for the Gipper and send a true conservative to the whitehouse. Sorry Switch Hit Mitt, guess its just not your year….. AGAIN….

    • LiveStronger

      Not even close.

      He’s a Goldwater Republican: only able to speak in code words that the far right understands and everyone else fears.

      Rick Perry will not be the nominee. He has only 1 senator endorsing him and about 6 congressmen, most of whom are from Texas.

      Rick Perry is a regional candidate with very little chance of winning a state primary outside of the south.

      Romney has appeal in the West, the mid-west (especially in Michigan, a key target in 2012), and the northeast.

      When all of the shouting is over, Mitt Romney will be our nominee. Don’t burn any bridges just yet.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Enough.

      • iidvbii

        Didnt we here this exact line, probably from you in 2008? How many of those primaries did he when then? What was the result of all this appeal? Why do you think it will be different THIS TIME? Nobody wanted Romney then, few want him now. The idea that somehow we can run yet another John Mccain and expect a different outcome seems rediculous to me.

        Romneys numbers dip in California, Perrys triple
        http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/09/15/2609939/poll-romney-leads-perry-in-california.html

        Romneys numbers drop in California
        http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/15/poll-romney-maintains-top-spot-in-california/?hpt=hp_bn4

        “A second poll out this week, from Public Policy Polling, shows Perry leading Romney by a much larger margin, 31-18, ” Speaking of Michigan….
        http://www.americanindependent.com/194131/polls-show-perry-beats-romney-in-primary-but-obama-beats-perry-in-general

        I dont personally put alot of stock in the polls this far out, except as an indicator of whom is connecting more with the folks. Switch Hit Mitt has been running for 6 years now, Perry for a month. I think you can see what is going on here. I mean Jimmy Carter endorses your boy, I believe that says it all.
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/16/carter-would-be-very-pleased-to-see-romney-win-gop-race/

      • gekster

        That right there is conservative support?

      • Scope

        that has caused much angst and animosity among the posters, with some leaving because their guy isn’t getting enough attention here at RS. This post is nothing more than a flame/attack post against Perry, with absolutely no factual information to back up the assertions at all. On the contrary, the comment contains misstatements, and opinions stated as facts.

        If I understand what is meant by a Goldwater Republican, Goldwater was a fiscal conservative, but a liberal on social issues. Reagan was a three legged conservative, who put as much value on traditional social issues, while Goldwater was the pasts version of the current Mitch Daniels “truce” Republicans. The problem with that is that in poll after poll taken over the last year is showing those self-describing as conservatives, and drilling down many of those polled are also church goers. Polling proving more are now pro-life than at any other time is important. And, three quarters of the country are opposed to gay marriage has been released. Rather than moving into Goldwater type territory, the majority are moving closer to the Reagan type territory. Perry would fall more squarely in the Reagan camp, while Romney would fall squarely into the Goldwater camp, that is if he would just adopt a definite position, rather than flipping then flopping, then flipping again.

        Perry may have only 1 US senator endorsing him, and he has the endorsement of everyone in the Texas faction, except one who had already committeed to another candidate before Perry enetered the race. How many in the Congress have come out and endorsed Romney. Going with the Governors, I believe Perry is leading in that endorsement race also. Perry has gained some of the highest donors in CA, that had gone for Romney last time around.

        As iidvbii posted below, you’re not correct on your assumptions/hopes that Romney has support in areas where polling has proven otherwise.

        Maybe as a Romney supporter you will be willing to submit your opinion as to the fact that Romney appointed only 9 Republicans to Judge and Magistrate roles while serving as Mass. Gov. The next president will most likely be responsible for nominating SC justice candidates, as there are 3 currently in their 70′s. Would you feel comfortable, with Romney’s record, that he would only nominate justices that will follow the constitution, rather than participating in making new laws that favor their partisan cronies?

        • olds88er

          Orrin Hatch, a Mormon and Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee,will be cosulted by Romney as to whom he should appoint as a Supreme Court Justice. So be assured it will be a Conservative. How about Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a Mormon and a past judge! Now that would give us a majority for many, many years.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        Given that Reagan was a Goldwater republican before he was President.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Just for the sake of it… and because I love this speech…

      • Republican_Michigander

        Romney has two things going for him. Money and Organization. His organizational abilities are elite. I’ll give him that.

        He has little grass roots support. Romney has Obamacare, flip flops on other issues, and can not close the deal. 2008 was set up for Romney and he lost to McCain of all people.

        As far as Michigan goes, Mitt still couldn’t break 40% here in an open primary, and his campaign was HQ’ed here. He did win, but not by the margin he was supposed to. He wasn’t considered the “RINO” either because McCain. Many Mitt voters last time were voting against McCain. This was before Romneycare became the big issue.

        As far as senatorial and congressional endorsements, who cares. They are not that important to folks who are not in the business.

        While I support Perry, I’d even vote for Huntsman over Romney. Huntsman is a liberal, but I know what I’m going to get from him. Romney is a chameleon. He’s John Kerry without the treason and the 1972 speech. John Kerry was the “electable” candidate for the democrats in 2008. We know how that worked out.

        I think Perry and Huntsman are electable because of the economic records and their consistency. Romney is unelectable because of his pandering. Polls at this point are too early to give results. Giuliani was leading all the polls at this point last year. Fred Thompson was near the top as well. They didn’t work out.

        • porkandcheese

          +5

        • olds88er

          So guess who cannot attack Romney on Romneycare? Romney has pledged to wipe out Obamacare.

      • The_Gadfly

        a hero of mine. Ronald Reagan was a good friend of Barry Goldwater. You are not only not a friend of either, you don’t know jack about either of them to boot. Particularly telling is your leftist phrase “only able to speak in code words that the far right understands.”

  • cjf99b

    Only thing I can add is my perspective immigration as a Texan.
    I think the characterization by some that Perry is weak on immigration
    is overblown, particularly on the fence and tuition issues. A 1200
    mile fence is unrealistic, period. People that bash Perry for not supporting
    a fence are either disingenuous or simy do not fully understand the situation,
    especially the logistics and the terrain. Unlike the border problem, In-state tuition is simply not a big deal. It has nothing to do with taxpayer funds or amnesty. Since the bill was passed in 2001, only 1% have even qualified for that program. It is not a blanket program, their are qualifications they must meet to be eligible and still have to pay their own way. If they graduate from a TX high school and are accepted to college, they pay ordinary tuition rates. If they have the desire to better themself and helps keep them off the
    streets and the gang life then so be it. It was was a TX solution to a TX problem.

    • pttx333

      I call it a “location thing” in that one has to be here to fully understand the situation. How nice to sit in a state far away from the border and criticize what goes on in this state or in any other border state. Personally, I see no other way for us to handle the problems we face here with illegals, particularly since the feds don’t seem to give a big rip about assisting us with much of anything.

      Thanks for the well-stated comment.

    • RealQuiet

      Maybe he needs to explain himself better. As governor, he is only trying to correct a problem that his state has. I can’t really fault him for that so maybe I was being harsh. Just a 10th amendment thing with how to address a state’s challenges as Perry is a big proponent of. He’s still getting his legs under him. Remember his campaign is still quite young but the structure of it is very formidable and it is gaining strength every day. Once his campaign gets fully optimized and his debate skills polished up, he’ll be awesome.

      • pttx333

        get around to discussing his stances, but he was dodging arrows and bullets Monday night and didn’t have the time to clarify much of anything. Just like Blitzer planned! My big beef with these debates has been too many candidates and not nearly enough time per person.

        Thanks again for a very well-written diary.

      • Scope

        Perry must articulate his positions better. I have faith that he will, as yes, the campaign is young. I’ve read some of the statements made by Perry, and I believe I understand what he is saying, but at times he articulates some things in a manner that opens him for attacks.

        A few examples-

        Perry made the statement that he thinks using E Verify won’t matter worth a hill of beans. Does anyone really believe that the Obama administration is serious in making the system as accurate and usable as possible? There was a great Heritage article addressing the Obama immigration policy to purposely not follow the immigration laws on the books. In more than one article, it has been shown that the O admin. has put the most of the HHS funding and focus on their TSA push at airports, and they have talked about taking the effort to other forms of transportation, and of course the TSA agents have all been unionized. They literally killed the 287(g) program, and put their efforts into the new Secure Communities project, which tracks only the illegals convicted of “serious crime.”

        Perry said in SC that he believed that those hispanic military members serving in our military should be rewarded with citizenship. Of course the naysayers, and Tom Tancredo are screaming that the illegals shouldn’t be allowed in the military. Other than some using false Green Cards, you cannot get in the military unless you already have a Green Card, which means those people are not in fact illegal.

        Perry said that as the situation is going now in Afghanistan, we would be better off bringing our military members home. He’s not saying just quit and surrender in Afghanistan. He’s saying that with the current ROE, our members have been made into sitting ducks. He spoke out against Obama advertising the date when we will withdraw, and start bringing our troops home. Now that the Taliban and Al Qadea know we are leaving, why bother prolonging the stay only for them to wait us out.

        Perry needs to either put some issue positions on his website, write articles for the leading websites, or set up speeches to talk about his positions with more details on where he stands. Lord knows he won’t get that opportunity with 30 second, or one minute answers in debates. Especially when the moderators set him up even before they ask the question. I promise Chris Wallace and the Obama Google people will be aiming their AK47′s at him on Thursday night. The debates will do nothing to help Perry.

        • JSobieski

          For example, talk to a Paul Ryan and have an economic plan put together. This both helps in putting together specifics and in building a coalition of support.

          This is not limited to economic issues, but the need for meaningful specifics is highest on such issues, while also being the most difficult to put together.

          • Scope

            with any candidate putting together any “detailed” plans for any of the issues. I see it as boxing oneself in, when their plan may be obsolute by the time they take office, or they may have no chance of getting the details passed, and then they get blamed for not accomplishing their goals. I am more concerned and interested in what their past records have been, and will assume that that is how they will govern in the future.

            I want to hear what their visions are, what their main strengths, what issues have been most important to them etc. Again, I think to do anything in detail is to unnecessaryly box themselves in. Look at what happened to Perry with his SS comments, and he didn’t even say what he would do with the reform with any specificity. Suppose he did come out with a plan that showed he would work to phase out what he considers an unconstitutional program. Bam, he’s gone yesterday. He in fact has had to reassure the most loyal voting block, the elderly, that he wants to “fix” the problem rather than to phase it out. On local radio, he is being bashed by some self-described Constitutionalists because he used the word “fix.” Do you see how you can box yourself in, and then get flak from all sides for your detailed ideas?

          • JSobieski

            Without a presidential candidate campaigning on a specific reform, there won’t be enough support to get it enacted.

            Remember SS reform under Bush?

            Remember the wide range of domestic policy reforms after Reagan’s “morning in America” campaign in 1984?

            I don’t remember them either because NOTHING happened.

            Obama has no plan for anything. Its actually one of the reasons why he has lost independents.

            By supporting to clear common-sense SS reforms can Perry can turn what would otherwise be a disadvantage into an advantage. Obama will say that Perry wants to end SS. By proposing a plan as to how to save SS, Perry invokes political jujitsu

          • JSobieski

            darn cat . . .

          • Scope

            with details could any candidate put out there, that actually has any chance of going through Congress exactly as the candidate may write it? Isn’t it the responsibility of the Congress to write legislation? The president, one with influence within his Party can certainly push for or request that legislation include his main ideas, such as please find funding cuts across the board at 10%, or please find spending cuts, and shrink the DEA, and the legislation is written with his main desires in mind. Wouldn’t it be giving too much power to the president, and not enough to the Congressional branch to expect the president to draft a detailed plan for anything, and then expect the Congress to walk in lockstep as though all the power is in the presidency. Look at Bush’s push to support the McCain/Kennedy amnesty plan. If he got his way, or accomplished his wishes as Obama has with EO’s and/or Czars, wouldn’t that take away the checks and balances system? Again, I think it’s important to push for the ideas he ran on, but it doesn’t mean he will get those wises 100%.

            I just think that any candidate coming out with detailed plans is boxing himself in way too much. Look at Romney 59 point, over 100 page economic plan. How many people do you think have read it? How many do you think will fly right into Romney’s camp just because he came up with a detailed plan. Look at Cain’s 999 plan. It’s very simple, it doesn’t get into the details of how it would be accomplished, but more are willing to look at something very simplified and without many details than Romney’s rambling details. Perry doesn’t need to have any details on his economic plan, there is more than 10 years of his history as Governor to answer those questions. Keep taxes low, keep regulations as low as possible, and get hold of the out of control legal system. That’s it, check the record to see if it has worked.

          • aesthete

            Anyone could write legislation — and quite frankly, I’d rather almost anyone besides legislators write legislation. JSob is correct: nothing will get done if its pros and cons haven’t been laid out, and if Perry cannot make a compelling case to the public. Unfortunately, the only time when voters pay attention to what politicians say is when they’re trying to get elected. This means that Perry will, to some extent, have to be pro-active about selling a specific plan of reform. This *does* hurt his election chances — but then again, so does anything that goes beyond, “I’m Rick Perry, I’ve got great hair, and I love mom, apple pie, and the American Way.” Since we’re trying to get conservative change effecting, and not just win a game of politics, I think it’s worth it to have Perry go out on a limb and explain clearly to the American people what is wrong with SS (and Medicare/Medicaid), and just how what he proposes will fix it. Otherwise, it won’t get done.

          • The_Gadfly

            and may be closer to where JSob is than you think.

            Perry, or any other candidate for that matter, should be laying out what specific problems they think our country faces and the broad outlines for addressing them, Getting support from folks like Ryan on those outlines helps shape the debate landscape not only before the election, but afterward as well. Having a known coalition of leaders who support your goals and in turn have support from the voters will help pass the necessary legislation to accomplish the goals. As for any perceived failures if a candidate doesn’t get his detailed plan through, I think that depends on the extent to which he doesn’t get his plan. If Perry produces a plan and gets 80% of it, he did a good job. If he only gets 50%, not so much, but depending on the breaks on the 50% it could still count as a win. Promising to do something (like say closing Gitmo) and getting slapped down by a philosophical partner (say, Chuckie Schumer) would be a definite failure. And frankly, I only see those possibilities in the Romney/Huntsman/Nor Luap wing of the candidates this season.

    • onemovoter

      for the border states is that people confuse the powers of the state and federal in what they can do. I found out that states can’t deport illegals, they can’t even detain them for very long either. So if a state is basically stuck with them, they might as well work with those that grew up there and are wanting to become a productive taxpayer.

      That’s the other thing about Texas. Since the state uses sales tax and user fees, both legal and illegal people pay taxes into the state. That’s why I so favor a Fair Tax change for the federal government. Many more people would start paying tax that aren’t doing so now.

      • Scope

        I’ve read so many comments accusing Perry of not having done enough with the illegal problem in Texas, as though he has much say in the matter, or much power to do anything the feds will just sue him over. Look at what they’ve done in AX, and most recently in GA.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and that is my take on things, too. I have always said I would rather have a courageous decision maker who makes a wrong decision from time to time than a wormy coward who hides behind the fear of failure all the time. Most people feel the same way, too, I believe–even if they don’t know it!

  • acat

    Perry … won’t.

    Choice is easy for this cat.

    Oh, and regarding the immigration thing, it’s come up several times. A google of “Perry texas dream act site:redstate.com” or “Perry falcon lake site:redstate.com” or “perry illegal immigration site:redstate.com” should find most of the discussions…

    Mew

    • LiveStronger

      When Huntsman is asked about his religion, he folds. When Romney is asked about his religion, although it is his biggest liability, he stands tall.

      Rick Perry flip-flopped on Gardasil vaccines, admitting that he had made a mistake there.

      Rick Perry has flip-flopped on immigration, on capital punishment, and on taxes (he was for them before he was against them).

      Rick Perry is a former democrat who still harbors contempt for those who have managed to become financially independent through hard work an ingenuity.

      Rick Perry cannot be the nominee against Obama. He’s right up there with Sarah Palin in terms of unelectability and unpredictability.

      • onemovoter

        Perry. With idiots like you spewing information that we know if false, because we have actually taken the time to carefully research candidates and their backgrounds.

        People here would take you seriously if you asked genuine questions. However if you just post the crap like you did, I can see those in control here at RS booting you for not adding to the debate.

        • onemovoter

          “information that we know IS false” not “if”.

      • Kyle-MI

        A flip-flop on Gardasil, you going with that? He has admitted his mistake on that issue. He has corrected his position to be more conservative. And you are accusing him of flip-flopping? If that is how you define a flip-flop, then I am giving more credit to flip-floppers. Meanwhile everyone anti-Perry and their dogs are trying blow this into a major issue about his character and suitability for the White House.

        Where has he flip-flopped on capital punishment?

        Where has he flip-flopped on taxes? Do you mean since changing from Dem to Republican?

        Where are the solid quotes about harboring contempt for the financially independent?

        Do you think it is any better for Romney who has flip-flopped on abortion? Is it better for Romney to stay his ground on Romneycare and never apologize for it? Should that give us confidence about his working to overturn Obamacare?

      • lineholder

        That raises questions in my mind about how far to the left he would be willing to bend for the sake of “compromise”.

        Plus, there were other options he could have considered re: MA rather than Romneycare. His adamant refusal to remotely consider the possibility that he might have been wrong in implementation of that particular program is indicative of character flaws associated with ego and vanity. Any human being can be guilty of such things, but those who hold to that ego and vanity rather than being honest enough to consider their own failings usually don’t make good leaders. They’re too thin-skinned to accept objective criticism. They don’t know when or how to pursue wise counsel.

        Lots of questions about Romney in this conservatives mind.

        • westcoastpatriette

          and he is too out of touch with the average joe to realize how condescendingly insulting it is to impose something like that for our own good. He still defends it and that is not a conservative nor Republican position to take no matter how you spin it.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            He’s really down for the struggle on this crap. The 10th Amendment is a pathetic veneer for what he bought into while Governor of MA.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I left you a post last night and you must have gone off line right after so gekster and I had quite a discussion that might interest you. It’s a continuation of your complaint that there aren’t more RSers who are more concerned about Perry’s stance on ill. imm.

      • acat

        That’s offensive, as well as being offensively stupid.

        Mew

        • iidvbii

          LOL… Sorry ACAT couldnt help myself….lol
          Hey any recipes for Fajitas you could share???

          • acat

            Just checking.

            Mew

          • iidvbii

            New to RS, note sure about this term.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            carried out by relative newcomers.

            Concern trolls: posters who, rather than make a logical argument, express concern about a candidate or an issue in a way absolves them from having to actually take a position or make an argument for or against something.

            Candidate or issue trolls: posters who are able to relate every post to their un/favorite candidate or issue.

          • acat

            is that trolls get fed .. recipes.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            I have a little bit different definition of a troll: A person with a hidden agenda who sneakily posts blogs to achieve some nefarious goal.

      • porkandcheese

        Huntsman has never been all that religious. His forebears were saloon keepers. He went to secular schools, but still did the missionary service. Mormons think of him as a “Jack Mormon.” While Romney has made much political hay of his religion to secure the SLC Winter Olympics in 2002 and win the state’s primary in 2008. Along with MI, where his father was governor, and MA, where he was governor, these were his only primary wins, along with eight caucuses. But no none is judging either Huntsman or Romney by their faith, and it’s pointless to accuse one of “flip flopping” or running from theirs, which neither really has.

        Perry’s answers on capital punishment and immigration were perfect in the last debate. There is a reason he won Latino voters by 38% in his last race. It’s funny that Huntsman tried to attack him on this issue, earning boos from the audience when using the word “treason”, while he has a similar in-state tuition program in Utah as Perry’s in Texas.

        As for being a former Democrat, it will be interesting to see how people who accuse him of being too rightwing square that circle. It failed with Reagan.

        Perry has not flip flopped on Gardasil. It was never implemented. He stood down when the legislature opposed it, and he apologized for using an EO. That was his position from the beginning. Romney will not be any more successful than Kay Bailey Hutchisson in attacking Perry with this. Good luck with the “flip flopper” label. There are websites devoted to Romney’s.

        Funny how Romney is supposedly so “electable” yet he has only won one election in his whole life, while Perry has never lost one. Perry the “career politician” has defeated both Rove and Axelrod. When Romney was getting crushed by Obama beta model and Axelrod protege Deval Patrick, a neophyte who had never held any office before, in polls, he declined to seek reelection. Instead he ran for president and came in third behind McCain and Huckabee. Romney is barely polling ahead of Palin in the CNN poll. Even without Palin, Romney doesn’t do much better in the NYT and PPP polls.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          I don’t think he’s a “jack-mormon”, most Utah mormons don’t either.

          What was considered distancing, was in fact pandering. He still attends his meetings, and pays his tithing like any good Mormon, his grandfather was an Apostle, his father is an area authority assigned to a region of membership, he himself serves/served in active callings.

          I think there’s been postulating and positing from “mormon bloggers” for their own purposes, but in my view Huntsman gave a mealy mouth answer to avoid direct questions as Romney faced in 2008. In this regard LiveStronger may be correct in his assessment of Huntsman “folds”.

          Either way I really don’t buy into any “Mormon Meme” its a non-issue, and those that are making hay of it in any degree are acting in their own interest, including Mr. LiveStronger.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        “When Romney is asked about his religion, although it is his biggest liability, he stands tall.”

        Huh? LDS is Romney’s biggest liability? Not out here in the real world, fool. It will likely cost him a few votes, offset by people who will vote for him because of his religion. You want a liability, try RomneyCare. Try the fact that he’s never met a problem that couldn’t be at least helped by government. Oh, then there’s that global warming thingy. Etc, etc, etc.

        Somebody else noted the lie you’re peddling on Gardasil, and the “former Democrat” is the biggest piece of bs of them all.

        You are pathetic. And, I think kitty is right, you’re a Troll and not a very good one at that.

        • The_Gadfly

          is his greatest weakness/a serious weakness/a problem with the Republican base,

          he’s a troll. Maybe a libtard, maybe an astroturfer, maybe an overzealous supporter of another candidate, but unmistakably and undeniably a troll.

      • perry4prez

        …when Romney is asked about his religion, he has backed off such as by saying that Christ will return in Jerusalem rather than Missouri.

        This entire misses the reason evangelicals are suspicious of him, of course – it’s a symptom, nit the cause.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Your response is incoherent and completely incorrect.

          I support Perry too, but you’re only validating the nonsense that Livestronger is speaking about…

          As a Mormon, I can validate Romney’s answer…. Our beliefs are not on trial… but in fact, we do believe that Christ will return to Jerusalem, we do believe that there will be an event that precedes the return, where he will meet with a select few in Missouri at a sacred site known as Adam-ondi-Ahman… I don’t really care if you want to bastardize my beliefs… but I won’t stand for your mis-guided attempts to throw feces in the same manner that Livestronger does…

          As for “evangelical suspicions”… speak for yourself, and not for the many many millions of faithful Christians that don’t feel a need to denigrate other religions or politicians that have different religious views.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        I’m a Mormon… and I do not support Romney. I don’t believe Mormonism is a liability. I’m just as capable of defending my beliefs as I am at defending constitutional conservatism. I reject your idea on the whole.

        Romney’s liabilities are that he hasn’t firmed a position on anything. He’s a technocrat. He doesn’t understand the fact that people want to know where their candidate stands. He’s too smart for his own good, because he wants to draw distinctions that on the whole don’t matter when you simply hack at the root of a problem.

        I’m assuming you’re also a Mormon and are fearful that Romney isn’t given a fair look due to his religion… crawl out of your shell, and realize that Romney is Romney’s biggest liability, not his faith…

        I’m grateful Romney is proud of his faith, I’m proud of my faith… but that doesn’t give him any credit with me when he’s running for the highest political office of the United States, and hopes to lead the United States to their roots of liberty through trying times.

        If his communication was more yay yay, or nay nay… I think he would get more support… but he is more concerned with being right on technicalities than on being right for the sake of doing the right things.

        He had his chance to prove this as governor of Massachusetts… and with Romneycare, he proved that liberty takes a back seat to a technocratic attempt to appease all things at the cost of liberty. Even if he was hoping to stem off a cost issue, taking away liberty to do so was a bad idea. There is no defense that resolves the concern of infringement on liberties of the people, REGARDLESS of whether or not it was unconstitutional at the state level to have an individual mandate.

        You go after Rick Perry for flip flopping? Very Machiavellian of you to label the opposition with something your guy is accused of.

        You’re throwing feces at the wall and hoping it sticks… welcome to your irrelevance.

        • rightwingmom52

          I’m a Christian (fundamental, traditional, literalist, evangelical – each of those fits me at some point), and yes, I would prefer a Christian candidate. However, I would have no qualms at all supporting Romney if he were a conservative. The fact that he is Mormon bothers me not at all. The fact that he is liberal is another story.

          To the extent that I’ve discussed this with friends and family, they all feel the same way. I just don’t think it’s as big of an issue as is being portrayed. My point is that among the majority of conservatives, I don’t think Romney’s religion is any more of a factor than Cain’s skin color. People just continue to look for ways to divide us with the usual racist or bigoted nonsense, whether it’s about religion, gender, race or what have you.

          Full disclosure: I would have an issue voting for an “orange” candidate like Huntsman or Crist, which is somewhat unusual since I’m a Tennessee Volunteeer fan. LOL!

          • westcoastpatriette

            so, that is why we have to be discerning on all levels when listening to candidates who claim the Christian label. The bible calls them “wolves in sheeps clothing” and they can be very destructive, indeed.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            well “Orange” candidates have one thing in common… that fake tan spray has seeped into their brains rendering them into useful/useless idiots as the particulars may require.

        • JSobieski

          i.e. the worst kind of non-conservative.

          • SoFiMil

            http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12402947/emergency-political-hologram-romney

        • The_Gadfly

          You have to have at least HELD a philosophical position before you can flip-flop, Which means your spot on observation about him being a technocrat makes it impossible for him to flip-flop.

          And as a conservative Bible Belt type Christian let me assure you* that you are welcome here at Red State. And I would refer you to rule 312 above as to my position on whether a candidate is Mormon or not and how it will affect whether I would vote for him/her.

          *Not that I think you actually NEED the assurance, but since there is a screed posted, I know it’s always nice to have a written counterpoint.

      • beach91

        This is the second post in this thread saying basically the same thing so please provide references or links for your assertions. Otherwise your posting is just conjecture at best.

  • cjf99b

    I don’t think you were harsh. Thought it was s great post. You’re right,
    its early and will get better as things develop. Bachman’s really got me
    pissed right now. Actually, I’m livid. My best friends sister refuses
    to vaccinate her kids. One of them is always sick. Who knows
    if there’s a correlation but it’s just freaking stupid. The last thing
    we need is the GOP version of Jenny McCarthy confusing
    more soccer moms. Perry knew back in 2007 that he
    would take heat from the Family Values crowd. That happens to be a
    very large donor base. Much larger than the pocket change he got from
    Merck. They were the manufacturer and it was
    recommended by the CDC. The drug saves lives
    and the fertility of those “little 12-year old girls.” If you haven’t seen that special that ABC 13 in Houston ran the other night you should.
    Bachman is now in Wasserman Shultz territory. I’m done with her.
    I hope Merck files suit.

  • florida772

    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people/rick-perry/perry-inconsistencies-states-rights-mantra/

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Got conclusions? Got issues? Got brain?

      Works best if you tell us why you bothered to type the comment title.

      • florida772

        Perry isnt as conservative as everyone on this site makes him out to be.

        BTW got politeness mbecker?

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Effective commenting works like this.

          Find an article that brings out new information or makes a point.

          Link to the article.

          Write about the article giving your opinion on the information and why it is important.

          Without #3 you wast everybody’s time.

          • florida772

            your a perry fan?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I want to see how he handles himself over some time in the national spotlight. I think he’s done OK so far. He has some good points and some not so good ones. We’ll see.

            Again, my issue isn’t taking pot shots at Perry (or anybody), it’s the content of your comment. Which is non-existent.

  • beach91

    I have been away from Redstate since McCain lost in 2008 and I just got completely away from politics. I could not understand why people went for Obama! At any rate, I am back in the fold and reading Redstate regularly and Perry has been on my shortlist since before he was even in the running. I like the fact of having a backbone which is something the Republican party has been missing!! Fessing up to a mistake is something I am good with too. The immigration thing is simply people not taking time to really understand the issue and then form an idea of the decision. Bachman was also on my shortlist but her performance last week made me pissed! So, all in all this should be better than in ’08!

  • cjf99b

    I was born in 74 so most of my knowledge of Reagan comes from reading and videos like this. I’ve only seen this speech in bits and pieces so this is the first time I’ve watched the whole speech. The parallels between 1964 and 2011 are scary. “I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers. Not to long ago two friends of mine we talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro. And it the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other an said, we dint know how lucky we are. And the Cuban stopped and said, how lucky you are, I had some place to escape to. And in that sentence he told the entire story. If we lose freedom here there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. This idea that government is beholden to the people, that is has no other source of power exept the sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self government or whether we abandon the american revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly that we must choose between left or right. I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as left or right, there is only an up or down.” Ronald Reagan

  • gregorysstewart

    But Romney tops Intrade.

    I wonder why?

    • Republican_Michigander

      That’s the one major thing Mitt has right now in his favor. He’s been organizing for this run for six years.

    • porkandcheese

      Because InTrade is mostly European speculators now.

      • gregorysstewart

        Oh well… Their loss is my gain.

  • carolynr

    Finally there is an article out there that can show the difference between the two men. The time for waiting to see what happens concerning ANYTHING is over. We have big, tough decisions to make and if we make them now…some programs can be saved. We have to get our Republic back. Oh some might say that Perry does not have the “wisdom” of Romney. Yes he does…he learned his through life experiences that make him as passionate as he is…Romney on the other hand learned it through books. Some issues that need to be addressed are black and white…and guess what, we have to choose. There are some programs that have to get out of the gray area…the…I will wait and see category. Times a wasting and its step up to the plate time. Perry and Romney will both come to the plate…but which one has the passion to hit the homer…I say…Rick Perry. Romney is there for the photo opt.

  • publious

    Enough Said…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB05kIasL80

  • izoneguy

    Perry hits Romney: ‘We don’t need Obama lite’

    In the hours before another high-profile Republican debate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is leveling some of the campaign’s sharpest rhetoric yet at rival Mitt Romney. In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Wednesday night, Perry said Republicans “don’t need to nominate Obama lite — someone who’s going to blur the lines between President Obama and our nominee.”

    When Hannity noted that, in Republican circles, “Obama lite” is a “pretty rough term,” Perry explained, “I think it’s important that we have a clear distinction between the candidates. When you take a look at what Mitt did from the standpoint of Romneycare in Massachusetts, you’re going to have a hard time finding a difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.” With that answer, Perry left no doubt that “Obama lite” refers to just one person: Mitt Romney.

  • onemovoter

    “Social Security fits the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show.” Quoted from The Hill news site.

    Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/182711-rep-ryan-rick-perry-is-right-on-social-security
    Rep Ryan says Perry right on SS

    Also at same link:
    “After all this flap recently some people did some quick Googling, and the problem with what Rick Perry says is that it’s trite, it’s been said so often,? Daniels said. Daniels also uses the phrase in his unreleased book “Keeping the Republic.”

    We finally have real conservative GOP coming out and supporting a candidate that is telling the truth. It’s just shows that Romney is one of those that stabbed GWB in the back when he tried to reform SS in 2005. We don’t need a backstabber in the Presidency.