Dark days.

Rick Perry has been rolling out an incredible platform over the last few weeks in his still rather young presidential campaign.  Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion among the GOP base is getting a man who can go toe to toe in a debate with Obama and look good doing it.  Have we become obsessed with the optics of what may happen in a future debate that rather than making our choices on a proven candidate that runs on a platform that oozes conservatism and limited government?  Let’s talk a look at Rick Perry’s negatives:

• Immigration — This is the one that has hurt Perry the most.  Granting in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants has not sat well with the conservative base.  I have to ask one question.  Between Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Herman Cain, which candidate touts a voting record or position is to the right of Rick Perry’s?
• Debating — The ability to engage in debate, selling the candidate’s platform and parrying the opposition’s attacks effectively is a must have.  Perry has been getting better and had a wonderful performance in the most previous debate.  Tonight will be key again.  If Perry can have a performance like he had in the last one, he may start generating a little momentum.  I want everyone to keep something else in mind.  Rick Perry got into this race in August.  To put together a platform of what you will run on, build fundraising networks, put together a team, putting together a ground game, doing opposition research on your opponents, debate preparation and hone your message to sell to the American public in as little as six months?  Rick Perry is practically trying to do the impossible.  In retrospect, I might have told Rick Perry that he was biting off a little more than he can chew. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have had years to get ready for their runs and polish themselves up.

Bottom line, we have a candidate in this race who has a proven track record of conservatism, executive experience, strongest and eye-popping record in the areas that are the most important issue to the elections, whom is a man who listens, is a good human being without any personal baggage, has strong character, and who, I think most importantly, is by far the most consistent in sticking to his core principles.

The two lingering questions in my mind sealed it up for me last night.  In an interview with Fox’s Special Report, they dealt with immigration issue and the apparent flaw that Krauthammer asked him relating to Perry’s flat tax plan that was on my mind.  Perry’s answer was good and he made a point I had not even thought about.  View the interview here and make your own judgments.

It’s our own fault if conservatives and the Tea Party don’t nominate Rick Perry for the presidency.  He’s almost everything we want.  Sure, I would like him to be more hardline on immigration.  We can whip congressmen if Perry decides to get out-of-bounds just like we did when George W. Bush was in office.  But I can’t let one negative destroy all the positives that I see about him.  I’m cautiously confident that he is going to keep getting better in the debates.  I can see why the establishment doesn’t want Perry getting the nod.  He actually is going to make the effort to reform Washington.  The establishment is in no way interested in that.  If Perry got the bully pulpit and got this legislation constructed and did a presidential address to the nation about it, it would put those establishment politicians under the light of scrutiny.  The establishment cannot simply let legislation like this come to a vote.  It could endanger their gravy train that is set up at the people’s expense.  All the more reason to vote for him.  However, if we don’t nominate him, I am having a tougher time of who I would want as my second choice.

This will be my last post endorsing Perry.  My mind is made up.  You can donate to Perry here.

(A hat tip must be given to Mike Gamecock Devine and his post he wrote earlier.  I wanted to expand on it by highlighting some other things that have come up.  I figured if I had made this whole thing in the comments on his thread, that could pose a problem )

It’s been fun to watch some Romney supporters vent their ill-advised frustration at the conservative base not getting behind Mitt Romney.  In all reality, I think Mitt Romney has become the choice of default nominee if no other candidates are considered viable.  Now it is Newt’s turn to get thrown into the crucible.  Much has been made about Newt’s marital infidelity, most notably, having an affair while Clinton was getting impeached for his actions reeks of brazen hypocrisy.  However, I am willing to accept his apology for his past actions of this nature.

The opening vetting salvo has been in regards to Newt’s paid “consulting” work with Freddie Mac.

Newt has been adamant in his denial of lobbying ever.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me…

GINGRICH: I do no lobbying of any kind. I never have. A very important point I want to make. I have never done lobbying of any kind.

Not so fast.  You’re not off the hook yet.  The first link cited an article written by Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner.  Fox Nation left out a very key section of that article which I want to highlight here.

Three former Republican congressional staffers told me that Gingrich was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting Republican congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support a bill expanding Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies. Conservatives were understandably wary about expanding a Lyndon Johnson-created entitlement that had historically blown way past official budget estimates. Drug makers, on the other hand, were positively giddy about securing a new pipeline of government cash to pad their already breathtaking profit margins.

One former House staffer told me of a 2003 meeting hosted by Rep. Jack Kingston where Gingrich spoke. Kingston would regularly host “Theme Team” meetings with a few Republican congressmen and some of their staff. Just before the House vote, Gingrich was the special guest at this meeting, and he brought one message to the members: Pass the drug bill for the good of the Republican Party.

Conservatives were worried about the potential for cost overruns, and about the credibility of their limited-government arguments if they passed this new entitlement bill. “Every concern that members raised,” the former House staffer told me, “Gingrich would respond with a poll number.” Gingrich invoked the American Express motto “Don’t Leave Home Without It,” and told Republicans they could not afford to go home for recess without some Medicare drug bill — regardless of the content.

Two aides to other GOP members who had been resisting the bill told me their bosses were lobbied by Gingrich over the phone, sometimes citing politics, sometimes citing substance. And it worked. “Newt Gingrich moved votes on the prescription-drug bill,” one conservative staffer told me. “That’s for sure.”

Contemporaneous reporting confirms this: The Washington Post reported in 2003 that Gingrich addressed a closed-door meeting of conservative Republicans, pushing them to back the bill.

Ah yes, influencing conservatives to sell out their principles in the hopes of getting re-elected later and to retain the GOP’s majority.  That didn’t work out so well in 2006 and 2008 did it?

So Gingrich can be considered a non-lobbyist only by the same narrow definition of “lobbyist” President Obama uses: someone registered with the House and Senate under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. This is how Obama can claim to reject lobbyist contributions while taking money from vice presidents of government affairs and the like.

But that still doesn’t excuse Gingrich’s false statement that he has “never done lobbying.”

The law that defines “lobbyist” also defines “lobbying activity,” which includes all “lobbying contacts.” Someone makes a “lobbying contact” when he makes “any oral, written or electronic communication to a covered official [such as a congressman] that is made on behalf of a client with regard to … the formulation, modification, or adoption of Federal legislation.”

So if Gingrich is going to rely on a legalism to claim he’s not a lobbyist, that same legalism defines him as engaged in “lobbying,” which he has denied.

His only conceivable out: Yes, he was a consultant helping drug companies pass this bill, but when he was persuading conservatives to back the bill, that was on his own time, and out of his own personal convictions — and it had nothing to do with the drug industry cash he was receiving at the time.

This is an ancient political tactic of telling the truth “technically”.  My definition of lobbying is you’re simply paid to influence public servants by a select consortium of companies/lobbying firms whom represent companies that want legislation written to benefit them and in many cases, suppress their competition.  This is what happens when government stops being a government for the people and starts being a government for sale to the highest bidder.

Newt is telling the truth.  He didn’t do any lobbying for them, he only identified lobbying targets for Freddie Mac.  Maybe the statement should be “I never did any lobbying, I only showed them how to lobby.”

Washington isn’t broken.  Washington is abominably corrupt on both sides of the aisle and Newt certainly seems to have been a part of that. What is clear is Newt is worried about his standing with the conservative base.  Something like this has the potential to derail his candidacy.

Term limits for congressmen anyone?

It would be apparent that this is the choice that we’re going to have to make sometime very soon before the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.  I hope this is sooner rather than later.  The most recent polls indicate that Newt Gingrich is skyrocketing,  Herman Cain is falling, Mitt Romney is wet wood that can’t catch fire, and Rick Perry still in the doghouse with most conservative voters.

Something that has been troubling me that I have noticed, particularly the conservative blogosphere, how everyone seems to love to magnify how a candidate might lose their train of thought as a sign of stupidity.  That is just not the case.  I cannot imagine the mountain of information that a candidate for the presidency has to process for both debate and to present on the campaign trail.  Sure, the ability to articulate and sell a platform to the public with the aims of winning the presidency is an important and quite necessary skill.  However, I have to wonder sometimes if we have all become so completely focused on the optics, the appearance of the candidate, that we are blinding ourselves to what is really important which are the records, character, and the candidate’s current stances on important issues.

When Election Night 2012 comes around next November, I will vote for whomever the GOP candidate is.  They may not be who I would have preferred but it is my duty to vote.  If we as conservatives are not happy whomever winds up with the nod, we can vote for the next most conservative candidate.  We then can whip our elected GOP congressmen and leaders that represent us to keep them in check and let them know that we’re no longer laying down.  Bottom line, if I don’t vote, then I am doing a dishonor to those whom have fought, bled, and died to give me that freedom to.

Back to the topic at hand, we have four candidates.  I might argue three since Herman Cain’s comments regarding supporting collective bargaining rights for public sector employees should put his candidacy to rest.  However, let’s say four.

Mitt Romney – Solid family man, great debater and speaker, record indicates he takes both sides of the issue to whatever the political climate or winds demand, been involved in politics for some time.  There are some issues he has taken that are not conservative at all.  I won’t highlight those here but many of you are well aware of what those are.  Probably most importantly, particularly with the recent news out of the Supreme Court, is that aside from jobs and the economy, Obamacare looks to be a big issue in 2012.  Judging by the overwhelming approval of Issue 3 in Ohio, this would be a very potent weapon for the GOP in 2012 that would get neutered with a Romney candidacy.  This is because Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare and thus, is a de facto justification of passing the legislation.

Newt Gingrich – Great speaker and debater, incredibly knowledgeable, been proactive at advancing conservatism ideas, long career in politics.  He has had extramarital affairs and has been divorced twice.  There was the ethics charges and violations that he had while in Congress.  The famous Nancy Pelosi couch scene in a global warming ad and the undercutting of Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” rollout with his right-wing social engineering comment.  Then of course there are the other watered down compromises he made while he was in Washington that I won’t get into here.

Herman Cain – Strong family man(?) –Thanks David 123   with an alleged and in some cases, documented (settlements) wandering eye, successful businessman, cancer survivor, great debater and speaker, quite green from a knowledge standpoint outside the subject of economics and business as the foreign policy debate showed.  Too impulsive to defer answering questions by saying “I would hire the best people.”

Rick Perry – Strong family man, not a very good debater, great speaker at public gatherings/campaign events and one-on-one interviews, very conservative with the exception of immigration and the Gardisal issues, in recent weeks has led the field of candidates on bold ideas in the areas of tax reform, foreign policy and Washington that are wonderful for conservatives to see but put sheer fright into liberals and the political establishment on both sides of the aisle.

In summary, by looking at this, there are some things that pop out.  Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich look like they have struggles with being prudent men.  They have an apparent history of putting themselves of situations they have no business being in.  If Newt or Herman wind up losing the nomination or if he winds up winning the nomination, either winning or losing the general election, it will be because voters do not want a man with that kind of history in office and justly reject them or they will be gracious in forgiving them.  Either way, the voters’ choice will be justified either way.  I think the mountain will be quite tall because half of this country is women.  Women don’t really care for men like that.  Newt also may have a problem with people identifying him as a business as usual Washington politician from the past thus making it hard for them to believe him.

In regards to Rick Perry, if I could put Rick Perry’s record, his character, and his conservatism and blend them with Newt Gingrich’s debating skills, we would have one knockout candidate.  However, that is not the case.  His debate skills took a leap forward after having a bad trip.  He is getting better and better as he becomes more comfortable.  The immigration and Gardisil issues have been explained and Perry has apologized for his “heartless” comment.  Perry also walked back his executive order in regards to the Gardisil issue.  He felt like it was the right thing to do but listened to the public as well.  The problem is a combination of the conservative voters willing to forgive him and having a lack of confidence in him because of his debate results.

Mitt Romney shows to match up head-to-head with Obama best according to polling match ups. (Update:  This new Marist poll actually has Newt polling the best against Obama.  This is the first poll that at least I have seen where a candidate other than Romney polls best against Obama.) He has been solid in the debates and has run a good campaign.  The problem is though the conservative bloc really doesn’t want him to have the nod apparently.  So long as there is a candidate out there that they feel will represent them and has the record to do so.  This explains the chaos we see in the polls.  Conservatives are not coming to a decision yet between Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Herman Cain yet.  However, I think it is down to Newt and Rick.

My choice is sticking with Rick Perry.  I have to admit again, and you all saw, I thought his goose was cooked after his brain freeze.  I couldn’t imagine him coming back.  And how did he and his campaign handle this adversity?  Masterfully, with grace and humor, and kept going forward as if nothing had happened though the weight of the whole world may have crushed him.  That’s presidential steel right there.  How can you not want to follow a guy like that?  He’s getting better with each debate as he becomes more polished with his platform, has a well funded campaign and infrastructure, has an incredibly bold conservative agenda, and has hit on a winning campaign them that he rolled out today.  It’s reforming Washington, understanding that the majority of people in our country are as his book states “Fed Up.”  And when I think about my concerns I have in regards to Perry’s immigration stances I have to ask myself “Are any of the other candidates immigration stances better than Perry’s?”  If we have to whip congressmen to keep Perry in check here, I think this shouldn’t be too hard of a task.  At least I know where he stands and he is the most consistent of any of the candidates.

He won’t have problems with the women’s vote like Newt and Herman will have.  Though polls show that Perry is anywhere between 6-10 points in match-ups with Obama, the more people hear Perry out, what he stands for and has done as governor or Texas, the more appealing he will become.  The differentiating contrast with what he has to offer with what Obama has to offer from an all-around standpoint will be quite striking.  That will make the greatest impact on the voters’ minds and I am willing to bank that the polls will bear that out in a positive way.  They will never have a more clear choice to make and the choice has never been more clearer in my mind.

I can’t believe anyone hadn’t reported on this here at RedState.

Good grief!

On the issue of collective bargaining, Cain said he supported the right of public employees to bargain collectively.

“But not collective hijacking. What I mean by that, if they have gotten so much for so many years and it’s going to bankrupt the state, I don’t think that’s good. It appears that in some instances, they really don’t care.”…

In an interview with the Journal Sentinel last month, Cain said that he was “right in the corner of Gov. Scott Walker 100%” in Walker’s battle with public employee unions.

Cain also appeared to be unclear on the issue of collective bargaining as it involves federal employees. Asked if he thought federal employees should have the ability to bargain collectively, Cain said: “They already have it, don’t they?”

Told they didn’t, he said, “They have unions.”

Herman, was your candidacy just a great big joke?  Seriously?  Supporting collective bargaining for public sector employees?

I’m speechless.

I smell a Cain endorsement for Gingrich sometime in the not so distant future.

There apparently is some much watering down and MSM spin being attempted to dilute the performance of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich last night.  Make no mistake about it, these were two men among boys and a girl last night.  The key point in this debate and all the talk and focus is about Rick Perry’s zero-based foreign aid of all nations America contributes to, including our allies.  This is the reason why along with Perry’s simple answer of shutting down Iran’s central bank as a means of severe sanction was why I thought Perry won the debate last night.  As I mentioned in my last diary entry, all the candidates were following Perry from that point on. Perry was a foreign policy modern day pioneer last night.  Though this new position might have startled the MSM, it makes common sense to ordinary Americans like myself.  More on this in a bit.

It was interesting to watch reactions on Twitter from Politico, The Washington Post, and others regarding Perry’s new ground.  The spin began almost immediately with The National Journal selecting a question from a viewer whom asked if Israel would also have to start from zero.  This is a common tactic of Democrats, and establishment Republicans.  They take a sound policy, position, or idea and then try to nitpick, dilute, or engage in cut-and-paste politics to try to soak down the great idea before it takes root in the American public’s mind.  There was much talk that I saw about how Perry’s idea was bad and much hand-wringing among the MSM, and incredibly a couple of candidates on the debate stage of what might happen because of this strong policy stance.  Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum conveyed weakness in their responses by openly worrying about how cutting off aid to Pakistan might cause a nuclear state to fail and cause nuclear weapons to fall into the wrong hands.  While their concern might be founded, it negotiates from a position of weakness.  It also tells me that you’re not a leader of strength and you give into fear too easy. This might be harsh, but our enemies and allies only are agreeable when we aren’t afraid to wield America’s very big stick.

You always negotiate from a position of strength.  Our strength is in our economy which provides those foreign aid dollars, our military might, and our resolve.  Ronald Reagan encapsulated this “peace through strength” approach.  Our foreign aid, a strong card of negotiation, should be used so that what we give to a nation must come with contingencies.  This is smart diplomacy.  Who cares if it might upset some foreign nations?  Can you imagine the mullahs’ shock of cold water they must have felt when they heard Rick Perry talk about shutting down their central bank and economy?  Can you imagine how all those nations who have been getting aid without yielding much of anything on their part sat straight up in their chairs?   Nations respect strength and action that shows you will use that strength whenever necessary.

Ron Paul?  Not worth talking about.  His foreign policy always has been a disaster.  Huntsman?  He does have some foreign policy chops but he’s just flat out bland.  Herman Cain was a huge disappointment here in the fact that he didn’t reveal much of anything.  He just deferred and never gave a clear idea of where he might stand except the fact that he would have to talk it over with his cabinet and military brass.  Talk about being indecisive and unprepared.

Mitt Romney had a big stumble today, or I should say the Romney campaign.  Now Mitt I thought had a very solid performance last night and he conveyed strength in his positions of what he would do when the moderators posed questions to him.  However, a very curious thing happened.  When the MSM tried to twist the brilliance of Perry’s ideas that were affirmed by Gingrich by throwing a question like “Does this mean Israel too (wink wink)” and then talking all about it on Twitter afterward, guess what happened.  Via Erin McPike of Real Clear Politics:

Rick Perry forcefully reasserted himself in the GOP presidential contest Saturday night during a foreign policy debate here, an event that came on the heels of a string of sloppy — and even embarrassing — debate performances by the onetime front-runner….

They also discussed at length how foreign aid should be dispatched going forward, with several of the leading candidates backing a new idea that Perry put forth.

Two of the Texas governor’s chief rivals for the nomination, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, agreed with him on what appeared to be an off-the-cuff, but conservative, approach to foreign aid: Start all countries at zero and then make each explain why it deserves more. A follow-up question, however, forced Perry to backpedal somewhat on U.S. aid to Israel. (I wouldn’t call that a backpedal.  Of course Israel is a reliable ally.  Perry’s position forces examination of our foreign aid to “allies” who may be suspect.)

“Obviously, Israel is a special ally, and my bet is that we would be funding them at some substantial level. But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case,” Perry said. His campaign followed that comment by issuing a seven-paragraph statement detailing the candidate’s commitment to Israel, something he has been consistent about throughout his political career.

Still, Gingrich backed up Perry’s principle. He pointed to Egypt and questioned why it should receive $3 billion before it even starts thinking about how the money will be used. Each country should be told, “Explain to me why we need to give you a penny,” he said.

Later in the program, Romney also agreed with the proposal. But after the debate, his advisers backtracked and insisted he only meant he agreed with respect to Pakistan, in part because it is a divided nuclear power that necessitates a careful approach.

That was not the only exchange that required some clarification from Romney’s team. He’s also struggled to explain his stance on the war in Afghanistan. In the past, he has said he wanted troops to come home as soon as possible, and he later said he disagreed with President Obama’s call to begin pulling them back in the fall of 2012, blasting it as a political decision. And he’s also decried the use of timetables for announcing any drawdown of U.S. troops abroad. During Saturday’s debate, though, he said he agreed with a 2014-based timetable.

Romney foreign policy adviser Rich Williamson, a former Reagan administration official, clarified that the former Massachusetts governor opposed any kind of initial timeline that would notify the Taliban as to when American troops would leave their country and simply suggested that he would defer to military leaders regarding an exit timeline.

I would argue that the boldfaced snippet shows that Romney’s foreign policy would be based on what political impact it could have on his Presidency.  The most recent president we had like that was Bill Clinton who let Osama Bin Laden get away because of the political ramifications it could have had on his presidency.  Still, this is consistent with Romney the man.  He’s a politician first.  If something threatens his job as a politician, he’ll likely kick the can down the road to the next president that is elected just to keep his job at that present time.  “I’ll take action so long as I can be guaranteed that my approval ratings won’t go below 50%.”  That’s some serious backbone there (sarcasm of course).  Being president means you make hard decisions, even if some might be unpopular or could be.

There are only two strong leaders in this presidential contest as the foreign policy debate showed last night.  If they are strong abroad, they most certainly will be regarding domestic policy.  That would be Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.

I was very pleasantly surprised by Rick Perry’s handling of a subject tonight that I thought he would have been weakest in.  His first two answers in response to questions regarding shutting down Iran’s central bank and starting from $0 in foreign aid to every country set the tone.  After that, all of the candidates were following Rick Perry.  His answers indicated that the U.S. would delegate from a position of strength and no longer being business as usual with countries we give aid to.  His answer also related to zero-based budgeting with all government agencies was another home run.  That’s a strong leader that was on display tonight.

It is only one debate.  But I must say, thank you Rick Perry for that performance tonight.  I really needed that.  Now, to quote Harrison Ford from Star Wars “Great kid!  Don’t get cocky!”  One debate at a time.

I hope and pray Rick Perry builds some much needed momentum with future debate performances like he had tonight.  May the Perry campaign rise like the phoenix from the ashes.

To every Gingrich, Romney, Perry and Cain supporter on here:  Drop your swords and stop fighting each other.  It serves no purpose but to distract and deflect attention away from who we should be fighting.  You know that to be the current leader of our country that resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  To each of the presidential candidates and their campaigns: YOU CAN STOP THIS NOW AS WELL.

The unraveling of the accusations against Herman Cain

This thing just stinks to high heaven the more you connect the dots and dig into the accusers’ backgrounds:  Via Hot Air:

Sharon Bialek’s fiance — who said he is her primary source of financial support — is unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy, according to Lake County court documents reviewed Tuesday by the Tribune. And in Cook County, lawsuits show she has been targeted by creditors who claimed she owed them thousands in unpaid rent, personal loans and credit card bills…

Her fiance, Mark Harwood, told the Tribune on Monday that Bialek did not have any current money problems. Harwood, who records show recently left his job in the medical equipment industry, said he supports her financially so she can stay at home with her 13-year-old son.

In court proceedings between Harwood and his ex-wife, Patricia, her lawyers stated last month that Harwood was unemployed and preparing to file for bankruptcy. Harwood could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Keep in mind that Bielak has hired Gloria Allred, a notorious attorney, prominent Democratic donor, who engaged in similar tactics of raising public suspicion and doubt to upend the gubernatorial candidacy of Meg Whitman in California most recently.

Then in regards to Karen Kraushaar:

Meanwhile, Ed already mentioned that Kraushaar filed a separate job complaint when she worked for the INS in 2003, but here’s a little more from ABC that emerged after he published his post: (Italics mine.  Curious how ABC scrambled to get a second opinion after Ed Morrissey pointed this out.)

Kraushaar’s former supervisor at the INS, who was named in Kraushaar’s complaint, characterized the 2003 complaint to ABC News as “frivolous,” and said Kraushaar may have been offered a few extra sick days as compensation.

The supervisor alleged that Kraushaar had a “poor work ethic.”

The supervisor, a self-described Democrat, decided to speak out about Kraushaar’s complaint because of “doubts about her credibility.”

Maria Cardona, who also supervised Kraushaar at INS, told CNN that Kraushaar was an “ideal employee,” and said her credibility was “beyond reproach.”

“She was the utmost professional, one of the hardest working individuals I have ever known,” said Cardona, “the consummate team player.”

Nothing like the mainstream media doing Obama’s dirty work.  And by the way, thanks a lot Mark Block for sticking your foot in your mouth again by saying that Kraushaar’s son worked at Politico.   Stumbles like this make false stories like this gain an air of truth in the public’s eye.

Take this for what it is worth.  Private investigator’s voice lie detector states that Herman Cain is innocent and Sharon Bielak is full of crap.

A cunning, devious lot the Obama campaign is

It wasn’t Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Paul, or any other GOP candidate’s campaign that leaked the “scandal” to Politico.  The dots are all connecting to the Obama campaign, and in particular, David Axelrod.  Via Ann Coulter at Human Events:

Herman Cain? has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.

So it’s curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod?.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O’Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O’Grady’s name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain’s personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we’ve suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of … Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod’s very building? Right again: Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

…..The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

That is WAY too many coincidences.  Coulter wraps it up with a devastating closer.

This time, Obama’s little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

I think it is that and a whole lot more (Obamacare, America’s disgust with typical politicians, and other things that make Cain favorable.)  The whole article alone is well worth the read.  Plus the fact that Cain is more than capable of going head-to-head in a debate format with Obama.

The Obama machine is very actively trying to create an war in the GOP voter base while keeping attention away from Obama’s awful record of incompetence and arrogance.  The mainstream media have been complicit with this in their debate questioning and baiting the GOP candidates to fight each other.  It looks like finally after seeing last night’s debate that the GOP candidates woke up and realized what really is going on.  These candidates would be well served to honor Reagan’s 11th commandment, tout their records and experience and let the chips fall where they may.  May the best candidate win.  The conservative movement and the rest of the GOP base would be well served to do the same.

We have been fighting the wrong opponent all along.  It’s not the opponent(s) of our preferred candidate for the GOP nod, it is President Obama.

Read More →

B-R-U-T-A-LNot depressed, just flat out disappointed.  The Perry campaign is all but over.  I just don’t see how he recovers from this.  As ardent of a supporter of Perry I have been, I have to call it like it is.  So, we’re left with three candidates.

1. A candidate who is the darling of the GOP establishment that is the Republican version of John Kerry.  One who takes both sides of every position and is a politician in the absolute purest sense of the word, meaning he stands for absolutely nothing but his own selfish ambition.  One whose legislation was used as the model for Obamacare.  If you weren’t paying attention to the results in Ohio regarding Issue 3 — the Health Care Freedom Act and its resounding approval by voters, electing this candidate would take one of the GOP’s strongest cards that they have to play against Obama in the upcoming election.  Romneycare justifies Obamacare, plain and simple.  It would eliminate a very potent weapon.
2. A candidate whom though is a brilliant debater and very knowledgeable of what faces this country and policy, yet has had affairs in the past which in regards to the women vote — a line from the movie “The Family Man” sums it up best:  “You make a deposit other than at the Fidelity Bank and Trust (marriage), they close your account for good.”  Not to mention one who has reclined on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.
3. A candidate who is unsoiled by the politics of Washington, great debater, somewhat knowledgeable on the works of Washington, yet has no idea what is going on in Italy, has multiple gaffes, cannot defend a scandal(which is revealing to be more bogus as the day goes along/mini-crisis) not even close to those he will have to no doubt face when he is president, and uses a deflection of “999″ repeatedly when he is stumped.

Yeah, it sucks for me right now.  We have no good candidates.  Those whom are probably wishing or half-wishing they had taken the plunge right now are Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, heck..maybe even Marco Rubio.  Each candidate, particularly the first two, hail from critical regions/states in this election. Personally, right now I’d rather go with Herman Cain just so I can flip the biggest possible bird to the GOP establishment and mainstream media who have been so hell bent on discrediting a decent man with a great story.  If Cain fired Mark Block and got a good campaign staff and organization under him, he may even stand a chance of winning.  Sure, the “scandal” has done harm with Herman Cain among women voters.  I just don’t see how, though Newt Gingrich is quite the brilliant politician, that a candidate who has had affairs stands a chance with the women’s vote in the general election, let alone the GOP primary in which a big part of the base is evangelical Christian.  Can women forgive Newt if Newt came and apologized publicly for his behavior?  The chances are against it. In closing, I want to point out something to remember back to that conservatives can still play to their advantage.  Remember when Rick Perry was running away with the race when he entered and how Karl Rove and the establishment were all up in arms?  They wanted Paul Ryan or Chris Christie to jump in…desperately.  The GOP is desperate to take back the presidency and will do anything to win it.  Conservatives still have leverage in this race.  If it becomes apparent that conservatives unite behind Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich, candidates that the establishment don’t think can beat Obama, things may get interesting.  That is the nightmare scenario for Mitt Romney.  Surprise candidate entering the race a little less than 2 months before the Iowa caucus happens?  Chances are very slim…but not totally out of the question. (sigh)

Uh oh

Keep in mind that PPP is the pollster for leftist blog Daily Kos.  However, their polling tends to be fairly good and accurate on the final few days prior to an election.  According to people on the ground in Ohio, the unions have been running some very….emotion evoking ads.  You know the type.  How the claims like “we have to provide our kids the best education possible” is a selfish cloak for public workers wanting to continue to burden taxpayers.

If John Kasich hasn’t done so yet (I wouldn’t know), John Kasich is going to have to do as Scott Walker did with explaining to the people of Wisconsin what would happen if collective bargaining legislation was not in effect.  He’ll simply have to tell Ohioans that if SB 5 is repealed a.k.a. Issue 2 is voted down, they will have to choose between higher taxes or massive teacher layoffs so the government can square away its budget.  I don’t think Governor Kasich would raise taxes but he’ll definitely pink slip a lot of teachers and this will create bigger class sizes.  Obviously the unions would really holler about this as they did in Wisconsin.

However, bottom line is that this is simply what the economic consequences and actions of these votes will demand.  Unless Ohio wants to go the way of Illinois or California, then Issues 2 and 3 must be approved by the voters.

You can find out more about what lies at stake in Ohio here.

Vote YES on Issues 2 and 3 November 8th.

I just didn’t know about Herman Cain though I really liked him a lot.  No matter how slimy and anything but solid journalism by Politico, the way Herman Cain and his campaign reacted to this crisis was downright awful.

There was one thing that I learned about Herman Cain from this whole thing, he doesn’t handle a crisis well at all.  If he cannot handle a crisis of this magnitude, what makes one think he can handle a crisis of a much larger magnitude as President?

This is a very, very important skill for a president to have.  Gingrich has handled his “right-wing social engineering” crisis well.  Perry has handled his “heartless” foot in the mouth soundly as well.  I would have been happy to vote for Cain had he handled this “scandal” well and weathered the storm to the nomination.  Heck, I’ve given him plenty of the benefit of the doubt with his other gaffes he has had in interviews.  This pretty much settled the question in my mind if Cain is up to the task of leading our nation.  One thing I have never understood.  Why has Cain and his campaign been so toxic toward Perry which goes back before this scandal broke?  I don’t understand this.  Perry never has said a bad word about Cain at least to my knowledge.  Didn’t Curt Anderson work for Romney in the past well?

Though Cain is still leading in the polling nationally, one cannot help but notice that Gingrich keeps creeping upwards.  Check out the latest from Rasmussen.  He’s in the mid-teens and a solid third place.  We all know of Gingrich’s personal baggage he has had in the past but he has tried to right himself sincerely by observation and statements he has made publicly.  Barring Newt’s personal baggage and his couch moment with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, he is a fantastic candidate.  Very knowledgeable on all topics and subjects important to qualifying someone to be president, articulate, excellent debater and speaker, former congressman and Speaker of the House.

The other choice obviously is Rick Perry.  His only drawback is his ineffectiveness as a debater.  The immigration issue and Gardisil are only distraction issues that he has addressed and explained.  He doesn’t have any personal baggage, is a three-term governor with plenty of executive experience, and is for the most part is a solid conservative.  The one thing that strikes me about Perry is his unabashed consistency in holding fast to what he stands for.  You know where you stand with Perry.  The same can be said about Gingrich for the most part as well.

In closing,  Mitt Romney is praying that Cain stays in the race, heck he is praying that the conservative bloc doesn’t unite around and choose a candidate prior to the Iowa caucuses in January.  The more the conservative candidates, the better his chances.  It is a timing issue with Iowa.  If Cain can hold enough of his standing in Iowa to fragment the vote between Perry and Gingrich, Romney could sneak out a win in Iowa.

Right now, my money is on Perry winning Iowa if Cain falls as expected because of the lack of personal baggage that Gingrich has and his experience with agricultural issues.  The one real wild card here is where the Cain voters will go as Erick alluded to earlier.  It may come down to if the Cain voters believe or don’t believe that the Perry campaign was in the shadows leaking the Cain scandal to Politico.

We must choose and unite behind our candidate by early December.  Will it be Perry or Gingrich?

Folks, I really hope he starts gaining his feet again.  The longer he stays in the race, the better he is going to get.  The plans that Perry is putting out are solid and simple to understand.  These plans will not be difficult to articulate and sell to the American public.  Also, they are simple enough that he will be able to debate effectively without having to cram in debate preparation.

The latest:

KEY POINTS

1. The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.  This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.  .
2. My plan restores American competitiveness in the global marketplace and provides strong incentives for U.S.-based employers to build new factories and create thousands of jobs here at home. First, we will lower the corporate tax rate to 20%—dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to a rate on par with our global competitors. Second, we will encourage the swift repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the rate to 5.25%. And third, we will transition to a “territorial tax system”—as seen in Hong Kong and France, for example—that only taxes in-country income.  The mind-boggling complexity of the current tax code helps large corporations with lawyers and accountants devise the best tax-avoidance strategies money can buy. That is why Cut, Balance and Grow also phases out corporate loopholes and special-interest tax breaks to provide a level playing field for employers of all sizes.
   
3. To help older Americans, we will eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, boosting the incomes of 17 million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings. We will eliminate the tax on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains to free up the billions of dollars Americans are sitting on to avoid taxes on the gain….Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.
4. ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley must be quickly repealed and, if necessary, replaced by market-oriented, common-sense measures.  America must also once and for all face up to entitlement reform. To preserve benefits for current and near-term Social Security beneficiaries, my plan permanently stops politicians from raiding the program’s trust fund. Congressional IOUs are no substitute for workers’ Social Security payments. We should use the federal Highway Trust Fund as a model for protecting the integrity of a pay-as-you-go system.
5. Cut, Balance and Grow strikes a major blow against the Washington-knows-best mindset. It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.

Simple and fantastic.  The article is worth the read.  It doesn’t pander, broadens the tax base, and gets Washington out of the way.  Of course the Democrats will say that this is going to increase the burden on the poor, blah, blah, blah.  There was a devastating and subtle point that Perry makes it very hard for the Democrats to use this age old playing card in case you missed it:  The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate.  The fact is that current Democratic policies have made it impossible for the poor to be employed.  The plan encourages and gives incentive to people to work hard and creates a wonderful environment for employers to hire.

In closing, I have made up my mind.  I’m going to stick with Rick Perry.  It simply is because of the fact that he is and has been the most consistent in his core convictions though he has had his stumbles.  The main thing is that there is never a doubt or question in my mind where he stands.  I can’t say the same for Herman Cain.  I just hope, and will pray for him, that he starts gaining his feet on the debate stage.

As this presidential nomination fight is heading into the election year, the above question really will be the determining factor in whom the GOP voter will cast their vote for to take on Barack Obama.  There is no question that all the candidates have noticeable flaws, some more than most.  But in the end, who really is best?  The final four candidates that I am seeing for the GOP nomination are:  Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich.  Not really a bad field to choose from.  Not lets take a look at the following candidates:

Mitt Romney

I have made no qualms about my reservations about Mitt.  By all observation, he seems to be a self-ambitious public servant with an aristocratic streak, willing to say anything to be elected.  Harsh?  Maybe, yet truth in most cases never is gentle.  So here is Mitt’s baggage.

Support for global warming, ethanol subsidies, abortion flip flopping, Romneycare that Obamacare was modeled after, and recently questions with immigration that Rick Perry brought to light in recent debate.

Mitt’s record yields to a classical big tent political campaign for the presidency.  John McCain tried this in 2008 and got slaughtered.  This is the establishment’s flawed political model.  They are trying to control the outcome, manufacture a result.  They don’t like it when they cannot control the outcome.  And yet they are blinded that by adopting this political model, trying to dictate the outcome, that they do so at the cost of courage and principle.  They are banking that the conservative bloc will fall in line.  This isn’t happening anymore.  They would be well served to remember that the last president not to adopt this approach was Ronald Reagan.  What both of these men do not realize that the GOP’s power and enthusiasm lives with the conservative bloc.  If you alienate them by trying to reach across the middle, you will not be able to increase your support and stagnate at a certain level.  This is because there is no enthusiasm for the campaign.  Voters who hold their nose to vote for someone at the polls won’t be motivated to tell their friends who they are voting for and most importantly, generate that enthusiasm for their candidate to their friends and family.

One thing that I do wonder about.  Mitt Romney had the misfortune of being governor in a state where the opposing party had supermajorities.  I wonder how he would be with a GOP Senate and Congress.  History seems to indicate he would placate to the other side to try to retain his political office.  George W. Bush redux would then take place.

Rick Perry

The other very well funded candidate of this field.  My initial pick for the GOP nod.  Three-time governor of Texas who has passed conservative issues like torm reform, has increased jobs, and balanced budgets with keeping spending down.  The perfect candidate on the surface because his record is strongest where the election of 2012 really is about:  Jobs and the economy.  Perry does have his baggage:

Terrible debater who doesn’t think very well on his feet, Gardisil, and an apparent Achilles’ heel in the form of immigration.

Perception and impression is very important in politics.  Seeing Perry’s performances in these debates with save the exception of maybe the most recent has made me wince at the thought of him debating Obama.  The last thing we need is a candidate who will make Obama look good.

I consider Gardisil a non-issue now.  Perry felt very strongly about this issue but pulled back when the legislature challenged him.  This shows that Perry does listen and has restraint.  It also shows that he does keep his ego in check as well.

Immigration?  He hasn’t handled this well.  Also, he does appear to be like George W. Bush by mirroring the belief of compassionate conservatism.  Calling the people who will be voting for you who don’t agree with you heartless is a terrible gaffe of enormous proportion.  I don’t have a problem with someone wanting to immigrate to this country.   However, they have to play by the laws.  That means going through the legal process of becoming a citizen of this country.  Those whom try to shortcut the process by not following the laws are more likely to not abide by our country’s other laws.  So what if it takes a long time.  I’m actually glad it does.  It tests their commitment to see if they really are serious about wanting to become a citizen of this country.  I really like Rick, but he really has some difficult things to overcome.  The Flat Tax rollout could very well resuscitate his campaign.  We’ll see.

Herman Cain

What a great story this guy is.  Cancer survivor, not a politician, successful businessman, strong conservative, highly educated, great speaker and debater, bold ideas.  He does have some baggage:

Small infrastructure and organization, not a lot of money, and a bad case of sticking his foot in his mouth.  Poor answers with statements in interviews which indicates either a lack of discretion, poor answers that confuse voters as far as where his convictions lie and answers that highly reveal his lack of inexperience in the biggest political battle any politician will wage.

I really like Herman Cain.  However, I don’t know if he’ll ever catch fire from a fundraising standpoint.  It also does concern me how he will perform if he winds up winning the nomination.  I do have real concerns with him but, I just don’t know.  That just tells me how much of a wildcard that he really is.

Newt Gingrich

This guy is about skilled a debater, speaker, campaigner, and knowledgeable politician as they come.  He has been for the most part a solid conservative for many years.  He has had a lot of great ideas and has crossed swords with many a formidable foe.  However, he does have his flaws.  In this case I will yield this to an incredible diary and hat tip to wonkish1.  Also, some wonderful insight for the case for Newt is in another diary right here by J Leg.

Newt does have a particular problem with fundraising right now and his “right wing social enginnering” comment which undercut Paul Ryan a while back hurt his campaign a lot.  However, Newt has rebuilt himself quite well with his debate performances and now his platform rollout is getting some buzz.

If I had to make a guess right now, I would probably be leaning towards Newt Gingrich right now and I sure won’t vote for Romney in the primary but would swallow hard and vote for him in the general election.  I do know a LOT of GOP voters will not do so though.  I just relish the potential thought of a Gingrich/Rubio ticket and watching both those guys debate Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  That should make a liberal cringe. However, things could change.  January is not far away but a lot can still happen.  It is going to be an interesting couple of months.

DOH!

Sometimes it is the most unexpected of moments that can turn the tide and reveal a man’s true character what we all suspected he is.  This seemingly unnoticeable slip that was caused by a well prepared attack by Rick Perry is an advertising nuclear bomb waiting to be detonated on the Romney campaign.  Mitt Romney is like Barack Obama in a way.  Just an ambitious politician willing to say anything whose sole purpose is to get to the top of the political Mount Everest of American government.  If something threatens that while they are running for office, this must be covered up as soon as possible.  One has to think “Well, so it is okay to employ illegals in private business when he’s not running for office?”  This is a two-pronged dagger which will not sit well with conservative voters and the Hispanic vote though each for different reasons.

If Rick Perry doesn’t win the nomination, at the very least he’ll spend his war chest making sure Mitt Romney doesn’t win the nomination

Up until last night, every candidate had their crosshairs on Rick Perry.  It wasn’t disheartening that they were attacking Perry, it was disheartening to conservatives yet pleasing to the GOP establishment kingmakers that they were focusing on the wrong target.  Take out Romney first by training your guns on him and then let the rest of the conservatives duke it out for the nomination, much to the chagrin of the establishment.  Granted, Perry has been awful in the debates.  Last night he was noticeably better.  An interesting possibility is emerging from last night’s debate.

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney will likely slug it out during the GOP nomination.  It has been suggested, and rightfully so, that Mitt Romney benefits from having as many conservative candidates duking it out to keep the most powerful bloc in the GOP fractured.  Rick Perry’s chances of getting back to the top are very, very slim.  However, win or lose, he could wind up being a hero for conservatives because he has the means to drain Romney’s support with his massive cash to slam Romney with attack ads.  This would let the men with the short stacks being Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich get the nomination if Perry is unsuccessful.

When a solid majority of Americans blame the government, not Wall Street, for our country’s woes, then the candidate who is anti-government by not being corrupted by having political office would seem to be the most attractive and best candidate.  Given these political factors, things are pointing toward the GOP nomination of Herman Cain for President of the United States.  I wouldn’t be unhappy about that at all.  Just some polishing up on his foreign policy chops, a little more discretion in his statements, and we have a great candidate with a great story.  He just needs to catch fire from a fundraising standpoint.

I’m still having a hard time reconciling how Perry let himself get sucked into talking about immigration rather than focusing on the main issue of this election: Jobs, the economy and government spending.  This is Perry’s wheelhouse given his record in Texas.  To say he has been a disappointment is an understatement.

In closing, I don’t want to settle for whoever seems to be the most electable, can reach across the aisle, and skim independent and fiscal Democrat votes.  This worked well for George W. Bush until conservatives wised up to it in 2006.  That was tried with John McCain in 2008 and he got slaughtered in part because a substantial portion of GOP voters stayed home.  We will need all the voters on the right for this fight in 2012.  We’ll do that by nominating a conservative candidate, not a career politician who will say anything to get elected.

Watch out for Herman Cain.

That straw poll in Florida wasn’t a Ron Paul style hijacking, it was an eye opener.  For a man who made some misinformed comments and was left for dead a few months ago, suddenly has new life and people are taking another look at him.  Here are some observations:

1. Cain doesn’t have the baggage of Mitt Romney and Rick Perry from the standpoint that both governors passed legislation that the people of their states wanted but are at odds with national opinion.  Mitt Romney with Romneycare and John Kerry-like flip-flopping on a host of other issues, Rick Perry with immigration and issuing executive orders that appear to try to circumvent the Texas legislature.  I would argue that Perry could do a better job of presenting and rebutting on this issue as well as the Gardisal issue but unfortunately he has not.  The result is that he has likely lost his dominant lead that he once had.  I really like Rick Perry and have been in his camp just prior to his announcement of his candidacy.   I have not been happy with his performances and doubt about him has crept in my mind.  If he debates like that against Obama, he is toast.  His campaign is taking on water and his staff better right his ship quickly.
2. All three men are very good speakers.  Romney is also a solid debater and Perry at least thus far has not been.  Cain is a fantastic debater.  This is the second time that Cain has breathed life into his campaign by a debate performance.
3. Cain and Perry are wonderful campaigners.  Romney is not.  He runs his campaigns being isolated for the most part.  I cannot believe he didn’t make a harder push to win the straw poll in Florida.  I understand why he didn’t in Ames, but Florida is a must win state for him so it would stand to reason that he would have made a better effort.  Big political blunder by Romney.
4. Cain is a solid conservative.  He hasn’t ever had his conservatism put to the test by having to either veto or pass legislation that could test his fortitude to remain true to his principles in the face of public opposition.  This is actually an advantage.  While Rick Perry and Mitt Romney may holler “Not fair!”, they voted in favor of legislation that put them at odds with national opinion.  This poses a stinging, double-edged question to both of them:  “Were you voting to keep your job in political office and willing to sacrifice conservative principles to do it?”  My goodness, being a public servant is tough.  Ronald Reagan had to get vetted as well for some things he did as governor at California as well.  Barack Obama pushed Obamacare against majority public opposition and stands to lose the presidency over the economic damage this legislation has cost and will cost this country in the future.
5. Cain is uncorrupted by never having served in government and being pressured to cater to lobbyists to fund his campaign.  With big political donors propping up campaigns, comes obligations to pay back later.  That’s politics folks.  Whether you like it or not, it is what happens in both political parties nowadays.  All the big money is going to Obama, Romney and Perry.  Cain is pure grassroots, a campaign funded by ordinary Americans.  If Cain looks to win the GOP nod, those big donors will come in but Cain will listen to the people first since they were the ones who spurred his campaign on.
6. Electability — Once people hear and learn more about Herman Cain, his inspiring story, his optimism, and his message, I would argue he stands as good a shot as Perry and Romney have of beating Obama should he win the nomination.  Yeah, I said it.  Herman Cain could win.

In closing, it looks like we’re back to the same predicament with conservative candidates fracturing the vote enough for Mitt Romney to squeak out a win for the nomination.  But there is a lingering question in my mind…..

Why are we not behind Herman Cain?

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.)

Anyone have any doubts whom the clear frontrunner for the nomination is now.  Rick Perry had a great big bulls-eye targeted on him tonight and every candidate had him in the crosshairs, including non-candidates. A short summation:

Michelle Bachmann was actually very good tonight, much more forceful.  The problem is that her campaign is fading badly.  Rick Perry’s entry into the race completely nuked her chances.  Her, Rick Santorum and later Sarah Palin’s tag team on the Gardisil issue created some good attack optics that may be good for the short-term.  The problem is that Rick Perry has already admitted his mistake and dropped the issue.  It is funny how it is neglected to be mentioned that there was an opt-out provision in this legislative bill should it have passed.  It is the classic “Making a mountain out of a mole hill” attack.  Sarah Palin’s follow up to Michelle Bachmann’s attack was particularly pathetic.  Though Perry’s response that he could be bought off for so little was insulting could be taken the wrong way, to accuse someone of being a crony capitalist because a company that stood to gain the most from passage of the legislation paid a whopping $5000 contribution to persuade Governor Perry to sign the legislation is quite weak indeed.  I wonder if Sarah Palin knew about this before endorsing Perry for Governor in the last election.

Perry’s rebuttal of Mitt Romney’s Social Security attack was excellent.  His use of Romney’s book against him was particularly effective.  However, the biggest and most unpleasant surprise was Perry’s stand on immigration.  Providing in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants is endorsing lawlessness, plain and simple.  It also undercuts of those who have honestly and forthrightly followed the legal path to become an American citizen.   Granted, it takes years to become a citizen of this country.  The road is hard and long but it does test the commitment, resolve and character of the prospective citizen to ensure that they will be law-abiding citizens of our great nation.   If they cannot abide by the laws of becoming a citizen, it stands to reason they are likely not to follow the laws of our country.  This could be a shrewd political move by Perry to get some Hispanic votes in his corner.   I’m still in Perry’s corner, but I do disagree strongly with him on this issue.

Mitt was Mitt.  Very polished, very steady.  Problem is that I just don’t believe the man is genuine and have no idea where his true convictions lie.  Newt Gingrich has performed very, very well in the debates.  The others?  I don’t have an opinion because they are irrelevant now.  Michelle Bachmann is fast approaching this point.  I don’t see how she claws her way back.

This race is still Rick Perry’s to lose.

Harsh?  Not really.  The ship has already sailed but she has lead her supporters on for too long.  Ace pretty much nails it:

Remember, she’s going to give you an “adult conversation,” rich in detail, unlike other poltiicians, who speak in “vague generalities.”

This speech was said to be two things, and hinted to a third.

First, it was supposed to be a “major announcement.” If there was a major announcement here, I missed it entirely.

Second, it was supposed to be a “full-throated defense of the Tea Party.” It wasn’t. It was platitudes and bromides sprinkled with flattering the crowd.

What would a “full-throated (and “major”) defense of the Tea Party” sound like? Well, for one, I’d think it should be persuasive to non-Tea Partiers. For another, I think it would be thoughtful, rather than off-the-cuff standard flatteries. For a third, I think it should be novel or new.

I could imagine a good speech about the Tea Party. I could imagine a speech going all the way back to the Town Halls during and after the Revolutionary War, when citizens were actually engaged in what their government and their country would be. I could imagine a speech detailing the patriotic conscientiousness of making sure that what was won by blood should not be lost by disregard.

And I could imagine such a speech noting that for decades, American citizens had largely abandoned this commitment to engagement with their own political fates, and a Media-Government Elite filled the vacuum, and over time, became less and less connected with the citizens they were supposedly serving.

And I could imagine a speech then noting that this Elite, having gotten cozy deciding the fate of the nation, reacts hysterically and angrily when citizens decide they want to take back their God-given right to decide the course of human events for themselves, viciously attacking Americans who had the audacity to say “We’re taking our responsibilities as citizens seriously again, after too long leaving it them to you, those who craved power and assumed it and now cry like stuck animals when we attempt to take back what was always ours.”

Maybe you don’t think that’s good. Maybe that strikes you as pedestrian and done to death.

But if you’re going to claim a “full throated defense of the Tea Party,” shouldn’t there be something beyond the typical praise of the “workin’ man” and the standard-issue statements that we’re the ones who actually produce wealth?

That stuff is true. But it’s unremarkable. Certainly it fails to live up to the advance billing.

Third, what was implied was that Palin would make an announcement about her candidacy. She hinted about this “See you on September 3rd!,” a campaign-like commercial promised.

And she never said publicly, “Although I am giving a policy speech, I will not be making any kind of declaration on September 3rd.” Such a statement was leaked by “sources close to the governor,” but is there something “unconservative” about simply making one’s plans known?

So that other people don’t waste their time?

Instead, after the encouragement of interest, and the cultivation of speculation about what that “major announcement” might be, it was a very standard-issue and not-particularly-important or novel stump speech.

Some might find this sort of coyness and games-playing “brilliant” or the like. I don’t.

Some may claim she “played a trick on the media.” Yes, the media. And everyone else too.

Tough words on someone I really like, but true nonetheless.  In retrospect, I wish she had stayed on as governor in Alaska, fight through the frivolous lawsuits regarding ethics that libs were filing against her, keep her mouth shut instead of complaining about media bias, and put some seasoning on her record as governor.  Too late for that now.  Playing these games are just going to drive her negatives up more.  Better to endorse and be actively involved in helping congressional and presidential candidates in the 2012 elections if she wants to salvage her rapidly shrinking political relevance.

Nothing like a poll that acts as bug spray making the establishment cockroaches scatter.

Here’s what GOP “insiders” who lost badly in 2006 and 2008 because they were gutless in sticking with conservative principles are saying:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry may be surging in polls of Republican primary voters, but his party’s Insiders aren’t convinced he’d be the best general election candidate. More than two-thirds of Republican Insiders say Mitt Romney has a better chance than Perry of defeating President Obama in 2012, according to this week’s National Journal Political Insiders Poll…

Here’s the problem with this totally erroneous mindset.  The establishment is still stuck with ancient political tactics that came about with an asleep and apathetic people.  Now that people are really paying attention and are highly concerned with the direction of the country, political tactics don’t work anymore.  Conviction politicians are the name of the game now.  Those whom stick to their convictions will be elected to represent us.  Those whom do not, will not.

I wonder if it ever occured to all these strategists that typically when one tries to manipulate a victory by democraphic analysis, it doesn’t end well in the long term scheme of things.  Maybe having a conservative candidate like Rick Perry will insure incredible turnout of the GOP base as the base will be motivated by enthusiasm, and anxiety.  He has the best record on the two most important issues of this election.  It’s all about jobs and the size of government and the economic burdens that it creates on our society.  This ridiculous notion that somehow independents and moderates cannot vote for a conservative candidate is hogwash.  Last time I checked, Barack Obama had only 30-35% support among independents.  To think that they will stampede back to Obama if Perry is the nominee?   Pffffft.  They will stampede to the candidate that has a record of creating jobs and Rick Perry has an awesome record at that.

It has been truly amazing to witness the ferocity of the MSM, Democrats and the establishment GOP trying to take Rick Perry down since he announced his run for the presidency.  From activist parents coaching their kids to ask Perry trap questions to GOP congressmen telling Perry to tone down his unabashed rhetoric, to crazy columnists going off the deep end.  There is no need for me to link anything that has been going on.  You have seen it all.

Rick Perry was pushed into this race prominently by conservative voters whom were unhappy with the field.  This of course has truly upset the GOP establishment and political operatives whom have axes to grind due to having their butts handed to them by Perry in past elections.  It has also likely upset the establishment’s pecking order of whom really has the best chance of winning the presidency and terrified them of being frozen out of a Perry presidency.

The latest tactics seem to try to press other potential candidates like Chris Christie and Paul Ryan to run whom I believe are well served by staying where they are at.  Heck, the establishment would love Sarah Palin to enter since it would direct the enthusiasm that GOP voters have for Rick Perry right now.  This would likely serve to blunt the runaway momentum that Perry has generated this past week with his campaign’s superb roll out.  The more candidates that enter, the more fragmented the base becomes which would make it easy for an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney to win the nomination.  You see, though Romney is polling well right now, people just cannot get excited about him.   He’s not exactly a candidate that inspires me and other voters and the establishment may be coming to that realization.

Rick Perry has a marvelous story to tell.  He was not born into privilege.  His humble beginnings and upbringing make it impossible for Democrats to claim that Rick Perry is just another silver spoon Republican candidate.  He is not shy about his faith in God, in people to succeed on their own and be responsible human beings, that believe in the foundations of freedom and liberty that have made this country great.  He has an incredible record as governor of Texas for 10 years with a job creation record so astounding that if he was the nominee, how in the world could any Democratic candidate beat him on the number one issue of this election?

If Rick Perry is the GOP nominee for President of the United States, he will be practically impossible to beat

Perry has not been perfect but he is willing to admit when he is wrong on something which is refreshing.  For too long we have lived with groomed establishment candidates and it is apparent that Rick Perry is anything but that.  He and Sarah Palin are the only ones whom can say were not picked by an establishment that always in the end, tries to muzzle them and cut out their legs.  How does the establishment know how independents and moderates will vote?  People follow courage, strength, and fearlessness in people like Rick Perry.  People who let American voters they stand for, their life and political record which validate their principles, and let the chips fall where they may.  The establishment should be reminded that independent voters disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing by a 2 to 1 margin.  Now what makes you think that independent voters are going to flee to re-elect a president who has been disastrous for this country, our economy, and our country’s well being?  I highly doubt they will run away from Rick Perry.  They will likely be drawn to his record of job creation in Texas and realize that there is hope and things will get better again.

Rick Perry is no Ronald Reagan.  He is Rick Perry.  There never will be another Ronald Reagan.  However, I cannot tell you by how impressed I have been with Perry’s showing thus far and how he and his campaign team has handled themselves with the attacks that have been coming from every direction, including that of his own party.  This man should be our nominee for President because he stands for what we believe in and wasn’t hand-selected by the establishment.  The establishment’s attacks against Perry tell me with each passing day that we have our guy.

In closing, I do have one hope and that Perry doesn’t change anything he is doing and that he just keeps being himself.  I don’t want to see him fall into the trap that Michelle Bachmann has apparently fallen into which is micromanaging their actions and settings.  So long as he is his natural self, he will be just fine.

Forward.

Ugh

A Republican member of the powerful, deficit-slashing supercommittee vowed this week that the panel won’t touch benefits under Social Security and Medicare.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said it’s “critical” that current enrollees in those entitlement programs “not see benefit reductions.”

“It’s awfully hard to tell someone … who might be 82, that they’ve gotta go back to work, because their benefits are gonna be chopped,” Upton said Tuesday during a town-hall gathering in Kalamazoo, Mich. “That’s not gonna happen. We’re not gonna allow that to happen.”

It is stupidity like this that has awakened this country’s responsible citizens to their disgust and bleeding out these GOP establishment career congressmen.  Upton is afraid of trying to be portrayed as robbing seniors, etc.  Ah yes, negotiating from a position of fear is never good and has proven to be the GOP’s leadership Achilles’ heel for decades now.  So lets throw down our stake with another untenable starting negotiating position.  The Democrats’ reaction on the Super Committee will dig their heels in regards to future enrollees in with the advantage that Upton just gave them. Sounds a lot like what happened with the debt ceiling compromise bill, doesn’t it?

Fred Upton needs a primary challenger in 2012.