January 03, 2012
(Caucus Day Bump)
— Ace Bumping: Just giving it the college try. I added Perry's closing argument ad at the end.
There are two main sorts of primary voters: Those who know too little, and those who know too much. As for the former -- there's not much I can do about them. They don't read this site, or probably too much of any political source.
Maybe they read Time. Bless their hearts.
The online community consists mainly of the latter -- we know a lot about the candidates, and are each making complicated decisions about trade-offs between electability and agenda (and likelihood of advancing that agenda).
My belief is that we know so much that the secondary and tertiary level things we know are crowding out the primary things we know. That is, that we know a bunch of second- and third- order things and knowing so much is crowding out consideration of the top-level, major bullet-point, controlling facts.
I am in favor of Rick Perry because, while I am informed about the second- and third- orders of information, I remain focused on the first order stuff.
First, biographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits.
Rick Perry did not marry his high school sweetheart. He married his grade school sweetheart. He has never been divorced as as far as I know there haven't been any rocky patches in his relationship.
Those who discount the importance of that, especially to women voters, are making an error, I think.
I can only say so often that the swing voters in the center of the country are among the least-informed voters on the planet. Every survey demonstrates that, despite their claims to be all about "the substance" and "the issues," they know less about the substance and the issues than partisans on either side of the aisle.
Being apolitical, they're not very interested in politics. Stands to reason. This means, then, that they don't read much about politics.
Their decision-making is very superficial. Although I do not think that Newt Gingrich's affairs/divorces history is a disqualifier, I think it cannot be entirely discounted.
Some people think that because the media stressed Obama's intellect in the last election, they will do so again, and thus it is important to have an intellectual like Gingrich as our standard-bearer.
You don't the media very well if you accuse them of consistency. Let me suggest to you that if Gingrich is the nominee, the media will not be stressing intellect and brainpower (as, in their estimation, it's a draw).
No. They will be stressing Obama's faithfulness to his wife and their two beautiful children.
The media stresses whatever attribute the Democratic candidate trumps the Republican one in. In 1992 and 1996, the media ignored the virtue of military service in Republican nominees George Bush (the elder) and Bob Dole, and suggested it was relatively unimportant, championing the greater intellect and ideological flexibility of one William Jefferson Clinton, who, as you might remember, dodged the draft, using political connections to secure a higher draft number.
And yet in 2000, Al Gore was sold as a "veteran" of Vietnam, while George W. Bush was portrayed as a draft-evader, and the same in 2004, when John Forbes Kerry announced that he was "reporting for duty."
Dan Rather did a story about Bush's supposed failure to "report for duty" at the Texas Air National Guard.
I would suggest that we should not get too hung up on fighting the last war, because the media will simply change the rules of engagement. It is true that Gingrich can go toe-to-toe with Obama on policy wonkery; it is also true that that is the very reason the media will lose all interest in intellect as a basis for comparison or qualifier for high office.
Should Gingrich be our nominee, be prepared to do a lot of double-takes as faithfulness and devotion to family suddenly becomes the key trait in a president.
The media will call Rick Perry stupid, of course. And Perry has armed them with weapons to use on this front. However, his gaffes are now several months old, and he hasn't repeated them.
Further, the media has called our candidate "stupid" in every single race where it could be argued the Democratic candidate was a singe IQ point smarter than the Republican one. We're used to that, and we've won elections despite that.
After doing poorly in college, Rick Perry joined the Air Force. Not the guard, either. The actual active-duty Air Force. He is, then, a veteran, if not a combat veteran (as far as I know he never saw any engagement or action, as he was flying big transport planes).
Barack Obama did not serve in the military. That is perhaps the most understated sentence in the history of communications, but since people are interested in drawing contrasts, consider that one.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich did not serve in the military either. I do not wish to attack either man but both were of draftable age during Vietnam.
Both of these men are smart. And they're smarter than Perry. (They're also easily smarter than pampered princeling Barack Obama but the media will never credit them as such.)
And I cannot and will not say that brainpower is unimportant. I would however say that character matters too.
Several other bits and pieces of Rick Perry make him a central-casting type candidate -- I don't know if he grew up poor, per se, but he grew up modest, certainly. His background is that most Heartland of backgrounds -- hardscrabble farmer.
And he's America's longest-serving governor in America's second-largest state. Texas is no tiny little state. It has nearly the populace of California. He's served as governor there for 11 years (and for two years before that, as lieutenant governor).
The media and liberals (but I repeat myself) will attack Perry, predictably, as stupid, but there is a strong rebuttal to such a claim: If he can't perform the duties of Chief Executive, then how is he's been successfully performing the duties of Chief Executive?
America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties.
No job in the world really prepares someone for the Presidency. But one job, more than any other, comes fairly close to doings so.
So Rick Perry cannot handle high executive office?
Then how is it he's been doing just that for 11 years?
(And if you want to object that Texas has a weak-governor system, with a lot of power vested in the lieutenant governor position -- well, they claimed that about George W. Bush, too. And claimed that Rick Perry actually was doing all the hard stuff in his then-position of Lieutenant Governor. So wherever the power lies in Texas, Perry has handled it, in both jobs.)
The stakes in this election are enormous. The next president may well appoint five justices the Supreme Court, essentially choosing our basic jurisprudence for the next 30 years. This will be the presidency in which we make fundamental decisions about debt, and spending, and entitlements. Decisions on those may decide our fiscal policy for the next 20 or 30 years, too.
But while those are the stakes of this election, the election will actually turn on... Jobs.
Unemployment is at 8.6%, with real unemployment around 16%. For the sake of comparison, unemployment during the Great Depression hit 25% at its high. We are not there yet, but we've consistently been at around 9% for years (with real unemployment higher).
Primary voters tend to be strongly ideological. We have very strongly held beliefs about abstract notions of government and "The Good."
But general election voters -- especially those swing voters -- do not have strong opinions about such matters. Otherwise they would be partisans for one camp or another. They tend to be pragmatic, rather than abstract, thinkers. They do not have any prevailing theory of governance, which is what gives them the flexibility to vote for George W. Bush in 2004 and then an all-but-declared socialist four years later.
They care almost entirely about results, because they have no underlying theory that might explain away failures (as Obama's endless theories explain away his failures, at least to his partisans).
I remember that, by the third debate, people were complaining that they were sick of hearing about Texas producing 45% of all jobs created in America the last two years, and sick of hearing that Texas has created one million jobs while America has lost two million plus in the last ten years.
I understand that High Information voters, who knew this before Rick Perry announced it, might be "sick" of hearing about it.
But the fact of the matter is: That should have been said more, not less. So here it is again:
When you get down to it, that is the winning message of this near-depression election cycle.
Other candidates may have theories about their preferred economic system hypothetically producing postulated good outcomes. The ideologue Ron Paul, for example, will regale you with tales about what Austrian Economics might do, were they ever actually put into practice.
Rick Perry can say, "My policy is to have a low tax burden on wealth-creators and a fair and predictable regulatory scheme which does not seek to pick winners and losers, and here is how that has worked out in Texas."
Not theoretical. Not hypothetical. This is what actually happened.
Partisans, being ideological, tend to be over-swayed by expressions of ideological belief. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are champion ideology-slingers.
But what decision or action has either made that has actually had a tangible, measurable, concrete effect on the economy?
Oh they've both "fought" losing battles, casting symbolic votes in their capacity as Congressmen Who Don't Really Do Anything Except Give Speeches.
But what has either actually done?
If you think the unaffiliated, mostly apolitical voters in the center are going to be swayed by full-throated announcements of steadfast ideological commitment, you're guilty of universalizing from your own experience.
If they thought that way, they would not be independents. They would, like you, be declared partisans and ideologically-motivated voters.
Speeches are nice but facts are what change minds. Reagan became a very popular president by his fifth and sixth year. It wasn't because of his ideology and speechifying -- he had the same ideology and said mostly the same thing in speeches when he was at 40% approval in his third and fourth year.
It's because of the fact that the economy was producing jobs by his fifth and six year.
If Reagan had only had good speeches, without good facts to back those speeches up, he would not be an especially fondly remembered president today. In fact, he'd've probably been a one-termer, had the good fact of a rapidly-growing economy not existed when it did (about a year, year and a half before the election).
While some people are focusing on the three total hours of debates in the general election season, I'm focusing on the hundreds of hours of campaign ads stressing the fact of Texas job creation, until people want to hang themselves.
Yes, they'll be sick of it. But they will remember it.
One last point I'd make is that I, and you too, know what Perry's plan is for his first term in office, in a way that you don't know what Romney's is, or Gingrich's is.
What is Romney's plan/theme? Well, he's got a 59 point plan to fix the economy. As they said in The Way of The Gun, a plan is just a list of things that aren't going to happen.
I know his theme is that he's a turnaround guy, and that he'll use his managerial expertise to fix the government.
This theme, of itself, really doesn't tell me what is most important to Romney.
I will say this without fear of contradiction: A president can only really push 3-4 major initiatives in his first term, and 1-2 in his second. By the last half of his second term, he's a lame duck, and is chiefly clocking time and fighting off efforts to undo whatever he's done in the first six years.
Realistically, a president will push for 3-4 big things in his first term, and sometimes not even that.
What are Romney's 3-4 big things? What are the 3-4 big things you know animate him and drive him?
I'm guessing you don't know. I would guess further that Romney doesn't know.
I level the same criticism at Gingrich, who is gaining popularity by pitching a series of policy widgets and Bold New Thinking gadgets which he will never, even if he had three terms, actually pursue.
Illustrative of this is when he was asked if he would consider forgiving college debt. He used the question to note a school in Appalachia which requires students to work 20 hours per week and hence keeps them from acquiring too much debt.
That is an interesting anecdote. It is also irrelevant, unless Newt Gingrich has a plan to compel colleges to implement a similar program. As he's never brought it up again, I assume he does not; so why bring this up at all?
It's an interesting little story. But it's what I expect if we're all sitting around spitballing college bullshit session ideas. I don't expect Newt Gingrich to ever propose something tangible based on this anecdote, and I think most people would be alarmed if he did suggest that federal policy would begin dictating such things to colleges.
Similarly, when asked about health care costs, he eventually (after some stalling) suggested that it was wiser to invest in a vaccine for Polio rather than spending money on iron lungs (for people who suffer from the disease).
I can hardly argue with that. I can also hardly extract any policy guidance from it.
What would Newt actually do in office? I don't know. I know his theme is "Bold, Fundamentally-Transformative Ideas," but I"m not sure what on earth these ideas are.
Does he have 3-4 ideas his mind is set on? Or does he have 100, 96 of which will never be pursued, and we are to guess which his actual Core Four will be?
The latter, I think.
I think Gingrich and Romney are both pushing managerial skill here, essentially arguing "We can do more with less, if we think about government in a smarter way." I agree with that to some extent, but I don't think this is the year for just promising to "work smarter." I think this is the year to seriously question if government should be doing so much (and doing so poorly at what it does).
I think this is the year to stop saying "We can afford that if we use our resources in a smarter way" and start saying "No, we're not going to do that."
I do know Perry's Core Four. Although he's gotten a bit spasmodic lately in pitching new ideas as he tries to secure constituencies for his ailing campaign, his Core Four is what he announced right out of the gate:
1. Keep taxes as low as possible, because citizens spend money wisely and create new wealth when permitted to use their money as they wish.
2. Keep the regulatory climate "fair and predictable" and overturn new attempts by the government to micromanage private enterprise.
3. Start producing energy here in America, rather than purchasing it from countries which are often hostile.
4. Make Washington, D.C. as "inconsequential to your lives as possible," by devolving as much power as possible back to states and localities, consistent with the original goal of the 10th Amendment.
Some of Perry's 10th Amendment ideas I consider glib, half-baked, and near-extremist-- like the suggestion that perhaps individual states could manage social security for their citizens.
That idea will go nowhere and in fact is no longer discussed.
But that impulse -- the idea that the first questions should always be "Wait, does the federal government need to do this? Is it even constitutional that they do this?" -- is the right impulse. Even when he's wrong on this issue, he's wrong for the right reasons.
Gingrich and Romney may be smarter than Perry, and perhaps Romney would even be a more skilled technocratic administrator of government. (Gingrich seems far too disorganized and flighty to engage with this part of the job too much, apart from proposing bold, fundamental changes and then moving on to something else.)
But I don't want someone who is so confident that he is a more capable administrator of federal power. I want someone who is skeptical of federal power no matter who wields it, no matter how skilled and able an administrator he might be, even if that administrator is he himself, and so always prefers to shunt power away from the government to to the states, and their citizens.
Those are the four things Perry seems committed too. Those are the four ideas he has.
Perhaps he's not smart enough to have more ideas than that.
Which is fine with me. I don't want a President with many more ideas than that.
That's how we got here, after all.
Endorsement co-signed by cobloggers John E., Andy, rdbrewer, Ben, Gabriel Malor, lauraw, Slublog and Dave In Texas.
Additional endorsements at RedState, where Dan "Baseball Crank" McLoughlin pens an endorsement undersigned by most of the RedState crew, and by Mike Flynn, editor of Big Government.
Closing Argument Ad:
Posted by: Ace at
11:55 AM
| Comments (1044)
Post contains 3077 words, total size 19 kb.
In other news, the main page is huge, plus this page is all....centered.
Is the blog broken?
Posted by: shibumi at December 19, 2011 01:25 PM (z63Tr)
He is a good slow thinker but a HORRIBLE fast thinker. Slow thinkers can govern well, maybe even better that fast thinkers, but slow thinkers do not debate well.
I would need to take a valium (or two) before watching Perry attempt to debate Obama. You just know that ther liberal moderators would be out to trip Perry up with "List the 5 major leaders in the Middle East today..." type questions.
I would seriously have to turn the debate off in the second hour because we all know a deer in the headlights moment was coming.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at December 19, 2011 01:27 PM (uVlA4)
Should Gingrich be our nominee, be prepared to do a lot of double-takes as faithfulness and devotion to family suddenly becomes the key trait in a president.
Note that that didn't mean squat while Slick Willie was short stroking around the White House.
Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2011 01:28 PM (OlN4e)
Perry is a good candidate....unfortunately I just don't believe he has a legitimate shot at getting the nod!
It would have helped if he was a better speaker!
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 01:29 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 01:30 PM (KxyHe)
I'd vote for Perry in a heartbeat over Romney, but I don't trust that he will articulate conservative principles very well. The media will paint him as a dummy and his debate performances will solidify that perception. Add to that the fact that he will be tarred and feathered with the Bush/Texas link and I wonder if he will win over the middle of the road folks.
Romney is an attractive candidate because he has nice hair. If I had any faith that he would fight for conservative government I'd be more enthusiastic about him.
The third candidate I would consider is.......ooopsy I forget.
Posted by: California Red at December 19, 2011 01:30 PM (DXTKe)
that's where his motto, "get some !!" comes from.
and you're right about Perry. But you aren't The Media
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 19, 2011 01:31 PM (UqKQV)
Uhhh, NO. How long ago was it he stumbled on the number of SCOTUS justices?
A rational, "just the facts" man would count on Perry muffing several questions regularly and those gaffes being the MFM story of each debate. Can he /we weather it...I don't know...doubtful.
Posted by: I have no hope at December 19, 2011 01:31 PM (MbeEN)
Answer me, these questions three . . . .
Thus ends the Republic.
Posted by: Tim The Enchanter at December 19, 2011 01:31 PM (xqpQL)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 19, 2011 01:32 PM (UqKQV)
How are you we expect that he will make this case in the general if he's done such a poor job of it thus far in the primaries. Sure he's getting hammered over BS, but that's only going to get worse.
Posted by: Xander Crews at December 19, 2011 01:32 PM (ht6OV)
Posted by: Rick at December 19, 2011 01:33 PM (Gfgj6)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chique) at December 19, 2011 01:33 PM (21lBC)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 01:33 PM (7WJOC)
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama.
What all these "geniuses" had in common was they made a horrible mess of things, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
In actual effect they were idiots.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2011 01:33 PM (t3mKS)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 01:34 PM (zLeKL)
Ace, this statement may be the most important thing I have read for the election of 2012. Please keep repeating this over and over again as we move forward. Anyone who stays home in a pout for his favorite candidate needs to see this daily:
The stakes in this election are enormous. The next president may well appoint five justices the Supreme Court, essentially choosing our basic jurisprudence for the next 30 years. This will be the presidency in which we make fundamental decisions about debt, and spending, and entitlements. Decisions on those may decide our fiscal policy for the next 20 or 30 years, too.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at December 19, 2011 01:34 PM (baL2B)
What would/will the DNC do with, "OOPS!"
Posted by: disualifier at December 19, 2011 01:35 PM (Y3y58)
I not sure that "longest-serving governor" part is a positive attribute. We did nearly replace him the Kay Barely Republican in the last election.
Posted by: Bob Saget at December 19, 2011 01:35 PM (SDkq3)
Posted by: DaMav at December 19, 2011 01:35 PM (QNU76)
Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2011 01:35 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 01:36 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: That Chicken at December 19, 2011 01:36 PM (gVqQ3)
Posted by: manofaiki at December 19, 2011 01:36 PM (iGKkt)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 01:36 PM (zLeKL)
Even though Texas has created some nice job growth....Perry needs to articulate exactly how it is done on a nationwide basis....it has to be a plan that everyone recognizes....a plan with depth!
It was one thing to say "let's tap more of our own resources, let's cut regulation and taxes for business, and let's cut the size of government," but unless it is part of a much larger fully developed strategy with vision into the future and goal oriented toward a specific economic outcome......it is just smoke getting blown up the rear portal.
Does he have that....do the others?
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 01:37 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 19, 2011 01:37 PM (eCnLg)
But unlike Gingrich, I could genuinely SUPPORT Rick Perry should he win the nomination. I like the guy on a gut level. I like his biography. I agree that he seems to have character (although lord knows that bunch of "Texas hardball" stories would emerge should he win the nomination), and character really does count with me. He's definitely conservative enough. And his jobs record in Texas is something that can't be gainsaid by anyone, even if you can make a lot of arguments about how the credit ought to go to the structural factors of Texas being full of conservative, business-friendly Texans rather than Perry's policies.
In fact, all of those reasons are why, as some may remember, I was a Perry guy for awhile after he first announced. He had me, then he lost me. I still don't think he can win, but the qualities which I admired back then, plus a few which he's actually revealed on the campaign trail (namely the ability to take his lumps with good humor and make fun of himself), haven't changed. I would donate, I would work Virginia GOTV, and I would root hard for him too.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 01:37 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Recluse Spider at December 19, 2011 01:37 PM (eScuN)
I would vote for Perry over Romney, without a doubt. I might well vote for him over Gingrich.
Unfortunately, Perry seems utterly incapable of convincing more than a handful of Republican voters to do the same.
Since the primary qualification for being President is becoming President, it sure would be useful to Perry to figure out how to get people to vote for him in the primaries and caucuses. Because his resume isn't running -- he is.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 01:38 PM (Di3Im)
And that's why we delivered our A-Team candidate slate. You're welcome, America. Keep those donations flowing, ya hear?
Posted by: GOP Strategy Geniuses at December 19, 2011 01:38 PM (ErTq7)
Posted by: Rondinellamamma at December 19, 2011 01:38 PM (S6vfi)
Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2011 01:38 PM (FcR7P)
Keep in mind that the eventual nominee will not be running solely against Obama. He will running against the press, cable TV news talking heads, late night TV talk show hosts, the entire media culture. And I think we already know how that culture feels about Republican governors from Texas.
It's not a steep hill. It's straight-fucking-up, all the way.
Posted by: Jones at December 19, 2011 01:38 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 05:36 PM (zLeKL)
It won't be long forgotten because it'll be repeated ad nausem, as was Kerry's.
Posted by: disualifier at December 19, 2011 01:38 PM (Y3y58)
It is troubling that this narrative is so clear, yet ace is describing a candidate that 90% of primary voters have not seen. Why is he doubling down on school prayer and gay soldiers in Iowa if this is so clear to all of us? None of this makes sense, and it is infuriating.
Perry has traded his narrative for success for absurdity. I understand what ace is saying, and I'm coming around to voting for him (in FL), but I don't pretend that answers any of the ridiculousness that was (and continues to be) his rollout and campaign.
Posted by: Paper at December 19, 2011 01:39 PM (IvlIt)
Posted by: Jehu at December 19, 2011 01:39 PM (wXl2T)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 01:39 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Recluse Spider at December 19, 2011 05:37 PM (eScuN)
Meg Whitman lost because the unions pretty much have a lock on California politics at the state level.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 01:39 PM (Di3Im)
"Rick Perry did not marry his high school sweetheart. He married his grade school sweetheart."
Hell, he's got our vote!
Posted by: Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Zombie Errol Flynn at December 19, 2011 01:39 PM (jAqTK)
Really? They're still gonna use that if Perry is our candidate? Something that will be long forgotten by spring? Riiiight.
---
Even more than that, chique d'afrique pointed out earlier today that if they decide to go gaffe-o-matic on our candidate, we have plenty of clips of Obama to use as well.
As for selling his jobs record in the primary, I'd say that it will be much easier to focus on the Big Four things that ace listed in the general against a single opponent than it is in a primary with six to eight other candidates.
Perry clearly was caught off guard when he was attacked for not being conservative enough. That ain't going to happen in the general.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 01:40 PM (5H6zj)
No. They will be stressing Obama's faithfulness to his wife and their two beautiful children.
And everyone's forgotten about that Chick Who Shall Not Be Named with the initials VB. Is she still kickin' it in the Caribbean?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (G+B5p)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 05:33 PM (7WJOC)
Perry's in the race? Not according to his poll numbers, he ain't.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (jucos)
THANK YOU!
You've articulated my impressions of Perry and explained why I decided early on to support him for president. He is a fighter and will take the fight to Washington.
As one of his famous lines says, re Obama:
"Adios MoFo!"
Posted by: Whitehall at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (FmPSC)
Top speed of a swallow depends on many things, but cruising speed is around 50-60 km/hr.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (bjRNS)
Posted by: km at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (bUzQD)
Posted by: nevergiveup at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (eCnLg)
Really? You doubt that they will use that? And that it will be effective? Riiiight.
Since the primary qualification for being President is becoming President, it sure would be useful to Perry to figure out how to get people to vote for him in the primaries and caucuses. Because his resume isn't running -- he is.
I don't often agree with you, but when you're right, you're right.
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2011 01:41 PM (OlN4e)
Woah. .....A long post....in support of our guy Perry. .....Thanks for this, Ace.
*rips off clothes*
*rolls around in the sheer wonderfulness of it*
Posted by: wheatie at December 19, 2011 01:42 PM (HvKWW)
fify, although "handful" is pushing it a bit
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 01:42 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 05:40 PM (5H6zj)
The spin will be that the brilliant Obama simply misspoke because he was tired and under enormous pressure at those moments, whereas Perry is a dolt.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 01:42 PM (Di3Im)
I agree the jobs angle is an especially good one for Perry, but I think you are a bit off on this.
The election will likely be a referendum on the current president, as was the case in 2004, 1996, 1984 (and sort of 198
. Any Republican who can differentiate himself from Obama (not so fast Romney) can make the jobs argument, because they can point to the central fact that the economy lost jobs under Obama and they will try a different approach.
Yes, yes Perry can follow that up with "and my state actually created jobs!" but I see that as a small benefit tacked onto the larger fact that Obamanomics have failed and presuming a competent Republican campaign Obama will be called out on it repeatedly.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 19, 2011 01:42 PM (7BU4a)
Plus, he forgot the most important fact of all. Perry's wife is easy on the eyes.
(Sadly, only half kidding)
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 01:43 PM (6TB1Z)
Yeah, this is kind of a problem, too. Perry's got the record and the narrative Ace is crafting for him, but right now in his desperation he's selling something completely different, something that's actually going to turn off a huge number of folks in the general election (and the primaries too, for that matter).
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 01:43 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: SH at December 19, 2011 01:43 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Rick "One Debate Only" Perry at December 19, 2011 01:43 PM (H/kgP)
Endorsed by:
Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, Blitzen and that greatest reindeer of all......Rudolf.
Best,
Reindeer Consortium of America
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 01:43 PM (iYbLN)
The spin will be that the brilliant Obama simply misspoke because he was tired and under enormous pressure at those moments, whereas Perry is a dolt.
Last night I pointed out that is exactly how Snopes handled Obama misstatements vs Bush ones. The former are not necessarily true because everyone knows he just misspoke, but the later are signs of Bush's lack of intellect...
Posted by: 18-1 at December 19, 2011 01:44 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 01:44 PM (iYbLN)
Perry is my guy, and I vote in the Iowa Caucuses on Jan 3rd.
Posted by: Jay in Ames at December 19, 2011 01:44 PM (UEEex)
Posted by: Slow Joe Biden at December 19, 2011 01:44 PM (euEe+)
Aw hell, let's do it anyway, make 'em go full on Baghdad Bob in front of everybody! Popcorn ahoy!
Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez!
This message brought to you by Morons Against HTML Abuse
at December 19, 2011 01:45 PM (GBXon)
Posted by: ranger117 at December 19, 2011 05:43 PM (87cmJ)
Him and little Kim?
Posted by: Your Average Obama Voting Twitterphile at December 19, 2011 01:45 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: ranger117 at December 19, 2011 05:43 PM (87cmJ)
It's a hoax.
Posted by: Tami at December 19, 2011 01:45 PM (X6akg)
If Perry is the candidate, it will also mean that the primary season will extend until at least June. This is better than having Romney for sure, but it also means that he will have near universal name recognition due to his performance in the primaries and debates.
He can't get a pass for the next six months and then hit the reset button in July, then expect to win an election in November. He has to campaign reasonably starting in January, and I just don't see him capable.
Still, I'd rather say that I tried to stop Romney.
Posted by: Paper at December 19, 2011 01:45 PM (IvlIt)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chique) at December 19, 2011 01:45 PM (21lBC)
Posted by: Slow Joe Biden at December 19, 2011 05:44 PM (euEe+)
It's what gaffers use to make movies.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 01:46 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 19, 2011 01:46 PM (hcJkV)
Posted by: Jon at December 19, 2011 01:46 PM (mQ2ib)
Except when he's happy sucking up to the hard left.
Posted by: San Fran Nan's Couch at December 19, 2011 01:47 PM (7BU4a)
Doesn't it strike anyone else as weird that literally the ONLY people still pushing Perry are bloggers?
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 01:47 PM (hIWe1)
I hate saying this but Romney's been very smart here by saying as little as possible up til now and playing for the independents.
Plus now matter what you THINK of what he says, he hasn't done anything (so far) really stupid or gaffetastic.
I won't vote for him in the Primary but I sure will in November.
Posted by: Vote for me I'll get you stuff at December 19, 2011 01:47 PM (xqpQL)
Barack Obama did not serve in the military. That is perhaps the most understated sentence in the history of communications...
This is my kind of humor right there.
I do believe Perry's impulses are good. I also think that's about what he's capable of--impulses.
I keed.
Posted by: spongeworthy at December 19, 2011 01:47 PM (puy4B)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at December 19, 2011 01:47 PM (9eDbm)
What's a gaffe?
Posted by: Slow Joe Biden at December 19, 2011 05:44 PM (euEe+)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 19, 2011 01:48 PM (G+B5p)
Perry's endorsements so far, that I know of:
Senator Jim Inhofe.....Gov. Bobby Jindhal.....Gov. Brian Sandoval.
Veterans for Perry....which includes two MOH recipients and several Generals, and other officers.
Ted Nugent....Gene Simons.
Does anyone know of any other endorsements?
Posted by: wheatie at December 19, 2011 01:48 PM (HvKWW)
WTF? Any word on how?
As for all the comments about the general:
a) they're premature (for any candidate).
b) All of our candidates (as I posted in the previous thread) have problems to overcome.
Romney is the definition of the 1%er. The rich scion of a rich family whose claim to Business fame was breaking up failing companies, selling them, and exporting large numbers of jobs to China and India. You and I know that's not necessarily a bad thing (though it's not necessarily good, either), but most low information voters don't think about that.
Newt is so erratic, and has metric butt-loads of baggage.
So stop with "but the Media would...!" They're going to do that anyway. Get over it. We'll beat it the same way we did with Reagan and GW: by showing facts (on the ground, mostly, the MFM won't 'let' us do it) that prove them wrong.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (KxyHe)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: nerdygirl at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (euEe+)
He can't get a pass for the next six months and then hit the reset button in July, then expect to win an election in November. He has to campaign reasonably starting in January, and I just don't see him capable.
Posted by: Paper at December 19, 2011 05:45 PM (IvlIt)
Are you referring to Perry?
He has to campaign reasonably starting in January August 2011 (four months ago), and I just don't see him capable.
FIFY - and yes, unless he has a time machine, he's a bit behind the 8-ball.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (Di3Im)
Wishcasting bud.
Posted by: ABO at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (MbeEN)
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (zSUIh)
If it does turn out to be Perry, OdipO can just run the old Bush/McCain Perry economics commercials. Wouldn't work, I don't think, but for the re-minder of Bush might make a difference at the margins.
I have the same problem with Perry that Ace had with Palin. He should spend more time "knowing things".
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (JYheX)
It doesn't matter what the spin is. The images will be out there. People will grow tired of those sorts of attacks quickly and both sides will drop them.
The point is not to say Obama is a dolt. The point is to innoculate Perry from those attacks.
And I gotta say to those who are worried about the prospect of running another Texan after George W, I think running a creature of the Beltway like Newt or a rich and privileged money guy like Romney is just as bad. All three candidates require a strategy to deal with gut impulses, but Perry's is no worse than the other two guys'.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 01:49 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Jon at December 19, 2011 05:46 PM (mQ2ib)
So historically how does primary polling match up with election results?
How, for example, was John Kerry doing v Bush in the winter of 2003?
Posted by: 18-1 at December 19, 2011 01:50 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Your Inner Voice at December 19, 2011 01:50 PM (LgjGs)
Posted by: Some Guy at December 19, 2011 01:50 PM (RR8+k)
Posted by: Fred! Thompson at December 19, 2011 01:51 PM (vjyZP)
Posted by: observer at December 19, 2011 01:51 PM (fD3Qb)
I would suggest that we should not get too hung up on fighting the last war, because the media will simply change the rules of engagement.
I have a somewhat radical idea: howzabout we on the Conservative side of the aisle establish the rules of engagement for once. Let's take charge, cite the SCOAMF's record of failure and make it the central issue of the campaign. As you've pointed out, Ace, (and we've all said repeatedly) there is much low-hanging fruit to be picked and hurled back at like bad actors on the stage.
Why not start with Washington's own statistic-keepers, you know, those wonks that work for O'Fuckup's own administration? The ones who say that that there are now record numbers of people on food stamps or living in poverty. Yeah, those people. Citing those numbers that come straight out of the bowels of DC itself will be a powerful tool to persuade the squishy, unthinking middle.
Start the pounding with that, and then don't let up. Be as resolute as the MFM is in repeating that message at every opportunity. Take a page from Neut's playbook and start challenging the idiot talking heads in the MFM by redirecting their idiot questions onto the real issues. In short, fuck them first and put them on the defensive. It can be done, what disappoints the Moron Horde no end is that the establishment GOP doesn't seem willing to do it.
Why?
In short, have some balls and use them all the time. This can be an historic election, the nation pretty much hinges on this election: we either reclaim this country for the real people and the Founders Principles, or we start sinking even faster than we already are.
America is ready to see some real strength from a candidate. Let's hope and pray that Rick Perry is that man.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, President, Curmudgeon's Union Local 427 at December 19, 2011 01:51 PM (d0Tfm)
Ace's bullshit inaccurate definition of "several" also applies to the bottles of vodka he drinks every night.
Perry is a gaffe machine. Good or bad, right or wrong, his gaffes are as baked in the cake as all of Romney's and Gingrich's flaws are.
Ask Dan Quayle how he got over the public image of him once it was set. If you can find him in obscurity, that is.
Posted by: Bullshit at December 19, 2011 01:51 PM (gVqQ3)
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 01:51 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at December 19, 2011 01:51 PM (1+CnU)
They're not. But thanks for playing.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (KxyHe)
Thank you Ace! Dead on. My support and my money are going to Perry.
Posted by: bsclark12 at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (7yh7x)
You. Bastard.
Posted by: Evelyn Wood at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (0xqzf)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Perry miracle at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Your Inner Voice at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (LgjGs)
RE: Perry's Core Four
These 4 are so broadly defined that every candidate (sans Ron Paul) also supports them - in a broad way. Not much for me to stand up & take notice to differentiate him from the other candidates. Wann be more specific and include his "9-9-9" plan....errrr the 20% flat tax? OK, then we can debate whether that's a good plan or not. But keeping taxes low? Less gov't regulation from DC? Energy produced in the U.S.? Those better be the bare minimum for an eventual GOP nominee to get behind. If they aren't already a given, we're doomed.
Posted by: Michelle Bachmann's Cackle at December 19, 2011 01:52 PM (rjz6q)
A lot more people are put of work now than then (my husband included.) More people have had their houses foreclosed, their cars repossessed. Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (iYbLN)
Erm, what is it I wrote that you have a problem with? If anything, I was very complimentary of Perry, saying that although I really don't think he can win, I like him a lot and would do my level best to help him (and who knows, maybe he could pull it off).
I'm not attacking him, because other than his problems with presentation and articulacy (which are huge, and major problem, but are already well-rehearsed), I like him. Heck, I remember being pretty much one of the ONLY people around here -- including former big supporters of his -- who actually was defending Perry after the whole "drunk New Hampshire" speech kerfuffle, saying that it made me genuinely like him more than before.
I do think the cake is baked at this point, though. And I also (as noted above) think that the angle he's now plying in Iowa -- social con crap like school prayer and gays -- is self-defeating given the way it marginalizes him. (Besides, Santorum and Bachmann have that demographic pretty much permanently locked up anyway.) But hell, if Rick were take the nomination I wouldn't be pissing in the punchbowl.
Newt, on the other hand. God, Newt...is just egregious.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (hIWe1)
Since Reagan, Republicans have never went with a person who could speak well in public.Neither of the Bush's, Dole or McCain could dazzle a crowd with their oratory, none of them were the kind of people with a vision. We'd always have to hold our breath during the debates hoping that we wouldn't have our guy freeze up and forget one out of three points like Perry did.
Newt is different, he has a vision and can articulate it well, and I don't think he'd have any trouble defending himself against the smear machine. Not all of Newts ideas are good ones but I think he has the wisdom to work on them as a team with others and winnow out the bad ones.
Posted by: exceller at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (Z7Znk)
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at December 19, 2011 05:49 PM (oif6Y)
Happy to. "This is not the thread you will be stuck with for the next few hours."
Posted by: Jones at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (8sCoq)
I've been busy filing the paper work for citizens of my county to run for county office as Republicans. We all got an extra day this go round and I, as a very new County Chair, needed it.
That said, It sure stuck me as odd that the people in my livingroon who raised their right hands and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America all took it more seriously than Obama did,
Rick Perry will take the Oath of Office to heart and do his level best to defend each and every American, our laws, our borders, our rights.
I know who I'm voting for.
Posted by: Pecos, Perry in a blaze of Glory at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (2Gb0y)
Chique-I usually agree with you, but not on this. We have to worry about it. It isn't fair, but the uninformed voters simply won't find out. We know about Obama's gaffes because we follow politics obsessively on non-MSM dominated blogs. But the low info voters will get their information from Oprah and Brian Williams. They'll never hear anything negative about the chosen one.
I hate saying this but Romney's been very smart here by saying as little as possible up til now and playing for the independents.
Gosh, it's almost as if he has a predetermined strategy based on analysis of the situation and the discipline to follow it through. You certainly wouldn't want that in a president.
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: nerdygirl at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (euEe+)
tl;dr
As a California resident, I expect the candidate to have been pretty much selected by the time I get a chance to vote in the primary. I also expect that my vote in the general won't count for anything. Just like 2008.
Posted by: Anachronda at December 19, 2011 01:53 PM (IrbU4)
Posted by: Recluse Spider at December 19, 2011 01:54 PM (eScuN)
----
I'd like to know on what you are basing this assertion. You seem to be implying that Newt and Romney have had more air time and face time with voters than Perry has, but where's the evidence of that? Newt has been cash-poor and not running very hard and Romney has skipped several candidate forums (as well as tv appearances until recently).
Romney, for all of his familiarity to GOP primary voters, is not broadening his support. If Perry really is underexposed, he has a chance to move up. 'Not sure what it will take for Romney to move up.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 01:54 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2011 01:54 PM (nj1bB)
As a California resident, I expect the candidate to have been pretty much selected by the time I get a chance to vote in the primary. I also expect that my vote in the general won't count for anything. Just like 2008."
Donate, and your support counts for many votes.
Volunteer in an early state, and your support counts for hundreds of votes if you put your back into it.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 01:54 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Andy at December 19, 2011 01:55 PM (J26il)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 01:55 PM (7WJOC)
In short [insert MSM talking head name], my policy will be to reverse the last 4 years, where under Barack Obama, real unemployment has grown to 16%, inflation on food stuffs, including arugula Barry, is through the roof, and our deficit has sextuplet - that's times six for you Barry.
Posted by: 18-1's Candidate Answering every question the MSM asks him, including his favorite muppet at December 19, 2011 01:56 PM (7BU4a)
http://tinyurl.com/7xou2pg
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!!
Never have so many been so happy about HTML borking:
chaz%20bono%20and%20his%20fianc%e9e...
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at December 19, 2011 01:56 PM (oif6Y)
Posted by: Phil in Houston at December 19, 2011 01:56 PM (Sb4ot)
A weird thing happened when Bush debated Gore. Bush was likeable but in terms of policy not so strong. Yet even the media conceded that Bush had won the debate. Why did they do this when nobody would have laughed it they'd called it for ManBearPig?
Because they began to see what a tool Gore was as a person, how stiff and condescending and just unlikeable.
We always know our candidate is going to have to beat the opponent on the media's pitched playing field. But they went pretty easy--generally--on Dubya because they began to dislike their candidate. It could happen again, too.
Of course, they knew Poppy and approved of him, so they weren't going to be outcasts for saying something nice about Dubya.
Posted by: spongeworthy at December 19, 2011 01:56 PM (puy4B)
Gosh, it's almost as if he has a predetermined strategy based on analysis of the situation and the discipline to follow it through. You certainly wouldn't want that in a president.
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 05:53 PM (6TB1Z)"
Yeah, on paper it sounds good. In effect, it doesn't appear to be working. Romney has a lot of advantages. He was a contender in 2008, spent the most then and in this primary too, and had the most endorsements then and this primary as well.
Yet, he just can't expand his support at all.
He's lost a lot of elections. Maybe he's not a good politician once it's time to put his clever politicking into effect, or maybe politicking isn't everything.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 01:57 PM (rQ/Ue)
Right, I agree and I think that's been driving this primary season 100 times more this time than ever before. We've been overwhelmed with far too many debates, which is putting an insane amount of overemphasis on how well someone does in debates rather than in their job as an executive. In that, the clear choices are Perry, Cain, Romney, Huntsman in that order.
We need to elect the guy who is best qualified, will do the best job in office, and will be able to defeat President Obama. I think anyone running now can beat Obama except Bachmann and Paul. I think most of them can do the job, but the ones that would do it best - in terms of carrying out the nuts and bolts of doing the job) are probably Huntsman and Perry.
As for the best qualified, Perry has the best record in office of carrying out conservative activities, despite some stupid things (immigration, for instance), he has shown he's very capable as a governor.
So while he's not my first choice in the world, and while I think he's got some serious negatives, he's the best candidate applying for the position.
I just wish we had better applications on the stack.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2011 01:57 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: sandy burger at December 19, 2011 01:57 PM (0U+Pz)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chique) at December 19, 2011 01:57 PM (21lBC)
In the general election:
Option 1: A gaffe machine with a demonstrable history of maintaining an environment that promotes job-creation and economic growth;
Option 2: A gaffe machine who causes the Dow to fall 200 points every time he opens his stupid yap in front of a teleprompter.
I think even uninformed voters will choose Option 1.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 19, 2011 01:58 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Big T Party at December 19, 2011 01:58 PM (hC5jI)
Posted by: nerdygirl at December 19, 2011 01:58 PM (euEe+)
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 05:53 PM (6TB1Z)
Damn toot'n you would!
Posted by: Bush 43 while trying to push through Shamnesty at December 19, 2011 01:58 PM (7BU4a)
I believe in Perry. I believe this man is a man of his word. A man you could broker a deal with a handshake. A man of principle. After President Butt Plug we need a man of principle.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 01:59 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 19, 2011 01:59 PM (/iRhk)
Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at December 19, 2011 01:59 PM (wW2z9)
Because actually this is one of those places where Romney and Perry make the same arguments (Romney's even said this at the debates): look, you may think what we did in our state is retarded and not like it a bit, but guess what, the Tenth Amendment and principles of Federalism mean that states have a right to make individual decisions that you think are dumb -- it's what the voters of the STATE think that counts. What really matters is not imposing Federal one-size-fits-all solutions.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 01:59 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 02:00 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2011 02:00 PM (nj1bB)
chaz%20bono%20and%20his%20fianc%e9e...
Posted by: s☺mej☼e
Aw shit. Well the short version: Chaz Bono is on the market again ladies.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:01 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Recluse Spider at December 19, 2011 05:54 PM (eScuN)
I agree with you about Perry. Except... he's run a miserable campaign so far, centered not on failures of organization or fundraising but on his own very visible missteps in front of the television cameras. The subliminal message that the GOP voters (poll respondents?) have picked up is that he's no good under pressure, and we already have a President who's no good under pressure... we've been hoping to trade up.
Had Perry, when he stumbled, said, "Uh, ummm.... aw, hell," then pulled his pistol and shot the person he was responding to, he'd have come across as a man of action, not words, and he'd still be the front-runner.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:01 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 06:01 PM (iYbLN)
Not "Chaz Bono is a lady again, markets"?
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:02 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 19, 2011 02:03 PM (QxSug)
all-but-declared actual member of a minor socialist party four years later.
FIFY
Rick Perry can say, "My policy is to have a low tax burden on wealth-creators and a fair and predictable regulatory scheme which does not seek to pick winners and losers, and here is how that has worked out in Texas."
It's true but can he actually say it?
I just hear another nice guy governor from Texas when I want "The Rumsfeld Strangler"2
What details are there re. these jobs? Oil boom?
Time to read the rest and goto dinner.
Posted by: DaveA at December 19, 2011 02:03 PM (RDri2)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 02:03 PM (7WJOC)
How can the MSM show Obama to be superior?
-Devotion/faithfulness to wife and family are out.
-Military service is out.
That leaves raaacism and intelligence. I could mention the "handing out free stuff" issue, but people who see that as an issue are going to vote for Obama regardless and are not the swing vote.
Racism is weak to begin with after wearing out the race card, and also Texas is chock full of public figures of all backgrounds who know Perry and who can, and have, vigorously countered the racism ploy - e.g. during the racist rock gambit, when Rs and Ds from all over Texas spoke up for him. And the overlap between the idiots who could be fooled by this issue and the hopless "free stuff" demographic is substantial.
That pretty much leaves intelligence. I want to see them try that now. I would back Perry just to see them try.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at December 19, 2011 02:03 PM (w41GQ)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2011 02:03 PM (nj1bB)
Um, actually in practice it seems to be working devilishly well. Every time another "not Romney" arises from the pack to seemingly overtake Romney he holds steady and waits calmly for the wave to crash over him without panicking. And now his overall support levels are climbing, and he's left with the unacceptable Ron Paul, of all people, as The Other Guy in IA, a state he had all but given up on winning in the first place.
The race is still fluid, obviously, so no counting of chickens etc. etc. But regardless of whether you like Romney or not, it's impossible to look at his strategy and not think "huh, this guy knows what his gameplan is and he knows how to execute it effectively."
There is a real virtue in that, you know.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 02:03 PM (hIWe1)
Elmer G. Parry , for one thing, plays the God card too much....
remember this from that old RINO, Barry Goldwater:
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " -- Barry Goldwater
Posted by: Bobby Ahr at December 19, 2011 02:04 PM (koiSX)
I worked for physicists. Most of them couldn't tie their shoes.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:04 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2011 02:04 PM (nj1bB)
Are there better ways to be pick a President? Surely. But this is probably better than MSNBC Debates.
It's time to clean out the GOP just for setting up such a stupid way to pick a candidate. It's like they want a RINO to win.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:04 PM (rQ/Ue)
Senator Jim Inhofe.....Gov. Bobby Jindhal.....Gov. Brian Sandoval.
Veterans for Perry....which includes two MOH recipients and several Generals, and other officers.
Ted Nugent....Gene Simons.
Does anyone know of any other endorsements?
Rep. John Carter (TX); Rep. Mike Coffman (CO); Rep. Mike Conaway (TX); Rep. John Culberson (TX); Rep. Sam Graves (MO); Rep. Jeb Hensarling (TX); Rep. Sam Johnson (TX); Rep. Kenny Marchant (TX); Rep. Michael McCaul (TX); Rep. Candice Miller (MI); Rep. Mick Mulvaney (SC); Rep. Steve Scalise (LA); and Rep. Pete Sessions (TX)
Posted by: M80B at December 19, 2011 02:05 PM (d6QMz)
That's old hat. They were spreading those rumors (at the same time as rumors that he's gay) during his first run for Governor (if not before). It's always rumors- kind of like Barry's girlfriends: no evidence, and not even enough to justify any rumors.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 02:05 PM (KxyHe)
What really matters is not imposing Federal one-size-fits-all solutions.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 05:59 PM (hIWe1)
Too bad Romney wants to keep some of that one-size fits all solution. But don't worry just the "good" parts. Like the "good" parts in MassCare.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 02:05 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at December 19, 2011 02:06 PM (9eDbm)
Saying that he wasn't as much of a disaster as he was before won't cut it. The comment about needing Valium during his debates is spot on. The press will eat him alive. I wish it wasn't so, but wishing won't make it better.
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 02:06 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Emily Litella at December 19, 2011 02:06 PM (jucos)
Posted by: jjshaka at December 19, 2011 02:07 PM (/iRhk)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 02:07 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 19, 2011 02:07 PM (QxSug)
Gosh, it's almost as if he has a predetermined strategy based on analysis of the situation and the discipline to follow it through.
Well sure he has a strategy and discipline. And look at those cold grey eyes. Guy's a friggin' robot from the planet Nauvoo is why.
Posted by: spongeworthy at December 19, 2011 02:07 PM (puy4B)
So dense will the pessimism be that no ray of light or hope can escape.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 02:08 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: lorien1973 at December 19, 2011 02:08 PM (usXZy)
The race is still fluid, obviously, so no counting of chickens etc. etc. But regardless of whether you like Romney or not, it's impossible to look at his strategy and not think "huh, this guy knows what his gameplan is and he knows how to execute it effectively."
There is a real virtue in that, you know.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 06:03 PM (hIWe1)
Except... we've already begun to cycle through the not-Romneys a second time around, which is how we got back to Newt. If Romney's strategy was working, then every time the crashing wave receded, he'd have just a bit more support than he did when that wave hit. Instead, he's REALLY holding steady, and the nomination race is swirling around him without him seeming to have much effect on it.
A constant 28 may be good number for a walk-in freezer, but it's hardly a winner in a primary contest.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:08 PM (Di3Im)
"Both of these men are smart. And they're smarter than Perry."
That is only an appearence. That is not the substance.
Posted by: GMB curmudgeon-in-training and 8 time ONT killer at December 19, 2011 02:08 PM (wY55N)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:08 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Willy at December 19, 2011 02:09 PM (PlLjX)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 02:09 PM (KxyHe)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 19, 2011 02:09 PM (21lBC)
Posted by: Emily Litella at December 19, 2011 02:09 PM (jucos)
Romney can't expand his support at all. I don't think it's working. Romney loses most of his elections because people just plain don't think he's authentic. This has been a problem for him for ages, yet Romney's record has been to prove he's fake with flip flops.
I don't think Romney is holding steady. I think he's dead in the water. But this is just a perspective thing.
I think with all of Romney's advantages, he should have been able to make the case for more people to support him. This simply hasn't happened.
You can't really credit Romney with the failures of other candidates. Perry screwing up horribly in early debates wasn't part of Mitt's plan. Newt having baggage wasn't part of Mitt's plan. If you're giving Mitt credit for this, that's just because you see the world a little tilted in Mitt's favor (we all do it, so no harm no foul, but it's silly).
Mitt personally doesn't seem to do anything at all. This is what you mean by 'not panicking', but really, he just emulates whoever is nearest to him in the polls and sends attacks out through his campaign. His ads have often been pretty damn ugly, in my opinion.
We'll see how clever Romney is if he's able to increase that win column from a 1 to a 2. He's running against guys who almost always win their elections (one of them has never actually lost), and they are working very hard.
It's going to be very tough for Romney to win. I think he probably had hoped these endorsements would start to win some support, and it just hasn't happened.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:09 PM (rQ/Ue)
Rick Perry comes across as a 'real guy'......someone that you'd like to have for a neighbor.
If you had a pipe break, and needed to call on a neighbor for immediate help, which one would you rather have?
Perry would prolly grab his tools, grab his shop-vac, and head right over to help....while calling some friends with shop-vacs, to meet him there....and locate and turn off the water coming into your house.
Romney would probably say "I'll call someone to come over there".
Gingrich would probably say "Have you called a plumber?"
Posted by: wheatie at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (HvKWW)
Posted by: Emily Litella at December 19, 2011 06:06 PM (jucos)
Sure, the whole jar of 'em is up on eBay.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (Di3Im)
I really do think there's a Bush Fatigue factor at play with Perry too. Not just the whole "Texas governor" thing, but rather that feeling of queasiness that you and I and everyone here feels during the debates. I remember feeling the *exact* same way whenever Bush debated or even gave a press conference: "please don't blow it, please don't blow it, please don't blow it...."
I think, on a subliminal level, a lot of primary voters really really want to get behind a guy who comes across as smooth and prepared on that level.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (hIWe1)
Rick Perry's campaign reminds me of when Indiana Jones was locked in that carbonite and hung on the wall of Megan McCain.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 05:51 PM (GULKT)
It's a hoax!
*back to lurking*
Posted by: ranger117 at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (87cmJ)
I am really, really not happy with Perry, partly for the reasons that everybody knows;
partly because Bush *proved* that being the Governor of Texas doesn't actually require much competence;
partly from Bush fatigue;
and partly from my own experience with the Perry machine in Texas, which makes me believe the crony capitalism charges are 100% true and probably understate the truth of it.
However, you know, we need a real executive. That rules out pretty much everyone except Romney and Perry.
And I have serious issues with Romney.
So, you know, good article. One thing you neglect is an actual evaluation of Perry's 3 or 4 big points. Of those, his tax plan is pretty stupid, in my opinion. Just a silly, meaningless compromise with the flat tax cranks. But his energy plan is golden.
So if I voted right now, I would probably gag down my upchuck and pull for Perry.
Ugh, what an election.
Surely we can do better than this.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:10 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2011 02:11 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Your Inner Voice at December 19, 2011 02:11 PM (LgjGs)
Posted by: Phil in Houston at December 19, 2011 02:11 PM (Sb4ot)
Good enough that I actually felt better after reading it.
......unlike certain seemingly endless movie reviews that appear in this space now and then
Posted by: ontherocks at December 19, 2011 02:11 PM (HBqDo)
Yeah, the thing is: this has 10 years or so of history to it. Sure they'll play the "rumors he's never successfully shaken off" tactic, but, on the other hand, Perry has 10 years or more where he can say: No one has proven it yet, and did I mention Karl Rove and Bill Clinton backed candidates both tried?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 02:11 PM (KxyHe)
Last time out in Texas he took 55% of the vote. Of course the other statewide Republican office seekers took over 60% of the vote. Couple that with him just crossing the majority in the primaries, I would guess that in a national contest Rick Perry would be very weak at best.
You could put a large rock on the ballot in Texas with an 'R' by it's name and it would get over 50% of the statewide vote, and do as much for the state as Perry could.
Hence the endorsement should be: Rick Perry managed to do worse statewide than his fellow republican office seekers, thereby showing that nationwide he might not be considered as extremist as other former Texan governors when it comes to the general election.
For those of you who hype up his having won three statewide elections in Texas, the numbers don't look good, it is like saying the Yankees have a dozen winning seasons in a row.....of course they do, they spend more than anyone else, but where are their rings?
Posted by: doug at December 19, 2011 02:13 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: GergS at December 19, 2011 02:13 PM (dptRY)
Rick Perry comes across as a 'real guy'......someone that you'd like to have for a neighbor.
Yes. And the media is not immune to this. Or at least they know we aren't.
Maybe it's too much to hope that Perry would catch a break from them on that basis, but I'm convinced that Dubya did.
Posted by: spongeworthy at December 19, 2011 02:13 PM (puy4B)
Good, too few free-market producers is the problem.
rather than purchasing it from countries which are often hostile.
If they're hostile & cause problems we blow them and their shoddy Russian equipment up, problem solved. Otherwise I don't care about their feeling.
Posted by: DaveA at December 19, 2011 02:13 PM (RDri2)
Did Gov. Perry actually get the number of SC justices wrong? I thought he was refering to how many voted for something.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 02:13 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 19, 2011 02:13 PM (jucos)
@19: "The nation ought to have had it's fill of "geniuses" by now.
Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama.
What all these "geniuses" had in common was they made a horrible mess of things, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
In actual effect they were idiots. "
And let's not forget the brilliant cabinet-level folks who came up with that award-winning Vietnam strategy.
Posted by: 58,000 dead guys at December 19, 2011 02:14 PM (jAqTK)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:14 PM (zLeKL)
Yeah, really. This isn't the general election, it's the primary, so why were the debates moderated by liberals? Why not have somebody asking questions that matter most to Republican voters?
Posted by: sandy burger at December 19, 2011 02:14 PM (L07Yb)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:15 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 02:15 PM (7WJOC)
He could be an interesting VP pick.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 02:15 PM (5H6zj)
Why would we?
Posted by: High IQ people with raincoats and velcro on their shoes at December 19, 2011 02:15 PM (JYheX)
Just three or four weeks after you.
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2011 06:00 PM (nj1bB)
The pitfall in this argument is that Perry already had a turn at the top. So it isn't a matter anymore of people coming to see that he's a great candidate: now he has to change the perception that he's a lousy candidate. Very, very different challenge.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (zLeKL)
Run "Social Security is a ponzi scheme/unconstitutional" ads from Sep 1 to November.
How quickly you forget.
Posted by: Clarence at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (z0HdK)
@33: "Even though Texas has created some nice job growth....Perry needs to articulate exactly how it is done on a nationwide basis"
There are only so many businesses and individuals that can flee California, you know.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (jAqTK)
Oh it took a lot of clowns with a lot of bad ideas over a long time and a lot of seemed like a good idea at the time and some !@#$% Democrats turned it into a patronage machine not just one (1) SCOAMF with > 0 JEF ideas.
Posted by: DaveA at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (RDri2)
Given that this is a really substantive criticism, and that you're a trusted Moron speaking from direct first-person experience, you really ought to expand upon this if you can. I mean, that sort of goes directly to the character argument Ace was talking about.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (hIWe1)
Perry would prolly grab his tools, grab his shop-vac, and head right over to help....while calling some friends with shop-vacs, to meet him there....and locate and turn off the water coming into your house.
Romney would probably say "I'll call someone to come over there".
Gingrich would probably say "Have you called a plumber?"
"What's interesting is that the first indoor plumbing in history occured in..."
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 02:16 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:17 PM (iYbLN)
I get your point, but I'd counter that the low info voters who we're fighting over probably discount most campaign ads, assuming that they're just commercials and therefore full of lies. However, there are lots of folks, especially older ones, who still believe what they hear from the nightly news. It's hard to counter a half hour of disguised mendacity with 30 seconds of bought and paid for shilling.
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 02:17 PM (6TB1Z)
But there is no excusing Romneycare either.
None of these guys are perfect.
I'll take the guy who will probably do fine in the debate, and govern like a conservative, over the guy who will probably do fine in the debate, and govern like a liberal.
But none of these guy are peaches. At least Perry has improved a lot. And it's not like he was doing nothing when these debates started. Texas was suffering one of her worst disasters on record when Perry had his first debate appearance, and it was an actual situation requiring Perry's leadership and approval for various agencies.
The guy works for a living. Honestly, I still think his debate gaffes are actually Perry exposing issues where he's wrong. For example, he really does think one should govern on illegals with compassionate conservatism. Perry admits his comment was stupid, but if Perry could go back in time, I think he'd govern the same as he did.
Still, he's by far got the best record, at least for my political views. I gotta pick one of these guys.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:18 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: John Galt at December 19, 2011 02:18 PM (80GjT)
Rick Perry comes across as a 'real guy'......someone that you'd like to have for a neighbor.
Yes. And the media is not immune to this. Or at least they know we aren't.
-------
I remember that interview of Perry, by Juliette Huddy on Fox......she was practically hyperventilating and drooling.
Perry, being the hottest guy in the race, would get a lot of votes from women who don't really pay any attention to politics......but vote for the guy that they "like" more. .....I'm talking about the general, though.
Posted by: wheatie at December 19, 2011 02:18 PM (HvKWW)
I agree with you on most everything you wrote, Ace, except for one thing. The MFM no longer completely contols the media narrative. It's one of the reasons we had such a banner election in 2010. Perhaps it's one of the reasons many of us are looking upon this primary season as a hodgepodge of political babble.
Perry needs to articulate his four point platform every time he enters any boundry of any of the media's outlets, whether it's the MFM or new media. Repitition gets votes. Remember: "It's the economy, stupid". That little bit of the English language got Clinton elected. It doesn't have to be complicated, as you've written.
Perry's personnal past will take care of itself. He'll have nothing to be ashamed, hopefully.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 02:18 PM (AB6pF)
One has to ask oneself.....What actually was accomplished by the Dog and Pony show debates?
Why the Left got to moderate all of them...I will never understand. Oh I know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO BE VOTING IN OUR PRIMARIES LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO!
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 02:19 PM (JMsOK)
Wow, please do, that will guarantee the conservative vote. And it will force the discussion and people will figure out what he's talking about is fact.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2011 02:19 PM (r4wIV)
"What's interesting is that the first indoor plumbing in history occured in..."
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 06:16 PM (XdlcF)
LOL!
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 02:19 PM (zSUIh)
Let's see, how did he create jobs in Texas and translate it nationwide...
1) The population growth has to be greater than anywhere else, so bring in the immigrants.
2) You will need supersize hurricanes in other countries so that those people will emigrate to Texas along with their bank accounts.
3) Tornadoes and the like need to wreck havoc across the U.S. so the government can put billions into rebuilding cities everywhere.
4) The price of oil needs to skyrocket along with every other natural resource other states have so that the procurement of those become marginaly profitable.
5) lower wages across the u.s. so there will be more jobs offered.
Pretty much how it happened.
Posted by: doug at December 19, 2011 02:19 PM (gUGI6)
I see Clarance has made an appearance early. I suspect he finished his jello early and the meds haven't kicked in yet.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:19 PM (iYbLN)
In short [insert MSM talking head name], my policy will be to reverse the last 4 years, where under Barack Obama, real unemployment has grown to 16%, inflation on food stuffs, including arugula Barry, is through the roof, and our deficit has sextuplet - that's times six for you Barry.
Pareech it, bretheren and sisteren!
The ammo is already there, courtesy of El SCOAMF. Now, the trick is to turn this around: Rush pointed out the other day that there was a steady drip of shitty stats coming from the administration itself, with the point being that The Annointed One was to be painted as the one that could turn this all around instead of the truth that it is he who's actually causing them.
There's a psychological aspect to this (come on, y'all knew this was coming from me). There will be projection from the left. We all know the drill: accuse the other side, commonly seen as the enemy, of doing exactly what you're doing.
Exhibit #1. Accusing teh Pubbies of blocking "needed bills" to "create jobs." This is countered very easily with the fact that El SCOAMF has done all in his power to prevent the Keystone Pipeline from getting started. Begin with that little factoid and then cite the exponential amount of regulations spewing forth from the EPA, which is no longer under Congressional power and is now operated as a stand-alone agency with the ability to destroy literally millions of jobs, as it has alread done. IIRC, there's been a near-doubling of the number of regulations coming from them just this year.
This ain't rocket surgery. All that's needed is somebody, or a group of somebodies on Perry's team to sit down at a table with a computer and start collecting the stats. It's easy, everybody's heard them all for three years, so it's not unfamiliar knowledge.
Just start using it to our advantage.
The SOAMF has to go.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, President, Curmudgeon's Union Local 427 at December 19, 2011 02:19 PM (d0Tfm)
---
Apparently he was talking about the justices for a State or something....
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:14 PM (zLeKL)
He referred to the "eight unelected judges" on the US Supreme Court. His spin afterward was that he meant the eight justices who ruled 8-1 against public school prayer in 1963. Some people also pointed out that we call them "justices," not "judges," when they're on the USSC -- but I think that's a silly quibble.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:20 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: GergS at December 19, 2011 02:20 PM (dptRY)
I would need to take a valium (or two) before watching Perry attempt to debate Obama. You just know that ther liberal moderators would be out to trip Perry up with "List the 5 major leaders in the Middle East today..." type questions.
Maybe he should take a modest quantity of Dexedrine before the debate. I've thought this before.
Posted by: Random at December 19, 2011 02:20 PM (YiE0S)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 06:15 PM (7WJOC)
---
He didn't say that. He said he wanted to be like Tim Tebow. (BTW, that right-leaning (ha) organization Yahoo News called it the best line of the debate.)
One thing that always reassures me about my support for Perry is the consistent drumbeat of lies that his opponents rely on. And the non-scandal "scandals." They got nuthin'.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 02:20 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 19, 2011 02:21 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:21 PM (zLeKL)
If it's not Luap Nor.
2) if Rick is not nominated, will you work for getting teh One out of office, no matter what?
No. Probably not. Anyone else will just "manage the decline" and that's not good enough.
3) if Rick is not nominated, will you quit your whining?
I don't think any of us are whining. I do believe your decision that he's "unelectable" has made you unable to see that he would be a flat better President than anyone else in the field, and that Republicans have had an up-hill climb getting elected as President since (bare minimum) the 1960's. Probably going all the way back to the 40's.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 02:21 PM (KxyHe)
Posted by: Sammy G. at December 19, 2011 02:22 PM (pkQdU)
Posted by: Blaster at December 19, 2011 02:22 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:22 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: brownsuns at December 19, 2011 02:23 PM (/Rupy)
It sounds like you've got something substantial to say, and I'd like to hear it even though I prefer Perry.
I think it would be best if he were vetted NOW rather than later.
I've heard a few people complain about Perry's corruption and then not really have things I have a problem with (one notes Perry took several free plane rides to give speeches for political groups... I didn't mind that).
I know there are some bozos in Texas's government, but I don't know that Perry is running a corrupt machine. I think after so long in office, that would manifest in a lot of serious ways, instead of in a few isolated 'oh they probably screwed up with a bad apple' ways.
Was your experience with a bad apple, or with Perry's machine? That's what I really need to know.
The last thing I want is to learn about this after he's the nominee.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:23 PM (rQ/Ue)
Perry has the enormous task of repairing his image nationally. He was performing neck-and-neck with Romney vs Obama when he announced, and he has become radioactive in polling since. If he can turn around the image projected that has hurt his polling he could be very formidable.
This is the gamble. He could turn around his numbers and flip enough states to cross the 270 threshhold- Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio- but it will take a herculean effort to do so. First step is taking out the other not-Romneys. Bachmann has made it clear she is in the tank for Mitt, so he gets hurt there. Pauleans are utter tards. So that leaves the Gingrich supporters. Win them over and its Perry-Romney and a path using more conservative primary voters to the nomination.
Posted by: CAC at December 19, 2011 02:24 PM (Ezhjz)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at December 19, 2011 02:24 PM (6IReR)
Perry would prolly grab his tools, grab his shop-vac, and head right over to help....while calling some friends with shop-vacs, to meet him there....and locate and turn off the water coming into your house.
Romney would probably say "I'll call someone to come over there".
Gingrich would probably say "Have you called a plumber?"
"What's interesting is that the first indoor plumbing in history occured in..."
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 06:16 PM (XdlcF)
Gingrich would say, "I have a cunning plan to replace all indoor plumbing with teleportation technology"
Posted by: The Robot Devil at December 19, 2011 02:24 PM (GaIwz)
Not that I disagree with your points; it's just that this post is about the same size of all your posts of last week... combined.
Perry's biggest weakness... his abysmal video presence at the start of his campaign. The LSM will play those clips until the tapes spontaneously combust... Dubya will look like a Rhodes Scholar after they're done with Perry.
And he's only now (?) hitting his stride in the debates... with an uneven performance at that. AND... Dear Leader will eat his lunch if he 'brain freezes' on the national stage.
Newt, on the other hand, will pull Obama's tongue out through his asshole when it comes to a debate.
Jump over that fence, if you can, Ace.
[And I like Perry... he's my #2 choice.]
Posted by: CPT. Charles at December 19, 2011 02:25 PM (1GunI)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 02:25 PM (7WJOC)
Well personally, I plan to continue whining regardless of who's nominated.
Posted by: sandy burger at December 19, 2011 02:25 PM (L07Yb)
Posted by: doug at December 19, 2011 02:26 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: brownsuns
FIFY
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:26 PM (iYbLN)
Something in my gut is telling me that it doesn't matter who the candidate is going to be against Obammer, the Right will end up cutting their own throats and a whole bunch of people are going to be pissed that their guy didn't get it, and leave Obama in place.
I sure hope that doesn't happend!
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 02:26 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 06:19 PM (iYbLN)
Same goes for his bunkmate doug @ 246.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 02:26 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:27 PM (zLeKL)
forgot to add--
unifying the party early enough around him and finishing the primary race earlier gives him a better shot at repairing his image. A late primary win- close to the convention, will be disasterous as it gives him barely 90 days to re-introduce and re-invent his image. His only shot at a general election victory is a quick primary and early party unity behind him.
Posted by: CAC at December 19, 2011 02:27 PM (Ezhjz)
Posted by: brownsuns at December 19, 2011 06:23 PM (/Rupy)
Have you seen who's in the White House now?
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at December 19, 2011 02:27 PM (6IReR)
It would be very helpful to Rick Perry to go on the Sunday morning talk shows and prove that he can stand up to hostile questioning. I don't mean Fox News Sunday, which tends to go easy on conservatives, but rather Meet the Press and Face the Nation. Although their viewership is in decline, what is said on those shows drives news coverage on the nightly news, in newspapers and on the Internet.
I think Rick Perry's unwillingness to step up to that challenge has hurt his preparedness for the debates. He's got to do something to prove that the image he's allowed to form of a tongue-tied, slow-witted good ol' Texas boy isn't accurate.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:27 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:27 PM (zLeKL)
"Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich did not serve in the military either. I do not wish to attack either man but both were of draftable age during Vietnam."
Well, I do wish to attack both draft dodgers.
"Both of these men are smart. And they're smarter than Perry."
No. They are not smarter than Perry. They just know how to talk and act like the media stereotype of a smart person. College grades mean absolutely zero. Ask Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. For that matter, ask Rush Limbaugh.
Rick Perry is a truthful, honest man, for whom running for and being president is an actual sacrifice. The tragedy here is that he won't get ten votes.
We elect either one of those two weasels and we will get what we deserve.
Posted by: VADM Collingwood at December 19, 2011 02:27 PM (KbGY6)
He has been in Texas's government for over twenty years. He was ranked one of the top ten state legislators as a fiscal conservative, and from there became the first GOP Ag commish and Lt Gov, touching on many major issues such as Texas's booming exporting and Perry's long fight for tort reform (which he won, and which absolutely had a positive effect on our health care).
He's balanced a lot of budgets, and sometimes that has required a spine, such as when he cut education spending instead of using up the rainy day fund or cutting other agencies or hiking taxes.
We have benefited a lot from his regulation stances, too, and his government just plain runs pretty well.
Even one of Perry's loudest opponents in the Governor's race admits that Perry's fingerprints are all over the Texas economy.
It's hard to see how they couldn't be, as Perry has performed well in nearly every government position that touches Texas policy.
The truth, however, is that Perry's real success has been staying out of the damn way. You don't want a Romney government that gets in the way because it knows better. That never works. Romneycare controls economic choices, and has had some terrible accidental effects, such as a skyrocketing price due to massively increased demand.
So to some extent, there is a beautiful simplicity to conservatism that lends itself to this 'maybe he's just stupid' argument. Well, it works.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:28 PM (rQ/Ue)
>> One of the top negatives I hear about Perry is the "he's too much like Bush" line
>Or will they get tired of Obama pinning stuff on Bush aka "blaming Bush for the entire time you've been in office."
Who would vote for Obama over Perry because they are thinking about Bush?
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 02:28 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: doug at December 19, 2011 06:19 PM (gUGI6)
Except for #5, the rest are all BS. And I think you'll find lowering the minimum wage (or, better, abolishing it) would do amazing things for employment in this country.
1) Our UE RATE is slowly rising, too, which means Jobs aren't growing as fast as immigration. Jobs draw immigrants, not the other way around.
2) Hurricane Katrina brought far more "poor" to Texas than it did "the rich," and "The Rich" went home as soon as they could. We've still got many of the habitually poor. Katrina was a net drain on Texas's resources.
3) Natural disasters happen all the time. To believe they have a net positive impact on an economy is to subscribe to the "Broken Window" theory.
4) While Texas has benefited from high oil prices, and high energy prices generally, the energy industry does not account for the majority of our job growth. Between them (IIRC), Health Care (thank you tort reform and loser pays), and Technology have seen more growth than energy.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 02:28 PM (KxyHe)
Posted by: The Robot Devil at December 19, 2011 02:30 PM (GaIwz)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:30 PM (zLeKL)
While Ace makes a decent case, the Perry Krishnas in the comments do not. The unfounded assumptions, the wild inflation of a man who is just another politician, the conservative version of the cult of personality . . . are extremely distasteful..
If you love Perry, you make me sick. If Perry is a decent guy, you make him sick too.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:30 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Andy S. at December 19, 2011 02:30 PM (nsG8U)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 02:30 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 06:23 PM (rQ/Ue)
Why do I get the feeling that the extent of crony capitalism is going toe be Merck and possibly one other questionable case, and just "feelings" that there must be more.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 02:31 PM (GULKT)
Thanks again, ace, for this post.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 02:31 PM (5H6zj)
He's right. Perry's got his work cut out of himself. However, he is turning it around. The polls show that. If he manages to, that will be a tremendous credential as a politician, in my opinion. That he's still fighting effectively shows something about how he would fight Obama.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:31 PM (rQ/Ue)
Honest question: is there anything Perry could have done to recover from his stumbles? If so, is he doing it? Is he recovering enough (or at all) for you to let it go? If not, what do you think he could have done?
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:27 PM (zLeKL)
I am not saying this is the reason to say "fuck it, *Romney*".
I am just demonstrating the harsh reality of how he is perceived nationally and outside of the party.
I don't think he has "no chance" of repairing himself. Just emphasizing the narrow route to that. It starts with people who have been previously ambiguous about their support stepping up and demanding he get a second look. Stuff like this. I am undecided as a primary voter. Romney is my last choice (well, ahead of Paul and Bachmann). We have a chance to get a conservative into the White House for the first time since before I was even born. So I don't have skin in the game for any one candidate over the other. I do look at the numbers. Perry was the best national performer versus Obama this year behind Romney. The "was" part needs work.
Posted by: CAC at December 19, 2011 02:31 PM (Ezhjz)
I think this thread is a prime example of Perry's problem. High info voters here not on the Perry train are not being convinced and its Perry's own damn fault.
I told my wife how excited I was that he might get into the race and then he did and that was that, he flat-lined. Not going back either until he starts proving he should be there (or he is the nominee).
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 19, 2011 02:31 PM (JYheX)
To respond with equal lucidity and analysis: Fuck you.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 19, 2011 02:32 PM (KxyHe)
Jesus, who pissed in your Cheerios everyday of your pathetic life? I bet you kick puppies and children.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:32 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chique) at December 19, 2011 02:32 PM (21lBC)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Passably Affable at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (sGRXI)
Posted by: reason at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (F26eZ)
----
Did he say"on the Supreme Court"? No.
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:22 PM (zLeKL)
Transcript (h/t Hot Air):
Question: As president you have to represent all Americans. By saying this president has declared war on religion, some people of this country who are of diverse faiths might read that as you would declare war on their religion.
PERRY: “Well, they would be wrong is how I would say that straight up.”
Question: You talk about state rights in terms of defending the constitution. You donÂ’t see a role for the federal courts to uniformly interpret the First Amendment to defend religious rights in all 50 states?
PERRY: “No, here’s what I see happening with the First Amendment. And this goes back to 1962 and that case where you can’t have an organized prayer to an almighty God as I believe the way it was. I’m not a lawyer and I haven’t studied these cases in depth. But the idea that the court is telling us whether or not we can have prayer in school is really a bit offensive to me. That should be a decision at the local level. It’s one of the reasons I’ve called for doing away with the federal government.
Roughly five minutes later
Question : Just to clarify. When you talk about day of prayer or prayer in schools are you talking Christian prayer or non-denominational prayer?
PERRY: “What I’m saying is it’s not the government’s business to be telling folks that at the state level. Obviously if a school is a Jewish school in Dallas, Texas, that private school should be able to do that.”
Question: They can. The issue is public schools.
PERRY: “Well then the independent school boards that oversee those should make those decisions, not government. Again, I mean, the idea that we have to be so politically correct that there’s one family that says, ‘Listen, I don’t want my child,’ then that child ought to have the freedom — can sit over there and play Tic Tac Toe or what have you. But the issue is that for Washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school, I think, is offensive to most Americans. I trust the people of the states to make those decisions, I trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected and, frankly, unaccountable judges. And it’s one of the reasons that I’ve called for the end of lifetime appointments to federal judgeships. I would go to some set term.”
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (Di3Im)
Something credible. Original sources if possible. Otherwise, denounce him for a valid reason, but on this one?
Stifle!
Posted by: Archie Bunker at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (YiE0S)
Politically shallow "Independents" who vote based on style over substance and hold less than fond memories of GW. Obama campaigned on his McCain = Bush theme for a reason- it worked.
How many of them think that way I don't know.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (SY2Kh)
If you believe he can win, buy Perry shares on Intrade, you can probably get 80-1 odds.
Perry is a good man, don't get me wrong. His has a decent record on jobs. He is a fine governor in Texas. But his immigration stance, volunteer tax plan and his woefully inadequate debate performances have defined him.. and now he is unelectable.
Insisting on a Perry resurrection is a huge mistake. It won't happen, and if it did, Perry would lose.
I know its hard to digest, but if you want to beat Obama, Romney is the guy in this field, unless someone else jumps in.
Sometimes you have to play the hand you are dealt.
Perry's hand was already played.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 02:33 PM (ukl9X)
Why do I get the feeling that the extent of crony capitalism is going toe be Merck and possibly one other questionable case, and just "feelings" that there must be more.
Posted by: buzzionIf so, Bachmann has a lot to answer for. She took money from quite a few pharmas except, you guessed it...Merck. One of them was the competitor of the Gardisil vaccine.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:34 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:34 PM (zLeKL)
I just have to say that it sucks that we have to factor in how the media will manipulate the narrative as we select our candidates.
It isnt a fair fight based on principles.
Posted by: California Red at December 19, 2011 02:34 PM (DXTKe)
Posted by: Jeff Goldblum at December 19, 2011 02:34 PM (H/kgP)
Allen at #286.
1) Demand creates the need for jobs, more people more demand. The unemployment rate has been similar to the rest of the country as far as rising, hence as to population increase, Texas hasn't fared any better than the rest of the country (in significant amounts).
2 & 3) The 'broken window' economic thinking works in a closed system. If OUTSIDE money is brought into a local area, the local area will see job growth (not that the result is good, but it explains job growth numbers). As for nationwide, it doesn't work because money is taken away from other places - hence less money in the rest of the country to make jobs available, more money in Texas.
4) From what I've seen the Energy sector has created full one fourth of those jobs created, therefore it is very important to those numbers. If that is one-forth and population growth is half of it, what's left? Public sector growth and weather related stimulus?
Posted by: doug at December 19, 2011 02:35 PM (gUGI6)
You are such an asshole. That's the sort of thing a chickenshit coward would say online. Therefore, you are an online chickenshit coward.
Posted by: Archie Bunker at December 19, 2011 02:35 PM (YiE0S)
For me, one of the biggest points about Perry is that he's trying to appeal to people like me who are rock-ribbed conservatives. Mitt supporters say that Romney is more conservative than his reputation and they make a good case, but the man himself doesn't try very hard to sell me on that. And since I can't get inside their heads and don't have an insider's information, I have to judge 'em partly by who they want to be their friends.
In a weird way, Perry's dumb, almost bigoted stuff on school prayer and gays in the military and all that makes me like him more. Because if he's trying to go for *those* people, chances are he won't betray conservatives more than he has to.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:35 PM (epBek)
@283
C'mon dude! Give it Up!
The Salamander clearly has far out reaching thinking skills in comparison to Perry. I like Perry and all......but let's face it......he's a butterknife. He has good creditials....but he still doesn't have anything over most of the field.
Perry may have good instincts and may have the correct intentions....but seriously....visualize a long summer campaign.....visualize debates against Obama with a biased moderator and a biased media to report them.
Not.Gonna.Be.Pretty!
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 02:36 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at December 19, 2011 06:32 PM (qjUnn)
Don't worry someone else beat you to it on this very thread.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 02:36 PM (GULKT)
ABC News/Wash Post 8/29 - 9/1 RV 46 47 Perry +1
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 8/27 - 8/31 RV 47 42 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 8/29 - 8/30 1000 LV 41 44 Perry +3
Quinnipiac 8/16 - 8/27 2730 RV 45 42 Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports 8/17 - 8/22 1000 LV 43 40 Obama +3
PPP (D) 8/18 - 8/21 700 RV 49 43 Obama +6
Gallup 8/17 - 8/18 879 RV 47 47 Tie
CNN/Opinion Research 8/5 - 8/7 930 RV 51 46 Obama +5
Perry was fractions of a point behind Romney against Obama before the shit hit the fan, and easily the most electable candidate of any in the primary.
Posted by: CAC at December 19, 2011 02:36 PM (Ezhjz)
Posted by: Blaster at December 19, 2011 02:37 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 02:37 PM (7WJOC)
Jesus, who pissed in your Cheerios everyday of your pathetic life? I bet you kick puppies and children.
One of the reasons my life is awesome is I don't have unrealistic hopes for politicians.
I do kick puppies and children. Another reason my life is awesome.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:37 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at December 19, 2011 02:38 PM (ijjAe)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:38 PM (zLeKL)
The uninformed middle is very evident on this thread.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 02:40 PM (AB6pF)
2 & 3) The 'broken window' economic thinking works in a closed system. If OUTSIDE money is brought into a local area, the local area will see job growth (not that the result is good, but it explains job growth numbers). As for nationwide, it doesn't work because money is taken away from other places - hence less money in the rest of the country to make jobs available, more money in Texas.
Except you can implement those policies on a national level and compete with the world and attempt to entice jobs back from overseas or new jobs to be created here due to business friendly practices. I think even one of the job creators in Texas is a Chinese company. The system is larger than you want to claim it is.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 02:40 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:41 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:41 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Random at December 19, 2011 06:37 PM (YiE0S)
And Obama is an excellent campaigner.....
Posted by: Tami at December 19, 2011 02:41 PM (X6akg)
But that impulse -- the idea that the first questions should always be "Wait, does the federal government need to do this? Is it even constitutional that they do this?" -- is the right impulse.
Right!!!! Seriously, I was trying to think of one aspect of everyday life in which the government has not asserted its "help." (I thought of exactly one -- you know "thingee" -- and I might be wrong about that.)
Great post, Ace.
Posted by: FireHorse at December 19, 2011 02:41 PM (/66q8)
Jesus, who pissed in your Cheerios everyday of your pathetic life? I bet you kick puppies and children.
One of the reasons my life is awesome is I don't have unrealistic hopes for politicians.
I do kick puppies and children. Another reason my life is awesome.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for JesusYou must have never had and dreams in your life. Hoe pathetic. I do believe you'd kick puppies and children. I wouldn't cross the street to save you from an oncoming bus.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:42 PM (iYbLN)
323
Prove Perry is a bigot. Hard facts, not your interpretation of bullshit. Do it.
WTF? I don't think he's a bigot. Nobody in modern America who's gotten to any kind of elite status in politics or the military or business is a bigot, because any hint of that would be the kiss of death for their career. Except maybe Ron Paul, who defies logic in all sorts of ways.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:42 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Jumbo Jogging Shrimp at December 19, 2011 06:40 PM (qjUnn)
suhWEET!
Leave the eggs out in the sun for a day so they get nice and stinky!
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 02:43 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 02:43 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 19, 2011 02:43 PM (6H6FZ)
I'll simplify: I would have liked to have liked Perry. He looks good on paper, as you have capably demonstrated. The main thing is when the lights come on, he tightens up. I'm not being critical, it's just the truth. That won't work in one-on-ones with Obama and it won't work with the tough situations a President will inevitably face.
I'm for Romney. You asked for 3 big things. Here's mine for Mitt:
1) he can beat Obama 2) he should beat Obama 3) he will beat Obama. After that, we can all work together to see that he does what the President of the United States needs to do to return this nation to greatness.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Al at December 19, 2011 02:43 PM (gXs0Y)
They aren't going to be cutting fine distinctions. I mean, maybe Romney and Obama would both try to play for the center and just say they are better than their counterpart, but Perry has a completely different vision than Obama. It's real. Their visions have records, and one works great and the other sucks bad.
There will be ugliness no matter who we nominate, but the records... the hard facts... the experience... the authenticity... that depends on who we nominate and Perry, in my opinion, is the best of the bunch.
Perry Palin 2012!!! Just kidding.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:43 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Blaster at December 19, 2011 02:44 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 02:44 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 06:41 PM (rQ/Ue)
I'm surprised it didn't happen much, much earlier.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 02:44 PM (zSUIh)
Then WTF does this statement mean? Almost bigoted? You either are a bigot or you aren't, simpleton.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:45 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: redneck hippie at December 19, 2011 02:45 PM (ttSIm)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:45 PM (zLeKL)
PERRY: “Well then the independent school boards that oversee those should make those decisions, not government. Again, I mean, the idea that we have to be so politically correct that there’s one family that says, ‘Listen, I don’t want my child,’ then that child ought to have the freedom — can sit over there and play Tic Tac Toe or what have you. But the issue is that for Washington to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school, I think, is offensive to most Americans. I trust the people of the states to make those decisions, I trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected and, frankly, unaccountable judges. And it’s one of the reasons that I’ve called for the end of lifetime appointments to federal judgeships. I would go to some set term.”
Well, if the vote was 8-1, he sure could have meant what he said.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 02:45 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!!
My dreams have always been or dreams, so yeah.
On the contrary, my hoeing is awesome. In 1993 I won the hoeing competition at the Texas State Fair for the third year in a row and was personally congratulated by the Texas Ag Commissioner.
Thanks for believing me.
What do you have against an innocent bus?
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:46 PM (epBek)
Perry can't, and he won't.
Posted by: Bullshit at December 19, 2011 02:46 PM (gVqQ3)
Reagan (conservative)/Bush (moderate) WIN/WIN
Bush (mod)/Quayle (con) WIN/LOSS
Dole (mod)/Kemp (con) LOSS
Bush (mod)/Cheney (con) WIN/WIN
McCain (mod)/Palin (con) LOSS
Is there any kind of trend here?
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 02:46 PM (DzX9o)
Maybe, but whatever it is we deserve it will be better than Obama.
Let Obama pick the new Scotus and conservatives will be back in the desert for 40 years. There is a big picture here.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 02:46 PM (ukl9X)
Posted by: Texan Economist at December 19, 2011 02:46 PM (xTW2k)
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 19, 2011 06:43 PM (6H6FZ)
I saw Howl's Moving Castle last night. Maybe Perry should watch that for tips on breaking curses.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:47 PM (Di3Im)
Yeah, about that: how many Presidential elections did W win?
Posted by: speedster1 at December 19, 2011 02:47 PM (yeM7r)
2) You will need supersize hurricanes in other countries...
3) Tornadoes and the like need to wreck havoc across the U.S....
_________
I guess we now know what Dick Cheney did with the keys to HAARP.
Posted by: Anachronda at December 19, 2011 02:47 PM (FzhYM)
Posted by: nancy at December 19, 2011 02:48 PM (RXUy+)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:48 PM (zLeKL)
You of all people should know government doesn't create private sector jobs. The best it can do is stay out of the way. Can the case be made that Perry didn't expand government in Texas to get in the way of job creation? Yes, I suppose - but as a very weak official position, how much of that can he personally really take credit for?"
He was LT Gov and legislator too.
Perry has had a hand in shaping Texas policy in basically every way it can be shaped, and consistently kept it out of the way.
True, this leads to the 'big whoop' response from those who don't understand conservatism.
The truth is it's much harder to lead this way. A problem comes up, and the leadership has to wield limited power lightly. Most of Perry's work has been ordinary management and cutting spending hundreds of times (no exaggeration).
He executes the right principles, and he does so with 95% reliability.
Compared to Newt and Romney, this is great. Especially Romney. I mean, Romneycare alone was a disaster. Controlling everyone's choice over insurance? WTF? No, that didn't create jobs, if you're wondering. Just demand.
Perry also fought hard for tort reform, leading tons of folks to come to Texas to make their livelihood, and they contribute a lot to the economy. He also kept regulation stable and predictable,leading a lot of businesses to set up factories here.
All around me are new factories hiring people. I want this for my country.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:48 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 06:46 PM (DzX9o)
Who were each team running against? See if you can spot a trend when you factor that in.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:48 PM (Di3Im)
Where exactly is Perry going to catch fire?
Iowa? Nope. New Hampshire? Nope. SC? Maybe. Florida? Ask Rudy about waiting until Florida to make a run at the nomination.
I loathe and detest the current primary schedule. The fact is that 2 or 3 states (and some with open primaries!) choose the party nominee. The system is broken.
Posted by: Log Cabin at December 19, 2011 02:49 PM (8+NvL)
he won't betray conservatives more than he has to.
Which is why, if the majority of the party comes to also believe that and gets on board with him, they will fight like mad men and he will win.
On a platform of libtertarian-conservative fusionism, ala Goldwater or Reagan.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 02:49 PM (TLNYf)
Then WTF does this statement mean? Almost bigoted? You either are a bigot or you aren't, simpleton.
I'm only almost a simpleton. Just like you're almost able to do reading comprehension.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:50 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Lena at December 19, 2011 02:50 PM (aqGyU)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:50 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 06:37 PM (7WJOC)
Perry has been running as good a campaign as any of the other candidates. Do you mean the debates? He hasn't been stellar there but he did do much better in the last one. But debates do not make a campaign. They're only a fraction of the effort. Have you seen any of his campaign ads? I have. And they're very good. He's going to do well.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 02:50 PM (AB6pF)
Mine, too.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2011 02:51 PM (r4wIV)
seth @365: Are you saying we need to run a Bush to win?
Posted by: California Red at December 19, 2011 02:51 PM (DXTKe)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:48 PM (zLeKL)
I don't know but I'm guessing you don't have reserved spot in a lake of fire in Hell like Jong-un has.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 02:52 PM (zSUIh)
When I saw the official Christmas card from the White House my first thought was campaigner in chief is playing up the family man theme.
Posted by: snowcrash at December 19, 2011 02:52 PM (w3YD7)
Or for bad.
Posted by: Fact Czecher at December 19, 2011 06:47 PM (phlKA)
Way to stand up for free markets, Newt.
Which is why, if the majority of the party comes to also believe that and gets on board with him, they will fight like mad men and he will win.
On a platform of libtertarian-conservative fusionism, ala Goldwater or Reagan.
Posted by: Entropy,
I don't believe it will happen, but I have to admit that if it did, it would be awesome.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:52 PM (epBek)
Posted by: Blaster at December 19, 2011 02:52 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 19, 2011 02:53 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: mr.midnight at December 19, 2011 02:53 PM (/FB96)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:53 PM (zLeKL)
Well, if the vote was 8-1, he sure could have meant what he said.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 06:45 PM (XdlcF)
Indeed. After the "eight judges" clip was reported, his campaign said that he meant the majority in the 8-1 decision in 1963 that abolished public school prayer.
However, I bet way, way more people remember this as "Perry doesn't know there are nine JUSTICES on the Supreme Court" than as "Perry was referring to an 8-1 decision from 1963." If the rap on you is that you're prone to boneheaded errors, you really don't want to say anything that, while technically correct, sounds like a boneheaded error. (And if the rap on you -- as it is on Romney -- is that you favor big corporations over the little guy, then you don't want to say "corporations are people, too," even if it's technically true in context.)
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:53 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!!
I'm sorry I got your wife almost bigoted. Next time I'll pull out. Too bad you're almost potent.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:54 PM (epBek)
Posted by: astonerii at December 19, 2011 02:54 PM (NBcgu)
Romney can win. Bachmann and Santorum cannot.
Don't like Romney? Keep thinking of Romney with a R congress vs. what we have now.
Let's argue about the spoils after we get them.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 02:54 PM (ukl9X)
Me dunt understanz smart peeeples like yu. Thats whi u tell me who2 vot 4 and i do.
I correct myself. You are no simpleton. You are a nasty, little douchebag.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:54 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 19, 2011 06:43 PM (6H6FZ)"
I can't tell if you're kidding, but there's some basis for this. I believe the only one running who has been endorsed by Palin in the past is Perry.
"While a bunch of politicians have gone to Washington, hat in hand, seeking a bailout, Governor Perry has said we should stimulate the economy with tax cuts and maintain spending discipline," Palin said. "Rick Perry is true to conservative principles even when others think the party needs to go a different direction. I like that about him: he doesn't care which way the wind blows, he acts on his beliefs."
This is all true, btw. And it's a great endorsement.
But Palin, in my opinion, was intending to run and then realized there was no upside with someone like Perry running too. They have some similar positions now, and Perry has a longer resume and more consistency (I like Palin a lot, but she's not ready to be president in my opinion).
I think Palin's circle is very irritated that Perry ran, and yet this is a pickle because if they support the same policies, they should support the guy who credibly backs them. Instead, they have gone to Cain and Newt to some extent. And neither were as neatly in line on policy, to my view.
I think this is bad politics on Perry's part. He should have made some hard core overtures to Palin. I think he would win if he had her support, and I doubt he will win if he never gets it.
For what it's worth, he has praised her and he was right there in 2009, attending Tea Parties and raising hell about federal Romneycare. He walked the walk and I think he should be the Tea Party guy.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:54 PM (rQ/Ue)
----
Well, I am and atheist, so...
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:53 PM (zLeKL)
Oh, so you DO have a reserved spot in a lake of fire in Hell.
(Just kidding! Just kidding!)
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:54 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:53 PM (zLeKL)
Well, ya got that going for you, I suppose.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 02:55 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: Al at December 19, 2011 06:43 PM (gXs0Y)
Al, that temple underwear feels good in the winter right?
Posted by: Billy Bob
Fuck you, bigot.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:55 PM (epBek)
Aw too bad darlin'. I'm female and you're still a nasty little titweasel.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 02:55 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Occupy The Batcave at December 19, 2011 02:56 PM (H/kgP)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:56 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:56 PM (epBek)
you've torn down all the constitutional candidates and now you want people to fall in line with you?
no- get fucked. and fuck rick perry with a big burnt stick.
Posted by: Derka Derka at December 19, 2011 02:56 PM (NizFd)
ACE! My heart warms... my favorite blog and group of folks I've never met but read daily... reinforce my pick. Great job working through the arguments Ace and I know it was not a easy decision and likely Perry has room to make us not completely happy, but he appears to be the real deal.
TEBOW time? hehe.. I love you guys......
Posted by: Yip in Texas : OMG at December 19, 2011 02:56 PM (cQhQZ)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 02:57 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Blaster at December 19, 2011 02:57 PM (Fw2Gg)
So you're saying Perry actually cost Texas jobs?
Damn.
So much for records, right?
Perry is the first guy in a long time to have Texas's state discretionary spending (per capita) decrease. He's a better governor than Bush was. And he's been governing in some hard times, with relative success.
Even one of Perry's loudest opponents for govenror admits that Perry's fingerprints are all over Texas's success.
Texas is not that different from California. Resources, coast, agriculture. The difference is the fiscal conservative policies Perry has championed for over two decades, in the leg, as LT Gov, and as Governor. Some of his work he's been very much the instigator on, too.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 02:57 PM (rQ/Ue)
"general if he's done such a poor job of it thus far in the primaries."
What primaries has Perry been defeated in? Maybe a link or something?
Posted by: Dick_Nixon at December 19, 2011 02:58 PM (1RbJd)
I think Palin's circle is very irritated that Perry ran, and yet this is a pickle because if they support the same policies, they should support the guy who credibly backs them. Instead, they have gone to Cain and Newt to some extent. And neither were as neatly in line on policy, to my view.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 06:54 PM (rQ/Ue)
I'm a Palin fan, and my first instinct when she announced (and yes, repeated on Fox News on On The Record) that she wasn't running was to back Perry.
And then he imploded. Which was certainly not Palin's fault.
It's hard to want to back a loser -- which (according to the poll numbers) Perry is, and will be, unless and until he starts winning.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 02:58 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Blaster at December 19, 2011 02:58 PM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 19, 2011 02:58 PM (21lBC)
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 19, 2011 02:58 PM (6H6FZ)
"Tickle your Baby Door"
That's a new one...and I like it. Don't mind if I use it? GREAT!
It reminds me of FeedBags....or Custard Pump..
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 02:59 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: jewells45..teapartyterrorist at December 19, 2011 02:59 PM (Z71Vg)
I'm sorry I got your wife almost bigoted. Next time I'll pull out. Too bad you're almost potent.
Aw too bad darlin'. I'm female
I don't judge.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 02:59 PM (epBek)
Something credible. Original sources if possible. Otherwise, denounce him for a valid reason, but on this one?
How about the Dallas Morning News, circa July 2010?
I like Perry, and I understand this sort of 'soft corruption' is commonplace, but let's not pretend that it'll go away if we just ignore it. Perry has been involved in very questionable land deals, and anyone would be crazy to think the MSM / Obama campaign (BIRM) wouldn't make a huge deal out of it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 03:00 PM (SY2Kh)
Don't like Romney? Keep thinking of Romney with a R congress vs. what we have now.
Let's argue about the spoils after we get them."
If Perry can't win and Romney's inevitable, but you're conservative, why not work hard for Perry to win anyway? What harm will that do?
We can argue about the general when we get there. If, after a hard fight, Romney manages to win, then OK. I think things are much more volatile. Even after the first few contests, there will be plenty of time for much change.
Rudy looked like a real contender at this point last time.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 03:00 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Occupy The Batcave
Thems the rulz the Emperor of Ice Cream deemed it to be the law of the land. What he says goes. He is moar smarter than us.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 03:00 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: astonerii at December 19, 2011 06:54 PM (NBcgu)
So basically your saying he stayed out of the way of free enterpise and prosperity? He's my candidate for sure then.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 03:00 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: Blaster
Probably not hot lesbian sex.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 03:01 PM (epBek)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 03:01 PM (iYbLN)
So area puppies and kittens. But the real world is not campaign stops with the adoring choir. It's gotcha interviews and debates with unfriendly moderators and hard questions 24/7.
Perry is a nice guy. But he already showed us that he isn't ready for prime time.
This whole idea that Perry will get better with time is ridiculous. His back hurt. He took pills. He wasn't ready. He was tired. He got no sleep. It's time to stop making excuses for Perry. There are no training wheels for the Presidency.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 03:02 PM (ukl9X)
The dude can't hold his Vicodin.
Posted by: sandy burger at December 19, 2011 03:02 PM (ErTq7)
Posted by: Chris at December 19, 2011 03:02 PM (ht3c8)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 19, 2011 03:03 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 19, 2011 03:03 PM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: Mandy P. is hoping for a Texas miracle at December 19, 2011 03:03 PM (qFpRI)
When Perry was preparing to enter the race I thought we might have a real conservative with a really fine record. I was excited, bought his books. But.....
Perry quickly fell flat. He has a disturbing physical resemblance to Bush and a disturbing verbal resemblance as well. One of the most damaging things about Bush was his complete inability to articulate his positions and goals, so the media got to savage him with impunity, year after year. I'm afraid that Perry has demonstrated he'd be no different.
I'd certainly vote for him if he got the nomination but I don't think that's going to happen unless Iowans do something unexpected.
Posted by: Harold at December 19, 2011 03:03 PM (wmfzA)
Did the guy he bought the land from get arrested, tried, and thrown in prison like Obama's?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2011 03:03 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 03:04 PM (epBek)
You should be so lucky to have a woman like me. Then again, I wouldn't give you a second glance.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 03:04 PM (iYbLN)
griffperry Griffin Perry
“@AoSHQ: For Rick Perry bit.ly/tTahrE” This is strong from a very in the know political analyst.
Posted by: stace at December 19, 2011 03:04 PM (lYlx9)
Perry has been involved in very questionable land deals, and anyone would be crazy to think the MSM / Obama campaign (BIRM) wouldn't make a huge deal out of it.
I'll be reporting on that story.
Posted by: Special Correspondent Tony Rezko at December 19, 2011 03:04 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: steevy at December 19, 2011 03:04 PM (7WJOC)
griffperry Griffin Perry
“@AoSHQ: For Rick Perry bit.ly/tTahrE” This is strong from a very in the know political analyst.
Posted by: stace
That great. Thanks stace.
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 03:05 PM (iYbLN)
Thanks for making my point. We should have nominated him.
Worry about the GE later? Really?
I think we should nominate someone who can win, not necessarily the most conservative.
That's why I don't support Perry now, although I was excited when he got in.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 03:05 PM (ukl9X)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 06:45 PM (zLeKL)
Yes, which is exactly what I was referring to at #249 above.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:05 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 06:46 PM (DzX9o)
Who were each team running against? See if you can spot a trend when you factor that in.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 06:48 PM (Di3Im)
Good point. I'd say Lloyd Bentsen was the only moderate nominee during that time period. The rest of the Democrat match-ups are LIBERAL/LIBERAL.
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 03:05 PM (DzX9o)
Obama has pushed "dependence and government checks" to the unemployed both in speeches and policy. Perry needs to literally start an employment office in his campaign headquarters and do nothing but talk about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Tell people where to find jobs, tell people what is costing them the job they had and tell them how to bring jobs back. If you think I'm joking, consider this - the KFC in Midland, Texas is paying $15 an hour for a counter person and $25 plus for an experienced cook for all the hours you want to work with a bonus if you can start "on the spot". They are that busy. In the same town, employers will pay for your CDL certifications and training if you will sign on for a year. Every single job description is in demand because of their booming job growth.
On top of that his Czar's have regulated the life out of the economy both directly and indirectly. Hang him with it - show lots of pictures of out of work rig operators in the Gulf, out of work fishermen, out of work truckers and straight up point to who put these people out of work. The American people have an inherent distrust of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.... Hang every single one of Obama's Czars around his neck - and use the videos of them spouting communist talking points.
It can be done, a new "Morning in America" campaign will work, if and only if, Perry's people stop fighting old wars and fight the only one that matters and that Obama can't win on. Perry is about the only candidate who can carry it off in a way that will make Americans believe it and act on it.
And as for Kay Bailey - In the last 12 years, she's came the closest to knocking off Perry IN THE PRIMARY, but when Texans went to the Polls, they voted AGAINST WASHINGTON INSIDERS. The general election was a blood bath with that Houston idiot running on Obama's playbook.... so think about that for a while.
Posted by: 2nd Ammendment Mother at December 19, 2011 03:05 PM (L4CWX)
@427
Perry is your guy and that's great, but will you be voting for Romney or Gingrich after they win the nod, because this is the real important question. Support for Perry is understandable....just not realistic!
As of right now amongst all that I can gather and everybody I know......it is only about 50%-50% on whether people will still be excited and vote for the Repub regardless of what happends.
IMO....this is the most important subject! It's not all about just getting the best guy you want, but rallying the support for the long term no matter who gets the Nod!
Posted by: Spicoli at December 19, 2011 03:06 PM (JMsOK)
You should be so lucky to have a woman like me. Then again, I wouldn't give you a second glance.
Posted by: mpfs
Couldn't take your eyes off me, huh? Sounds about right. You lesbians are wheat to my scythe.
Posted by: Emperor of Jeb Stuart, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 03:06 PM (epBek)
Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 19, 2011 03:07 PM (QxSug)
Not as far as I know, but it wasn't the Rezko / Obama land deal that led to prison time. Such shady deals are common precisely because it's difficult to prove that they were the result of corruption instead of a lucky break in land investments.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 03:07 PM (SY2Kh)
It's hard to want to back a loser -- which (according to the poll numbers) Perry is, and will be, unless and until he starts winning.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 06:58 PM (Di3Im)
Sure seems like Romney's supporters have no trouble backing a loser.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 03:08 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 07:02 PM (ukl9X)
Name one person in our history that was truly prepared for the US presidency. I don't think any of them were or ever will be. It's a job that only the ones that have actually experienced it have any appreciation how big it is. Try again. This argument doesn't hold any water for me.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 03:08 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: Kerry at December 19, 2011 03:09 PM (AYfPj)
Posted by: mpfs, Comet the Reindeer is a Perry Supporter!! at December 19, 2011 03:09 PM (iYbLN)
So maybe, maybe, he said 8 when he meant nine justices.
Meh.
I'm much more horrified that he said "Hot Gas" instead of "Hot Air". What's next, bragging about an endorsement from "Queen of Hearts"?
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 03:09 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: Emperor of Jeb Stuart, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 03:09 PM (epBek)
He is not the first front runner to implode and won't be the last. No need to demonize him. The fact he can't win the GE is good enough reason not to vote for, no need to make things up.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 03:10 PM (ukl9X)
Posted by: Max Power at December 19, 2011 03:10 PM (q177U)
Posted by: bernverdnardo at December 19, 2011 03:11 PM (xXhWA)
Perry is a better leader than George Washington!?!?1?1!
Mater Dei.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream, Cultist for Jesus at December 19, 2011 07:04 PM (epBek)
So much for you going after other people for their lack of reading comprehension dumbass.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 03:11 PM (GULKT)
Excellent points - so some may think that Romney led like a bleeding heart lib, nay, socialist, in Massachusetts; why wouldn't he go the same way over the whole country.
Oh, looky, Romney, Perry, pot, kettle...
Posted by: Rmoney Voter at December 19, 2011 03:11 PM (7MFxV)
It's not unrealistic at all. The guy is doing OK in the polls. He's just not leading at the moment. You know, the guy who wins usually isn't leading at this point in time anyway.
It's totally conceivable that Perry will pull it off. He's very good at the sort of politicking that remains at this point. Stumping and glad handing count for a lot in many of these states.
Anyway, your question underlines something very interesting. A lot of Romney's fans ask if people will be good enough to support Romney if he's the nominee, while also claiming Romney is already the most electable. Few of them claim they wouldn't support Perry if he's the nominee.
They understand that Romney has his own electability issue. He's gotta hold the GOP together somehow.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 03:12 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Man Mountain Molehill at December 19, 2011 03:12 PM (YoqtH)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 03:12 PM (zLeKL)
I wonder if Obama even knew anyone who served in the military prior to being elected to the US Senate.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 03:13 PM (Gk3SS)
Cliff's Notes version: Ace supports Perry.
Ok, I'm good with this. I liked Cain, and I'll support and vote for Perry, Gingrich (or, previously Cain).
But, is Perry really electable? I want someone who has the best chance of beating JEF. His debate performances have improved,I think, but people remember ... and there is occastional murmurings about "being from Texas" being a liability (the South + GB + GWB + "not-a-Harvard-man" + ... Johnson faced the first issue in '64). Reading the not-quite-magnum-in-length opus thread topic, I see the arguments that Perry is competent and capable, and no worse than any of the others. But I'd like to see a short and clear roadmap of How Perry defeates JEF in November 2012. It's probably there, but not in one place.
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 03:13 PM (QhtFZ)
Posted by: Harold at December 19, 2011 07:03 PM (wmfzA)
Good point. Perry entered this campaign with a built-in drawback: he reminds people of the last President, the one they still blame for the lousy economy. His challenge was to demonstrate that he was a different breed of cat, much better than W in speaking intelligibly and providing a clear policy vision. He seemed to be on his way to meeting that challenge with his announcement speech.
Then he appeared at a debate and failed miserably.
Then he appeared at another debate and failed miserably.
Now he's got to dig himself out of the hole he's in, and his supporters better hope he understands he's got to dig sideways to make steps instead of digging further down (or trying to dig up and only catching air).
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:14 PM (Di3Im)
Yes.
It's not like Newt, Perry, and Mitt all can't beat Obama. Don't drink the cool aid. 2012 is about Obama. The best we can do is offer someone with a proven record of leading better than Obama has, and Perry is the only guy who has that.
If you really think it's just a fact... enough that you can just tell people not to think about it until after the general election is over, that Perry can't beat Obama, you are not seeing this election the way I am.
Which isn't to say you're wrong, though that's my opinion.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 03:15 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Random at December 19, 2011 06:37 PM (YiE0S)
---------------------------------
And Obama is an excellent campaigner.....
Posted by: Tami at December 19, 2011 06:41 PM (X6akg)
---------------------------------------
You're both retarded! Neither one of them is from Campagna!
Posted by: Joe Biden at December 19, 2011 03:15 PM (jAqTK)
Posted by: Wink Martindale at December 19, 2011 03:15 PM (aqGyU)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 19, 2011 03:15 PM (Gc/Qi)
But, is Perry really electable? I want someone who has the best chance of beating JEF. His debate performances have improved,I think, but people remember ... and there is occastional murmurings about "being from Texas" being a liability (the South + GB + GWB + "not-a-Harvard-man" + ... Johnson faced the first issue in '64). Reading the not-quite-magnum-in-length opus thread topic, I see the arguments that Perry is competent and capable, and no worse than any of the others. But I'd like to see a short and clear roadmap of How Perry defeates JEF in November 2012. It's probably there, but not in one place.
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 07:13 PM (QhtFZ)
The roadmap in the general election is pretty much what Ace laid out in his post. The challenge for Perry is creating a roadmap to the damn nomination.
Electable against Obama? Hell yeah. Electable against Romney or Gingrich? Remains well in doubt.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:16 PM (Di3Im)
I wonder if Obama even knew anyone who served in the military prior to being elected to the US Senate.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 07:13 PM (Gk3SS)
I guarantee Obama knew more terrorists than military members.
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 03:16 PM (DzX9o)
Posted by: TypicalWhitey at December 19, 2011 03:17 PM (xeVap)
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 19, 2011 03:17 PM (Qjh0I)
Oh I assumed that was a given.
I love how people who swear they hate the MSM are ready and willing to accept the notion that Perry is dumb because he screwed up a couple answers in a couple debates CONTROLLED AND RUN BY THE MSM.
I don't think Perry is dumb so much as Perry has moments of being inarticulate. There's a difference.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 03:18 PM (Gk3SS)
Let's turn that around. Let's name some that weren't.
Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter.
And Perry could well become a good President, it's possible. He would be 1000 times better than Obama. But the point being made is that he can't win the demographics he needs to be elected. He won't win swing states. And the reason is he self destructed.
He has defined himself. As unprepared. It's not going away. Unfair? Maybe, but Perry had more than one chance, more than one debate, more than one interview. He didn't cut it. Howard Dean blew it in one scream. It's a tough game.
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 03:18 PM (ukl9X)
Posted by: tasker at December 19, 2011 03:18 PM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Bevis Perdue at December 19, 2011 03:19 PM (hp2jB)
Posted by: Max Power at December 19, 2011 07:10 PM (q177U)
Have your OB/GYN check to be sure. You don't want a tiny internal scratch turning into full-blown toxic shock.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:19 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at December 19, 2011 03:19 PM (vahvH)
I guarantee Obama knew more terrorists than military members.
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 07:16 PM (DzX9o)
Word to your Moms!
Oops, did I say that out loud?
Posted by: President Dickbag O'Commiepants at December 19, 2011 03:19 PM (zSUIh)
There is still plenty of time for the candidates to rise and fall. Beating up on each other isn't going to convince anyone of anything except that you're an ass. ABO/ABRP people. Eye on the prize.
Posted by: Bosk at December 19, 2011 03:20 PM (n2K+4)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at December 19, 2011 03:20 PM (fBMdj)
First of all, I challenge your central assertion: that Governor Perry somehow "created" jobs.
Ace can certainly speak for himself, but my takeaway wasn't that Perry created jobs so much as Perry led Texas while Texas created jobs.
Saying that "Perry created jobs" is lazy parlance -- imprecise but not altogether inaccurate.
Posted by: FireHorse at December 19, 2011 03:20 PM (/66q8)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose at December 19, 2011 03:21 PM (digkk)
Well then the independent school boards that oversee those should make those decisions, not government.
Right instinct.
Again, I mean, the idea that we have to be so politically correct that there’s one family that says, ‘Listen, I don’t want my child,’ then that child ought to have the freedom — can sit over there and play Tic Tac Toe or what have you.
OK, he is not Edgar Allen Poe.
That was kind of average at best, but no one can tell me you don't understand what he's saying. He's right, and right in a popular way 60-70% support way.
If there's one family that says, 'Listen, I don't want my child participating in relgious activities supported by all the other children's families, then that child ought to have the freedom to be excused, and have a moment of free time to himself, to play Tic Tac Toe or what have you.
What the hell kind of douche has a problem with that? That's what you would call sensible, reasonable and mature.
Lawyers and bureaucrats, and militant sects of religious atheists. That's who has a problem with that. This dude will pull conservative dems off Obama.
The liberals, they will mock, and hate, and laugh. SNL will have a field day with him. He will take it in good nature. And all those people watching will laugh at him for his mumbly sentances, but then they'll say, you know - he was right though.
That's called free press.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 03:21 PM (TLNYf)
What's next, bragging about an endorsement from "Queen of Hearts"?
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 07:09 PM (XdlcF)
Only the most intimate of insiders use that term.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:21 PM (Di3Im)
Perry created the climate that promoted businesses to hire.
Less regulation, tort reform and tax cuts.
Posted by: TypicalWhitey at December 19, 2011 03:23 PM (xeVap)
@399: "Don't like Romney? Keep thinking of Romney with a R congress vs. what we have now.
Let's argue about the spoils after we get them. "
The spoils, in this case, being slamming into the cliff at Full Military Power instead of afterburner.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at December 19, 2011 03:23 PM (jAqTK)
Electable against Obama? Hell yeah. Electable against Romney or Gingrich? Remains well in doubt.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 07:16 PM (Di3Im)
Let's see. How many lead changes has there been since the primary season has started? And to think. Not one primary vote has been cast yet. Perry is still a very viable candidate. As much as any of the others. (Except RP and Huntsperson. They're toast.)
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 03:23 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at December 19, 2011 03:24 PM (fuw6p)
Hello? Rick Perry has like 7% nationally. 5% in SC. 2% in NH.
The bar is now so low for Perry that if he doesn't say something asinine each day and puts a sentence together in a debate he is exceeding expectations.
He is ahead of Huntsman? Doing well....
Posted by: tom at December 19, 2011 03:24 PM (ukl9X)
In other words, Texas stole more than its fair share of jobs from the rest of the states. This should really be called the Perry Recession.
Trust me on this; I have a Nobel Prize, and you don't.
Posted by: Paul Krugman at December 19, 2011 03:25 PM (ErTq7)
Posted by: blaster at December 19, 2011 07:22 PM (Fw2Gg)
Now there's a blast from the past.
I was more of a Debbie Gibson fan.
And no, I'm not gay.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 03:25 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 03:27 PM (zLeKL)
I want to go back to March and whisper in Pawlenty's ear: "No matter what happens in the Iowa Straw Poll, don't drop out. Also, try snorting a little coke before the debates."
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 03:27 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Seth at December 19, 2011 03:29 PM (DzX9o)
Hello? Rick Perry has like 7% nationally. 5% in SC. 2% in NH.
The bar is now so low for Perry that if he doesn't say something asinine each day and puts a sentence together in a debate he is exceeding expectations.
He is ahead of Huntsman? Doing well....
Has Tebow taught you nothing?
The first 3/4s does not matter.
Score's still tied for electorates. Regulation time.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 03:29 PM (TLNYf)
Thank you for posting this Ace, and for giving me something to think about.
I respect your thoughtful voice a lot, and so you've at least swayed me from "leaning towards Romney" to "mostly undecided". Thanks.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 03:30 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Cowboy at December 19, 2011 03:30 PM (dk36f)
Posted by: Alamo at December 19, 2011 03:30 PM (wQmDt)
He's got 54% of voters saying they will consider him. That's the best of any of the candidates.
He's got a fighting chance.
"
The bar is now so low for Perry that if he doesn't say something asinine each day and puts a sentence together in a debate he is exceeding expectations."
Oh, you're one of the crazies. Never mind. Go back to foaming at the mouth.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 03:30 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: George Costanza at December 19, 2011 03:31 PM (KjdW9)
This is very good. I hope it becomes a meme.
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 03:32 PM (rQ/Ue)
Also not a hoax.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 07:30 PM (EVsi9)
Bon Jovi sucks.
I heard Diamond Dave is getting back together with Van Halen!
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 03:32 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: George Costanza at December 19, 2011 07:31 PM (KjdW9)
Ha...someone else is watching Seinfeld.
Posted by: Tami at December 19, 2011 03:32 PM (X6akg)
Posted by: TH at December 19, 2011 03:33 PM (LIZRu)
@485: "He has defined himself. As unprepared. It's not going away. Unfair? Maybe, but Perry had more than one chance, more than one debate, more than one interview. He didn't cut it. Howard Dean blew it in one scream. It's a tough game. "
Tell me about it. I banged a hot blonde on a boat - a success by any definition - and it cost me everything.
Posted by: Gary Hart at December 19, 2011 03:34 PM (jAqTK)
Posted by: SDN at December 19, 2011 03:34 PM (NTrIC)
A wet turd could go toe-to-toe with BHO on policy wonkery. A parakeet could make intellectual minced meat of Barry Soetoro.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 03:34 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Derka Derka at December 19, 2011 03:35 PM (NizFd)
I'm not joking. Nothing get's Facebook play like cute animal vids.
Posted by: Wink Martindale at December 19, 2011 07:15 PM (aqGyU)
Perry's twitter avatar is a start. How's this for puppeh cuteness?
Posted by: stace at December 19, 2011 03:35 PM (lYlx9)
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 03:35 PM (GULKT)
Ha...someone else is watching Seinfeld.
Posted by: Tami at December 19, 2011 07:32 PM (X6akg)
Damn! I'm missing it!
Classic episode!
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 03:35 PM (zSUIh)
Great collection of "concerned voters", regular trolls and Axelturfers. Something for everyone here.
It's easy to tell the bonafide posters, though.
My vote goes to Perry, always has. Since my primary candidate chose not to run, he's by far the one whose policies and stances most closely align with mine. Win, lose or draw.
Posted by: irongrampa at December 19, 2011 03:36 PM (SAMxH)
481 The roadmap in the general election is pretty much what Ace laid out in his post. The challenge for Perry is creating a roadmap to the damn nomination.
Electable against Obama? Hell yeah. Electable against Romney or Gingrich? Remains well in doubt.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 07:16 PM (Di3Im)
Yes, it's there, but in several places. I realized that I should go back and excerpt the parts I think are the roadmap (all excerpts are from Ace's original post, with reformatting, and my comments in italics):
1. Rick Perry married his grade school sweetheart ... never been divorced ...no rocky patches in his relationship. Those who discount the importance of that, especially to women voters, are making an error, I think.
2. After doing poorly in college, Rick Perry joined the actual active-duty Air Force. He is, then, a veteran, if not a combat veteran. Barack Obama did not serve in the military. And we still don't know how JEF did in college ... why?
3. Perry has served as governor there for 11 years (and for two years before that, as lieutenant governor). If he can't perform the duties of Chief Executive, then how is it that he has, in fact and as a matter of record, been successfully performing the duties of Chief Executive?
4. Rick Perry can say, "My policy is to have a low tax burden on wealth-creators and a fair and predictable regulatory scheme which does not seek to pick winners and losers, and here is how that has worked out in Texas." Not theoretical. Not hypothetical. This is what actually happened. And it has worked out very much better than any and all of the policies of JEF and the Democrats
If this is the roadmap, or at least a major part, then I have renewed confidence.
Now to deal with the 52% ...
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 03:36 PM (QhtFZ)
Let's see. How many lead changes has there been since the primary season has started? And to think. Not one primary vote has been cast yet. Perry is still a very viable candidate. As much as any of the others. (Except RP and Huntsperson. They're toast.)
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 07:23 PM (AB6pF)
Again, Perry's ability to beat Romney and Gingrich to win the nomination remains well in doubt -- not out of the question, but certainly less than 50-50 at this moment in time. He trails "toasted" Ron Paul in the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and nationally, so it's certainly accurate to say that his ability to win the nomination is currently well in doubt.
The other lead changes, remember, were fresh faces who rose, got known, took flak, and fell. Perry has already had his moment at the top, so it's not a simple matter of getting known but of reshaping the voters' perceptions.
Since Huntsman hasn't actually had his time at the top, it could well happen that he gets some kind of weird-ass surge in the next couple of weeks, but I doubt he can sustain it: he is an off-putting character.
Could Perry make a comeback in time for the Iowa caucus and/or the NH and SC primaries? Maybe. I would not be willing to bet that way, though, unless I got really good odds.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:37 PM (Di3Im)
Yup, Wrath of the Titans, supposed to be out in March.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 03:37 PM (Gk3SS)
The greatest moment in SciFi movie history.
It's sad that I know what that is without even clicking it.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 03:37 PM (XdlcF)
Obama 2012: You're welcome, Texas!
Posted by: sandy burger at December 19, 2011 03:37 PM (ErTq7)
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 07:35 PM (GULKT)
There's so much more Greek mythology to mangle, and with such boring, self-absorbed actors chewing up the scenery in the process! It's a win-win.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 03:37 PM (X3lox)
Here are my lingering doubts about Perry:
1. That he won't be an articulate spokesman for conservatism, instead he will rely too much on down-home folksiness (which IMO doesn't get very far out of the South and rural areas, and even then, can be irritating if overused)
2. That he really doesn't deserve much direct credit for what happened in Texas. Can someone point specifically to something that Perry specifically did that caused economic conditions to get better in Texas?
3. Yes, that he will be compared way too much to Bush
4. His political impulse to campaign in Iowa by gay-baiting - that was indeed shameful, he'd better not do any more of that.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 03:38 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 07:35 PM (GULKT)
Now there's a big fucking surprise. Hollywood is out of ideas so they have to go back and ruin a classic.
Assholes.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 03:38 PM (zSUIh)
Now to deal with the 52% ...
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 07:36 PM (QhtFZ)
Yup. I can see that roadmap working great. But before you start working on the 52%, you need to work on winning over the people who will select the GOP nominee. Because, you see, that general election roadmap is only so much toilet paper if Perry doesn't win the nomination.
So, what's the roadmap for Perry to become the nominee?
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:39 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Chris at December 19, 2011 03:40 PM (XGZYX)
Posted by: SarahW at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (LYwCh)
The greatest moment in SciFi movie history.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 07:29 PM (Gk3SS)
Thank you.
Thank you for that. 
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: Rich K at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (X4l3T)
Posted by: SarahW at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (LYwCh)
Posted by: Tami at December 19, 2011 07:32 PM (X6akg
I know every line and it's still fucking funny.
Posted by: garrett at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (KjdW9)
My #2 pick is Romney as I think he is best situated to best Obama, if polls are accurate. I'll support anyone with an R next to their name to get rid of Obama, excepting Paul.
Posted by: waelse1 at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (1M81x)
The jobs angle is certainly very strong, but much of the country doesn't want more Texas leadership. Perry would be painted as GWB the 2nd and it would stick. He would be a disaster.
Posted by: mashed potatoes at December 19, 2011 07:38 PM (hKi42)
Speaking of Clash of the Titans: most of the country doesn't want more Obama (pseudo)leadership. Pitting anti-Obama sentiment against anti-Texas governor sentiment, I believe that Perry turfs Obama out of office just on the strength of "he can't possibly be any worse."
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:42 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: SarahW at December 19, 2011 03:43 PM (LYwCh)
Posted by: Old Coach at December 19, 2011 03:43 PM (qhDb6)
Caring. Giver.
Also, I have to throw a flag - Bon Jovi wasn't married to Locklear, Richie Sambora was.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 03:43 PM (Gk3SS)
So, what's the roadmap for Perry to become the nominee?
1. The people telling pollsters they are voting for Paul admit they were just kidding.
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 03:43 PM (XdlcF)
So, what's the roadmap for Perry to become the nominee?
Only fragments of ideas here:
- Push his experience as Governor. The others have none, and we see what inexperience causes
- Push his success in creating jobs. He's done it, the others have not, and most people like being employed
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 03:43 PM (QhtFZ)
Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at December 19, 2011 03:43 PM (2Oas0)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 03:44 PM (niZvt)
Bravo. Well said.
*applause*
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 19, 2011 03:44 PM (QKKT0)
I also think Perry's numbers are better than they look. He's a top second choice among the flavor of the month crowd; I say that seeing those recent Iowa polls and through several anecdotal experiences of my own.
Here's hoping for a Tebow Christmas miracle!
Posted by: mugiwara at December 19, 2011 03:44 PM (KI/Ch)
My dread of Christmas shopping may be a factor.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 03:45 PM (SY2Kh)
Don't give gift cards.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 19, 2011 03:45 PM (QKKT0)
And you call yourself a chemist. You're nothing to me now.
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 03:46 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 03:47 PM (niZvt)
perhaps that was a freudian slip
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 07:43 PM (s7mIC)
I'd want to see Clash of the Tit Tans.
Posted by: buzzion at December 19, 2011 03:47 PM (GULKT)
Could Perry make a comeback in time for the Iowa caucus and/or the NH and SC primaries? Maybe. I would not be willing to bet that way, though, unless I got really good odds.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 07:37 PM (Di3Im)
I will not be considering odds until after the actual primary voting begins. I really don't see how anyone puts that much trust in just the polls until then. The American voter has a way of surprising even the most learned of political analysts.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 03:47 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: Fritz hitting the crack pipe at December 19, 2011 03:48 PM (FabC8)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 03:48 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: Winning at December 19, 2011 03:48 PM (ozpOn)
I'm fairly certain Skinemax can provide that.
I am interested to hear from the political number wonks to hear what Perry's roadmap to the nom would be.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 03:48 PM (Gk3SS)
What has AoSHQ come to?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 03:48 PM (SY2Kh)
Only fragments of ideas here:
- Push his experience as Governor. The others have none, and we see what inexperience causes
- Push his success in creating jobs. He's done it, the others have not, and most people like being employed
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 07:43 PM (QhtFZ)
Romney, Huntsman and Johnson were all governors. Of course, Johnson seems to have flipped to the Libertarian Party, so he doesn't count (and never did).
Romney and Huntsman both also like to claim job creation experience.
So your fragments work against Gingrich -- but Newt's pushback is of course that he knows Washington better and has experience in governing as the chief member of Congress during a critical time of prosperity.
I hope Perry has people fleshing out his plan to come back and win the nomination. What he's doing right now doesn't seem to be working fast enough to save him.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:49 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 03:49 PM (niZvt)
Release The Suckitude!
Stop, you're kraken me up!
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 03:49 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 19, 2011 03:50 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: MTF at December 19, 2011 03:52 PM (nUuaB)
That starred Tittan Natividad, didn't it? http://tinyurl.com/6ltjsej
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 19, 2011 03:52 PM (QKKT0)
Cause I'm a giver, that's why.
Barney Frank Wears Revealing Shirt On House Floor
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 03:53 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: torabora at December 19, 2011 03:53 PM (MQuwJ)
Posted by: Chris R, red in NY-9 at December 19, 2011 03:53 PM (u2x4P)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 19, 2011 07:53 PM (6GvAC)
I know, right?
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 03:54 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: pashmr10 at December 19, 2011 03:54 PM (/p0P7)
The campaign is a test in and of itself. He was unprepared, which illuminated his arrogance and rashness. He has underestimated his opponents, been unable to connect with non-Southern voters, and fumbled interviews and debates badly.
All this rebooting cant hide the fact he already failed. I dont want a failure leading the country.
Posted by: Winning at December 19, 2011 07:48 PM (ozpOn)
Rick Perry is in the process of failing. That doesn't mean he will fail, it just means he has to turn his campaign around.
(BTW, what's all this with not connecting with non-Southern voters? He's way, way behind in South Carolina and Florida, so he's perfectly able to not connect with Southern voters too.)
If he can indeed turn it around and win some of the early caucuses and primaries, then by definition he won't be a failure or loser. IF.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 03:54 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Chicagorefugee at December 19, 2011 03:54 PM (Cvvzd)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 03:54 PM (niZvt)
I a fan of the steel cage death-match.
Posted by: Alex at December 19, 2011 03:55 PM (+1TUS)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 03:56 PM (niZvt)
@586: "That starred Tittan Natividad, didn't it?"
Nice tits, sure, but a face I wouldn't wipe my feet on.
Posted by: Mean Gene Okerlund at December 19, 2011 03:58 PM (jAqTK)
Newsletter, please.
You simply HAVE to know the issues, cold - or you look stupid.
Oh, I don't know, Newt knows the issues cold and he still manages to look stupid.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 03:59 PM (Gk3SS)
Rush said this a few days ago: "The [Republican establishment] believe what the inside the Beltway philosophy is about conservatism: they're racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe, Southern hayseed hicks. They're pro-lifers. They're embarrassing to have to go to conventions with them."
Posted by: Davidd at December 19, 2011 03:59 PM (FGq5b)
I threw up all over the floor a little.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 07:54 PM (Gk3SS)
According to FB sources, Barney pulled a ligament in his thumb after getting it stuck in "something" and was unable to dress himself properly. Fuh realz.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 04:00 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: Old Coach at December 19, 2011 07:43 PM (qhDb6)
Well, he better get going on that whistle-stop tour! He's got to get in front of about 50 million Republican primary voters, and he's way behind. Not to mention that Amtrak doesn't go nearly as many places as the passenger railroads used to.
I think in the age of electronic communications, the televised debate counts for more than stump speeches except in the specific case of early campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. How much time has Perry spent in those three states again?
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:01 PM (Di3Im)
In other words, Texas stole more than its fair share of jobs from the rest of the states. This should really be called the Perry Recession."
......
Yes.
And if you elect him President, he will steal you all new jobs from Mexico and Norway.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 04:01 PM (TLNYf)
Why, why did you do that to me when I gave you nice things?
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 04:01 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Dustin at December 19, 2011 04:02 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: ph2ll at December 19, 2011 04:03 PM (t8Z6H)
That meme was debunked. It was based on a very flawed analysis by an anti-illegal immigration group who failed to appreciate the difference between correlation and causation.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 04:04 PM (SY2Kh)
For those posting that Perry is not a good campaigner, you haven't seen him on the stump and/or give speeches. All you've seen is a debate or two and that is not campaigning. The guy is great on the stump, will try to meet as many folks in a crowd as possible and comes across as genuine and likable even to those who disagree politically w/ him. And he is really able to lay out core conservative values and ideals while he is campaigning. I wish he were better on the the debate stage too but don't confuse that scene w/ actual campaigning.
He can also be very good in interviews. He's been getting better in these debates but I think he'd have an even easier time of it if there weren't 6 people on stage. He's much better 1 on 1.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 04:04 PM (TLNYf)
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 08:01 PM (Gk3SS)
Oops.
sorry
care for some brain bleach?
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 04:04 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: Seth, writing a talking point at December 19, 2011 04:05 PM (DzX9o)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 07:56 PM (niZvt)
The first primary is almost a whole month away. A lot can happen, as we've seen in just the last month. These experienced, issue-informed national figures, as you've coined them, could end up outsmarting themselves. We're already seeing that.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 04:05 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:05 PM (R1+VK)
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 07:49 PM (Di3Im) :
Romney, Huntsman and Johnson were all governors.
Romney invented RomneyCare; he won't disavow it. Take federal dollars away from Mass.; could/would RomneyCare ever have happened? How long can RomneyCare last without federal support of Mass.?
Romney and Huntsman both also like to claim job creation experience.
What are their job creation records? Everyone likes to claim job creation, but there is frequently a lot of spin needed. Taxes and the Cost of Living in Mass. are high ... and I can't recall anything about Huntsman. I could look stuff up, but that's an indicator ... what are Huntsman's successes, and under what conditions? Perry has been successful oer the last few years, inspite of JEF, Fwank, Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, ...
So your fragments work against Gingrich -- but Newt's pushback is of course that he knows Washington better and has experience in governing as the chief member of Congress during a critical time of prosperity.
I like Gingrich, and I'll support and vote for him ... but G. has issues, and has electability problems of his own. Being Speaker of the House is quite valuable, but the skill set and job requirements are not the same as Governor, or President.
I hope Perry has people fleshing out his plan to come back and win the nomination. What he's doing right now doesn't seem to be working fast enough to save him.
... hence my my original post. I listed "a" way, but a better way or two would be appreciated ... and, even though my confidence is renewed, I have only 1 vote. The "electability" question still stands.
Posted by: Arbalest at December 19, 2011 04:05 PM (QhtFZ)
Perry at single digits = our best chance!
Posted by: Derka Derka at December 19, 2011 07:35 PM (NizFd)
Welcome to the world of Quantum Politics.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:06 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2011 04:07 PM (XdlcF)
Posted by: pep at December 19, 2011 07:46 PM (6TB1Z)
pep, I'm not totally sold on Perry. I do think there are a few lingering doubts as I outlined above. Perry was always my #2 guy anyway (there is no f'in way I will ever vote for Newt), so whereas before it was something like 70-30 Romney/Perry now it is more like 55/45.
Ace is right, Romney's personal narrative isn't as attractive as Perry's, and that does seem to sway a lot of people.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 04:07 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 04:07 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: independent thinker at December 19, 2011 04:07 PM (+oksp)
Or, you could, you know, think for yourself.
Rush said this a few days ago: "The [Republican establishment] believe what the inside the Beltway philosophy is about conservatism: they're racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe, Southern hayseed hicks. They're pro-lifers. They're embarrassing to have to go to conventions with them."
Well?
Posted by: pep, effete Romneyite at December 19, 2011 04:09 PM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 04:09 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: M80B at December 19, 2011 04:10 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Christina Hendricks' Mighty Jugs Supports Rick Perry's Hair for President at December 19, 2011 04:12 PM (I9BjY)
My withholding for the year is over twenty grand this last check.
We're in the Austin Metro.
When there are machinist jobs in the want ads...
that's the number one indicator the economy is solid.
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at December 19, 2011 04:12 PM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Old Coach at December 19, 2011 04:12 PM (qhDb6)
Posted by: A Liberal AoSHQ Reader, Really! at December 19, 2011 04:12 PM (khw5i)
(NSFW-ish)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 08:10 PM (s7mIC)
Ah man. Brings back fond memories of Germany in the 70's.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 04:13 PM (AB6pF)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 19, 2011 04:13 PM (6GvAC)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:14 PM (R1+VK)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at December 19, 2011 04:14 PM (21lBC)
Posted by: Chicagorefugee at December 19, 2011 07:54 PM (Cvvzd)
MYTH.
http://tinyurl.com/7dv8ywc
Posted by: stace at December 19, 2011 04:15 PM (lYlx9)
He can also be very good in interviews. He's been getting better in these debates but I think he'd have an even easier time of it if there weren't 6 people on stage. He's much better 1 on 1.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 08:04 PM (TLNYf)
Then let's see him on Meet the Press and Face the Nation, right away. He has to be bold to prove that he's not afraid of tough questions and that he's smart enough and quick enough to answer them.
It could go any of four ways for him, but he has to take the risk.
Oh, wait: the next two Sundays are Christmas and New Year's, and the Iowa caucuses are before the Sunday after that. Oops, I guess it's a bit late for that tactic.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:15 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 08:09 PM (niZvt)
Impeaching federal officers who have run amok is one of the main jobs of Congress. Perhaps that responsibility has been woefully lacking in the body that includes one impeached, convicted and removed federal judge? There is a reason that federal judges are now far more brazen in detaching themselves and their rulings from reality and just declaring anything they want.
Obama and the dems have pretty much discredited everything they've touched and they've infested the judiciary with the most dangerous and stupid of people. This cannot just be ignored or swept under the rug. The rug is on fire.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 04:16 PM (X3lox)
Oh, wait: the next two Sundays are Christmas and New Year's, and the Iowa caucuses are before the Sunday after that. Oops, I guess it's a bit late for that tactic.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 08:15 PM (Di3Im)
It's not too late until all the votes are counted. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 04:18 PM (AB6pF)
Seriously, very well-argued, well enough to put me on the Rick Perry bandwagon if there's the slightest chance of success in the primaries. I like the "four big ideas" angle, a lot.
Posted by: Splunge at December 19, 2011 04:19 PM (2IW5Q)
Posted by: Old Coach at December 19, 2011 08:12 PM (qhDb6)
Exactly: you've seen him lots of times up close. It was incumbent on him to make sure that people in at least Iowa, South Carolina and Florida (and preferably also New Hampshire) saw a lot of him up close and personal at least from the moment in August that he announced, if not for months and even years before.
It was hard enough for him to play catch-up. He's made it harder by overreliance on debates to get his face in front of the voters, when he's not been up to the performance standard that the debates required.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:19 PM (Di3Im)
I'm sure the pawn shop will be re-stocked with valu-rite soon and things can get back to normal.
And Obama is a Stuttering Clusterfuck Of A Miserable Failure (SCOMF).
Posted by: Boomer Redneque at December 19, 2011 04:20 PM (PE+Uz)
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 19, 2011 04:23 PM (d1FhN)
Do not underestimate the power of Mr. Hankey.
Posted by: Mr. Hankey! at December 19, 2011 04:24 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 04:24 PM (EVsi9)
Posted by: M80B at December 19, 2011 04:25 PM (d6QMz)
Impeaching federal officers who have run amok is one of the main jobs of Congress. Perhaps that responsibility has been woefully lacking in the body that includes one impeached, convicted and removed federal judge? There is a reason that federal judges are now far more brazen in detaching themselves and their rulings from reality and just declaring anything they want.
Obama and the dems have pretty much discredited everything they've touched and they've infested the judiciary with the most dangerous and stupid of people. This cannot just be ignored or swept under the rug. The rug is on fire.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 08:16 PM (X3lox)
It's one of the powers that congress has. And it's been woefully underused because of political correctness. It's strange that so many people think that the judiciary branch is so separate that they're beyond any kind of oversight or constitutional enforcement. Gingrich's comments to this affect don't bother me. It's long overdue.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 04:25 PM (AB6pF)
If you are sincerely interested in knowing what he's up to, you should sign up for the Rick Perry almanac at http://bit.ly/perryalmanac
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:27 PM (5H6zj)
The first primary is almost a whole month away. A lot can happen, as we've seen in just the last month.
Forget about that. You are being rational. This is primary season. You're doing it wrong.
Last month, Cain was on top, and either going all the way or going to implode and seal this up for Romney. Gingrich was absurd, back in single digits, no one would believe it.
Now, Gingrich is imploding, this is going to lock up the nomination for Romney. (or maybe Ron Paul lofl).
It get's very confusing. The important thing to remember is, we were always at war with Eurasia, and Romney is still inevitable.
Until next month when, if not Perry or Paul, Bachmann will be kicking his ass in Iowa again.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 04:27 PM (TLNYf)
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 04:28 PM (TLNYf)
Newt's suggestion is for Congress to subpoena them and have them testify before Congress
I'm not a Newt fan but I don't think this proposal is the reason to go all ELEVENTY
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 04:28 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: dagny at December 19, 2011 04:29 PM (1RaCw)
A bit of snow here, too. Not much. We actually need more to clean up the air. The valleys here suffer from thermal inversions in the winter that really cause smog problems.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:29 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Chicagorefugee at December 19, 2011 04:29 PM (Cvvzd)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 04:29 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 04:30 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 04:30 PM (EVsi9)
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:30 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 04:30 PM (s7mIC)
And we should stop you why?
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 04:31 PM (s7mIC)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 08:30 PM (SY2Kh)
Hell, I'm vegging out thinking of Milla in The Fifth Element.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 04:32 PM (zSUIh)
Coolchech there's a moncler spam for you.
I endorse Rick before he announced. I wish he'd waited if were still on the pain meds. At least they explain some of the early debate performance.
Posted by: dagny at December 19, 2011 04:32 PM (1RaCw)
__________
Oddly enough, so did Romney.
Well, *a* book.
(sorry; couldn't resist)
Posted by: Anachronda at December 19, 2011 04:32 PM (NmR1a)
Oh, wait: the next two Sundays are Christmas and New Year's, and the Iowa caucuses are before the Sunday after that. Oops, I guess it's a bit late for that tactic.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 08:15 PM (Di3Im)
It's not too late until all the votes are counted. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2011 08:18 PM (AB6pF)
I understand what you are saying and I agree. But in order for Perry to win the nomination, he has to win delegates in caucuses and primaries, many of which are winner-take-all. So he has to do substantially better than a single-digit percentage of the vote.
Now, since his fall out of first place in the polls can be attributed to his piss-poor performance in the debates, which made him look slow-witted and tongue-tied, he needed to counter that perception with appearances that would get news coverage in the MSM showing him to be quick-witted and articulate. An appearance on Fox News Sunday doesn't get covered on the other networks unless the candidate screws up and the other nets can use those clips. But appearances on Meet the Press and Face the Nation and This Week With Whoever The Host Is This Week get excerpted on the network nightly news and syndicated to their Internet partners. And Perry showing that he's not afraid of the MSM hosts and their "hostile" questions would have countered the damage from his debate performances.
Only he can't go on the Sunday shows now, because the next two Sundays -- the last two before Iowa -- are Christmas and New Year's. So it's literally too late for him to use the Sunday talk shows to win over Iowa voters. And if he comes in fourth or fifth in Iowa and again in New Hampshire, will that help him win South Carolina and Florida? And if he doesn't win SC and FL in the wake of losing in IA and NH, will he have any shot whatsoever at the nomination, or will he be burnt toast?
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:32 PM (Di3Im)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:33 PM (R1+VK)
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:33 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: 77 Shadow Street iBooks at December 19, 2011 04:34 PM (2TMwq)
To my knowledge, the candidate who has shown that he's reluctant to talk with the media has been Mitt.
Brett Baier is a really scary guy...
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:35 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:35 PM (8EKYJ)
Shit, I wouldn't know Bon Jovi if he fell in my soup. I don't even know what he does. I'm guessing pop singing? I have no idea what.
Posted by: dagny at December 19, 2011 04:35 PM (1RaCw)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at December 19, 2011 04:35 PM (9eDbm)
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:35 PM (5H6zj)
You've surely heard this.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 04:37 PM (EVsi9)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:37 PM (R1+VK)
He is attacking the problem from the wrong end.
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 08:33 PM (R1+VK)
Congress has the responsibility to impeach judges who mangle the law. Holding hearings to have some judges explain the reasoning of their rulings before Congress just goes and starts impeachment seems like a reasonable action. Any judge who belives his decision should have no problem explaining it to a Congressional committee. I don't see any "duress" here, except if one is trying to explain insane "reasoning" and make it sound even remotely sensible. That would be stressful, indeed.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 04:37 PM (X3lox)
eh - they don't always have to endure the scrutiny from a dissenting view.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 19, 2011 04:37 PM (s7mIC)
and decide to follow the likely winner?after iowa or after that?
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 04:37 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:39 PM (R1+VK)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:39 PM (8EKYJ)
Unbelievable. We're officially a third world country. But will the darkness help the 'Niners D...?
Posted by: Lincolntf at December 19, 2011 04:40 PM (Qjh0I)
Oooh.
Chocolate covered bacon and Milla.
I'm all discombobulated now.
The keys are to pace yourself and to stay hydrated.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 04:41 PM (Gk3SS)
and decide to follow the likely winner?after iowa or after that?
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 08:37 PM (h+qn
"
Make up your own mind. Whats with the we shit?
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:41 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 04:42 PM (EVsi9)
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 04:42 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 08:39 PM (R1+VK)
That's what we have in our federal judiciary, already. It's far beyond a joke. Congress has a RESPONSIBILITY to impeach judges who work to subvert the Constitution. RESPONSIBILITY. Not just the power, but the responsibility.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 04:42 PM (X3lox)
There's only one way to do that. Literally.
Posted by: Brawndo! The Thirst Mutilator! at December 19, 2011 04:42 PM (2IW5Q)
and decide to follow the likely winner?after iowa or after that?
For me, I go with the candidate that I think would make the best president when I vote in my primary.
The convention is the time to "come together." I think it's foolish to try to jump on the putative winner's bandwagon early. And it's especially true in the case of Mitt, because he has not made any effort to appeal to conservative voters. This is as conservative as he'll ever sound -- and it's not very conservative.
That's why I will vote against any supposed conservative who endorsed Mitt early. (I'm looking at you, Jason Chaffetz.)
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:42 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: nikkolai at December 19, 2011 04:42 PM (JMwDN)
To my knowledge, the candidate who has shown that he's reluctant to talk with the media has been Mitt.
Brett Baier is a really scary guy...
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 08:35 PM (5H6zj)
You know, there was a debate between Perry and Romney on Meet the Press in October.
Only Perry sent Bobby Jindal in his place, and Romney sent Tim Pawlenty.
Boy howdy, I tell you what, that was really informative about the guys actually running.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:43 PM (Di3Im)
Depends. Let's say it 4th quarter, your team is down by a touchdown and a field goal, they have two time outs, the clock reads 5:00, and they just got the ball back on their own thirty.
Or, is there only one minute left?Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:43 PM (R1+VK)
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 08:40 PM (h+qn
"
Ace, you agree?
I bet he will not state no.
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:43 PM (8EKYJ)
You've surely heard this.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 08:37 PM (EVsi9)
Nope
Posted by: dagny at December 19, 2011 04:43 PM (1RaCw)
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 04:43 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: CarolT at December 19, 2011 04:44 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:45 PM (R1+VK)
I agree. He's a shoe-in for the nomination of "King of the Corpus Christi Retirement Home Annual Summer Mixer and Bingo Extravaganza".
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 04:45 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Covert Warriors ePub at December 19, 2011 04:45 PM (yrT5v)
Posted by: Splunge at December 19, 2011 04:45 PM (2IW5Q)
Here's the pulse of this blog.
Here's your finger, far from the pulse, jammed directly up your ass.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 04:46 PM (EVsi9)
Perry's only chance is to hang in there as Number 3, let Number 1 dispose of Number 2, and then crawl his way past Number 1 to get the nom.
so he has to be Bill Clinton in the 1992 primaries?
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Keeper Of The Troll Hall Of Fame at December 19, 2011 04:46 PM (LbD4P)
You must be new here.
Ace supports Palin like Ted Nugent supports the vegan movement.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2011 04:47 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: dandoz at December 19, 2011 04:47 PM (n7mVo)
and decide to follow the likely winner?after iowa or after that?
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 08:37 PM (h+qn
One could plausibly argue that the entire GOP field of declared candidates is a bunch of sideshow freaks.
- Mitt the Spineless Boy
- Newt the Disembodied Brain
- Mnemonic Rick, the Man Who Can Remember Two Things
- Pauliancus the Undead
- Michelle, the Woman Who Hears Things From People Who Come Up to Her
- Santorum, the Incredible Invisible Man
- Inconsequential Jon
- And let's not forget Tim the Gutless Wonder or Herman the Ninth Son of the Ninth Son of the Ninth Son
Certainly none of them -- not one -- has distinguished him- or herself as a candidate that can beat Barack Obama on his or her own merits. That is, with the exception of Ron Paul, probably any of them can beat Obama, but that's because Obama is a SCOAMF and not because these folks are super-duper candidates.
So there's no compelling reason to congeal behind any particular candidate early on. Let's see how the caucuses and primaries shake out and who ends up with decent delegate tallies on into March and April before talking about unifying behind a candidate.
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 04:47 PM (Di3Im)
Shit, I wouldn't know Bon Jovi if he fell in my soup. I don't even know what he does. I'm guessing pop singing? I have no idea what.
Posted by: dagny at December 19, 2011 08:35 PM (1RaCw)
80's and 90's hair band from Jersey that sold 130 million albums.
Really? You've never heard of them?
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 04:47 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 08:43 PM (h+qn
"
No sweet one but reality pervades and Rons have not changed. So lets see.
I have been predicting Ron for 2 months.
I am way ahead of my time.
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:49 PM (8EKYJ)
Over/under on Ben's foot falling off?
Posted by: alexthechick at December 19, 2011 04:50 PM (Gk3SS)
>>Over/under on Ben's foot falling off?
The ESPN guys were pointing out that the delay means that his pain meds dosage will be screwed up. He probably already took it and he can't take it again.
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 04:51 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Big T Party at December 19, 2011 08:46 PM (hC5jI)"
AMEN BROTHER, LETs DO IT, RON PAUL 2012.
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:51 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: stuiec at December 19, 2011 08:47 PM (Di3Im)
alright so it's just a wait and see approach, and quit feeling on tender hooks thing.
Posted by: willow at December 19, 2011 04:52 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 08:46 PM (EVsi9)
Is that where Fwank got his thumb injury from?
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 04:53 PM (zSUIh)
I don't trust any of them, either, but at least one branch has to work and be trustworthy for this nation to have any chance. Clearly, the judiciary is totally untrustworthy and they aren't subject to any sort of adverse consequences from their own rulings, save for Congress' impeachment power. Between the two, there is little doubt in my mind which institution is the less untrustworthy. Congress, at least, is open to elections every two years.
Aside from that, I trust even the RINOs in Congress (and those to be swept in in 2012) more than the despicable slugs in the judiciary. Those judges are the lowest of the low. The bottom of the barrel. Ultimate slime. And they are more dangerous than anything else, but BHO and his national socializing health care monstrosity.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 04:53 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 04:56 PM (R1+VK)
Posted by: Buck Ofama at December 19, 2011 04:56 PM (0aMD9)
Posted by: Phinn at December 19, 2011 04:57 PM (D0QzD)
Ace, you may have swayed me away from another candidate with this well written endorsement.
I will certainly vote for Perry over Ron “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” Paul.
Of course Paul has been consistently honest only coming clean as it were in 2001 when he "admitted" that he didn't write the offending remarks even after accepting his authorship in 1996.
Posted by: StrategicCorporalUSMC at December 19, 2011 04:58 PM (zgwWv)
Ron Paul for president.
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 04:58 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 04:59 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2011 08:56 PM (R1+VK)
It's their Constitutional duty. And it is necessary for them to finally start carrying out that duty.
Posted by: really ... at December 19, 2011 05:00 PM (X3lox)
Keep fuckin' that chicken Ace. Personally I'm not "compassionate" enough to vote for Perry.
Back to reality South Carolina and Florida are the real momentum makers and Gingrich has the advantage in those states. Romney and Perry have the money to soldier on but which state is Perry going to come in first or second in to give him enough momentum/legitimacy to justify him continuing into the third phase of the process(Arizona-Wyoming)? He is going to come in near last in South Carolina and Florida is he going to rebound in Nevada Maine Colorado or Minnesota? I mean a real rebound. getting over 30% in those states...
Perry's goose was cooked when he wagged his finger at the base for being anti-illegal alien (polls prove it). He charred the goose black with his continual debate flubs. And while guys that sound smart at a podium got us into this mess low information voters will be swayed mightily at the podium and Governor Hotgas WILL turn the goose to ash at that podium.
Ace you make the point yourself when talking about low information voters they will decide via sometinhg as simple as a debate and any slipp up will run non-stop until election day
Perry could force a brokered convention but I doubt it.
Posted by: theworldisnotenough at December 19, 2011 05:00 PM (qcrVQ)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 05:02 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: CoolCzech at December 19, 2011 05:03 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 09:02 PM (zLeKL)"
Yes, words a tricky little slippery shits aren't they?
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:04 PM (8EKYJ)
It might be time to watch Perry's debate(s) with his Democratic opponents in Texas. We know how he does on stage with 7 Republicans. How about with 1 Democrat?
Here's his debate from 2011. He does well, but, admittedly, the press is more kind to him than the national press would be AND his opponent seems exceptionally weak.
But still worth looking at:
http://tinyurl.com/3uun6tq
Posted by: Will Antonin at December 19, 2011 05:05 PM (ubduJ)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 05:05 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 05:06 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 09:02 PM (zLeKL)
In my experience here, if you don't recognize the name, it's probably a troll.
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 05:08 PM (zSUIh)
Posted by: The Cook’s Illustrated Cookbook ePub at December 19, 2011 05:09 PM (o7/dB)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 05:10 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 05:11 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Joffen at December 19, 2011 05:13 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: ErikW at December 19, 2011 09:08 PM (zSUIh)"
Trolls, hmmm. If the fascists left them alone, maybe they wouldn't change their names as often...
I have been left alone for the past few.
Why are we here to begin with (trolls)? Why, because we all saw W was such a mistake to begin with, and you still do not see.
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:15 PM (8EKYJ)
I love this bit from the Big Government endorsement.
But, when did debate performance become our sole criteria for picking a President? When did the RNC decide to team up with the legacy media and turn the nomination contest into an almost unwatchable reality TV spectacle? Is this really a sane way to pick a nominee?
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 05:15 PM (TLNYf)
Posted by: The Art of Manliness AudioBook at December 19, 2011 05:16 PM (6ZCwr)
I warned you.
Goddammit.
/administers 17 megapixels of brain bleach
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 19, 2011 05:20 PM (EVsi9)
He isn't stupid. He has hired the Mustache of Doom, John Bolton, as his foreign policy adviser. Plus, he flew airplanes in the Air Force. You can't do that if you are stupid.
Likeability is a BIG factor, perhaps the biggest. It's why Bush beat Gore. It's also why Obama beat McCain (Obama was doing an IMITATION of being likable, which no longer will work.)
Also, I vote for the dog-defender over the dog-tormenter.
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 19, 2011 05:21 PM (GoIUi)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:22 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: BurtTC at December 19, 2011 05:24 PM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:25 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: USMC8541 at December 19, 2011 05:26 PM (xf3fv)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:27 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:29 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at December 19, 2011 05:30 PM (E7I0g)
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:33 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: Y-not at December 19, 2011 05:35 PM (5H6zj)
Character and experience, he by far has the best servant's heart for the country. Yep, Perry 2012. Thanks, Ace.
Posted by: The Ghost of Kim Novak at December 19, 2011 05:37 PM (8DdAv)
WTF, you want us all to serve the 1 percent? Of course you do, but may not realize... Sad
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:41 PM (8EKYJ)
I do like your oblivious confidence in Ron "You Kids Get Off My Lawn" Paul, though, Jack, especially your gleeful delusion that a hare-crazy, isolationist Libertarian would win the nomination.
From now on, I'm going the call you "my friend, Fringey"
Posted by: LexisTexas at December 19, 2011 05:51 PM (Cn396)
I say, face up to the facts, the libs and libertarians have been screaming them for years... Reality sucks
Posted by: JackOfAllTrades at December 19, 2011 05:56 PM (8EKYJ)
Posted by: x11b1p at December 19, 2011 06:12 PM (nVLlM)
Posted by: Minuteman at December 19, 2011 06:13 PM (qs9G3)
Posted by: Minuteman at December 19, 2011 06:15 PM (qs9G3)
BUT, I remember his early days in office and his budget slashing, and the gnashing of teeth by so many state bureaucrats -- ah, a beautiful thing.
Posted by: Sphynx at December 19, 2011 06:25 PM (fEmj2)
I have no doubt that your reality sucks, inasmuch as it likely involves vigorous butter-massages of Barney Frank's generous man-boobs, punctuated by frequent requests that you consider what he has to offer, "sub-prime." And I'll concede that, "screaming" is the default level of discourse from libs, but I can't help thinking that by now, your Mom is suspicious of finding sticky photo-stills of Janeane Garfolo from Reality Bites which you claim is just part of your plan to "Occupy The Shower."
Posted by: LexisTexas at December 19, 2011 06:30 PM (Cn396)
Posted by: John Galt at December 19, 2011 06:49 PM (80GjT)
Look at the Christie endorsement.
There was a burst of MFM speculation that Christie was wrestling with entering the race, followed by his press conference declining to run.
A week or two later he endorsed Romney.
The MFM was complicit in this charade.
This raises the question, why has the MFM largely held its fire on Romney while savaging his challengers?
Is it because they win even when they lose.
Posted by: notion at December 19, 2011 07:05 PM (MwTP4)
Posted by: A History of the World in 100 Objects ePub at December 19, 2011 07:11 PM (6ZCwr)
Holy crap, there's a lot of comments on this thread. That means no one is going to read this one, just I like I didn't read any but the first 20 or so. Whatever.
Great, clear analysis of Perry's strengths, ace. But you don't need to convince me; I've been pulling for Perry before he got in the race. You said what I've been saying all along: I think Perry would be the best President out of all the candidates. Clearly not the best debator, but I definitely think the most conservative president who could govern effectively and get this country back on the right track.
Well, I'm off to do some more Christmas stuff before bed instead of hitting the ONT. F*** Iowa and Florida for pushing their retarded primaries this early in the cycle.
Posted by: OSUsux at December 19, 2011 07:17 PM (aOaj7)
Posted by: Darkkan at December 19, 2011 07:25 PM (RfikI)
The governorship in the State of Texas is one of the least powerful in all of the USA. Rick has had jack to do with job creation in TX. Job creation has been primarily due to the diversity of the state and its extremely low taxes than's the TX Congress.
Perry has time and time again supported things like.
- Trans-TX Corridor, eminent domaining over a million acres of private property in order to build a massive 1/4-mile-wide toll road that nobody wanted. Not only nobody wanted, but every study showed it would hurt the state. And he was handing it over to a Spanish company both both construction and operation. We pay for he, the Spaniards profit from it. He pushed and pushed and pushed this project despite massive protest - for years. Refused to put it to a popular vote. Tried everything he could to literally force it on us Huey-long style. He only recently dropped it when he decided to make a run for POTUS and started trying to rebrand himself as a Tea-party "conservative."
- Has vetoed legislation that would have deregulated our health care industry, driving up costs, worsening doctor shortages, preventing competition. But it's been great for his buddies (read financers) in the healthcare industry.
- There is example after example after example of how utterly corrupt Perry is. He is deeply entrenched in corporate special interests.
I will totally agree that I like a lot of what Perry says, but therein lies the problem. What Perry says is not what Perry does. Perry is the classic stereotypical slimy say-anything-do-anything politician.
Posted by: Andrew at December 19, 2011 07:26 PM (HS3dy)
John Galt,
The whole problem with your argument is what's the point of unseating the "The One" if the replacement is "Another One" ?
Show me one, just ONE, case in which voting for the so-called lesser of two evils has advanced conservatism. And by conservatism I mean actually reducing the size of federal government... I mean actually making a real shift back towards our founding values of individual liberty and limited government.
Show me one case.
I'm sorry, but I'd honestly rather keep Obama if it's another weak candiate. Why? Simple. A house divided is less likely to get anything done. I'd love for the government to be at constant risk of shutting down. I'd love for them to have to constantly have a high fight over raising the debt ceiling every 6 months to a year. Great! With a guy like Romney or Gingrich that won't happen.
Posted by: Andrew at December 19, 2011 07:32 PM (HS3dy)
Don't worry, I'll have more for you after I've cashed this week's paycheck from Rick.
Posted by: Erick Erick$on at December 19, 2011 07:39 PM (vNri7)
Newt is a rotund older guy with white hair.
Romney appears -slick- in much the same way that Obama does. The mega-polished result of decades of grooming.
Ron Paul looks like the Mawangdui Mummy.
Perry, aside from a striking resemblance to the Texas Aggie mascot, looks like a burly, square jawed oil rig worker who could kick the ever loving shit out of the rest of them. Just grab Ron Paul by the ankles and bludgeon them mercilessly.
Perry '12: If for no other reason, do it because he's the only one who looks like he might have a callus or two.
Posted by: Darkkan at December 19, 2011 07:43 PM (RfikI)
Show me one, just ONE, case in which voting for the so-called lesser of two evils has advanced conservatism.
Warren G. Harding was the lesser evil in 1920. He died 3 years in and Silent Cal (who could never have been elected President any other way) took over the last year and won the next.
I think that was the last time government was actually cut.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 19, 2011 08:09 PM (TLNYf)
Posted by: izoneguy at December 19, 2011 08:13 PM (i6Neb)
CIS debunked the Perry spokesman debunking of their report that a good chunk of those new texas jobs went to illegals.
I know the Perry people have their explanation for why all of his apparently bad stuff on immigration isn't. But the two leading conservative groups on immigration think the guy is poison. That plays big with me.
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 19, 2011 08:14 PM (baC5d)
Yeah, but will he? Sick to death of the non-articulators of conservatism (W, call your office). Rick Perry is another in a long line of them.
Posted by: Arms Merchant at December 19, 2011 08:44 PM (+XVQe)
Posted by: Case at December 19, 2011 09:37 PM (FD6YW)
Posted by: Perrybot at December 19, 2011 09:50 PM (oCMdU)
Posted by: Random Hot Chick at December 19, 2011 09:51 PM (ngSjE)
This is my first post here even though I've been reading here for about a year... and you guys have helped save my sanity! Here goes:
I really appreciated such a well-thought out post, Ace. This portion especially stood out for me:
"But I don't want someone who is so confident that he is a more capable administrator of federal power. I want someone who is skeptical of federal power no matter who wields it, no matter how skilled and able an administrator he might be, even if that administrator is he himself, and so always prefers to shunt power away from the government to to the states, and their citizens."
Isildur was confident that he could wield the One Ring, and it consumed and destroyed him. Aragorn and Gandalf knew that they were not powerful enough, so they destroyed it. The former was ignorant, the latter were smart. Perry, therefore, is the "smart one" because he knows the government is too big and it consumes anyone who doesn't want to destroy it.
Thanks for letting me join in!
Posted by: Aslan's Girl at December 19, 2011 10:30 PM (KL49F)
Bush version 3.0 Perry should be awesome!!!
Can't wait for some of that good old compassionate conservatism from Tex-ass again in D.C. to replace Obamunism.
Posted by: Chris at December 19, 2011 10:50 PM (pt3ia)
I also agree with Ace that those of us who are obsessed with politics know all this inside-baseball stuff, and it distorts our view of the race. Most folks simply are not paying attention.
Also, the Pravda media will definitely do their damnedest to disembowel anyone we put up. AS a good friend of mine once said, "If you're going to catch hell no matter what you do, why not do what you want?"
Remember: Newt's numbers were going down the drain just a month or two ago -- this race is still very volatile, and could change in a week.
*Likeability in the general election is enormously important, and it will set him off well against the oily and arrogant Hussein Obummer.
Posted by: Beverly at December 19, 2011 11:02 PM (OOQkt)
Happy to. "This is not the thread you will be stuck with for the next few hours."
Posted by: Jones at December 19, 2011 05:53 PM (8sCoq)
Liar
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at December 20, 2011 12:48 AM (oif6Y)
Posted by: Mary at December 20, 2011 04:15 AM (t4WVf)
Posted by: Hangtown Bob at December 20, 2011 05:12 AM (j17Xp)
Way too late, as usual, but I appreciate the well presented case, by people whose opinions I value greatly. I had pretty much written Perry off, primarily due to his probable inability to stand up to Obama in debates and sell his case to the American people. Not only right now, when there is some Obama fatigue, but four years from now, when the going might still be tough. Also concerned about his being stereotyped as "We're supposed to vote for another dumb Texas cowboy.... Really?"
Not in total agreement about everything, but you've made solid arguments that have reopened my eyes, and I'm going to take a fresh new look. Thanks.
Posted by: RM at December 20, 2011 05:15 AM (TRsME)
Meanwhile, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, etc. were all driven by media hype and a party establishment desperate to capture the Tea Party vote.
When Paul has a steady drumbeat of "conservatives" trying to destroy his candidacy (you know the type.... the ones who profess Constitutional values and claim to LOVE small government, but then manage to achieve the exact opposite under the cover of some religious posturing or culture war), you know that it is a real base of support he has... rather than some silly American Idol style hype fest.
Posted by: wha? at December 20, 2011 05:19 AM (4Hrju)
Of Perry's quoted new jobs in Texas, in the interest of full disclosure, provide the graphic statistical breakdown stipulating how many of these new are tax funded positions with the State of Texas government, as then how many of these new "private" industry positions are being filled by non-US citizens in Texas. Perry's significant increase in the State of Texas spending budget is also not addressed by his advocates, avoided at all costs.
Rick Perry says whatever he understands that the people want to hear in order to get re-elected. And he does love the Great State of Texas. But he loves himself a hell of a lot more than he cares about Texas taxpayers. What of his pledge to complete his unprecedented latest stint as Governor of Texas? The American voters from 50 states will likely enforce it since Perry's abandoned it. Likewise with any pledge. Whatever will power from the voters wringing out of Perry is all that they can hope fulfilled from his administration's politically expedient platform, because Perry has already proven that he's vested personally/politically with globalists, not constitutional conservatives. Regarding our Bill of Rights, aside from gun control, on three significant occasions, Perry turned against the Constitutional Rights of Texans. Acknowledged, concerned or not, this record exists within a Perry endorsement. Even concerning the bottom dollar, how was awarding the construction and tolling of Perry's Trans Texas Corridor to a Spanish corporation in the best interest of the State of Texas taxpayers and state economy?
Playing the puppet in the hands of not American but globalist interests wins the neoconservative endorsement for POTUS, lots of campaign funds and advancement of authoritarianism. Nothing new.
Whatever v. Obama
Posted by: Lesser of two weevils pie in the sky at December 20, 2011 05:20 AM (lpWVn)
The more I read about Romney and Gingritch, the less I like the idea of having to vote for either.
There's still time for Perry.
(I hope.)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at December 20, 2011 05:30 AM (DuH+r)
Remember: Newt's numbers were going down the drain just a month or two ago -- this race is still very volatile, and could change in a week.
No they weren't - Newt's numbers didn't exist a month or two ago.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 20, 2011 05:40 AM (AuQqX)
Posted by: ThePaganTemple at December 20, 2011 05:52 AM (9tNcY)
Otherwise, as far as people actually in--I look forward to Mrs. Bachmann establishing executive credentials someday so we may see if the ability lives up to the clear potential. As far as Mr. Huntsman, I think leaving him thinking next year, as he sits on the sideline, about his triangulation earlier this year, pondering what could have been, will be a useful object lesson to future pols--don't plan, *be*. As far as Mr. Paul, he is proof that the #OWS crowd is really about socialism and electing Democrats, for otherwise they would be flocking to him. Mr. Santorum is somebody I understand is in the race. That leaves Mr. Perry.
I say go for him, with a.) when it will come to the debates, we should probably remember the old saying "Warren, Spahn, and pray for rain" and b.) I don't care if the man thinks I have a heart or not when it comes to immigration. Another amnesty attempt by a Republican risks permanent party schism, so he and all the rest of the "wise old men" can just figure out how to appeal to that particular demographic that wants an amnesty in some other fashion; and if there is no way to appeal to those who believe in the rule of law and those who demand amnesty as the price of their support, then I guess it is just time to finally choose and perish, because as far as I'm concerned an amnesty-attempting GOP is not ever going to be anything but something to take pot shots at, as often and as hard as can be, and for me at least, that's what I'll do.
Other than that, Perry.
Posted by: Nemo at December 20, 2011 06:00 AM (jUSoZ)
So there you have it. If Gingrich is the nominee the media will stress Obama's supposed marital bliss and his two "beautiful children". So if Rick Perry is the nominee it just stands to reason they will stress that Obama is, you know, smart and stuff.
If Mittens is the nomine the media will stress Obama as a firm and principled leader who had to make hard, unpopular choices for the country.
Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 20, 2011 06:06 AM (AuQqX)
Posted by: John Galt at December 20, 2011 06:06 AM (9NQ6I)
The funniest thing about this entire defense of Rick Perry is that Ace probably has no idea that everything he wrote here, except for the bit about military service, is exactly what Palin supporters argue.
Nice going Ace. You keep fucking that chicken no matter how embarrassing Rick Perry is every time he tries to spit out a coherant sentence while gesturing like a girl. Rick Perry makes Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar, but you keep hanging onto that Air Force stint.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 20, 2011 06:18 AM (4zKCA)
This thread is still going? .....Ace musta hit a nerve. Heh.
You know, Palin, Gingrich and Cain.......have all been making a living off of their speaking abilities. Being silver-tongued doesn't mean someone will be a good president.
Palin and Gingrich both share the distinction of having quit their last elective office. ....Whatever their reasons were, they quit. It's not a good thing to have on a resume and the media would trash them for it in the general.
Romney would get trashed for being an "evil millionaire 1%-er who has killed jobs to increase his wealth". .....All that class warfare that Obama has been laying down was calculated to culminate in the election next year.
Bachman and Paul are not bad people. ....But their time spent on the crazy train knocks them out of any serious consideration for a lot of people, myself included.
Santorum is a good guy. ....But he comes across as whiny and nervous, which is a turn off for me, and he probably couldn't even deliver PA for us.
Perry is the guy that could beat the SCoaMF. ....He's got a long history of good executive experience, and he is a veteran. .....People say he's "dumb". Well, if he's so dumb.....then why hasn't the genius Barky McClusterfuck in the WH figured out how to do what Perry has done to foster job creation and an economic boom?
Posted by: wheatie at December 20, 2011 06:47 AM (HvKWW)
532 .....How's this for puppeh cuteness?
We support this Rick Perry. He shot a coyote who was threatening one of our kind. We hate coyotes. Coyotes eat Yorkies, when they get the chance.
Death to coyotes!
Posted by: The Yorkie Global Domination Federation at December 20, 2011 06:59 AM (HvKWW)
Still, I could turn a blind eye IF I thought Perry was a solid candidate that could beat Obama, but I honestly cringe every time I see him. Perry has said some REALLY stupid things like pondering if states should start seceding, or that Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi Scheme. Hell, I even agree with both of those, but I also know that Obama would EASILY be able to paint him as a fringe figure with those views.
I am one of those sell outs that values electability. I just want Obama gone and to stop the bleeding, I can deal with the pain of a moderate Republican winning the White House a lot easier than a second term for The One.
Posted by: 8 Track at December 20, 2011 07:42 AM (0kf1G)
@8 Track:
I thought the whole thing about the illegals was that it actually only affected a very small group of people (maybe less than 100 immigrants? Anyway, a really small number). Sorry I don't have sources for that, just a vague memory.
The take-away was that Perry just stumbled over the explanation and got painted with soundbites by everyone.
Posted by: SnowSun at December 20, 2011 07:57 AM (UAUr6)
It was enough that Mexican President Vicente Fox thanked Perry for in-state tuition for illegal aliens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2PQ_gU9hN0
The comment from Perry that if you oppose in state tuition for illegals you "don't have a heart" was the last straw.
My biggest problem though regarding illegal immigration is that Perry seemed to really pander, he was against E-Verify, against a border fence, and made several noises that he supported some sort of blanket amnesty.
Look, I'm fully willing to concede that not every GOP candidate is going to be a Pat Buchanan-type on the border. But when I see Southern California and how it has turned into a wasteland because of illegal immigration, it scares me far more than issues like abortion or gay marriage. If this isn't dealt with, Democrats will turn the entire country into California.
If Perry is the nominee, I will of course support him, and admire than he is an unabashed Christian, but outside of my issues with illegal immigration, he's simply unelectable in front of independent voters. Every poll I've seen he's put up "Palin" type numbers against Obama, usually somewhere in the 30's. Just not worth the risk, imo.
Posted by: 8 Track at December 20, 2011 08:20 AM (0kf1G)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at December 20, 2011 08:36 AM (m/TU6)
Actually it was better he stumbled early than after the nomination.
Posted by: tom at December 20, 2011 08:38 AM (ukl9X)
Ace, thanks for the reminder of Perry's term as Lieutenant Governor. I've raised the issue of the weakness in the governor's position often. You provided a nice rebuttal.
Posted by: creeper at December 20, 2011 08:43 AM (gre5a)
Posted by: Rick at December 20, 2011 08:52 AM (CDm+r)
Posted by: ace at December 20, 2011 10:12 AM (nj1bB)
Allow me to suggest that when matters have devolved to the point that your first and best argument for your presidential candidate is that he married his grade school sweetheart, your presidential candidate is well and truly boned.
Posted by: Rich Fader at December 20, 2011 12:03 PM (28QGB)
Posted by: Lea at December 20, 2011 02:37 PM (XJwIx)
Anyway, makes sense to me (just to keep it short).
I like Perry.
Posted by: currently at December 20, 2011 09:53 PM (flA6l)
Posted by: el polacko at December 20, 2011 11:31 PM (tnFrE)
Posted by: ain't gonna happen at December 21, 2011 12:28 AM (ZNKzc)
I would say this is the defintion of uphill and maybe a remake of the movie "300"....TX is doing fine but so far I think 'liberal " moderators could trip him up with "how fast can you drive in a 55 zone?"....Debating may not be what is needed to run the place but thinking is....He still needs to show he can do that.
Having said that, except for worrying about who sleeps with whom in the Miltary, I am pretty much on the same page with him on most issues and Newt and Mitt just don't do it for me.
Posted by: Frany at December 21, 2011 01:24 AM (coVTI)
Summarizing the rationale / downsides of the candidates in a soundbite:
Perry: Vote for the dummy! It's important.
Romney: Snowboarding the national decline!
Bachman: In your heart you know she's smart. In your guts, you know she's nuts... and kinda hot.
Paul: In your heart, you know he's nuts. In your guts, you know he's nuts. But not as nutty as the illuminati and the ZOG...
Huntsman: He Probably Stands for Something.
Santorum: Because you can't handle the truth.
Gingrich: When the national truck runs into a ditch with a flat, what's better than a re-tread to get it going again? Nothing. Have you thought about using carbon nanotubes as the building blocks of a space elevator in order to build Section 8 housing in low earth orbit, where the kids will have trouble getting out of the house and vandalizing the neighborhood, which we know from Broken Windows Theory to lead to an increase in crime? And as Alvin Toffler said to me over coffee one day... [Thats just for his bumper sticker. The soundbite will be more detailed]
Posted by: Joe Blow at December 21, 2011 05:19 AM (osx1V)
Can't add anything to that brilliance. On media bias in gen election Ace is spot on. For me, it's really simple. When Rick Perry talks about how much he loves this country, I believe him. When Pres Perry travels the world, folks will say that's America right there. I am 100% certain he would act primarily in America's interest and never apologize for doing so. Unlike other candidates (who mostly seem self-involved) Perry talks about the troops, and always with the heartfelt respect (troops I work with love him). Plainspoken Perry, when pressed yesterday to credit Obama w/killing OBL, said "No, I'm pretty sure it was Navy Seals." Finally, he's a positive life force. Nothing keeps the man down. I think it's his faith, and I'm inspired by it. (Okay, it doesn't hurt that he's fabulous looking.) I think we need Rick Perry right now. I wouldn't walk across the street to vote for Newt, Paul or Romney. We deserve better.
Posted by: carolauren at December 21, 2011 07:57 AM (0AX8H)
Very good defense of Perry. You made several important points like:
1. Having actual executive experience as a governor is important, and a clear advantage over Paul, Bachman, and Newt, expecially when the term as governor had very positive results. On this point though, Romney also does well.
2. Having a stable marriage with no personal scandals is good, and a clear advantage over Newt. On this the other contendors are also OK.
3. I like Perrys lines about federalism, making gov inconsequential, keeping taxes low, and abolishing wasteful gov functions, and Perry should repeat them often. I do not like his recent idea of a part time legislature, and his recent suckups to social conservatives.
Perry does have some problems though, which he must overcome like:
1. He does sound dumb in debates. True the dems always say our guys are dumb, but in most cases it is obvious in the debates it is not true, but in this case it does look like it is true. If Perry could give a few more interviews on Fox and explain his positions without sounding dumb, that would help. TV adds adds where he explains some positions and does not sound dumb should also help. Either Romney or Newt completely neutralize this charge.
2. He reminds us too much of Bush. Another heavy Texas accent, another Texas governor, more pandering to socons, also sounds dumb, and more ties to oil company cronies. Right now the country still has a severe case of Bush fatague, and Obama still wants to run against Bush. The less the new contendor looks like Bush the better.
Posted by: richard40 at December 21, 2011 02:13 PM (cQhQZ)
Posted by: AHLondon at January 03, 2012 07:46 AM (X4JNC)
Posted by: AHLondon at January 03, 2012 07:50 AM (X4JNC)
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 11:57 AM (RD7QR)
I'm still trying to grasp the reality of that old fool Ron Paul coming in 2nd...or even 1st today.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 11:57 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 11:58 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 11:58 AM (8y9MW)
Ron Paul doing well in any primary makes us look like assholes.
Ron Paul holding elected office anywhere outside of Lilliput makes us look like assholes.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:00 PM (sbV1u)
Yes, Perry had all of that going for him and still managed to blow it. That just proves the point that he is not the best candidate.
2012 is a must win for the GOP. Perry is an excellent executive but we need a winner. Perry is not a winner. He blew the primaries.
Posted by: Pete_Bondurant at January 03, 2012 12:00 PM (phzv/)
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 03, 2012 12:00 PM (s3+ua)
Posted by: Mittens 2012 at January 03, 2012 12:00 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 12:01 PM (8y9MW)
His favorables are in the dumper and half the country thinks he's a gay-bashing idiot hayseed. That translates to unpopularity, and that translates to four more years of Obama.
Posted by: Lou at January 03, 2012 12:02 PM (xp1pq)
Go Perry!
I'm praying that there are enough people in these early primary states who see what a good president Perry would make.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 12:02 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: Willy at January 03, 2012 12:02 PM (imBmy)
His favorables are in the dumper and half the country thinks he's a gay-bashing idiot hayseed. That translates to unpopularity, and that translates to four more years of Obama.
^^This.
Which is why it will be Mittens by a nose for the nomination
We're so boned.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:03 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Mittens 2012 at January 03, 2012 12:03 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Countrysquire for Perry at January 03, 2012 12:05 PM (QB3JR)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:05 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Willy at January 03, 2012 12:05 PM (imBmy)
Sorry, but I have to do it...
Rick Perry is our rock star.
Can he sustain it?
Or will this weekend be the climax of his campaign?
Posted by: soothsayer at August 12, 2011 01:09 PM
Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 12:05 PM (G/zuv)
Hey I married the girl I went to day camp with when we were both 5. What does that get me?
I dunno, is she hot?
I'll give you $27.95 for her. Deal?
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:06 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: suzyq at January 03, 2012 12:06 PM (R/EIU)
And on the Second Day, Soothsayer had the answer to the question:
Today will be remembered as the climax of Perry's candidacy.
Posted by: soothsayer at August 13, 2011 03:40 PM
Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 12:06 PM (G/zuv)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at January 03, 2012 12:08 PM (GTbGH)
Gov.Perry is the only well qualified candidate. Big plus,his military service! In any ways,"OMG" (obummer must go!)...
None of the legislative part of the gov. are qualified to run a country and there ought to be a law preventing them from running.
Posted by: IKWill at January 03, 2012 12:08 PM (HkrXj)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:09 PM (WkuV6)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:10 PM (i6RpT)
Thats because when he was of age he was in indonesia and the pansy ass couldn't lift the scimitar.
Posted by: Berserker at January 03, 2012 12:10 PM (FMbng)
Mitt and Ann were in Laura Ingraham's show today. Laura asked Mitt if he would be a transformative president or a moderate go-along-to-get-along president. He immediately said he would be transformative. He may really believe it, but I sincerely doubt it. I listened to the interview trying to get one bit of support worked up in my system and it just didn't happen. At all.
I'm for Perry and will remain so.
Posted by: Lady in Black ~ still carrying a torch for Perry at January 03, 2012 12:10 PM (ycuSb)
He blew the primaries. Isn't the first one today?
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 04:09 PM (WkuV6)
Yeah, I think he meant to say, "the debates" not the primaries.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:11 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: fluffy at January 03, 2012 12:12 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:13 PM (WkuV6)
I will totally be transformative. Obamacare? Totally going to rename it. EPA? Totally going to not, not, not change course. Spending? I promise to cut at least $100 a year. I don't even like arugula with my waygu!
Posted by: Mittens at January 03, 2012 12:13 PM (7BU4a)
868 Hey I married the girl I went to day camp with when we were both 5. What does that get me?
These days, that would get you put on the Sexual Predators List.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 12:13 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2012 12:13 PM (TpXEI)
Posted by: Wall_E at January 03, 2012 12:14 PM (48wze)
Posted by: joeindc44 - slightly mellowed tebow crazed rioter at January 03, 2012 12:14 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Berserker at January 03, 2012 04:10 PM (FMbng)
Oh, I wouldn't say Barry can't handle a blade.
Posted by: Kal Penn at January 03, 2012 12:14 PM (7BU4a)
Paultards can go on there and vote multiple times. Spam the poll dudes!
Posted by: Willy at January 03, 2012 12:14 PM (imBmy)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 03, 2012 12:14 PM (FKQng)
And you pay her Master Card Bill?
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 04:10 PM (i6RpT)
Deal.
Can't be any worse that on the one I signed up for with my wife.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:14 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Fritz at January 03, 2012 12:15 PM (/ZZCn)
Alls I know is that President Romney means there is no more Obamamuthafucka in the White House.
Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 04:13 PM (G/zuv)
Yeah. If Mitt can defeat the SCOAMF then I'm willing to lay there and think of England during the primaries.
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 12:15 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:15 PM (WkuV6)
He still has my vote assuming he makes it to Super Tuesday.
Otherwise, it's *vomit*... Mittens.
Sigh.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 03, 2012 12:15 PM (pLTLS)
Perry is going to be humiliated in Iowa with a poor finish, he wonÂ’t be a factor in New Hampshire, but heÂ’ll have resurgence in South Carolina. Lucky for him, heÂ’s got the money to stay in.
ItÂ’s a shame Perry doesnÂ’t have one defining moment in his past that people could point to show he has what it takes to do the right thing. If he did, one could overlook his inability to think and speak.
Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 12:16 PM (8moZm)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:16 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2012 04:13 PM (TpXEI)
Uh. Well, he's got nice hair.
Posted by: The RNC's hard working staff at January 03, 2012 12:16 PM (7BU4a)
Oh, I wouldn't say Barry can't handle a blade.
Posted by: Kal Penn at January 03, 2012 04:14 PM (7BU4a)
Ah ha! Thought you would get me that time, did you?
Thanks to life here at AoSHQ, I have learned NEVER to take a sip of soda and then immediately read the threads.
I have thus preserved this keyboard to fight another day. Nevertheless, well played sir...well played.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:17 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: GOP Primaries: The Movie at January 03, 2012 12:17 PM (a4lmz)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at January 03, 2012 12:17 PM (0xqzf)
Wanna bet? Would be a good talk to have at the Bar one day with the booze flowing
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 04:16 PM (i6RpT)
If you're not in the mid five digits...you're a piker.
But, let's get a beer anyway.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:18 PM (sbV1u)
Yeah. If Mitt can defeat the SCOAMF then I'm willing to lay there and think of England during the primaries.
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 04:15 PM (RD7QR)
Vote Romney, I believe in lube.
Posted by: Mittens 2012 at January 03, 2012 12:18 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 12:18 PM (8y9MW)
He may have made some missteps during the campaign (although nothing of note lately), but none of that changes who he is at his core and what he's accomplished. Nor have any of the things his opponents have said about him, here or elsewhere, amounted to much of anything.
My support for Rick Perry is based on is record and his commitment to reducing the size and scope of the federal government. He's the only non-Paul candidate who will trim the federal government at all. And, frankly, I trust his instincts on the big things. I think he'd be a great Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2012 12:18 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Truman North at January 03, 2012 12:19 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:19 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 04:19 PM (i6RpT)
Hey, did I hear my name?
Posted by: Barack Obama at January 03, 2012 12:20 PM (7BU4a)
Howie Carr or Tim Murray?
Posted by: fluffy at January 03, 2012 04:18 PM (O6q63)
I miss Boston...the town.
But I don't miss Massachusetts.
Howie just tore him a new one. Nice.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:21 PM (sbV1u)
We got Romney because the PTB decided it would be Romney, and they know from watching enough American Idol how to get voters to vote the way their betters decide they should.
Perry never stood a chance. We know that now, but it was nice to hope for a while there.
Posted by: Burt TC at January 03, 2012 12:22 PM (TOk1P)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 03, 2012 12:22 PM (hWRjQ)
Posted by: soothsayer at January 03, 2012 04:18 PM (G/zuv)
If John Kerry the Willard beats Obama (which, given his electoral history, is doubtful), that's like the devil switching from shoving pineapples up your ass to dragonfruit.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2012 12:22 PM (TpXEI)
Same thing, Perry needed to be speaking out about national issues a long time before now. Like Reagan on the rubber-chicken circuit before he was elected. It helps to not be in office anymore..but Perry could have been taking shots at Obama and getting known before now. Most people outside of Texas don't know who the hell he is.
Posted by: Jeanne! at January 03, 2012 12:22 PM (GdalM)
Posted by: OnlyWayOutIsToVote at January 03, 2012 12:22 PM (/MuFf)
Posted by: Dr. Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 12:23 PM (WAcAY)
Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2012 04:18 PM (5H6zj)
This sums it all up perfectly for me, right down to trusting his instincts; I said the same thing to my husband last week. I'd only add he also gives me the decency vibe I like to get from a candidate. I get that from Mittens, too, which may be the only saving grace in having to vote for him if it comes down to it, other than the ABO factor.
Posted by: Tammy al' Thor at January 03, 2012 12:24 PM (SsG4J)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:24 PM (WkuV6)
Posted by: nickless at January 03, 2012 12:24 PM (No3Dd)
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 12:24 PM (xSHjK)
903.....ItÂ’s a shame Perry doesnÂ’t have one defining moment in his past that people could point to show he has what it takes to do the right thing. If he did, one could overlook his inability to think and speak.
Perry stood up to the pressure from both the UN & Obama, this year.....and went through with the execution of an illegal alien who had raped and murdered a teenage girl.
Perry took in thousands of refuges from New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. ....He didn't have to. But it was the right thing to do.
Perry volunteered for military service. .....He thought serving his country was the right thing to do.
Perry has a long history of doing the right thing.....when he didn't have to. .....A longer history than your Saint Sarah.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 12:25 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: Baileyc at January 03, 2012 12:25 PM (FGq5b)
Posted by: Dr. Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 04:23 PM (WAcAY)
Hey Ron, tell us about the Reptilian Illuminati Jew gold. Is it scaly?
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 12:26 PM (RD7QR)
Hey Auric, when you bought Father Paul's book, did he ask for payment in gold or that currency he thinks is so worthless?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2012 12:27 PM (TpXEI)
Posted by: nickless at January 03, 2012 04:24 PM (No3Dd)
Yep and then Palin announced her candidacy. It was epic!
Posted by: ErikW at January 03, 2012 12:27 PM (tM+Q/)
The neocons still have hope for their dead candidate that failed at every debate. How cute.
Posted by: Dr. Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 04:23 PM (WAcAY)
The only people who support Ron Paul are those who are just as mentally deficient as he is.
Little known fact, the AMA recently declared that when used by Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, the acronym M.D. means "Mentally Deficient."
It's true! look it up!
Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 03, 2012 12:29 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: I am the walrus, goo-goo-ga-joo at January 03, 2012 12:29 PM (ybkwK)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 03, 2012 12:29 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:29 PM (WkuV6)
Very well put, Sir. Very Well, indeed.
Have we sent the Perry Campaign a link to this post, yet?
Susan Lee
Posted by: Susan Lee at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (k5BL6)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Dr. Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (WAcAY)
It may have been the decent thing to do, but "right" is not the best choice of word.
Posted by: The Rapidly Rising Crime Rates of Springfield MO, Houston, and Little Rock at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (SsG4J)
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 12:30 PM (xSHjK)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:31 PM (WkuV6)
903 -
Jwest, you are just the kind of idiot who keeps repeating how dumb Perry is every chance you can get. You're either the very type who is too stupid to see beyond those beauty contest "debates" or you know you are wrong, and keep repeating it anyway, hoping someone will finally listen to you.
What did Perry do to you, shoot your dog? Steal your girl? Or keep her from getting in the race?
Hmmm, I wonder...
Posted by: Burt TC at January 03, 2012 12:31 PM (TOk1P)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:31 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Jean at January 03, 2012 12:32 PM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Dr. Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 04:30 PM (WAcAY)
Corrected for accuracy.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 03, 2012 12:32 PM (TpXEI)
Posted by: Truman North at January 03, 2012 12:32 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at January 03, 2012 12:33 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Dr. Ron Paul at January 03, 2012 04:30 PM (WAcAY)
FIFY.
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 12:34 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 12:34 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 12:35 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 04:35 PM (zLeKL)
So they're using it to induce narcolepsy?
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 12:36 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Truman North at January 03, 2012 12:37 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: The Rapidly Rising Crime Rates of Springfield MO, Houston, and Little Rock at January 03, 2012 12:38 PM (SsG4J)
Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at January 03, 2012 12:38 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 04:35 PM (zLeKL)
Which will Gore ask to release his second chakra during the commercial breaks?
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at January 03, 2012 12:38 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Lincolntf at January 03, 2012 12:39 PM (Qjh0I)
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 04:34 PM (oPkw3)
Are the fucking Iowans afraid of the daylight? Or are they afraid that the Paultards actually did take over their primary?
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 12:39 PM (xSHjK)
Posted by: wooga at January 03, 2012 12:39 PM (vjyZP)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:39 PM (i6RpT)
If a caucus really takes a couple of hours or more, it's probably because roughly 80% of them still have jobs.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 03, 2012 12:40 PM (8y9MW)
Perry has a long history of doing the right thing.....when he didn't have to. .....A longer history than your Saint Sarah.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 04:25 PM (oPkw3)
Perry was the natural next choice for me, until he opened his mouth and tried to talk.
Palin had the moment when she could have just cruised along collecting a check as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, but she quit to expose the corruption. From that incident, I knew she would do the right thing regardless of the circumstances and so I was able to overlook her faults.
Why go into an election defending an inarticulate stumblebum who almost tries to make people believe heÂ’s an idiot?
Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 12:41 PM (8moZm)
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 03, 2012 12:41 PM (RD7QR)
Romney is the only candidate who is truly ready to mount a national campaign. Polls have shown he can beat Obama.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 03, 2012 12:42 PM (9zzk+)
Are the fucking Iowans afraid of the daylight? Or are they afraid that the Paultards actually did take over their primary?
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 04:39 PM (xSHjK)
It's Republicans- they work for a living. If it was a dem caucus, they'd hold it around 1pm when obama's children roll out of bed.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at January 03, 2012 12:42 PM (fYOZx)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 12:43 PM (ZDUD4)
Tort reform? He's actually won a number of fights. A lot of people think he was just sitting around going with the flow in one of the last sane states, but that's not really true.
Unfortunately, without a conservative nominee, I think the GOP will lose the election.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 12:43 PM (rQ/Ue)
That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read on the eve of the Iowa caucuses.
Which candidate, pray tell, has closed the deal with Republicans?
Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2012 12:43 PM (5H6zj)
970......Are the fucking Iowans afraid of the daylight? Or are they afraid that the Paultards actually did take over their primary?
They don't even treat it like a Primary, Soona. ......Because it's not.
They 'votes' are non-binding. Which means they can be changed later. .....They have to be very careful to not treat it like a Primary, or they would lose half of those precious 28 delegate votes in the National Convention.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 12:44 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 03, 2012 12:44 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 12:45 PM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: packsoldier at January 03, 2012 12:46 PM (EH4fE)
Have you not seen him speak anywhere OTHER than the fucking debates? Without a teleprompter?
If you don't like Perry, that's fine, but come up with a substantial reason other than "he's a dumb hick from Texas."
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2012 12:46 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 12:47 PM (zLeKL)
It's Republicans- they work for a living. If it was a dem caucus, they'd hold it around 1pm when obama's children roll out of bed.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, hoping for a Rick Perry miracle at January 03, 2012 04:42 PM (fYOZx)
Just in time for the ACORN busses to show up and take them to the polls.
After that they hold a free crack and cigarettes buffet as a thank you.
Posted by: ErikW at January 03, 2012 12:47 PM (tM+Q/)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 03, 2012 12:47 PM (hVnJ9)
Military expert with explosives in airport was in prior incident
His story doesn't sound credible to me.
Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2012 12:48 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 12:48 PM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 03, 2012 04:47 PM (FUYSU)
Crack and cigarettes?
Posted by: ErikW at January 03, 2012 12:48 PM (tM+Q/)
Why go into an election defending an inarticulate stumblebum who almost tries to make people believe heÂ’s an idiot?
Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 04:41 PM (8moZm)
It's obvious to me that your commenting from someone else's talking points. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that he does very well in interviews and tv ads. He's had some gaffes, but so has everyone else, which seems to be something that many people seem to exclusively forget.
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 12:49 PM (xSHjK)
Posted by: jr at January 03, 2012 12:49 PM (uzbYw)
Perry's record is not only successful - it's current. He's been under the microscope of politics years and his character and record have stood up to the scrutiny. None of the other candidates even come close.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 03, 2012 12:50 PM (jx2j9)
Posted by: Steel Panther at January 03, 2012 12:50 PM (RtpCp)
Posted by: RON PAUL! at January 03, 2012 12:52 PM (60EzG)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 12:52 PM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 03, 2012 12:53 PM (G6kli)
If you don't like Perry, that's fine, but come up with a substantial reason other than "he's a dumb hick from Texas."
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2012 04:46 PM (UK9cE)"
they have to keep saying because it's one of those concepts that becomes true the more you say it. Everyone gaffes. Romney said Asia was a country and he couldn't employ illegals anymore because he's running for office "for pete's sake". Focus on gaffes selectively, and suddenly the most competent executive in the race is too stupid to tie his own shoes.
There is no argument FOR Romney. The only card he has is to tear others down via intermediaries and fanboys.
Another concept is electability. If everyone just agrees to reject the best guy because he's not electable, well I guess he is at that point. If everyone acts like one of the worst candidates in inevitable and we have to unify NOW before any primaries are even over, as Romney's supporters have been saying for some time, well, I guess he wins then.
We could just look at the performance of these candidates. It's less dramatic, though. Not even a contest. Perry is clearly the guy with the best record. Romney is the guy with the worst record. Newt and Santorum are in between. Bachmann has yet to accomplish anything, which is a lot better than accomplishing shit like Romneycare and gun control. Ron Paul is an idiot.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 12:53 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: izoneguy at January 03, 2012 12:53 PM (i6Neb)
Posted by: SarahW at January 03, 2012 12:54 PM (LYwCh)
As far as policy, like ace said, keep it simple stupid. Take these 4 items and run with them. Heck just getting jobs going in the US will make a world of difference.
I'm in Florida. If he's still in it, he's got my participation in his campaign and my vote.
Posted by: jawanna at January 03, 2012 12:54 PM (bj+Nc)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 12:54 PM (zLeKL)
Looks like with some pretty hot chicks too!
http://tinyurl.com/6nm7qaq
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at January 03, 2012 04:50 PM (hXJOG)
She's the only reason I watch the victory lane celebrations. SMOKIN hot.
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2012 12:55 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 12:55 PM (i6RpT)
976.....Why go into an election defending an inarticulate stumblebum who almost tries to make people believe heÂ’s an idiot?
You've got your blinders on, Jwest. ......Even Palin has had her "inarticulate stumblebum" moments. And the people who look for reasons to hate her, have compiled them all somewhere.
But since I don't hate Palin....I actually like her, for the most part.....I haven't chosen to dwell on those moments when she embarrassed herself.
Her taking so long to make a decision on whether to run, though.....that doesn't bode well for someone who might be asking for a job which requires split-second decision making.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 12:55 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 12:56 PM (ZDUD4)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 03, 2012 12:56 PM (pLTLS)
I think he is the one of the candidates I would most prefer to be president and I think he is as electable as anyone, although for the purposes of rhetoric, I'd defer to Romney supporters on the electability of their guy.
He is also the only not-Romney who makes sense as a protest candidate and the only not-Romney who has a chance to defeat Romney. Nobody else does.
Bachmann and Huntsman are going nowhere and will be out by February.
Santorum is as squishy as Romney on a whole host of issues, but because he didn't get the media anal exam, we are unaware of much of it. I'm willing to excuse the Specter endorsement based on party loyalty and Santorum's closeness with unions to a lesser extent, but if Romney is a liberal bridge too far, what is Santorum?
Paul has a whole host of problems, including his friendship with truthers, racists and anti-Semites and dissembling about it is just beyond the pale. But consider this: He's done absolutely nothing. 30 years in Congress and he does nothing but pontificate as to what he's against.
Gingrich is the interesting case. He's done more for the conservative cause than anybody in the race, but has done a number of high-profile things that indicate that his first instinct isn't conservative. He's also chock full of knowledge. Newt loves Newt. He does a decent Hamilton, but we need a Washington. Newt needs an individual (or a caucus) to tell him, "Thanks, Newt, but that's a terrible idea. Pitch us your next one though, OK?" He's also personally less likable than Romney or Perry.
Romney's problems are well-established. I think people on blogs overestimate his RINOishness, but he is not a doctrinaire conservative. He is smooth, eloquent and -- let's face it -- even less robotic than Obama. It's true. But without significant pushing, he will play the "normal times" politician and not push back against Obamanism too hard. I think he will try to repeal Obamacare and his judges will be good to very good. I think he'll also try some dime-store liberalism like "no child left behind" which will infuriate us.
Perry's fault is his inarticulateness. And after GWBush, that's a big hurdle. But he's good in interviews and in speeches. In fact, Perry's very good in interviews. Romney didn't do so well against Baier and that's problematic.
Suffice it to say that Reagan is not running and I don't know how universally-loved he'd be in this media environment anyway. I want to move the ball forward for the conservative team. So even if you think we're going to get the Romney-bone in the end, I'd rather have the protest vote go to Perry anyway.
But I do think that Perry has a shot of winning this thing and that's why I'm caucusing for him tonight.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 12:57 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at January 03, 2012 12:57 PM (79SNs)
That pretty much leaves intelligence. I want to see them try that now. I would back Perry just to see them try.
Remember, these are the people that convinced America that the Snowbilly didn't have the experience to be vice president despite executive experience as a governor while SCOAMF was perfectly (and I do mean perfectly) qualified despite having no executive experience (or any experience in the real world) whatsoever.
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 03, 2012 12:58 PM (jUZRg)
Posted by: Joffen at January 03, 2012 12:59 PM (zLeKL)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 01:00 PM (ZDUD4)
I understand where Perry is trying to go with this, but those are just lousy analogies that have no place in a Presidential Campaign. Sometimes I think Perry is an idiot
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 04:55 PM (i6RpT)
Note he said "Concord" as well, yet MSNBC didn't compare it to the American Revolution. They're trying to stir up shit, as you know.
Martial analogies have been made since the beginning of time and you can thank Mr. Spielberg for Omaha Beach being the quintessential image of a difficult climb.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:00 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 03, 2012 01:00 PM (PAyD5)
It is a powerful moment in Americans' history, and you are on the front lines. This is Concord. This is Omaha Beach. This is going up the hill realizing that the battle is worth winning."
I understand where Perry is trying to go with this, but those are just lousy analogies that have no place in a Presidential Campaign.
He meant "Obamaha Beach."
Posted by: WalrusRex at January 03, 2012 01:00 PM (jUZRg)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 04:57 PM (73tyQ)
--------------
hows the ground look?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 03, 2012 01:00 PM (FKQng)
Posted by: Emperor of Frumcream at January 03, 2012 01:01 PM (epBek)
If you don't like Perry, that's fine, but come up with a substantial reason other than "he's a dumb hick from Texas."
Posted by: © Sponge at January 03, 2012 04:46 PM (UK9cE)
Nobody says it better than Ace.
Go back, reprint his endless columns on Palin and just substitute PerryÂ’s name. It gets frustrating trying to reeducate the world on what the truth actually is as opposed to the popular misconceptions.
Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 01:02 PM (8moZm)
I understand where Perry is trying to go with this, but those are just lousy analogies that have no place in a Presidential Campaign.
That's fine, but where can we insert that he said something bad about BLACK people?
Posted by: MSNBC at January 03, 2012 01:02 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at January 03, 2012 01:02 PM (ZDUD4)
Thanks for doing that. Good luck persuading people!
Posted by: Y-not at January 03, 2012 01:03 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Big T Party at January 03, 2012 01:05 PM (hC5jI)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at January 03, 2012 01:05 PM (6IV8T)
Ron Paul is just batshit crazy - not sleazy like Noot.
I feel your pain, gentlemen.
Posted by: Clarence at January 03, 2012 01:05 PM (z0HdK)
I understand where Perry is trying to go with this, but those are just lousy analogies that have no place in a Presidential Campaign. Sometimes I think Perry is an idiot
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 04:55 PM (i6RpT)
You're the one that's sounding like an idiot now. This next election is a turning point in American history. We stand and fight for freedom now like those warriors in the battles he mentions, or we lose our Constitutional way of life. And it's going to take a lot of courage to do it.
Somehow I don't think you're up for it.
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 01:07 PM (xSHjK)
hows the ground look?
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 03, 2012 05:00 PM (FKQng)
Sorry, I'm just showing up, I'm not a volunteer. Rick has effective, polished ads and Ron Paul's robocalls and ads have been bashing Gingrich for a while and now Santorum, so Rick's been escaping that.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:07 PM (73tyQ)
1035 I am an Iowan caucusing for Perry for reasons that Ace outlined above.
Nice post. .....And bless you, Amish Dude.
Posted by: wheatie at January 03, 2012 01:07 PM (oPkw3)
Posted by: Big T Party at January 03, 2012 05:05 PM (hC5jI)
Betcha Perry kicks ass on a one-on-one debate. Nonetheless, I'd rather see him in a debate with just 2-3 other guys.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 03, 2012 01:08 PM (73tyQ)
They are pushing the meme that Boehner could pass supposedly popular measures (i.e., Obama's agenda) if he freed some moderates in the conference to vote alongside a majority of Democrats. The Democrats know Boehner would never employ this tactic because it would cause him to be toppled, so it feeds into their meme that Boehner is captive to the conservative elements of his conference.
Posted by: M80B at January 03, 2012 01:09 PM (d6QMz)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 01:09 PM (i6RpT)
I'm sorry, Ace, I'm sorry. I really wanted to believe in Perry. For a time, I predicted he'd be the consensus candidate we could all get behind and support, onward to victory against Obama this year.
And then he just continued to disappoint. Again and again and again.
Posted by: Vyceroy at January 03, 2012 01:10 PM (mqy6N)
Posted by: SherryG_Tulsa at January 03, 2012 01:13 PM (kXoT0)
The math just doesn't work.
Some of this had to have spent some time in the trunk of an old Buick.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 03, 2012 01:17 PM (HBqDo)
To paraphrase a popular blogger, at some point you folks swept up in this Perry cult need to face reality.
I know you donÂ’t want to believe the polls and I understand that you think if people would just stop and read the record, they couldnÂ’t help but be impressed by Perry. But thatÂ’s not how it works and Perry is now known as an idiot.
Look, I know Perry is good guy, competent leader and solid conservative. But whether it was the press, his competition or totally self-inflicted, Perry blew his chance. Time to get over it and find someone new.
Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 01:17 PM (8moZm)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 05:09 PM (i6RpT)
You comment like you're absolutely sure that there's not going to be any lives lost when we try to take this country back from the leftist/communist stranglehold. Plus there's people from other parts of the world who will do anything to keep us from becoming strong again.
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 01:19 PM (xSHjK)
Of course I'd support him over Obama, but... I don't know, I'm lost at this point. Not sure who to support.
Posted by: Timin203 at January 03, 2012 01:20 PM (QrQus)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 01:21 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at January 03, 2012 05:05 PM (6IV8T)
Same with the "Santorum Surge", even though Perry's w/in the margin of error with RS.
Posted by: observer at January 03, 2012 01:23 PM (qLt2k)
You're probably right, but it's not like Perry's fans are cultish (like Romney's sometimes are). They just have standards. If you insist on someone with a proven conservative executive record, well, the list is real short. Perry is not ideal, but he passes the obvious test.
Getting over it is important, I agree, so we do not wind up with Romney being the last man standing, all split apart supporting guys in vain only to realize many were better than what we wound up with. I hope that is the effect of the early contests. I hope conservatives unify and settle. Maybe settle for Perry despite his flaws, maybe for Santorum I guess, or more likely, settle for Newt despite his flaws because he is the most conservative guy who can win (this is very unfortunate).
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 01:23 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 03, 2012 01:24 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Chuck Norris's Right Bicep at January 03, 2012 01:26 PM (YUwuZ)
Romney's doing worse than he did last time, has poured oodles more money into being president, dedicated his life for most of a decade to ONLY this, and has an awful record. Not all of his fans are fanatical about it, of course. Many are fine. But pay attention and most of the guys trying to catch flies with vinegar are the Donald Frums and Meghan Mccains who have so much contempt for conservatives but tell them they are morons if they don't back Mitt Romney.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 01:26 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Soona at January 03, 2012 01:27 PM (xSHjK)
Let him go.
I know it hurts. You'll spend a few nights crying in your pillow. You'll miss the sweet, sweet feel of his manly hands clutching your buttocks.
But it's time to move on now.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 03, 2012 05:21 PM (niZvt)"
Like that. Who wants to support Romney when his fans are like that? I don't. I could never volunteer for a campaign stuffed with pricks like this either, and I always volunteer for presidential candidates. Because it's usually fun with like minded people who don't hate your guts.
Romney as nominee would not be a lot of fun for the GOP with people giving the TEA party tough love every five minutes. Newt would be much easier.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 01:28 PM (rQ/Ue)
Here's a show-stopping problem: Perry advocates using state coercion to force rape and incest victims impregnated by their attckers to carry to term, should Roe v. Wade be repealed. And how would that work, exactly? The threat of felony murder or manslaughter charges should rape and incest victims go forward with an abortion anyway?
And those independent voters we will need so badly in what is certain to be a close election, the independents who might support a Perry candidacy otherwise, all things considered? Those votes are lost the moment Perry reiterates his absolutist position on abortion--a position, I might add, not taken by any modern GOP nominee or incumbent in modern memory. Be sure the Democrats will exploit this for all it's worth in order to shore up President Obama's faltering support among women.
To put the issue into perspective, Sarah Palin and her husband briefly considered terminating the pregnancy when they discovered Trig was a Downs Syndrome child. That's how far out Perry is on this issue. His position may fly in evangelical, pro-life Iowa but it'll go down like a lead duck in a general election campaign, guaranteed.
Posted by: troyriser at January 03, 2012 01:28 PM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Y-not, dirty papist at January 03, 2012 01:31 PM (5H6zj)
Dustin,
IÂ’m just enjoying the schadenfreude of the moment.
Ace spent countless hours hunched over his keyboard ripping Palin apart, using every liberal talking point and feigning breathless frustration that everyone who supported her had to be an unthinking cultist. He couldnÂ’t believe that people thought that if the truth just came out, people could change their minds about the caricaturethe press had made of her.
Now Perry is in a position where it would be helpful if the base rallied around him and fought back at the bad impression heÂ’s made.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: jwest at January 03, 2012 01:37 PM (8moZm)
?
Perry's focus is spending reform, getting government out of the way, and limiting congress's sessions so that our country can come back to life organically. This is what worked in Texas.
Roe v Wade is bad law. Romney, Harvard Law Grad (just like Obama) used to claim Roe v Wade is an example of good law, but anyone reading it can see this makes Romney an idiot of a lawyer.
But this is a wedge issue. We shouldn't define Perry or Santorum by social issues. Some think they have done this themselves, but it's not true. They talk mostly about economic solutions, and the media keeps finding its way to the wedge issues.
"IÂ’m just enjoying the schadenfreude of the moment. "
Well, whatever works for you. It's not a big deal... just internet debate, but cult? No. Ace has been a realist about Perry pretty much the entire time.
"Ace spent countless hours hunched over his keyboard ripping Palin apart, using every liberal talking point and feigning breathless frustration that everyone who supported her had to be an unthinking cultist. "
This is some kind of vengeance thing? Ok, dude. I'm a Palin fan AND a Perry fan. I'm surprised most Palin fans don't root for Perry, but I think they realize that Perry had a better record, and his running crowded her out, and so some actually dislike Perry for being too similar to Palin that they couldn't both run.
Short term, that's understandable. Long term, it's petty and could lead to a nominee like Romney.
I'm actually surprised to see people bringing Palin up at this point.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 01:48 PM (rQ/Ue)
That's not something he actually wants. It's just the rapid far left wing's way of forcing people who think fetuses are people to prove they are logically consistent. Of course people think murder is worse than... things that are horrible but not as bad as murder. That is not a scandal.
And I believe most people suggest states coming up with their own abortion laws, usually punishing the provider of the service if it is outlawed. Do you really not know that? I doubt it.
But if you're voting in this primary with social issues on your mind, maybe you should consider that we're running a trillion dollar deficit and the republic might not last our lifetimes if we nominate another RINO.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 01:51 PM (rQ/Ue)
I'd still take him over anyone else.
Posted by: tdpwells at January 03, 2012 02:03 PM (7vA7k)
Let him go.
I know it hurts. You'll spend a few nights crying in your pillow. You'll miss the sweet, sweet feel of his manly hands clutching your buttocks.
But it's time to move on now.
Oh hush now, podner. Ace and Erickson and I are tighter'n a Texas mockin'bird wrapped around the blade of one'a them wind turbines I subsidized. They're good fellers, don't sit on the checks forever, fantastic in a three-way. I ain't never had any complaints about the hands.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian. But you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to have Transformations.
Posted by: Rick Perry at January 03, 2012 02:12 PM (yBtkG)
Ace-
You seem to downplay Perry's service as a C-130 Pilot. Sure he didn't get to go fast with a blast like the jet jockeys toolin' in their F-whatevers, but some of the missions a Herc driver could have got them closer to the shit so they could get the beans and bullets to the grunt on the ground.
The C-130s were famous for their gallantry in Viet Nam at the battle of Khe Sahn That was supposed to be America's Dien Bien Phu, but the tenacity of the USMC supported by the logistics brought in by C-130s turned the enemy's plan fold.
I always appreciated the demeanor of the C-130 pilots. They're very level headed and they're not prima donnas. They're the pilots who get 'er done.
Posted by: Minuteman at January 03, 2012 02:12 PM (acEq7)
Posted by: Jeff at January 03, 2012 02:16 PM (qkzQ/)
Can undead now demand anyone support Romney if he's the nominee? Not honestly. So yes he can.
Religious bigotry too? Well done, undead. I'm sure you'd react just the same if someone bashed Romney for being a Mormon. Oh wait, no you wouldn't. You would think that is bad.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 02:19 PM (rQ/Ue)
Perry - 7% nationally = winner.
I think ace has his first second and third order informations stuck in his arse.
Posted by: Lem. at January 03, 2012 02:22 PM (h/Ope)
Posted by: jjshaka at January 03, 2012 02:25 PM (8tae+)
Perry - 7% nationally = winner.
I think ace has his first second and third order informations stuck in his arse.
Posted by: lem at January 03, 2012 06:22 PM (h/Ope)"
And yet he's not saying Perry is going to win. He's saying he's making a last ditch effort.
Posted by: Dustin at January 03, 2012 02:27 PM (rQ/Ue)
Posted by: Lawrence Person at January 03, 2012 02:47 PM (eRpHv)
Posted by: jem at January 03, 2012 02:49 PM (0oYHO)
Posted by: backhoe, Hobbit tea-roar-ist of Doom at January 03, 2012 02:59 PM (QROim)
I honestly don't see how Perry's position on abortion in the case of rape is to be dismissed as something that would be a minor bump in the road should he be nominated.
The SCOAMF ads will practically write themselves. That is an extreme position, even among Republicans in general. Among independents it will be catastrophic.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at January 03, 2012 03:07 PM (gsO2s)
Posted by: Lem. at January 03, 2012 03:09 PM (h/Ope)
Posted by: plsVote at January 03, 2012 03:10 PM (/MuFf)
Posted by: plsVote at January 03, 2012 03:16 PM (/MuFf)
Posted by: troyriser at January 03, 2012 03:33 PM (YCeSE)
Posted by: plsVote at January 03, 2012 04:58 PM (/MuFf)
Posted by: John Galt at January 03, 2012 05:52 PM (80GjT)
Posted by: Worf the Wonder Klingon at January 03, 2012 09:22 PM (wL5Cc)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.9517 seconds, 1172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: CanaDave at December 19, 2011 01:24 PM (9GltQ)