Oh and can we now admit that the Ames Straw Poll is meaningless?

There.  FIFY.

admit that the Ames Straw Poll is meaningless?

Ahmen

Oh and can we now admit that the Ames Straw Poll is meaningless?

This is unreal.

If Huntsman doesn't come in the top 3 in NH then he will have to drop out too.

There is a distinct possibility that every candidate except for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul will have dropped out after two states vote.

That's right. She will not be anyone's veep. Love her or hate her, that is her own fault.

The Virginia ballot issue may be moot. There is a chance that Paul and Romney will be the only people still running at that point.

Were there no Republicans who actually wanted to be President besides Romney? Anyone else could have won this. Heck a late entry could win this.

Posted by: Mr Fever Head at January 04, 2012 11:15 AM (SzAZ7)

E-bay! Especially if you actually wore it!

I'm actually surprised she's getting out.  Thanks for playing.  She's lost what respect I had for her since her Gardisil attacks on Perry. 

And her departure will put more of the pressure we've heard about on Perry to withdraw too so conservatives in SC can coalesce around Newt or Santorum.

I can't and won't vote for Santorum. He's a big government socon.

I think I will sit out the primaries and try to convince myself to not vote for Gary Johnson in November

Good riddance to Ms. Tardasil, and with any luck, to Ms. Tardasil's career.

And I agree Ben, the irony is the "True Conservative" alternative to Mitt Romney is now going to be a Big Government SoCon.

Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. I just want to help you in the right way. *wink wink*

Why the fuck does anyone want Rick Perry to stay in? He's an abject failure of a candidate and is polling 6%, yes six fucking percent, in South Carolina. What the fuck do you morons think is going to happen to propel him to victory there? Enlighten me. Please.

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, etc at January 04, 2012 11:23 AM (UqKQV)

Yes. By November he should have 11 of them.

I "wish" too that Perry will stay in the fight until SC, BUT.. I think he is just principled enough to withdraw for the greater good of the goal; to unseat the SCOAMF.  His wife had to give him the push to run and though I honestly believe he wants to serve us in the time of need, down deep in his core, he doesn't desire it to serve his ego or ambition... or at least I don't get that feeling. 

Posted by: Soothsayer at January 04, 2012 11:28 AM (sqkOB)

He went out for TP. He'll double post around 2:00.

The MSM is going to start hammering Santorum now, so if Perry stayed in he would be poised for a comeback in South Carolina. 

I hope he does and I hope that every state primary is hard fought and divides the delegates so that we get to the convention without a clear winner.  Then we get to pick someone from a clean slate. 

Why the fuck does anyone want Rick Perry to stay in? He's an abject failure of a candidate and is polling 6%, yes six fucking percent, in South Carolina. What the fuck do you morons think is going to happen to propel him to victory there? Enlighten me. Please.

The longer that goes on, the more Hugh Hewitt smiles.

brb kicking puppies

In attention whoring news, the furnace at our office isn't working.  The office is a huge old Victorian house.  My desk is in front of a bank of windows.  It's maybe 40 degrees.  However cold you think it is, it's colder than that.  I am currently huddled over a space heater as if it were the last pair of stompy boots in the universe.  Good thing I have my hate to keep me warm. 

brb kicking puppies

In attention whoring news, the furnace at our office isn't working.  The office is a huge old Victorian house.  My desk is in front of a bank of windows.  It's maybe 40 degrees.  However cold you think it is, it's colder than that.  I am currently huddled over a space heater as if it were the last pair of stompy boots in the universe.  Good thing I have my hate to keep me warm. 

Posted by: alexthechick at January 04, 2012 11:30 AM (VtjlW)

Alex, I thought you were in SF. Am I going senile? And don't you get wet from kicking guppies?

Posted by: Pmzey at January 04, 2012 11:23 AM (pmzey)"

Probably.

He needs to get out quickly if he can't turn this around.  And if he's serious, he needs to show us he's serious with a fundamental reboot of some kind.

And if it doesn't work, he needs to get out of the way.

But let's not be unreasonable.  Who gives a shit about New Hampshire and Iowa, anyway?  Why do they get to actually cross off candidates?

This is nothing like Huckabee staying in late to screw Romney in 2008.  This is really, really early.  49 to go.  South Carolina is a better point to see what we see.  I don't predict it will work, but it's worth fighting for.

When in the hell will the GOP establishment wake up and DEMAND that Ron Paul rule out an independent candidacy if he loses the party's nomination? 

No candidate should be allowed to participate in the Republican primaries if he refuses to do that!  You don't have to agree to support the nominee, but you sure ought to have to agree not to play spoiler.

The Lisa Murkowski thing was a terrible precedent.

Posted by: jwest at January 04, 2012 11:30 AM (8moZm)"

I could live with that.  It's depressing having to choose the least big gov guy from Santorum, Newt and Mitt (Newt, for the record).

Posted by: Soothsayer at January 04, 2012 11:35 AM (sqkOB)

Diane needs time in the morning to get a bloody mary but then she's good to go until noon.

Yes.

And it was shameful they let Lisa Murkowski keep her seniority.  A stupid short sighted decision that will bite us in the ass over and over if we pretend it's a valid precedent.

Posted by: Soothsayer at January 04, 2012 11:28 AM (sqkOB)

If Perry drops out after Iowa, we might as well quit having primaries. I definitely do not like the idea that one state determines the nominee. If Romney gets the nomination, I am definitely going third party or not bothering to vote. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I will toss in the towel. If we cannot get better candidates for President than Romney or Paul, we might as well quit and become Socialists.

Where does Bachman's supporters go? Santorum, Newt, or Perry? Don't see her Tea Party folks running to MIttens during primary season.

116

if perry drops...i'm going for.......yuck.....mr. good hair

"If he can't get more than 10% in Iowa, he's toast. "

Didn't he get 11%, or is FoxNews.Com showing wrong information?

I agree.  If only on principle, let's have a few real contests.

It is becoming more apparent that people want big govt. Kinda sickening. It feels like I am being herded toward Romney, not that it was all that unexpected, but it still makes me angry. Have to find solace in the anyone but Obama candidate. 

Posted by: J.L. Haliburton at January 04, 2012 11:38 AM (gnViO)

Newt is my back up. I'm hoping that Santorum will fade, Gingrich will continue to soften and Perry picks up their supporters, along with Bachmann's.  Then Perry could be a viable alternative to Mitt.  It's a long shot but I'm not giving up hope until Perry breaks up with me formally.

Alex, I thought you were in SF.

No, one of the other Alexeses is in SF.  I'm in NC. 

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 04, 2012 11:47 AM (nEUpB)

He's just been really busy! He keeps breaking our dates but he means well. Right?  (runs off crying)

If Romney gets crushed will it take one or two minutes for the Romneybots to say it was because the right didn't fully embrace him? I'm guessing one.

Dude.  Milliseconds. 

Who am I kidding, I'm drinking now.

Posted by: toby928© goes cold turkey yet again at January 04, 2012 11:47 AM (GTbGH)

I was gonna say. 

IÂ’m sure Newt is receiving phone calls from the Illuminati today.

Newt has made some money over the past years, but heÂ’s not rich by any stretch of the imagination.  In order to maintain the lifestyle, he still needs to have paying gigs for access.  Everyone recognized last night that he was about to unleash everything he had on Romney, and now heÂ’s quietly being told that it wouldnÂ’t be a good idea to do so.

Look for Newt to “recommit to a positive campaign”. 

"HeatherRadish at January 04, 2012 11:47 AM "

"Secretary Bachman, Health and Human Services, reporting for duty President Romney."

Or something like that.

You know, I think we really need to know what CheChe's daughter thinks about all of this.

Perry should stay in until SC. If he wins SC then he becomes the not Romney and Newt should get out.

If Newt wins in SC then Perry should get out.

We should at least have a conservative state vote in the primaries before major candidates abandon the race.

I understand Bachmann getting out. It was her home state(where she was born) and she put all her eggs in that basket.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at January 04, 2012 11:51 AM (8y9MW)

Team up in debates.

175-

Blood just squirted from my eyes.

MSNBC just reporting that Perry is continuing on to SC.

Posted by: dip theory ah at January 04, 2012 11:43 AM (oZfic)

---

Funny that.  Been listening to Glenn Beck all morning and haven't heard him say that.  You must be listening to a different Beck.

Will Hannity weigh in?

Sean is a Newt guy.

Posted by: Brian at January 04, 2012 11:48 AM (hKi42)

I agree about Perry. If he ever had the "get up and go" it got up and went. I think your full of shit about Mitt. The base hates him and he pulled his perpetual 25% and not 1 % more. I think he is just as much toast as Perry.

mark e

lol........it just trolls......

Great stadium. (Great state). When the quarterback is good (Romo/Perry) he's really good, when he's bad he's just mind-numbingly God-awful. The owner (Republican Party/Jerry Jones) talks a good game but makes incomprehensible decisions fairly frequently. Etc!

Everyone longs for the glory days under a legend (Landry/Reagan) with gamedays firmly int he grip of a tactical genius (Staubach/Atwater).

We could keep this going forever.

Great stadium. (Great state). When the quarterback is good (Romo/Perry) he's really good, when he's bad he's just mind-numbingly God-awful. The owner (Republican Party/Jerry Jones) talks a good game but makes incomprehensible decisions fairly frequently. Etc!

Everyone longs for the glory days under a legend (Landry/Reagan) with gamedays firmly int he grip of a tactical genius (Staubach/Atwater).

We could keep this going forever.

As a Republican Cowboys fan living in Texas, it seems as if it's been going on forever.

Posted by: Retread at January 04, 2012 11:56 AM (joSBv)

Yeah, while the Taliban laughs behind its sleeve and drags the negotiations along. But we had to release them as a show of good faith!

Back stage at the Hardline Afghanistan Negotiation Tour-

Our guy- So we're good with you taking the country but not til after the elections. What do you need to get that done/

Mullah HoozBinFarteen- We take country the minute crusaders are gone.

Our guy- No no. Look, we'll say you broke the agreement and bomb the piss out of you. Just tell me what you want to delay til Nov. Money, arms, what?

Mullah HoozBinFarteen- Ok. The clothe that is warm and covers you like blanket but stays on from the arms.

Our guy- SNUGGIES?!

Mullah- Jess.

Our guy- Ha.. ah Ok done.

Mullah- No no. That is not all. We will burn churches and infidel men while we rape their goats and gals. You must not interfere.

Our guy- Yeah we figured that. Done.

Mullah- And Snuggles must come in desert camo.

He shouldn't waste our time attacking Santorum and Romney.

He won't have to attack Santorum because I just don't think Santorum has any staying power.

He won't have to attack Romney because it looks like Newt's going to take care of that for him.

Yeah, while the Taliban laughs behind its sleeve and drags the negotiations along. But we had to release them as a show of good faith!

Meanwhile a US soldier remains a POW in Taliban hands...

To be realistic, Mitt is going to win the nomination.

HeÂ’ll go on to win a relatively tight election against Hillary.

I can see Perry staying in for a while. He's already done most of the heavy lifting, now it's a matter of watching how the score tallies up. Doesn't mean Bachmann shouldn't have gotten out, though. She had completely spiraled off the radar of most voters.

Perry would be an average president, but he's a terrible candidate. Santorum is smarter and more conservative than Perry. I'm not sure how any of these candidates will do against Obama with the lazy, squishy middle who determine the final winner.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 04, 2012 12:19 PM (FUYSU)"

DUDE, she is making it up.  She doesn't actually go to party after party of weird Republican wishcasting.  She's just trolling.

Internal Bleeding

Ace defecates intensely

First post after Noon.

Posted by: irongrampa at January 04, 2012 12:15 PM (SAMxH)"

I don't know.  It would seen in a sane world, yes, but things don't work out that way.  Ugliness and slickness rule, and Obama will bring more of both.

It's very hard to say.  I think the GOP will be much better able to overcome the smearing if it offers a more distinct ideology than centrism.

The polls can't predict that sort of thing.

Thinking about this last night, I decided that the result of Perry's assessment would be him staying in.  Why?

The short answer is that Newt is committing political suicide, Romney isn't qualified to be Republican, and Santorum isn't qualified to be President.

Here's the long answer.

Besides Perry, there are three real candidates (I don't count Paul).

Newt: Newt was already in the middle of a spectacular flame-out, which shows no sign of stopping.  In fact, if Newt continues to go all bitter on Romney it will hurt Romney but hurt Newt even more.

Romney:  Impressive organization and executive record, but poor record of conservatism.  Hard for voters to warm up to.  They're clearly looking around for  alternatives to Romney and after having tried out and discarded the other options, may be willing to give someone they dismissed too quickly earlier a second look.

Santorum: There is going to be pressure in conservative circles for conservatives to drop everyone else and get behind Santorum as the "conservative alternative."  National Review is already going big for Santorum, for example.  But its a mistake to assume that voters who reluctant to support Romney will coalesce behind Santorum.  If you look at the polling, most actual Republican voters don't hate Romney, they are just meh about him, given his meh record of Republicanism.  But they don't hate him, his favorables are decent, his second choice numbers are decent, and he has some real strengths to offer.  Negative campaigning will change this some but not too much, since most of the bad stuff about Romney is widely known already. 

The upshot is that if the race dwindles to Romney and Santorum, a lot of voters who aren't too excited about Romney will still vote for him.  Santorum has some major weaknesses of his own. 

(1) He's almost too conservative in some ways.  His position that abortion should be illegal even if the mother's life is in danger is toxic politically. Even most conservatives are put off by this.  Plus voters who care about electability will be very concerned about how this will play in the general election.  I don't care as much about it, because I think some voters will give Santorum a pass because he's just being faithful to his Church's teaching, and because I think the jobs and economy focus of this election will make even someone who's outside the mainstream on some social issues potentially electable.  But its a risk that some voters won't be willing to take, and I don't blame them.

2) Santorum has principles.  OK, that's a funny thing to say as a negative, and I am being partly tongue in cheek.  What I mean is that Santorum has strong ideological goals and isn't averse to using the government to accomplish them.  Contrast this to someone like Romney, who has no strong ideology to speak of.  Given how bloated our government is, with a Republican Congress I would prefer an ideological cipher like Mitt in the White House to someone who says 'yes, cut back on government, but expand the parts that accomplish goals X, Y, and Z.'  And I'm not even a purist on the subject.  As a social conservative who thinks that collapsing families and birth rates are a huge problem, I probably share most of Santorum's goals X, Y, and Z, and even could support using the government to accomplish them in theory.  But not in today's circumstances.  Today not expanding the government is job 1, 2, and 3.

3) Santorum has no executive experience.  None.  And he's running to be the leader of the free world, Commander in Chief, and boss of millions of employees managing a budget of trillions?  Give me a break.  What a farce.  A lot of us who are conservative ideologically still insist that competence and leadership ability is a drop-dead requirement for a presidential candidate.  Santorum doesn't even come close.  The Presidency should not be an internship for getting on-the-job experience.  This is hard for some of you to understand, but trust me, there is a huge swath of voters who feel this way.  These voters can break for Perry, but we won't break for Santorum.

(Another negative for Santorum v. Romney is that Romney has got to Santorum's right on immigration.  Santorum is a compassionate amnesty type, like Gingrich.  But since Perry has managed to make immigration a negative for himself, this shouldn't go into Perry's calculus unless he thinks he can re-educate the voters on his "real" positions on this.)

Given all that, voters will hesitate to coalesce around Santorum long enough to take a second look at Perry.  Will they like what they see?  There's a good chance.  The man is animated by principles about what the government should not be doing.  The man has a long track record as an executive.  He has the organization and fundraising talent that Gingrich and Santorum lack.

So, yes, given a sober reassessment of his chances, it made sense that Perry decided to stay in.

Posted by: Mr Pink

Huh?  Of course if Romney gets crushed its because the Right wouldn't fully embrace him.  Newsflash: the right doesn't fully embrace Romney.

This would be like Rombots saying that Romney lost because he got fewer votes.

Read his book.  I respect Santorum for at least being totally upfront about what he is. 

I was basing my opinion on Santorum interviews. Since you've read his book, you obviously know more than me about his big government impulses. Having heard both Perry and Santorum in interviews, I  believe Santorum is smarter. Perry has governed as a moderate, from what I've seen, so I'd still say it's a tie on conservatism.

He shouldn't waste our time attacking Santorum and Romney. The press will crucify Santorum, and we already hate Romney. We need to see a positive conservative vision from Perry. If he can don the happy warrior/tea partier mantel, he can win.

Romney will take down Santorum and Gingrich will do what can be done to Romney.  So agreed.

The public impression is that Romney isn't up to being a Republican, Santorum isn't up to being President, and Perry isn't up to running a great campaign.

Of those three choices, most folks would think it over and go for the mediocre campaigner.

That's another way of putting the case for Perry.

If Perry stays in at this point then I think we have confirmation that he genuinely is a GODDAMN IDIOT.

The dynamic of this race has been a series of Not Romneys who get wildly popular before they get vetted at all.  They then get vetted and crash.  Santorum is the latest.  He's still in the pre-vetting stage.

Perry's gamble is that Santorum will follow the same trajectory as the other Not Romneys.  Crash a comin'. He then gambles that when the crash does come, the voters will take a second look instead of all just going to Romney.  Those are both good gambles.

Of those three choices, most folks would think it over and go for the mediocre campaigner.

That's another way of putting the case for Perry.

Posted by: Emperor of Frumcream at January 04, 2012 12:54 PM (epBek)"

Exactly how I see it.

305 Liking what Rush is saying.. that Newt is pissed and is going to be coming at Mittens with both barrels.  Hell, Perry may just get to stand there and smile while they destroy each other and clear the field.  *fingers crossed*

Posted by: jawanna at January 04, 2012 12:51 PM (bj+Nc)

When you go after the king, you need to be sure you will win.  If Gingrich goes after Romney and fails, Gingrich will be toast.  Callista will need to learn how to wear costume jewelry from then on in.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at January 04, 2012 12:56 PM (m/TU6)"

Why?  Because he'll almost certainly lose?  That was always the case.  The dude needed Iowa and rejected corn subsidies.  This reminds me of Joe Miller telling Alaska to get off the fed dole.

What's so bad about preaching conservatism for a little longer, and letting an actual red state have a say in the primary before the conservative who walked the walk takes a walk?  Is there really a severe harm?

yes, it splits the vote, but only in a couple of early small states, and for NH he didn't poll well anyway.

It's not stupid to invest little for potentially a lot, especially when you're really fighting for this country's survival.  I think it's actually fine.  Futile, perhaps, but let a red state have a chance to reject Perry.

If you want to see what happens to “republicans” who fuck with the powers that be, take a look at Steve Schmidt (the asshole who worked for McCain and trashed Palin).  He couldnÂ’t find a job working on any campaign, no one will return his calls and heÂ’s reduced to being the republican punching bag on MSNBC.

ItÂ’s a mystery why they donÂ’t make him wear a clown nose.

Should Newt decide to go nuclear on Romney, he better call Chris Mathews and get a job lined up.

I always sorta saw Bachmann and Santorum as tweetledee and tweetledum, but with Sweater-vest Rick as the new frontrunner, I guess she's not of much use anymore. 

Some of you smitten-with-Mittens types though, you need to relax.  People staying in or getting out now, it's not about winning the nomination.  It's about whatever else it is that had them in to begin with.  And for some of them at least, I think it's just not time yet for them to kiss the Mittring.

Again, relax, there's a script that needs to be followed, including stage direction regarding WHEN to deliver their lines, not just what those lines are.

I hope someone with no chance stays in just to destroy the idiot Luap Nor. Of course, that wouldn't be fair to the person's donors, to stay and waste their money like that.

But if a guy had billions of his OWN MONEY, and was kind of a prick anyway, then he could stay in and do it.

And if you haven't taken the hint yet John, his last name would have to rhyme with Muntsman.

Electability: Will someone in the media ask why Brigham Young University has only 1/10th the number of black students as Bob Jones University?  BYU had 54 Black/Non-Hispanic student out of an enrollment of over 34,000.  The infamous Bob Jones University has 58 out of an enrollment of less than 4000.

Because, thankfully, we know the mainstream media would never point out something like this.

Why?  Because he'll almost certainly lose?  That was always the case.  The dude needed Iowa and rejected corn subsidies.  This reminds me of Joe Miller telling Alaska to get off the fed dole.

What's so bad about preaching conservatism for a little longer, and letting an actual red state have a say in the primary before the conservative who walked the walk takes a walk?  Is there really a severe harm?

yes, it splits the vote, but only in a couple of early small states, and for NH he didn't poll well anyway.

It's not stupid to invest little for potentially a lot, especially when you're really fighting for this country's survival.  I think it's actually fine.  Futile, perhaps, but let a red state have a chance to reject Perry.

Why?  Well I don't need to write an essay to explain that:

1. He can't win, and it serves no practical purpose for a red state to have an opportunity to give a yea or nay to a candidate who has as much chance winning as the late Pat Paulson.

2. He siphons off votes from the viable not-Romney.

I really am convinced that the man is just plain dumb.  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...it's a duck.

He bombed the state of Iowa with pandering social con literature and ads and played populist hooey about sending Congress home without their pay if they didn't play nice.  I don't think it was well received because most people knew it was bullshit.

Yeah, their closing strategy was a mistake.  The Perry campaign got rattled and it showed.

Whoever I send money to goes into the tank.  1^st Cain, now Bachmann.  Maybe I should send money to Obama Â…nah!

Yeah, their closing strategy was a mistake.  The Perry campaign got rattled and it showed.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at January 04, 2012 01:29 PM (epBek)

They've acted rattled the entire time, even back when he debuted with the big lead. I don't know the people he picked to run his campaign, but he sure picked the wrong ones.

I guess that I'm glad Perry's staying in, but damned if I know why to be honest. It would take something earthshaking to get him on most people's radar again. I don't know what that could be given the pathetic campaign they've run so far.

2. He siphons off votes from the viable not-Romney."

It serves the purpose of Iowa not being able to utterly dominate our political party with this stupid caucus.

It doesn't siphon off so many votes as to change the outcome, since we're talking about such a limited extension of the campaign.

It's much better for conservatives to at least have a reasonable say in this.  Yeah, the polls show it is probably not going to work, but at that point, he can walk away or... maybe he turns it around.

Hillary mostly turned it around too, you know.  She had a hard start and then almost won (would have but for shenanigans, too).  So no, Perry is hardly an idiot when there is a non-zero chance of it working.  Yeah, it's unlikely, but look at his competition.  Maybe he can take them on if he presses on some more.

Listen up, punks, ever since the RINO GOP failed to give me President Gore by not removing Clinton I've known that we needed to burn the GOP establishment to the ground.  Otherwise we just lose slower.  Given that starving to death is better than taking less than a full loaf I've been voting for Democrats since 2000 and I'll continue to vote for Democrats until every last RINO is purged from my party forever. 

In reviewing this field I've concluded that it's prognosticated by RINOs and other folks I can't support. 

Perry is a vaccine pusher and a Mexican french kisser.  Then to make matters worse both my wife and my mistress keep telling me how good looking he is.  That makes me question my manhood and have problems in the boudoir.  Hell, since August I've been blowing most of the gambling money I set aside from my pension on Cialis.  I'll never support RINO Ricardo Perry.

As a values voter, I respect Santorum, but thing is he's a Catholic and I don't want the Pope to be a shadow president.  Santorum is sayonara in my book.

I like Bachmann, but truth is she's a woman and I have issues taking orders from a woman.  Also she's not quite conservative enough for my tastes on vaccines and Mexicans.  We need to ban the former and to imprison and then deport all of the latter, while spending less federal dollars dammit.

I'd rather dress in drag and get cornholed by Steel Panther than to have RINO Romney as president. 

Newt's my main man because of his exectory and miltary experience, but since he waited until after Iowa to go negative on Romney I'll have to punish him by not supporting him. 

The best thing for us is to have Obama in office another four years so we can impeach him.  And if those establishment RINOs don't impeach him and then remove him so I can have President Biden I'll send my message and prove my point by voting for Democrats across the board.  Feel it, punks.

Palin-Miller-Buck-Paladino-Angle-Paul-O'Donnell, '16.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at January 04, 2012 01:36 PM (cPJUK)"

This is reasonable.  But also, you gotta wonder what T Paw and Mitch Daniels are thinking right now.  Maybe quitting too early or before you start isn't the right move.

Can you imagine if the primary were down to Perry, Daniels, and Pawlenty instead of freaking Romney, Newt, and Santorum?

Is that really a ridiculous fantasy for the GOP?

@326

Then it shouldn't be a problem because we know the MSM would never push something that isn't 100% based in fact.

It serves the purpose of Iowa not being able to utterly dominate our political party with this stupid caucus.

It doesn't siphon off so many votes as to change the outcome, since we're talking about such a limited extension of the campaign.

It's much better for conservatives to at least have a reasonable say in this.  Yeah, the polls show it is probably not going to work, but at that point, he can walk away or... maybe he turns it around.

Hillary mostly turned it around too, you know.  She had a hard start and then almost won (would have but for shenanigans, too).  So no, Perry is hardly an idiot when there is a non-zero chance of it working.  Yeah, it's unlikely, but look at his competition.  Maybe he can take them on if he presses on some more.

Rick Perry campaign isn't in shambles because of Iowa.  It's been in a state of rigor mortis for quite some time.  Iowa is just a reflection of this.  So no, it isn't necessary for Perry to remain in the race to challenge the influence of the Iowa caucus.  Santorum doing so well in Iowa is example enough of why Iowa isn't representative of the mainstream of American voters.

As for the comparison to Hillary, well there really isn't one.  She was always in the "top tier" of candidates.  Her numbers never dwindled to the kind Perry has had for many months now.

Aside from all this, I have to say that the cult-like devotion some of Perry's core supporters have for him is one of the most bizarre things I have ever witnessed in politics.  I go to redstate.com and it's as if some people believe the world will end if he isn't nominated.  Sheesh, give it a rest already.

This is reasonable.  But also, you gotta wonder what T Paw and Mitch Daniels are thinking right now.  Maybe quitting too early or before you start isn't the right move.

Can you imagine if the primary were down to Perry, Daniels, and Pawlenty instead of freaking Romney, Newt, and Santorum?

Is that really a ridiculous fantasy for the GOP?

Posted by: Dustin at January 04, 2012 01:39 PM (rQ/Ue)

It shouldn't be a fantasy, but with today's GOP apparently it is. I'm almost as pissed at the ones who didn't run, as I am at some of the stupid campaigns run by those who did...at least the ones who ran, badly or not, had the damn courage to give it a try. Actually, I think I might be more disgusted with the backseat drivers of the party than this clueless bunch who did run. All the usual suspects, especially the ones on TV all the time  spouting about the terrible direction the country is going in...fish, cut bait, or shut the hell up for awhile.

I agree with the song but nothing is better than bloodwine and Klingon painsticks when you need to forget your troubles.

Posted by: norrin radd at January 04, 2012 02:56 PM (tVK9Z)

I think he's the best candidate (since before Ace started advocating for him). It's not that hard to understand...long time governor of a big state with a good, mostly conservative record while doing that job. And, yes,  he's run a horrendously bad campaign so far. Most years, yes, he'd have zero hope of a comeback (and it's highly unlikely this year) but as strange as this GOP primary season has been? With the guy who is supposedly a lock for the nomination getting fewer votes in Iowa than he did in 2008? Almost anything might happen, for those who stay in and keep plugging, at least for the ones who have the money to stay in in a meaningful way, and Perry does, at least through SC. (shrug) I'll switch horses to someone else when I have to, but not before.