First Blood in Ames
As I prepared to watch the GOP presidential debate in Iowa last night I was filled with a sense of trepidation, not for the performance of the candidates, but for the media. After the “whiner in the Carolinas” earlier this year I had begun to wonder if anyone was still capable of delivering a useful display of the candidates’ bona fides without relying on Tweets, YouTube videos, holographic correspondents, or product placement advertising. By the time it was done, I am pleased to report, at least a modicum of my faith in the broadcast networks had been restored.
Fox delivered an ably constructed package for primary voters around the nation. I will confess that their opening demand to “put aside the talking points” sounded like nothing more than a slogan, but the format and the frequently aggressive — sometimes too aggressive — lineup of questions succeeded in putting the presidential hopefuls through their paces.
Make no mistake: the debate itself was geared for the national audience of primary voters far more than the locals who will vote in the Ames straw poll this weekend. (The appearances by Romney and Huntsman should be adequate proof of that.) As Ed Morrissey pointed out recently, this spectacle comes down to retail politics in its oldest form. There may have been a few Iowans still on the fence who could have been shaken down by something they saw on the stage, but for the most part that’s simply not how the game is played in the Hawkeye State. The eventual winner will be determined by how many babies T-Paw kissed, how frequently mothers with small children were wrangled into Bachmann’s petting zoo, or how heartily Herman Cain managed to laugh when the 378th voter asked him if he could promise to fix the nation’s deficit, “in thirty minutes or less.”
None of this, however, means that there weren’t plenty of moments of interest. It’s very possible that the next few days will see some significant movement in the primary race, in part due to the performance of the candidates on that stage. As usual with these dog and pony shows, I’ll begin with the folks who didn’t seem to fare very well.
If there was one loser on the stage last night it was probably Jon Huntsman. Given his virtual lack of presence in the national polls, expectations for the former ambassador to China were low, but he still managed to duck under that bar. Huntsman came across as being quite nervous and halting in his answers. (This might be expected, given that it was his first outing, but he really can’t afford any mistakes.) Jon’s case wasn’t helped by the fact that the moderators seemed to feel free to simply poke him with pitchforks on the rare occasions when they paid him any attention at all. This was in evidence when his first question, rather than being on policy, wound up being a list of his ties to the Obama administration and a query as to whether he might have signed on to run with the wrong party. That set him back on his heels and he never seemed to fully recover. His total camera time was barely more than the woman in the audience with the tea bags on her hat.
Another virtual non-presence on the stage was Rick Santorum. He actually had to protest on a few occasions when the rock stars kept sucking all the air out of the room and he was left dining at the kiddies’ table. When Rick was handed the ball a few times, the moderators seemed to steer the debate in the strangest of directions, pitting Santorum against Ron Paul. This is a strange match-up to begin with, since Paul shouldn’t have been anybody’s target of choice, but Santorum willingly complied. Iowa is a custom fit for the Pennsylvanian’s brand of social conservatism, but it’s hard to see how either the debate or the upcoming county fair will allow him the breakout moment he so desperately needed. Personally, I’m looking for Rick to drop out before too very long.
While we’re on the subject of Ron Paul, the only news there was that there was no news to report. Aside from his odd sparring matches with Santorum (which he appeared to win handily in most cases,) the Texas congressman and Libertarian favorite stuck to his well practiced routine and standard platform of isolationism and returning to the gold standard. Ron always does well in straw polls on the strength of his aggressive and incredibly well organized army of supporters. This has yet to translate into any national traction on a level needed to win Best in Show, though, and not much changed last night.
Perhaps the strangest bird on the stage, though, was Newt Gingrich. In the opinion of most talking heads, Newt’s campaign had been written off as road kill on the electoral highway within days of announcing, but he took to his podium at this debate projecting the air of a man who was about to knock Romney out of the top slot. And while all the other kids on the playground were squaring off against each other for one-on-one battles, Newt decided to pick a fight with the teacher. He spent more time blasting the moderators than the rest of the field. Still, his delivery was very sharp for most of the evening. If there is one lesson to be learned from this, it’s that you should never discount the importance of experience, and Gingrich has that by the bucket load.
I’d agree that Romney was the winner, able to rapidly respond, with facts not empty words, and able to explain his position with clarity. I’m still not sure if he should be the nominee …I want to see how Perry does..
Gingrich was excellent, with his confrontation, rapid factual responses – and his excellent confrontation of Obama’s invisiblity..and his insisting that Congress and Obama ought to return to Washington and get to work.
Bachmann? No. I’m still puzzled by the support she’s getting among the GOP. Is it because they feel that Palin is too risky and so, they are supporting the ‘lesser clone of Palin’? I don’t get what she has to offer. As has been pointed out, she has no executive experience – in government or outside of it. I simply don’t care that she’s raised 5 children and 23 foster children. I want someone who has moved out of the committee room and into the balancing of a budget and meeting a payroll. She’s just a GOP version of Obama..and that includes her endless self-references to herself.
Cain? I appreciate his honesty and business experience but..no. And No to Santorum who belongs in state and municipal affairs not nationa. And Huntsman was timid, nervous and nowhere.
Pawlenty? Much as I appreciate his thoughtfulness and integrity, he doesn’t have the confrontational nature to deal with Obama. Make no mistake; this election isn’t going to be just about the policies and programs of the US; it’s going to be a vicious, malicious, manipulative, lying, smearing fight..by Obama and the Democrats to keep their power.
The Democrats are in trouble. They, despite trying to hide, are the owners of this disastrous economy. They are in trouble as well, because, dealing with Obama The Narcissist, they’ve had to keep any bright young blood out of their ranks. Obama can’t handle anyone questioning or disagreeing with him. So, they are bereft of ‘hot newcomers and young congressmen’..while the GOP are filled with them, including Rubio, West, Ryan, Cantor and etc.
Then, there’s Obama. He campaigned in 2008 as The Savior, bringing the equally amorphous imagery of Hope and Change. This time in 2012, he’s going to campaign on yet another set of images (note: he never, ever, deals with factual reality just fictional images)… This time, Obama is The Victim.
The Victim of the ignorant dirty and squabbling lower humans – which includes Congress as well as the Tea Party as well as the media as well as the average ignorant midwest redneck. He’s The Victim. If you people didn’t squabble and demand stupid things like ‘no taxes’ and ‘leave us alone’..well, He, The Savior, could have fixed everything. But..you ignorant squabbling lesser beings..are preventing Him from Saving everything.
That’s Obama’s new image. Pure, noble..Victim.
It’s going to take a confronter, a set of confronters, to deal with this onslaught. The Democrats are going to be fearful of losing their seats; they’ll attack the GOP/Tea Party as ‘radical terrorists’ (??)..and Obama will play The Savior Who is Now a Victim…
So- we need a GOP candidate who can confront, who can MOCK and BELITTLE the Democrat smears and Obama’s posturing patronizing performances..and can be specific in his policies, provide clear and commonsense programs..and be focused on the economy.
Yep, our former boyfriend, tpaw, simply hasn’t lived up to his credentials. I abandoned him after his first commercial, which seemed designed to make him look weak.
But the field looks pretty good, with Romney, Perry and Bachmann all willing to go toe-to-toe with the Narcissist and providing an interesting spectrum. Of course, we’ll have to see how Perry stands up to the defcon 7 attacks that are in the marxists tubes as we speak. You never know what will happen when an apparent star step up to the bigs. reference: Pawlenty. Perry hasn’t been thinking about this for 20 years, so he might pull a Fred Thompson on us.
Too bad Newt’s so wierd. He has a Trump-level ability to fire broadsides at the media and the Menace. I would love to see him debate the most dangerous man on the planet. Maybe Newt can hire on to the winner as debate coach.
The field looks pretty good, and there’s a bonus as well. Three relief pitchers are on the sidelines if the starters tire: Christie, Ryan and Palin.
So with you on the point about Newt & then some. There is no doubt in my mind that Gingrich would make a stellar POTUS, considering all his past experience & brilliance. It’s just too bad he made such a mess of his private life & many simply don’t have any respect for him. It’s a crying shame, really.
Let me suggest, ETAB, that before you permit yourself to be swayed by how Perry Does, that you examine with a laser how Perry has Done — and Then allow your understanding of who and what he is to color your opinion of however he does.
And yes, I am implying that I don’t care for him in the least, and I made that assessment months ago, long before his recent attempt to win over Evangelicals. That being said, he’s like Huckabee, IMHO, touting his Christianity but governing like a compassionate conservative, which means in reality a compassionate, big-government socialist. GWB set the standard, with the help of his long-time advisor, Karen Hughes, in her biography of him, trying to convince conservative Christian voters that he was one of them. In office, he proved he wasn’t for limited government after all. Perry is a GWB clone.
Google Perry and Gardasil and then the Trans-Texas corridor for starters.
This. Good-ol’-boys like crony-istic big government.
Texan Robert Morrow states, “Rick Perry is a Trojan Horse of statism cloaked in Tea Party rhetoric and Bible Buzzwords.”
Yes, Bachmann is a poor-man’s Palin. She is Palin without the executive experience. If Palin gets in, Bachmann will be her kid sister in braces.
Cain improved in my eyes with his frank admission that he was ignorant on Afghanistan. I like an honest man. I also believe he is smart enough to learn quickly, and to listen to wise counsel.
Gingrich showed his thin skin last night. He’s like Obama in that regard. Wallace’s questions were fair enough. It is as good as it will get for Gingrich. Other reporters will be far harder on him. Gingrich has some fine attributes, but he is of low character, and is not a likable man. His approach with Wallace was the approach that should be taken with Obama, not Fox News. One should choose one’s battles wisely. Gingrich is a fool.
I felt sorry for Bachmann when she got hit with the Biblical quote about being submissive to her husband, it’s too bad she was unprepared to give the proper response, as the quote (from Colossians 3:18-21); was taken completely out of context.
If you were to gather a group of women from Judea at that period of time and started a speech about being submissive wives they would probably doze off,,, “what the hell,,, ho humm, another lecture about being submissive”… They had all heard that before a million times.
Remember,,, Jesus was a radical. The radical teaching from that passage lies in the next verse,,, “Men should love their wife as they love themselves”. In other words, men should see their wives as equals, this was really radical thinking for the time since women were considered chattel property, only one step one up the social ladder above the family donkey or camel. For Jesus to teach about women’s equality was absolutely new thinking for the time
Women were not taught to read in those days, and only a few of the men were able to read, so the message was not intended to reach women, it was intended to instruct men about how to treat their women.
Text + Context = Meaning
Too bad Ms. Bachmann wasn’t up on her game for that question. Now we have to worry if she’s up for being President.
Yeah, there were any manner of ways she could have handled that question.
I agree. A simple “No!” would have been much better.
Low character? Low Character? You mean something on a par with B.J. Clinton who was successful in winning two terms as POTUS. But then again, you may have a point in that the MSM ignored B.J.’s morals but they will be all over Newt’s relative indiscretions.
Yes, low character. Do you really not know? He is on his 3rd wife. He left his 2nd wife while she was gravely ill. He was forced out of the House, as Speaker, because he had violated ethics rules. He does some flip-flopping too, when the cameras are on. He is ingracious and think-skinned. He is a bit narcissistic like Obama. Low character.
Newt’s “ethics violations” were later found to be NOT ethics violations. You can be forgiven for not realizing this; there were no news headlines informing us.
How dare you question Newt’s integrity and commitment to marriage!
Hasn’t he married all the women he has had affairs with?
[end sarcasm]
I’d actually give him some credit for that. He paid the price for his indiscretions.
ETAB, your last paragraph describes Sarah Palin to a T.
ETAB I think you just described Gingrich and Sarah Palin both when you said we need someone who can confront. Mock and belittle. I know of no one better at that than newt or Sarah. in Iowa last night those people went wild when Sarah spoke.
so, let me see this clearly: they put each candidate to fight against each other, or just didn’t give them attention, except Romney? Seems to me like the same old biased Media trying to go nice with their preferred candidate.
I think we have a winner here!
Agreed. It’s becoming increasingly clear. The Republican establishment is picking Romney.
I would agree that Romney was the winner among those who were there. Thought Gingrich rehabbed himself a bit, but he is going to be a hard sell.
Perhaps the biggest winners were ones who were not there, Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.
My thought is that the nomination will probably be won by either Romney or Perry.
It will be interesting to watch.
Wow, your comment made me realize that the reason I haven’t paid much attention to the GOP nomination yet, is that I’m waiting for the little kids to go home and Palin and Perry to finally declare so we can get started.
That’s precisely it. Palin is the 8-ton gorilla waiting on the sidelines. When she gets into the pool, the show starts. I think that’s one reason Perry has been hemming and hawing.
i agree with etab regarding the need to confront
in my opinion, this need only involve the confrontation (much to the benefit of all those who desire freedom and liberty) between capitalism and collectivism
natural and simple fundamentals, coupled with the simple explanation of these basics, of free-markets- the role of true competition and its effects on the dispersion of the concentration of power- versus those proven and faulty premises of the centrally planned economy is the coveted “honey hole” for any potential nominee running against obama
none of the candidates has yet successfully tapped into this reservoir so lush in potential victory
chris wallace’s questions about “plans for a successful economy” is a fat hanging curveball lingering over the plate– answers of “plans are what get us in these problems in the first place, chris…” is the perfect way to pursue this tactic
yet the republicans are swinging like pedro cerrano on our strongest issue and easily get sidetracked into political melees “like prize roosters in an illegal cock fight”
the beauty of the economic issue is the fact that it easily dictates the other “issues” simply due to the essence of economic freedom being a “necessary but insufficient” condition for political freedom
the moderators keep bringing up this “10 to 1″ ratio in the hypothetical cut spending versus raise revenue charade– all the candidates are getting pigeon holed by this– no one suggested— “you know chris… instead of this ’10 to 1′ barometer of when taxes can be raised should not the goal be to simply cut spending by a ‘net 9′? we must suppress the fallacy of tax raises as revenue all together- it’s not a lack of taxes that is hamstringing our economical malaise– it’s the muther f****n’ spending…”
The problem is – even though I think you are exactly right that this ‘fork-in-the-road’ election is about capitalism vs collectivism – but, this debate is too theoretical and analytical for the type of campaign that the Democrats and Obama are going to fling at the American people.
If all the campaign were about – is this debate, then someone thoughtful, analytic and with integrity, such as Pawlenty, could be the nominee. But the Democrats and Obama are fighting, not for an ideology, not for America, but for themselves and their political power. That’s a completely different election focus and the GOP – and Americans – need someone who can, not merely promote capitalism and reject socialism – but who can confront the power-agenda of Obama and the Democrats.
Obama won’t be discussing socialism vs capitalism! He’ll be weeping over the evil GOP throwing Granny off a cliff vs he and his, who care about You-in-Your-Pain-and-Need. He’ll be sighing over his Pure Agenda of ‘bringing us all together’ (remember his Tuscon speech?)..forgetting that two weeks later he insulted Paul Ryan to his face and how he’s even now, allowing his minions such as Biden, to call the Tea Party ‘terrorists’.
He’ll be lamenting that he’s The Victim of the unruly, argumentative Congress – ignoring that he’s the one who deadlocked it, that he threatened to veto Cut/Cap and Trade; that he thus prevented the Congress from coming up with ANY SOLUTION to the debt crisis…other than to raise it to enable Obama to use the slush for his re-election.
The Democrats won’t acknowledge that their centralist collectivist policies are bleeding the small private businesses to death; they won’t acknowledge that ‘all those millions of jobs they’ve created’ haven’t existed and those that DO exist, are primarily within the public sector, i.e., taxpayer funded jobs!
After all, just think of Jay Carney’s reply to a reporter who asked him to explain how unemployment insurance creates ‘millions of jobs’. First, he patronizingly insulted the reporter, telling her it was an ‘economics 101 fact’ and then..explained that ‘giving money to the unemployed..well, they’ll spend that money’..and that creates jobs.
HUH? You take money from the productive sector of the population; that prevents this sector from INVESTING, from replacing equipment, from building a new factory, from hiring more workers. You take this INVESTMENT money and give it to a NON-PRODUCTIVE individual..who uses it for Consumer Goods. Oh!! Mr. Carney! So..that money spent on those consumer goods..gosh..it goes to hire ONE MILLION people!! Gosh.
No – you twit. The government takes it back in taxes. And then, it gives it to that same unemployed person again. Or gives it for some other non-producing program. For consumer goods. And..then..takes the money back.
Did this reporter then ask the esteemed Mr. Carney to provide factual evidence that ONE MILLION jobs are created by unemployment insurance? I want to know that it’s not 853,541 jobs; that it’s one million. I want to know that it’s not 200,000; that it’s one million. After all, Obama has redefined somone who earns 200,000 a year as ‘a millionaire’. So – Is Jay Carney following His Leader’s rhetoric? And is one million jobs actually 200,000 jobs? Or no jobs? What’s the evidence. She was stunned into silence by this stupid put-down of Carney.
So – the GOP and the American people are going to need someone who confronts the vast array of vicious, manipulative and outright false images that Obama and the Democrats are going to use is this campaign.
It’s not simply between capitalism and collectivism, though this is indeed the basic structure. It’s between truth and falsehood, fact vs fiction, and integrity vs corruption.
i do not mean to diminish the necessity to fight
but my main hang-up is that our potential representative leader/”possible”-commander-in-chief has not defined the basic parameters of the fight yet and who the central cast of characters are in this death match for america’s soul
it is the narrative of “capitalism/collectivism” which, once properly addressed and introduced (probably for the fist time, in fact, for many american voters) can then simmer on the back burner
once this foundational cornerstone is established it is much easier to take the attack to the vermin on our terms rather than continuously chasing our own tails trying to respond to the endless smoke screens, red herrings, legions of straw men and the other deviant obstacles (one of the primary and predictable tactics of our “enemy”) cast about the battlefield– it is then that we can fight the falsehoods, fictions, and corruptions with those brass-knuckles we’re hiding behind our back
I agree that the road chosen between capitalism and collectivism is the key issue in this election.
The fact that Obama’s socialism has forced the nation to openly confront what has been a creeping socialism since WWII – is vital. But I don’t think that the argument between the two modes of social/economic organization can ever be closed.
The fact is, they refer to two different realities: fact and fiction.
Capitalism belongs in the world of fact. This is the real world of hard data, actual individuals, the present time, specific monies put away for the future. Real industries, workers, ..
Socialism belongs in the world of fiction. This is the world of utopia, the world of ‘If Only We Did Such and Such..’. This is the world of the ambiguous, non-factual imagined future.
This is Obama’s world of: Hope and Change (meaningless without specifics); of Winning the Future (meaningless without specifics). It’s Obama’s world of ‘we must all get along with each other’…pitted against his maliciousness towards Congressmen, his allowing his minions to smear the Tea Party, his apocalyptic threats of ‘Pass this bill or the US will collapse’.
We, as human beings, will always live in BOTH WORLDS. We must have the capacity to imagine ‘what it would be like if only ..we could fly’. Or, if only we could figure out how to deal with this disease..
The problem is, how we balance the imaginary realm and the real realm. The latter must ALWAYS TRUMP the imaginary. Always. Always.
The problem now, in Europe and in the US, is that the imaginary realm has gradually crept up on us – and overwhelmed the real world. We now realize that much as we would like to imagine a world where everyone is equal, has the same 10 room house and two cars and a 20 hour work week and above all, everyone just loves and adores each other…that is simply not how the real world operates.
Reality kicks in with a requirement for hard work, with the fact that crops fail, that drought exists, that a new disease emerges (bacteria, after all, want to live)… with a reality that ‘my neighbor’ doesn’t want to work, with a reality that thieves and crooks..and evil…exists.
So, we need the debate about ‘what is America’ – Actually, we don’t need to debate it; it’s all there, written down, in the Constitution. But, we need to acknowledge that We, as a Distinct People, already exist – and we don’t wish to change, thank you.
I don’t think so.
No matter how much the GOP candidate wants to talk basic philosophy (capitalism vs. collectivism or whatever), Obama and his surrogates will use personal attacks. They don’t want to debate economics with Romney. They want to paint Romney out as a heartless capitalist who laid off workers and whose faith is, in their word, “weird.” And they’ll mention Bush about 50,000 times too.
So while we would all love to stay out of the gutter, the Dems are going to keep dragging us back into it.
We might as well get ready for a dirty fight.
The basic point, though, is do we want America to be a free society or a marxist society?
That’s really what this economic and cultural fight is about.
Thaddeus McCotter, by not getting into this debate is probably the winner. It fired up supporters, got a lot of local radio and Internet radio coverage. It got a lot of play of FB and Twitter.
He didn’t have to answer any lame questions or limit his explanations to 30 second sound bites.
Romney’s a Hollywood dud, and performed as if he were already annointed to the top of the R ticket. Bachmann made a fool of herself by failing to substantiate why she voted against raising the debt ceiling. There are much better reasons than ‘because the polls said so’. Newt Gingrich, who should have had a fork stuck in him two months ago, won this debate hands down. Newt is not charismatic enough to win a presidential election, but America sure could have used him last month in his old job as House Speaker. Chances are we’d have seen Cap, Cut & Balance or something like it on Obama desk waiting for him to commit political suicide by either signing OR vetoing it.
I see your points and have the same hesitations about Romney and Bachmann – and Gingrich as do you. Yes, that pitbull attitude of his has its uses – not as president – but to confront Obama and the Democrats in this monumental forthcoming Fight-for-America.
you gotta love that kind of gentle persuasion
It’s going to be quite the battle. And it won’t be about America and Americans so much as it is about one set of powerful elitists trying to retain power.
I don’t consider that the Democrat elite are hardcore ideologues, all committed to ‘helping the poor’ (ahh, and thank god for the poor, eh..so that these elites can be in government to, ahh..’help’ them). They, whether it’s Kerry or Geithner dodging taxes or others giving contracts to friends and family…are in it for: Themselves.
The old guard Democrats have been in Washington too long, are too comfortable and too corrupt. That’s what it’s all about.
And they won’t go ‘gently into the night’. It will be a blood battle – and the Obama Gang will use and manufacture crisis after crisis in this battle.
Just think how Obama made the debt ceiling a crisis – as a tactic to use in his 2012 election campaign – that the GOP/TP are ‘evil’ and will prevent all you poor needy people out there from getting your social security checks…Obama almost wept before the cameras as he sighed that he wasn’t sure that their money would go out to them…
Agree with all you’ve said above. Re the battle royal you see coming down the pike, it’s a lot more lopp sided than you think.
Whenever the Dems lie bluntly and beset the mouth breathing public with fears for armies of “children, women, poor, elderly, sick”, the Repubs just mumble ‘on this hand and that hand’ crap — and they never, but NEVER, answer a false charge or an outright lie on TV. They just push on and mumble their talking points.
The Dems, part of the international socialist conspiracy, play Bolshevik hardball. They can get their useful idiots into the streets on a moment’s notice. So far you’ve seen their works in the Arab Spring, the Midwest State Fair, London Burning. American Clockwork Orange is coming now and in the 2012 Long Hot Summer of race riot looting.
The back room gang at the White House and the knee-capping thugs in Chicago, LA, Philly, NYC, Atlanta, etc., will buy the undereducated electorate with the hundreds of billions of dollars they’ve already got from the “bail out” and “stimulus” cash — their ward heelers now use it for walk-around money — and the country club Repubs let them do it! Not even a squawk, just mumbles.
You think our Repub girly-men can possibly field a fighter? Their only choice may be a brace of fast-talkin’ dames, but the mumble-wits running the Repubs won’t muster the balls to run them.
You’re right. The Messiah just has to cross his arms and play the crucified Christ and he’ll win handily.
Romney has no Vision and No Backbone.
Romney has shown (from the Mass experience) that he can manage a Democrat Mess better than a Democrat.
Romney is the Perfect Establishment Republican.
We don’t need a manager – We Need A Leader!
The best thing Romney ever did was quit in 2008 when it was over. He will make a great vp for Perry.
Any of these candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, would make a better President than the one we have now. And several of the candidates would make vastly improved Cabinet members than the “Bar Scene from Star Wars” group that Obama dragged in with him. Huntsman would make a better Secretary of State than Hilarious Clinton, hands down – although John Bolton would be a home run! Newt could take any one of several Cabinet positions and he would raise the IQ level over the current group all by himself. This debate showed, if nothing else, that the bench is strong for whichever candidate rises to the top. Kudos to Fox and partners for the most interesting debate in a long time.
Yes, lots of good possibilities. Newt, Sec of Energy. Cain, Sec of Commerce. Pawlenty, VP. Paul, Sec of Treasury.
Right – the GOP has a wealth of talent to assist in government. And I like Marc Malone’s picks for the various positions as well.
That’s a big difference between the GOP and the Democrats; the GOP have encourged and allowed new blood to come into the party and into leadership roles. The Democrats haven’t done this – primarily because Obama, a narcissist, can’t handle anyone equal (never mind better) to him. So, the Democrats are dried up shrivelled sun-dried botoxed, Hollow Men. Pelosi, Reid, Franks..the whole lot of them.
Oregonian,
Either of my two dogs would be a better president than BHO, so RP would definitely be a step up. That said, I like Cain and I think he has the ability to take the fight right up to the end of BHO’s nose. BHO’s campaign, aided by the MSM, will be a nasty affair. The GOP had better come up with a candidate that is aggressive 24/7. Romney, as others have noted is the establishment candidate. He’s Obamalite. Independent voters, who will decide the outcome, are not looking for an establishment candidate, they’re looking for red meat. BTW, I love Palin, I believe she is the real deal but I doubt she will run.
Romney is the Bilderberg’s candidate. But Romneycare and his flipflops on social issues are millstones around his neck. So the Bilderberg’s are trotting out Rick Perry as their back up guy. Rick Perry supports the TransTexas highway. No thanks to either of these blowdryer hair, establishment candidates.
Me I’m supporting Bachmann, but am really waiting for Sarah to jump in around Labor Day. Its Sarah all the way, she’s the real deal. She led a real life, held real offices, won real races, and has true blue American Ideals.
I love Palin and think she’d make an excellent President, probably the best since Reagan. The key question, however, is to what extent the media was able to successfully demonize her in the eyes of independent voters in 2008. As is almost always the case, they’re the ones who will decide the outcome of the election in 2012.
Tancred the media tried their damnedest to demonise Sarah. but those of us who do our own thinking didn’t fall for their damned lies at all. if you were watching last night you should have seen how those people at the fair reacted when she spoke. if she had announced then and there she was a candidate it would have been over for all of the rest of the candidates,
This doesn’t sound like a Bildeberger to me…more like the exact opposite.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/12/rick-perry-newsweek-interview-transcript.html
But the interview will probably be a bigger problem than if he recited a pledge to Bilderbergerism. I doubt he would have given this interview if he knew he was going to run at the time he gave it.
It’s the same problem that the Repubs caused themselves by passing Ryan’s budget. It’s not that it’s wrong, it’s just that it opens the target that is the easiest to demagogue in the country. If Perry gets away with this interview, he will deserve to be President because he will have legitimately started the most important debate the country can have.
proreason – thanks for the link to the Perry interview. I thought it was an excellent discussion – why do you suggest that he might not/ought not have given it?
What am I missing? I thought his arguments that we need to debate these issues, etc – all his points – were valid. So what am I missing?
ETAB. The interview was a huge mistake. You can’t view it through the lens of a rational person.
The problem is that he flatly stated that SS is a ponzi scheme (it may be) and said that Medicare should be handled by the states (which would be better, of course).
That’s the third and fourth rails, and then he goes on to discuss the 17th amendment and states rights.
All of that is valid, rational thinking. One may disagree, but the discussion should be held.
But there won’t be a discussion. There will be a vicious, information-free demagogic attack that will bring down his candidacy because the country isn’t ready to consider that bridge too far at this point in time. Within a day of Ryan’s plan, the granny over a cliff ad appeared. Perry will see far worse.
And from the context of a presidential campaign, it isn’t necessary. I said the same thing about Ryan’s plan. Well thought out; good solution; bad timing. It’s too soon and not necessary. Talk about a spine of titanium, Perry will need testicles of titanium carbonite.
What the candidates ought to be concentrating on is the skyrocketing increase in governemnt spending, particularly the 5 trillion ladled on by Little Lenin, and the existential threat from the debt. That is existential nearly immediately. SS isn’t even existential and should be casually brushed away. Medicare is existential over time and has to be corrected. But the solution shouldn’t be “comprehensive”. Reverse the marxist spearhead of the 5 trillion, stabalize and then correct Medicare and government spending in general. The attempt to do too much, or even talk about too much at one time, will make it all fail.
Watch, if Perry overcomes this, he is such a genius that he’ll go down in history as the genius of the ages. I think the interview puts him in a significantly worse problem for him than Romneycare is for Mitt. I hope I’m wrong, but doubt it. Remember, any Repub candidate will automatically get 98% of the Tea Party. The target audience isn’t them, it’s independents and liberals who are beginning to smell the smoke.
Hmm. I see your point. But I wonder. I think the Democrats will make false accusations no matter what you say.
After all, Ryan’s budget most certainly did NOT push Granny off a cliff; that didn’t stop the Dems from their ad claiming it did. It didn’t affect those already within the system.
Arizona’s ‘immigration law’ did NOT mean that the police could legally stop someone walking on the street to check their immigration status; that could only be done during a valid stop for a factually verifiable breach. But that didn’t stop Obama from claiming that the Arizona police would go after you for walking along eating an ice cream.
If the debt ceiling increase had not increased, the interst on debts and social security and medicare checks would still have been covered by the monthly revenue from taxation in the US. No need for further funds. But that fact didn’t stop Obama from going on national TV, and, almost weeping, declare that he wasn’t sure that he could send out the August checks for social security.
Truth has no role in the world of the Democrats. But truth has a role in our lives – and I think that we have to speak out, we have to say these things that are true.
Then – when the Democrats come up with their endless, endless false accusations, we laugh – and mockery of their lies is very important..and then, tell people the truth.
The facts are, by 2049, entitlements will require ALL tax revenues. Increasing taxes won’t deal with this situation because depriving the economy of its investment capital means that the Magic Cauldron theory of endless, endless rich people with money-in-their-socks..will disappear.
I think that reality has to be talked about. By someone. The Democrats are now so firmly trapped in the Magic Land of Fiction and Words..that they are beyond redemption. Someone has to face reality..
The time for the debate is after the victory. No way there can be anything close to a rational discussion before then. The marxists won’t allow it.
I wish it were true that 51% of the country was ready to say ok, let’s roll up the sleeves and let’s fix it. Not.
So why hand a poison pill to the other side?
Bachmann has it right. She won’t even let Hannity lure her into a position on Social Security. All she will say is that absolutely no seniors will be affected. Smart woman.
Could you explain to me what is a ‘Bilderberg candidate’? And could you explain how ‘The Bilderberg’ are trotting out Perry’? [I'm not into conspiracy theories and clouds of 'world government']. So – what’s your factual argument?
Bob Rubin,major Bilderberg member and past US Treasury Secretary, retired head of Goldman Sachs and the real person who made whatever “positive” economic progress that Bill Clinton constantly gets credited with having accomplished with in his administration. The Republican Congresss provided the impetus for reform but without Rubin on the Democratic side it is unlikely that it would have evolved as it did.
Rubin’s “strong dollar(1996-2001)” policy created the ultra low interest rates that caused the Dot.Com bubble and soon after led to the housing bubble’s inflation and collapse in 2008 which ushered in the Socialists we are now dealing with.
In the meantime(1998-2007) Rubin was helping Citibank destroy itself and half of the US banking system at the same time. Rubin and five dozen similar meglomaniacs are marinating at Bilderberg meetings and thinking about the implementation of the “New World Order”.
Above all else the Bilderbergs are convinced that the next US President should report to them before the American public. And unfortunately for all of us they have enormous resources in and out of Government to assure that they get what they want.
It is why the media jumps on anyone who doesn’t bow to their influence with the ferocity of a rabid dog. Sarah Palin and Ron Paul scare the meglomania out of them.
You’ve given, in my view, a very weak argument against ‘Bilderberg’..which is not, after all, a party or power but a network of associates.
First, you’ve informed me that Rubin, an associate, carried out both positive and negative economic policies in the US. Are both actions due to Bilderberg? One could say the same about any economic or political figure – are their actions due to and only to their associations with other economic and political figures? And after all, we have to acknowledge that all economic and political decisions in our networked world, are made with the effects on other economies, in mind.
Then you’ve declared that the ‘Bilderberg ‘insist that they, as a group, be informed about national issues before the public. This seems specious and without proof, but, most certainly, national decisions that affect other nations, both economically and politically ARE discussed with foreign states before the public in either nation is aware of them. That’s the function of government.
So – although I’m waiting for Patti Mor to respond to my questioning her comment about a ‘Bilderberg candidate’…I’m afraid that I don’t see that your answer provides me with any information about ‘what is a Bilderberg’s candidate’. What specifically defines an individual as such?
In more direct terms, there are forces who want to keep the control of the Republic safely in the hands of a small oligarchy. The rough approximation of this group and I do mean rough is the Bilderberg Group. NO conspiracy weirdness, just there are wealthy and powerful forces that have no intention of giving up power and don’t really believe the “we the people” part of our US Constitution.
In addition since on re-reading your question I don’t think I answered the main thrust you were driving at. I don’t know much about many of the people who attend Bilderberg Group meetings but I have met and studied some in my career. There are people on that list who are extraordinarily capable, BUT not to be trusted with the future of our Republic. I can’t obviously speak for even a fraction of the list, BUT from the ones I am familar with I would not underestimate them.
Palin quit her job as governor.
Did Reagan do that?
You like Palin because you see her as a kindred spirit. But that’s secondary to whether she can govern the nation. ALL of the nation, including parts like Massachusetts, California, Vermont, etc.
Because as President, she can’t just quit a second time.
After the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, Reagan quit Lebanon. he got a lot of heat for not seeking to punish the attackers, but he was wise. Quitting Lebanon was the right thing to do.
Palin quitting the Governor position of AK was the wise and proper thing to do. She was paralyzed in her job. The government could not function. She was $500,000 in debt from frivolous lawsuits. And she was not free to hit back at the people who were attacking.
When she quit, she did not go crawl into a hole and pity herself. She took the fight to the Democrats. That’s not quitting. That’s fighting. That’s getting out of a corner in a boxing match.
The Dems probably wish they had left her alone after the election. They created Palin, and she has been killing them ever since she “quit”. She has been a brutally effective “quitter”.
And she made several million bucks doing it. Savvy. Even her detractors now acknowledge her political skills and her savvy.
You’re right. She made a tough decision and the results prove it was a wise one. No rational person can look at where she is at now in her life and as a politician and say it wasn’t an astute thing to do.
But that won’t stop them from demagogueing it to the rafters if she runs.
It’s one of the reasons I think she won’t run.
Sarah Palin is great, but she could never win in the general election. The media has smeared every aspect of her laudable life and she is thought of negatively by a large majority of people in the country.
It’s too bad, but she could never beat Obama.
All the candidates have severe flaws. The 2020 field will be awesome, but we can’t wait that long.
Romney – The establishment choice. That should tell you all you need to know. Or as another commenter called him, “the politician’s politician”.
Gingrich – Erratic and full of himself. He is brilliant one moment, and a fool the next. He, like Obama, simply lacks the temperament to be President. He is just not stable enough to be our rock.
Huntsman – Who?
Paul – The Libertarian’s candidate. He is the very definition of Libertarian. His foreign policy views make him seem like a loon to everyone but Libertarians.
Bachmann – Right politics. Great scrapper. Really great scrapper. Lacks executive creds. Still learning the ropes.
Cain – Real executive skills. Very likable, thus electable. Lacks foreign policy creds. Also has some big-government tendencies.
Santorum – Generic Conservative. Not a credible candidate. Get an exec job.
Pawlenty – Probably the most well-rounded candidate, the least flawed. But he is weak and uninspiring. Of them all, he’d likely make the best President. Unfortunately, that’s not enough.
The Repubs need the same majorities the Dems enjoyed in order to undo the damage the Dems have caused. That means the nominee must have very long coattails. Pawlenty would do well to carry himself across the finish line, much less the rest of the nation. His shoulders are just not broad enough to carry others. In normal times, he would be a fine candidate, but these are not normal times.
He would make a good VP candidate. He would do no harm to the candidate. He could carry his home State of MN, which is no small thing to be able to offer. He could ably carry on after the Prez was done.
Perry – Another Texan with all the same flaws of LBJ, Bush, and Bush. Lots of baggage. He looks as good now as he will ever look. It is all downhill from here. He will be Palinized and it will be ugly, because so much of it will be true. They won’t need to make up stuff about him.
Palin – Honestly, if she were to actually run, she would be the strongest candidate and the best President. The more you learn about her, the better she looks. She is the opposite of Perry. She looks as bad now as she will ever look. It’s all uphill from here, but it would be an uphill fight.
Let’s face it though, if she gets in, she sucks all the air out of the room for everyone else. The campaign would get very, very interesting. It would galvanize both Left and Right. You thought Palin Mania and PDS were bad before? Ha!
If she can cross the finish line, she will be able to carry others, but could she win? That’s a big question mark. It is a huge gamble with a huge payoff.
If she wins, she’ll win big, and she’ll have the majorities she needs to do the things necessary. If she loses, well, she won’t lose by much, and Repubs will still gain the Senate and be able to put the brakes on Obama. That will buy us the time until others are more ready to go. We’d have better candidates the next go-around.
So, in light of this analysis of the candidates, who won the debate? Who improved their standing? Depends on what you favor, I guess.
I found Newt crotchety and foolish, but most thought he helped himself. But he cannot win. Cannot.
Santorum helped himself just a bit, but he’ll be done soon.
Romney trod water. He should have hit the others, but did not. If you are the big dog, then prove it.
Pawlenty and Bachmann hurt themselves. They fought like a married couple. The argument wasn’t really about the toothpaste. They were fighting for the Ames Straw Poll. They just both ended up bloodied and gained nothing.
Paul neither gained nor lost.
Cain helped himself a bit by admitting his ignorance on Afghanistan. That means he can learn, a rare commodity in politics. (I hate that Obama is completely ineducable.)
I think the only winner really was Cain. He is strong enough, barely, to stay in the race, and he gained just a little bit. Others who did at all well cannot win (Gingrich, Santorum). Cain can still win. It’s a long-shot, but possible. I will take another look at him.
Did Perry win by not participating? Yes. He wins if he stays Governor of TX. He loses by getting into the race.
You are being too hard on them.
Compare them to recent fields, and in particular, the Narcissist in Chief and recent Dem fields. The Dems all seem like a cast of Dick Tracy characters.
Unfortunately, our politics don’t even begin to attract the best and the brightest, but unless some transcendant private figure (can’t imagine who it would be) were to run, they are who they are, and every last one of them is head and shoulders above the Boy King.
Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio might (repeat, might) be exceptions. Maybe if things look gloomy enough they will decide to set aside their legitimate concerns about running and do it for the country.
Not being too hard on them. This field would have been fine in the last election, but this is not the last election. The problems are far worse and require a greater person.
Interestingly, the candidates for the last election were insufficient for the last election. The Repubs have upgraded their candidates, but they are still behind the curve, running to catch up.
Agreed all ’round.
I still think the “executive experience” is over hyped. The President of the US is not and “executive” in the save vane as the president of a company. The US isn’t a company to be “managed”, we’ve had quiet too much of that already, thank you.
A dyed in the wool Constitutional ideologue is what’s needed. Someone who simply does what that document tells him/her to do is preferable, not someone bent on “changing America”, “reshaping America” or even, for the most part, “leading America”.
Enforce the laws, command the military, and be a vocal proponent of the best interests of America, not “the world”. There is nothing “diminished” about being for America first, nobody I know of ever voted to become the world’s “leader” or “savior” or “cop” or “bank”. When’s the last time an occupant of the Oval office actually said he would always put America’s interests first? It certainly isn’t the current one.
No, exec experience really natters. Just look at Bachmann’s campaign organization, how clumsy it is, and how ill-prepared she is at times. Compare to Pawlenty’s campaign. Smooth operation.
Personnel is policy. An exec chooses his people carefully. So far, Bachmann’s picks have not been very good. Gingrich’s may have been good, but they all bailed on him. Romney and Pawlenty have smooth campaigns. Palin has an excellent staff!
Obama has a horrid staff. An ideologue with exec skills would have made better picks. Hillary Clinton has done poorly at State. Poor staff selection. Surprisingly, Panetta has done fairly well, though. Obama seems to have lucked out there.
I agree with you about Gingrich; he’s a bulldog but an unstable one and might be great somewhere in the Executive house but not as President.
Romney still bothers me; he’s almost too slick; he belongs in The West Wing..He did very well last night but a public debate is not the Oval Office.
Bachmann – I’ll repeat my concerns; I found her too vague and dealing primarily in abstracts.
Pawlenty would make a great VP.
Being a native Minnesotan, there is no way that having Pawlenty on the ticket will result in Minnesota being a red state in November 2012.
Babies born in Minnesota get “DFL” stamped on their foreheads right after birth.
In the 1984 election, 49 states went for Reagan. The one that didn’t? Minnesota. Most of the voters in Minnesota are dyed-in-the-wool democrats. In spite of electing a majority republican legislature in 2010, the voters gave the governship to a certified loon, Mark Dayton.
Also, the secretary of state, Mark Ritchie (who oversees the state’s elections), was the architect of the appalling 2008 recount that put Al Franken in the Senate, instead of the one who really won, Norm Coleman. Look for Ritchie to pull out all the stops to ensure massive voter fraud in the Gopher State in 2012.
That should be “governorship.”
Gov. Perry gets a D- from Numbers USA. Sarah Palin gets a solid D just like Mitt Romney. The most conservative on the illegal alien issue is Michelle Bachmann (B-). Pawlenty and Cain are passing. The rest are ALL D’s and F’s.
It seems to me that conservatives should be choosing between Bachmann and Cain considering their views on all the other issues as well. The others are Obama Light.
Usually our trolls have common single names like Joseph, Lawrence, Dwight and Matthew.
Did you finger-fumble Lance?
Otherwise your inane and information-free post is a home-run for stupid people.
Making fun of my name was something that most grade schoolers got over by the second grade. But, loosertarians never seem to grow up, even to a second grade level.
I want to congratulate “proreason” for nailing the “troll” on the first bounce. Good ball handling.
I had to get to rance’s second comment when he started with the belittling and name calling before I saw the genius of your perception.
Aw shucks, nickel, it weren’t nuthin.
Out whar I live the prairie is fulla dangrous snakes. If you don’t larn to spot em quick, you die quick.
Rance is a southern name, in my experience. I’ve known a couple.
Numbers USA isn’t just against illegal immigration. They’re against LEGAL immigration too.
If that policy had been in effect 100 years ago, I wouldn’t be here today.
Americans should always welcome ANYONE who desires freedom and who is willing to play by the rules and go through the process.
whew – well – first – please know that Romney and Perry are Bilderberg and more – they are the chosen ones A & B – seems once again too many are letting the media steer them – please dont – please please dont – please think for yourself – our country is at stake – remember that political spectum line bends to form a circle and where do they meet???
Huntsman is in the wrong debate –
Cain has some connections with the fed.res that are not what we need for a president to have –
Pawlenty and Newt are done – before they started – they are more of the same pack
that leaves Bachmann, Paul, Santorum –
Paul – a lot of good ideas that he has had for a long time – his foreign policy will not work in todays circumstances – his idea that we need to stay out of other countries business is a good one that should have been implemented decades ago, and may work in the future, but not now –
Bachmann voted for the patriot act – I like her but what can I say – a fact is a fact – and this is a bad fact -
that brings me to Rick Santorum – hardly gets any attention – I guess he’s not electric enough – but if we truly want someone to stand tall and guide our country back to freedom – this is our man – at least at the moment – he is principaled, consistent, and has the weight in his soul to see it through – we do not need an electric moviestar – if you think he is too moraled, old fashion – think – that may just be what we need – we are far left in our policies – to steer straight we may just have to oversteer to the right a tad to bring her in line – if you think he could never beat the current man in the WH – well that is true if you think it, say it – let others be convinced – do not let others tell you anything – take a closer look – this is a good man with Reagan Principals – he is – and he sincerely cares about our country – he IS a true American – He can be counted on for the long haul -
I hope Bachmann wins. If Palin isn’t getting into the race, then I hope Bachmann wins. She and Palin strike me as the only two people who actually beieve in what they are saying. They are both conservatives to the core and both would do a fine job running the country, certainly a lot (and I mean A LOT) better than Obama is doing right now. They are smart, have accomplished lots in their lifetimes, and have a passion for standing up for what they believe in. I’m tired of the RINOs in Congress and I’m tired of conservatives thinking that they will alienate independents simply because they are conservatives. Conservatives should be proud of who they are and what they represent, our last best hope for stopping this country from going bankrupt like Greece. Seems like Bachmann and Palin are the only ones actually proud of that. The others, in trying to be all things to all people, end up standing for nothing. So if Palin does not get into the race, then I’d go with Bachmann.
I agree with you on Bachmann, but Palin is very poor on illegal immigration. Remember that Congressmen like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter were good on the illegal immigration issue and were always rated as an A on all things conservative by all of the conservative groups that rate such things. I think a clue that George W. was not at all conservative back in 2000 was his view of illegal immigration. I have yet to see a true conservative that was not good on this issue.
I also hope Michele wins. IMHO, Sarah would do much better as Sec of Interior. Then again all three – Michelle, Cain, and Newt – would absolutely destroy the toddler in any debate, especially if no teleprompter is present for the brat to read from his script.
Rino Romney, father of Romneycare, is the favorite of the old boys club of the pachyderm party.
Amen. Especially the part about Romney!
“rance” give it up. Sarah Palin is going to enter the race and win the General Election in 2012 in a landslide. As a part of the commie vanguard you know the leftwing media is going to go into a feeding frenzy and I can understand your posturing here to try and mold the discussion, BUT get a grip, your boy Obama is exposed even to his own base, and it ain’t pretty.
Palin/Gingrich 2012
Romney is nothing more than a flip flopping scary Kerry. Not one difficult question was presented to the milk toast. The three who impressed me were Cain, Michele, and Newt.
You are not being truthful about Romney, he was the only one who had a 7 point plan. He answered every question and did not go after any of those on the stage. He kept his focus on the poseur in the white house.
He was great!
I still like Rubio/West, but I’ll support Romney all the way!
He did a McCain-like tap dance on illegal immigration. Also, he is a Kerry style flip flopper (abortion, Romneycare, etc.) He looked good because he is the candidate that the Left Stream Media wants to win. He is the one that Obama can beat.
Goldi:
Strawmen are strewn across the land and the dissemblers still won’t give up the mis-dis-information campaign about Mitt Romney. Fact one is, he’s a mormon and fact two is he is not-not-not-a Washington D.C. political insider. That and the silly argument about Romneycare seals the case against him for some who believe that thinking is too hard.
The republican establishment and the mainstream media propagandists are shaking in their boots because Romney remains the legitimate front runner in a long series of credible polls and if given an honest hearing by shills and naysayers who claim they want to defeat Obama and then by strange logic and stale arguments against Romney, prop him up, would defeat the marxist hands down.
Why they continue the barage against potentially the strongest candidate in the field remains a mystery to me. I suspect that money, echo chamber syndrome or both, have something to do with it.
Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney make sense in 2012. Searching for Mr. Goodbar for another three months will probably mean term two for Obama or term four for the Bush dynasty. For those in Rio Linda as Limbaugh would say, that means the good ol’ boy governor and former Al Gore promoter, Rick Perry of the great state of Texas. Just what the country needs, extending to sixteen or twenty years, governance by that crowd of buffoons.
Run Sarah, put on the gloves and duke it out with Mitt. A nation might very well be at stake.
I honestly find some of these comments to be quite interesting. Many are saying, WE NEED SOMEONE THAT WILL CONFRONT THE DEMOCRATS!! Well, if that’s the case, can you simply imagine what Sara Palin would/could do once let loose and blasting the incumbant for everything he’s worth, destroying the media at every turn, and completely ripping the Dem’s attempts to tear her down at every stabbing statement??? The “blood bath” would be an absolute disaster for the Dems. A match up I would LOVE to see…
While most of your notes and assertions are relatively correct, you have missed the few significant outcomes that will manage to endure. One of these is encapsulated in the title of our piece at Robbing America, “Fox’s Wallace Resurrects Gingrich Campaign”.
The second is the realization that Romney remains above the fray because he is above the fray and likely to remain so. A minor by-product is the conviction that Ron Paul is an unstable proposition for the top job, as he made clear in his opinions about Iran. And that is the one small note that you got wrong. His battle with Santorum just made that clearer to normal Americans. Hardly a win for Paul.
I was totally impressed with Newt, even though I hadn’t expected to be. I thought he hit the ground running on the issues and slugged like a winner all night. His three wives are his own business (read up on Jefferson or Franklin or JFK or Ike or …), because I don’t want to date him or have him marry my daughter, I want him fix the damn spending problem, which I think he wants to do and is capable of doing.
Is he electable? He’ll never win the left, but who cares? Can he swing enough of the independents to him to get elected? I think he can. If elected, he will be a formidable president.
My primary vote will go to the candidate who lands the most head jabs and body blows on Barry Hussein Obama.
And may I add, kudos to Jazz for the excellent analysis.
Newt was the most articulate, knowledgeable,relevant, and in my opinion the winner as a result. His closing statement made the rest seem small, when he stated that though the election was fifteen months away, the crisis we face is here today and required immediate leadership NOW, was impressive and imperative. Was his statement a message to congress that they need to move toward impeachment of Obama?
Romney is the guy who can beat Obama, period. I think we will lose if he is not the candidate. He can compete in 50 states, Perry and the others can compete in 40. Romney will force Obama to defend Pennsylvania and the other blue states. Example – Romney is polling ahead of Obama in Michigan right now. Obama will be able to pocket those blue states against any other Republican candidate and concentrate on the swing states.
We let the MSM choose McCain for us – look how that turned out.
Are we really going to let them choose Romney?
“So- we need a GOP candidate who can confront, who can MOCK and BELITTLE the Democrat smears and Obama’s posturing patronizing performances.”
SARAH PALIN.
When you cut to the bone, you only have two leaders in the Republican Presidential list. One is Ron Paul and whatever you say about the old geezer from Texas, he has a devoted and growing following, and the other is Sarah Palin.
Sarah has more charisma and pull with the average Joes and Janes than all the rest of the candidates put together.
I think she will decide to enter the race once Perry is found to have feet of clay and with God’s help she will lead us out of this mess. She ain’t Reagan but she is as good as reality is going to get.
Nickle, you have more sense than your handle implies! I’ll add my two and wholeheartedly agree. The only one that could steal my support from Palin would be Col. West. I’d vote for Bachman as a “Sarah lite”, I could even vote for Cain even though he needs to study the Constitution a lot more, but that’s it, if it’s Romney or Perry or Huntsman I’ll have to vote third party because I refuse to be part of selling out the country just to win an election.
Thanks “JustAl” for the kind words.
I listened mostly to the debate… surprised by Newt, loved his answers, especially about the “super committee of 12″–he brings great experience but is too mercurial. I thought Romney was terrific LISTENING to him. But when ever I looked up to watch him, I cringed. The guy is so smug, I can’t stand it. After each response, he does this really annoying grin/smile/nod, like, “I nailed THAT, I’m the man.” Kinda above everyone. Please someone advise this man that we don’t need another egotistical, above it all, super-polished politician. He’s got great experience, I think he has good ideas… He’d be super in the days of radio. But we’re a visual society and he needs to be coached to hold back on those awful mannerisms. Seriously. Loved what he was saying. Hated how he looked when he was saying it. (And I really liked Cain, b-t-w)
Whenever I hear someone accuse Ron Paul of “isolationism” I know immediately that they either a.) don’t know anything about the subject matter, or b.) their goal is disinformation rather than journalism.
The whole thing is a circus. This small group in Iowa is not in any way typicaL of American voters. Ames is a college town so I assume many of the voters are connected with the university in some way.
Although I am still waiting for a knight to come galloping in on his steed…and it isn’t Perry…I am currently a Romney supporter. I cannot go along with the shrill far right pronouncements of Bachman, Santorem, and their ilk. Bachman has to explain too many aspects of her life and, frankly, I don’t believe a lot of it.
I think Mr. Cain should use his soapbox and expertise to work with education. It desperately needs his ideas and clarity. Kids need to kinuckle under and work harder for literacy and not for their electronic goodies.
“Bachman has to explain too many aspects of her life and, frankly, I don’t believe a lot of it.”
What? Why does she have to explain so much? Because they keep asking her? She has lived an exemplary life. She is devout. She is as or more educated as the rest of the field. She has a good marriage and a fine family. She is active in her community. She has taken in foster kids, even though she has 5 kids of her own to look after. That is not easy! She has a small business which employs 50 people. She, like Palin, would make a wonderful neighbor.
“Although I am still waiting for a knight to come galloping in on his steed…and it isn’t Perry…I am currently a Romney supporter. I cannot go along with the shrill far right pronouncements of Bachman, Santorem, and their ilk.”
Oh. This explains it. You are a “moderate”. Such never have any use for solid Conservatives.
Well, lemme ask you, who would make the better neighbor, Romney or Bachmann? Think that one over carefully, because it is really about more than likability. It is about trust. As is the Presidency.
I do not trust Romney at all. He is as phony as a 3-dollar bill. Gingrich is untrustworthy. I have a little distrust of Cain. Same with Santorum. Ditto Pawlenty. Bachmann and Paul have solid followings, because with them, what you see is what you get. I do not like Paul’s Libertarianism, but I highly respect his integrity. I wish Bachmann had more relevant experience. However, I can trust her to do the best job she possibly can in pursuit of what is right for the country.
Very good commentary. I agree. The field is already narrowing and if there wasn’t so terribly much at risk it would be interesting to watch how the next 18 months plays out. Unfortunately, I think we are playing for the entire pot on this one, and should we lose we are totally screwed.
The 2012 Republican Presidential Primary Candidates
One of the trends I find “exceptional” about the USA today is the number of religious sects and cults participating directly in the electoral process. The leading contender for the Republican nomination for President, Gov. Mitt Romney, is a Mormon, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a religion considered heretical by many mainstream Christians like nearly all mainstream Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas began his Presidential campaign by organizing a “Christian only” evangelical, and “dominionist” prayer meeting called “The Response: a call to prayer for a nation in crisis.” “Dominionism” is the belief that holds the Holy Bible as dominant over laws made by man. For an examination of the relationship between Gov. Perry and the controversial “New Apostolic Reformation” movement, see the Texas Observer’s article “Rick Perry’s Army of God” http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/rick-perrys-army-of-god. “The Response” was a gathering of the different tribes of American fundamentalism – Christian Zionists, prayer warriors, apostolic and prophetic types, etc. – under the umbrella of political and spiritual revival, see Rachael Maddow’s special report: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/44098787#44098787
Like Governor Perry, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann espouses a “dominionist” religious perspective and spent her student years in law school studying the “dominionist” approach to society, law and government, see John Chait’s article in the New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/90014/michelle-bachmanns-worldview.
Gov. Sarah Palin is a member of a “The Wasilla Assembly of God.” The “Wasilla Assembly” is a member of the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal Christian denomination founded in 1914, in the United States. The ‘Four Core Beliefs’ of the Assemblies of God are Salvation, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing and the Second Coming of Christ. A dramatic insight into Pentecostalism is found in the 1997 film, The Apostle written, directed and starring Robert Duvall, as a charismatic “Pentecostal” preacher. Pentecostals are known to “speak in tongues:” see a clip from Duvall’s movie, The Apostle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FwMu9WW_bg.
The Apostle’s main character” Sonny” is what social scientists once politely referred to as “Other Protestants.” Sonny was actually a preacher in the traditional holiness movement, distinct from the Pentecostal movement, which believes that the baptism in the Holy Spirit involves speaking in tongues. Many of the early Pentecostals were from the holiness movement, and to this day many “classical Pentecostals” maintain much of holiness doctrine and many of its devotional practices, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_movement.
Modern “dominionism” is largely unknown to most Americans. The list of unknown schismatic sects, cults, groups, exotic beliefs and churches, which the contenders for the Republican nomination belong to or are in agreement with, is “exceptional.” The religious fringe, it seems, has become the Protestant mainstream.
Today’s Republicans could be rebranded the “Christian Republican Party.” The center core of Protestant faith has migrated from “Liberal Protestantism” to an entrepreneurial-style, evangelist and fundamentalist faith, which votes heavily on the Republican Row. It was once believed that such sects originated mainly among the religiously neglected poor. Clearly, this is now no longer the case. It has been argued by social scientists that insecurity, differential status and anxiety characterize these religious movements. The effects of the Great Recession and the affects of geographic relocation and workplace displacement have contributed to a sense of anxiety and anomie among the American middle-class.
Ernst Troeltsch, the major historian of sectarian religion, has characterized the psychological appeal of fundamentalist religious sects in a way that might as appropriately be applied to extremist politics. A direct connection between the social roots of political and religious extremism has been observed in a number of countries. It was observed by the American sociologist S. M. Lipset, as early as the 1960s that, “the point here is that rigid fundamentalism and dogmatism are linked to the same underlying characteristics, attitudes, and predispositions which find another outlet in allegiance to extremist political movements.”
Many western democracies have “Christian Democratic Parties,” the US, because it is “exceptional,” has a “Christian Republican Party.” The candidates for the Republican nomination have made their religious views of scripture known, by degrees. To discover what these candidates deeply and sincerely believe requires the investigative work of a “large metropolitan newspaper.”
The ascendancy of the “nouveau fundamentalist Protestant elite” to high leadership positions in the Republican Party needs to be understood as a serious step toward a profound redefinition of church and state in America. The ascendancy of hard-core chronic “know-nothing-ism” and “anti-intellectualism,” so eloquently written about by Columbia historian Richard Hofstadter, and sectarian belief systems, is undoubtedly “exceptional” for a modern mass political party with governmental responsibilities. While it is argued that Europe is experiencing a “crisis of faith,” the United States is experiencing a revivalism parallel with the Second Great Awakening of the 1800s.
The decline of mainstream Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Episcopalians as forces affecting the direction of the Republican Party, has been statistically significant, and the rise of “Other Protestants,” and sects, has marked a realignment of voting patterns and political commitment.
Is it possible to image Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy organizing a 30,000 person “Catholics only” prayer service as a campaign launch? One of the famous quotes from Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, during the 1960 national election, was, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.”
Magnificent goods from you, man. I have be mindful your stuff prior to and you’re just extremely fantastic. I actually like what you have received right here, certainly like what you are stating and the best way through which you assert it. You make it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to stay it sensible. I cant wait to learn much more from you. That is actually a great website.