Florida Debate: The Score
Neither of the front-runners had a particularly good night on Thursday. Mitt Romney had some good moments here and there and was probably at his most entertaining. Rick Perry had a great answer to Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Gardasil attack, but lost the plot after teeing up a fine potential shot on Romney as a flip-flopper. Overall he just stumbled too much when a concise answer would do the job. Bachmann didn’t really have a strong night either. Gary Johnson had the line of the night with the one about his neighbor’s dogs creating more jobs than Obama — but if I’m not mistaken, Rush Limbaugh said something like that on his show recently. Santorum was solid but forgettable.
In my opinion, the clear winners on Thursday were former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Both were interesting, both came armed with great ideas and great one-liners. Cain’s 9-9-9 refrain got a little tired, but part of effective communication is making your ideas stick and his mantra did that. I’ll probably dream in nines tonight.
The headline coming out of the debate may well be Gov. Perry and immigration. It’s a complex issue that he has had to wrestle with as a border state governor, with no help from the federal government and often running against the grain of the party base here and there. Dick Morris tweeted that Perry won’t survive the immigration onslaught he experienced tonight. I don’t agree with that, but I won’t deny that he’ll have some ground to make up.
Read more from Ed Driscoll: “When It Comes to Beating the Corrupt Media, Romney Shows Real Promise“
Newt. Strong, but flawed.
Cain. Excellent, but the 999 thing is a little 9 pizzas for 9.99 for me. Don’t get me wrong. I love the Herman, but he can be a little retail gimmicky.
Bachmann. Unquestionably conservative, but unquestionably boring. I don’t want to go camping with her.
The ambiguously libertarian duo? Bong hits for everybody.
Santorum. Really strong. Electable? Not so sure. I love the guy but can he win the nomination.
Now it’s down to the two main dudes.
I hate to say it, but Perry was really poor in his immigration stance. Americans are not in the mood for enablers of illegals. We’re over taxed and the culture wars are not going our way. And if you want to create jobs enabling illegals is not going to be popular.
I also hate to say that RINOmney actually put in a better performance. It pains me to say it, actually, having been forced to support McCain in the last cycle.
Perry needs to step it up. He’d be a better President than Romney. By far. He didn’t show that tonight.
That’s just my take, but the wife asked if Perry had been drugged. He was lackluster, at best.
So the Perry/Romney question boils down to; are you soft on illegal immigration vs. are you soft on big government healthcare…….in a time where it’s all about Americans getting or keeping their jobs?
I agree.
But they were silent regarding education, which is very dear and close to my heart, because I’m a retired teacher and I have family who are teachers. I hope they talk more about education and retraining our kids to be more competitive.
I thought this was a sad and infuriating tale about the current state of our education, please watch this:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/learning/full.php (full documentary online)
Not to be overly blunt, but public school teachers are one of the most damaging and leftist groups in America. Anything we can do to eliminate or reduce public education will improve our republic, not harm it.
Take an H-bomb to the k-12 system.
Mr.Elmer,
The Federal Gov’t should stay the hell out of education (public or private). Whenever you hear a presidential candidate saying anything different, you’ve got a candidate who likes big Gov’t. You’ve got a Democrat or a RINO.
What does the federal government have to do with education? Nothing. It is (or at least should be) a local issue. Eliminate the Department of Education. Its only purpose is to take money from taxpayers in one state and give it to people in another state – after skimming a huge handling fee off the top.
Retrainings don’t work. Which is the hottest job sector right now? Software programming. There are a lot of computer programmers floating around but they can’t do the job. High tech firms in California concentrate on hiring those from proven colleges e.g. Berkely, Carneige Mellon, UI-Champaign, and other big name colleges. Retrained programmers cannot keep up with the newest technology since the retrainers themselves are mostly ignorant. In the big name colleges, it’s the students themselves who figure out how things work. The professors’ role is advise and suggest.
Retrainings give trainees false hope and waste their time.
Mr. Elmer,
I will give you, personally, the benefit of the doubt, as I do not know your own moral/political beliefs….However, for all practical matters, Public Teachers in America are simply part of a part of a Criminal Enterprise…
There, I said it…the truth, like “Ponsi” scheme…
Public teachers are part of a Criminal Enterprise because they coerce funds from resistant taxpayers, and use it to send bribes to Democrats in exchange for more coerced taxes from the ever abused citizenry. We, the paying citizens, have no say in the priorities or specifics of their outrageous budgets, and no say at all in their salary and benefits negotiations. That is left to politicians, who receive out and out BRIBES in the form of “campaign Donations” from the very people they are supposed to “negotiate” with on our behalf. A clear and incontrovertible Criminal Enterprise, period.
In my school district, the median salary of an adult male is 53k, but the median salary of a teacher is 103k. To that six figure income, add at least another 35% to the taxpayer’s burden for their “unobtanium” benefits package, and the fact they only work 183 days a year. That they also regularly strike, or threaten to strike, at every contract, is insult upon theft.
The president of the Teachers Union was quoted saying, among other things,
“its not the TEACHERS fault parents cant keep up with the economy”
Translation: F*ck you, pay me.
When asked about raising Property Taxes on strapped seniors living on fixed incomes to support six-figure salaries for the Union rank and file, she said:
“ …This is an desirable area to live because of the quality of the schools…Seniors typically are sitting on a lot of home equity, they can easily get a home loan at pretty low rates to meet their financial obligations”
Translation: F*ck you, take on debt to pay me.
During contract negotiations they have strict “work to contract” rules , by which they punish our children with the removal of all artwork and projects from the bulletin boards and hallways, refuse to write letters of recommendation for Seniors, (unless their parents work for the district), abandon parents to wander around unescorted or interacted with on “Back to School Night”, and even schedule, then not attend, Parent Teacher Conferences that we have taken days off from OUR jobs to be at.
Translation: F*ck you, and F*ck your kids, they’re pawns in our Criminal Enterprise.
Until all Teachers are defanged of their Criminal Union power, by the abolishment any concept of Collective Bargaining for ANY public employee, they will continue to damage the country, and our children.
Because yours, sir, is no longer an Honorable Profession.
It is simply a Criminal Enterprise.
Nothing new here. The demise of all traces of legitimate education in public institutions was confirmed sixty years ago by placement of neurotics in positions to effect acceptance of more neurotics into their fold. Fear of exposure by students reared in “old school” families anchored in analytical thought has caused the whole justifiably paranoid structure to seek shelter in union protection. Like minded political opportunists now use the “educated” zombies as just another block vote to perpetuate their own progressive schisms. Both now are forced to consider the effect of truth regarding their performance in the face of internet notoriety while the real enemy,the media, is hidden in its own created smog.
is a little 9 pizzas for 9.99 for me.
That would make me buy the pizzas.
I didn’t watch the whole debate but from what I saw Perry looked lamed.
He’s still my guy though.
Romney is a say-anything hack.
Huntsman is Obama-lite.
Bachmann and Paul are loons.
I have disagreements with Johnson.
Santorum and Newt can’t win.
Herman, I’m looking at ya but Perry is still the best shot to get a competent with a track record in the White House.
If we demand perfection we are going to end up with Romney (or Obama) which is the complete opposite.
Reject Romney! We don’t need RINOs running; we need elephants stomping!
My sentiments exactly! I’m tired of this whole idea that Romney is the only one “electable.” Says who? I’m tired of these insiders making the picks for us.
It is the Establishment Republicans and the liberal media that tell us who is electable. They liked Dole and Cain, while they told us that Rubio and Scott in Florida and Christi in New Jersey were unelectable.
My politics are almost identical to yours.
I’m in favor of Perry but he doesn’t articulate and ‘smooth-with-the-words’ as readily as does Romney.
Immigration? Perry didn’t explain the dilemma. The facts are, his program, passed by all but 4 in the Texas Legislature is very specific. The agenda is to prevent an underclass of young people emerging in Texas, who are denied education and thus, might drift into the criminal economy.
The facts are: he can’t deport illegals. Only the federal govt can do this and Obama refuses. So, he’s got a large section of illegal young people, who are already living there. Got that? Already living there; going to school in Texas high schools. The requirements are: you must be living in Texas, brought by your parents, and have gone to Texas schools for three years. And, must be applying for citizenship.
If these criteria are the case: brought there by parents, living there and having gone to Texas high schools for 3 years..then, you can apply to college and pay the same in-state tuition as other Texas young people. Remember, he can’t deport them. They are there; what’s he supposed to do? Deny them an education and citizenship…and create a huge economic underclass?
Perry doesn’t explain these aspects of the Texas bill.
The wall? Perry was chastized about being against a wall in Texas; he’s in favor of border patrols and a massive police presence there. Again, he didn’t explain his reasons to his shocked colleagues on stage, who all know, very well, why he’s against a wall. The reason is – it’s physically unfeasible. Most of the border is a RIVER! The Rio Grande. You can’t build a wall in a river; you can’t deny the water to ranchers on either side; you can’t reduce the flow of the river. Other parts of the border are canyons where walls are again, not feasible.
So, Perry, who is a realist rather than an ideologue, doesn’t explain his grasp of reality..and allows others to continue in their misinformed ideas.
I don’t care. You don’t give IN-STATE tuition to illegals. It was a game changer for me. I won’t vote for the guy.
So, you are idealogue rather than a realist! OK; that’s your choice.
Realism acknowledges reality. These people are there; Perry can’t prevent them coming in and can’t deport them. So, what do you do…apart from trying to get a president who will carry out his constitutional duties about the border and illegals? What do you do with them?
Ahh..the idealogue says: ‘let them rot’. This means, ‘create a huge underclass of people, living in the state, who can’t be stopped coming in or deported…and watch them turn to the only economy open to them: criminality’. That’s the idealogue position.
The realist says: ‘I’ve got to prevent a criminal class. I’ve got to protect the citizens. So..how do I turn this underclass into responsible citizens? I enable them to be educated and to apply for citizenship. I say, ‘OK, here’s the bargain. IF you’ve lived here with your parents and gone to Texas High Schools for three years, THEN, you can apply to college as a resident with the in-state tuition, AND, you must apply for citizenship.
I think it’s a realistic and blunt approach to reality. You, on the other hand, trapped in your ideology…would enable a disaffected, unemployed underclass to emerge..which would be a threat to the citizens of the state. Enjoy it.
I don’t know, ETAB. Usually I like your writing and your stances. I’m not sure I’m on all four squares with you here.
Perry had a bad night, imo. He looked weak, confused, stumbling and inarticulate at times. Saying if you disagree with him you have no heart is going to prove to be a mistake…because the left is going to seize that and beat everyone else with it.
AND…it’s simply a dead wrong position. He doesn’t want to build a fence across the sieve we call a border and he wants to put the children of illegals (making them, unfortunately…not citizens), ahead of citizens.
Giving them subsidized education (by our taxpayers) is certainly an enticement to stay out of gangs, as well as for more and more and more border crashers to try to steal our goods, services, identities and jobs.
The problem with the argument that doing this will prevent a permanent underclass, I think in some ways begs the question. With millions of border crashers already here and millions more sneaking in every year…whose underclass should we be most interested in preventing. Ours…or theirs?
In reply to CFBleachers – I agree with you that Perry had a bad night; he’s not a smooth talker like Romney or Santorum. And he doesn’t have Newt’s one-liners. He’s almost tongue tied as a speaker. So, I have to look to his actions rather than his words.
With regard to the illegal students, he’s not putting them ahead of Texas citizens. He’s acknowledging that Texas has an enormous problem with illegals in residence there. Texas can’t stop them coming in and can’t deport them. So, what can it do to prevent an economic underclass? It can focus on the children and enable them to become educated and citizens.
Again, the requirements are: you must have been brought in by your parents, lived there and gone to Texas High Schools for 3 years. If so, you can apply to college and pay the in-state tuition..and..you must apply for citizenship. It seems to me to be a realistic rather than ideological response to a situation set up as almost impossible..by the federal govt’s refusal to deal with the illegals.
To say that either one creates a criminal underclass of illegals or, a criminal underclass of citizens is a false dilemma. The realist approach is to reject both. Both the illegal and the citizen ought to be educated, but the former must receive his in-state education if and only if, he applies for citizenship.
You aren’t stating how you would deal with this very real problem of illegals in a state – with the federal govt refusing to deal with them, and the state having NO LEGAL MEANS to both prevent them coming in and deporting them.
I certainly chastize the federal gov’ts refusal to deal with illegals; that’s why we need a president who takes serious steps to prevent their entrance, by both walls, fences and a robust border patrol with all satellite etc equipment, and, immediate deportation, and, fines for any companies hiring them. But with Obama, you can’t even ask them for identification!
As for the fence, Perry isn’t saying he’s against a fence; he’s against one in Texas. That’s because, again, he’s being a realist rather than an ideologue. It’s physically impossible to put in a fence in Texas as most of the border consists of the Rio Grande River..and you can’t put in a fence in the middle of a river. Other parts are canyons and gullies – equally impossible. He wants ‘boots on the ground’, satellite watch, and air power.
cfbleachers, in Texas, the tax-payers don’t subsidize those children of illegals who are attending university and paying in-state tuition, so there’s no reason for you to be indignant on that score.
Texas does not have an income tax, all schools are paid for primarily through property taxes and secondarily by lottery, production taxes on the energy industry and other fees, supplemented by sales taxes. All residents pay all taxes so these children are not some sort of extra burden, their parents all pay the same taxes that the parents of citizens pay.
Sales tax is paid directly, business expenses are added into product prices, and property taxes are paid either directly by homeowners, or indirectly by renters. No one but the homeless can escape paying taxes in Texas (and they still pay sales taxes). Also, illegals tend to be the biggest demographic in purchasing lottery tickets.
As to the rest, yes Perry had a terrible night–possibly bad enough to end his chances. Clearly, Newt was the best–again–followed by Cain and Mitt. Too bad Newt has so much baggage, he would clearly be the best suited for the job.
Yes – let them rot. Perry is not running for the governor of Texas – he’s running for POTUS. I’m sick of politicians, big business, or whoever giving the shaft to the American people in favor of foreigners. They’ve all cheapened our citizenshop to the point that it is worthless and even a hinderence at times.
Screw them all.
ETAB, as much as I view the illegal immigration issue as a fundamental threat to America. I think those who support amnesty for illegals are guilty of TREASON. BUT! As much as I despise ALL who are soft on this issue, I have to agree with you.
A wall on the Texas border is simply STUPID.
I spent about 9 months working in the Rio-Grande-Large-Flat-Area-Strangely-Called-A-Valley. I’ve seen the border in Brownsville, alongside the RR tracks. I’ve stood on rooftops where Border Patrol cameras are mounted. I’ve seen the Rio Grande and the miles and miles of scrub brush and often just bare dirt alongside it.
There is no way to build a wall there. In Brownsville? Maybe. That MIGHT be feasible. Some other places? Sure.
Along the Rio? No chance. Anybody who thinks we should build a wall there simply does not know what they’re talking about.
I’m not a fan of Perry. I’m suspicious that he’s a Trojan Horse.
But he’s right about building a wall on the Texas border. It’s a stupid idea.
There are some places where a wall is the right thing.
Not there.
Fellow America loving, Founding Father’s respecting, RINO despising conservatives, let’s move on to other issues. Perry is right on this one.
Once again I agree with you, lolly. On issue of illegal immigration, Perry reminds me too much of GWB and McCain. No sale with me. I find myself leaning more towards Romney than Perry, which was unthinkable prior to last night’s debate.
If Perry can’t get the immigration thing right, he is done as a candidate.
If it ends up with Romney the last man standing against O’boy, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. If it’s Perry and you still won’t vote for him I hope to never read another word from you again on this PJ site. As for debates, if it’s Perry vs. Obama he’ll win handily as notes and teleprompters are not allowed. God forbid if it ends up Rick debating Hillary, though.
We can’t be so one-sided, our failure is to read and understand all aspects. We won’t get in one candidate all that we won’t…please look into all of what Gov. Perry says…it makes so much sense…you have children brought here by there parents so what do we do, say too bad so sad you’re old enough now go back to where you came from??
Me either.Afterhearing Perry say others should pay for reduced tuition for illegals children, I say don’t we pay enough to send them to school, give them welfare,medical care etc? I’m tired of paying for them in my state and I don’t want to pay any more for them. Give my kid a tax break.
The requirements are: you must be living in Texas, brought by your parents, and have gone to Texas schools for three years. And, must be applying for citizenship.
Funny how this last one is never mentioned. To me, it makes the difference between an utterly indefensible policy, and one that as at least arguable. The more you know about the hideous mess that is the naturalization process, the more you appreciate that there are good reasons not to treat people who are still trapped in the coils of ICE as if they were still wet from wading across the Rio Grande.
Spot on ETAB.
Perry hasn’t articulated well. Your explanation on the border issues are far superior.
It’s ironic, because his position could win the general. But he can’t win the general if he can’t win the primaries.
And the articulation issue isn’t just on the border. It’s across the board. If Perry can’t lift his game quickly, he’s dead in the water.
It’s ironic that by waiting late to jump in, Perry is at a disadvantage. Romney has plenty of problems as well, but they are all old hat whereas Perry’s problems are now all hot topics, and Perry isn’t doing himself any good with ineffective defense.
You may not agree, but my view is that the specific issues are irrelevant. With the exception of Ron Paul (and perhaps Gary Johnson), from an historical perspective, they are all equal. History will remember the person who defeated marxism as the US raft was about to go over the falls, not who is correct about whether a fence is better than armed patrols on the border. They are all off the mark on specific issues, but none is off the mark when it comes to the ABSOLUTELY DOMINANT issue, which is that Obama must be defeated.
Yes, Perry is inarticulate. But, he must have some powers of persuasion to have been elected as governor! However, I look to his actions. But, he seems to think that most of us know the issues – and so, he doesn’t explain. We have, in Obama, someone who is only words..nothing but words..and the words contradict both each other..and also, contradict his actions. So, I’m focusing on the actions of Perry. This is harder; it means I have to research the actions and not rely on him to explain it.
Perry doesn’t explain the criteria that were set up to allow illegals to pay in-state tuition; that these criteria insist on having established residency, having gone to high school, and, an agreement to apply for permanent residency.
He doesn’t explain that other states have the same criteria.
Or, that the Bill was passed by all but four in the Texas Legislature – which also meant that he, as governor, couldn’t veto it.
And, he doesn’t explain about the fence being not feasible because of a massive river functioning as the border!
As for ‘anyone but Obama’ – I’m not there yet. I strongly object to Bachmann; I see her as an idealogue and impulsive rather than a realist. We have one ideologue in the WH right now, one smooth talker in the WH right now. I don’t want a repeat.
And of course, much as Ron Paul has some shred insights, his foreign policy of isolationism is 18th-19th c unrealism.
And, Gingrich’s testiness…hmm. Santorum’s ..well, I see him as a high school valedictorian. Huntsman accepts AGW. Romney is..slick. He says all the right things..but..does he do them?
So far, I’ll stick with Perry. Not his words; he’s inarticulate. But his actions.
Perry was never challenged seriously from the right in Texas, only from the left, and the left hasn’t been able to win in Texas for about 20 years, so his victories don’t measure his artiulation skills. We know now, and they aren’t there.
I’m not strongly suggesting that the others are all equal, just that they would all be vastly superior to Obama.
The key decision point is whether people go for the best executive or the person with the best chance to win. If you go for the best executive, heck, take Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorium, and Ron Paul off the table. None have any governing experience so are wild cards. Cain is probably off the table because his experience is in the business world, which is significantly different. That leaves Perry, Romney, Huntsman and Johnson. All, of course, are flawed. People are discounting Huntsan and Johnson, leaving Perry and Romney. Despite the hooplaw about immigration, the vaccine and SS, Perry has to be the pick among the realistic executive choice.
But you can’t govern if you can’t win. To me, it is now clear that Perry cannot win, even though I was enthusiastic early, and before last night was still in his camp. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s his personal style and communication skills.
Personally, I have eliminated Perry (last night), Paul, Bachmann, Santorium, Cain and Johnson. That leaves Romney, Newt and and Huntsman. Huntsman is barely borderline, and Newt probably can’t win either. If Perry suddently lifts his game, I will reconsider him.
I now think Palin is more liekly to jump in. She has to know Perry has failed, and Bachmann can’t win, so if I were her, I would get serious about taking the leap. If she does get in, it will be verrrrry interesting because suddenly all of the stuff that SHE has done that isn’t suffiently ideologically pure will come into play. I wonder what she will say about the border with the chips on the line.
I disagree. If you just watch Romney……. he nods his head and nods his head and runs his mouth and runs his mouth. Guy gives me the creeps somehow. Perry’s answers are brief and elegant. OK, so you don’t like illegals. So, do what he says, keep ‘em out (boots on the ground… need federal funds…. cannot build a 12oo mile fence.) BUT if you were 6 mos old and brought here as a kid and have no recollection of life in Mexico (or Guatemala, or Columbia, or Honduras, or whatever…), you think of yourself as an American, then what? Of course you want to stay here. So, what should the US’s stance be? Send you to a country you never knew? Or make it possible for you to become a legal American citizen and support yourself? Perry’s position may not be popular, but it is realistic. And he is right. If you believe in sending these young people to damnation because of what their parents did or did not do, then you have no heart. FURTHERMORE, Perry’s position does not make him popular with the hard-and-heartless-core of the Republican base. BUT, for the purpose of the long term future of the Republican party, it is a winner. Hispanics are a natural fit for the Republican party. They are hard workers, family-centered, believe that a man should support his family (rather than taking charity) and they want to work hard and join the middle-class. If the Republicans eject Perry for this stance, they are putting not only their success in the 2012 presidential election, but their long-term viability in question. (so there !
What I don’t understand about Perry’s education issue is why no one is asking him where these educated illegal children are going to work after they complete their college education. Either it’s legal to hire illegals or no one will be able to legally hire them – so their education is gone up in smoke, and you have one more very discontented group.
I sympathize with him. Many of them have been in Texas for their entire school lives – they’re Texans … but they’re still illegal. At the moment, they cannot be legally hired.
I assume he’s counting on some sort of amnesty that will make their educations worthwhile – and that makes him soft on illegal immigration, no matter what he says.
Morris is wrong. Perry doesn’t go down on immigration, at least if he is articulate enough. Texas is not California, and immigration isn’t what people vote on no matter what anyone says. The list of candidates using anti-immigration (illegal or legal) positions as a wedge issue reads like a boulevard of broken dreams. The fools-gold of election year politics. Perry knows this, as does anyone who has been paying attention to what happens in elections, as opposed to what some say should happen. And Perry is the only governor who knows that education is a bubble, has proposed a way to drop the current status quo ante altogether so that the in-state / out-of-state issue will be mute, as it should be. The rest are searching for the immigration as a wedge issue nirvana, but they’ll never find it. They don’t even see that the state shouldn’t have to subsidize education, and won’t in time. So the double-wedge issue (public funded higher-ed -> immigration) fails. Too clever by half. It won’t work.
Immigration may not be what decides the election, but his take on it will and should lose him votes.
I’m not so sure. I think in a time of depression (being blunt) and high unemployment, with concerns about government spending, there is little appetite among Republican voters – or independents for that matter – for subsidizing the education of illegal aliens with in-state tuition.
His crass comment about one having “no heart” if one did not favor subsidizing the education of illegal aliens REALLY pissed me off: it was the worst sort of Democrat attack of the kind that prevents rational elimination of teachers unions.
If commentators go to town on him sufficiently on it, he may actually bury the “it’s for the children” meme for a decade or so.
I think I’m done with Perry.
Perry lost me on immigration. First, I do not appreciate being called “hartless” because I am opposed to foreigners invading my country. Second, Illegal immigration (and even ordinary legal immigration) IS a vital issue in this election because it is a JOBs issue. The plain fact is that we take in 1.2 million legal immigrants each year and, by most estimates, an equal number of illegals. Since we are currently creating about ~400000jobs/month this means that about half of the new jobs are going to keep pace with immigration. It is also easy to see that deporting our current population of illegal residents (11 million) would theoretically cut the baseline unemployment rate by more then 50%. Even if current levels of legal and illegal immigration would be appropo in a booming economy, it is obvious that in a rational system it would drop in a recession (or whenever unemployment was increasing). Yet we have no mechanism to legal means to adjust the immigration rate. Our best hope is to change our laws or at least step up the vigor with which we enforce the laws we have. It is very likely that we are in for years and years of very slow economic growth. We may even be in for years of actual economic contraction. Much as it is fun to talk about “cultural diversity” and the “vigor” and “new blood” that comes from immigration such romantic notions are no substitute for hard headed mathematical reality. We simply cannot afford to be taking in millions of illiterate peasants from carious parts of the world simply because we like ethic music and cooking. At least not unless we want a violence in the streets.
The word is, “moot”.
Moot.
Mute.
P. Henry Saddleburr: Even if it can be seen as “illegal immigration vs. are you soft on big government healthcare,” the latter is the big loser. Can you name a few politicians who have gained office using this issue as a wedge?
All I am saying is that with American unemployment at record levels, with Americans wanting jobs, jobs, jobs, how can any candidate not recognize that the people are in no mood to suffer a candidate that is soft on enforcing immigration laws? That stupid old mantra of ‘jobs Americans won’t do’ never really had that sentence finished properly, which is ‘at the pay rate that those that hirers of illegals are willing to pay.’
If politicians didn’t want illegals to be here they wouldn’t be here.
E-verify and citizenry checks by police would take care of the problem and fence building wouldn’t be necessary. Remove the incentive to come here illegally and they won’t come illegally.
As for the children, I don’t hate those kids. Nobody hates those kids. I just don’t want them to take the education that an American could have had if they weren’t shunted aside in favor of an illegal, receiving an education at in state rates.
I also dislike one other thing.
When I go back to Northern Virginia to my old neighborhood, a once placid piece of American suburbia, and I see that it has become a bunch of separate balkanized series of barrios and separated ethnic neighborhoods, a section of which is Korean, a section of which is hispanic, a section of which is Viet Namese, a section of which is…whatever. This is not America. This is chaos. And there seems to be no effort at assimilation but instead a holding of ethnic territory.
I guess I’m just Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino or something, but this is screwed up.
Obama has done more to solve the illegal problem than the last four presidents combined.
He has tanked the economy hence fewer are coming here and many have left.
What you are totally ignoring ..are the facts on illegals. The facts are that the states are powerless to both prevent them coming and, and powerless to deport them. That action is reserved to the federal govt and Obama refuses to take action on both issues. Result? What is a state to do with a large alien population whom he can’t prevent coming in..and can’t deport??? Well?
Remember, Arizona has tried to deal with this, by permitting its police force to, when they are investigating a criminal action (eg, a robbery, etc) to ALSO investigate whether the perpetrators are in the US legally. If they are not, the police would also report them to the federals. Result? Obama is suing the state!! Why? Oh- and he deliberately politicizes the situation, as he does with every situation, …telling the public in a major speech that ‘the police in Arizona can check your status if you are walking down the street eating an ice cream’. No; Obama is lying.
So, the situation in Texas is – what does a state do with these people? It can’t deport them. So, IF they are living there, and IF the students have been brought by their parents there, and IF they have gone to Texas high schools for at least THREE years, and want to apply for citizenship, THEN…they can apply to Texas Colleges at an in-state tuition rate. Remember, they are already living there; they are already in Texas schools. He can’t deport them.
What’s he supposed to do but face reality. He can’t deport them. Is he supposed to instead, set up a situation of a growing underclass of a population, denied education, kept there and not deported..but denied education? They’d become a criminal underclass. So, he takes the only solution possible. Again…think…he can’t deport them.
The federal govt refuses to lift a finger to prevent their coming in..or to deport them once they are there. And it directly fights states that take such matters into their own hands…
You’re not listening. It’s the IN-STATE tuition thing that is pissing people off. A military member stationed and living in a state for several years (and paying taxes) can’t get in-state tuition but some scoff-law can? Oh HELL no!
Lolly, you are absolutely right! But, just remember, it was the legislature of Texas that created this law and passed it with a veto-proof majority. While I do believe that Perry IS an enabler (for other reasons, most due to the political realities of Texas); I do not, and you should not, hold him completely responsible for this debacle…
I am listening. To reality. Not to ideology.
The real facts are that the state can’t stop them coming in and can’t deport them. That’s an impossible, insane situation! Who/what has put the states into this position? The federal govt of Obama, by refusing to carry out its constitutional duty of protecting the borders and enforcing immigration.
So, given this fact – what does a state do with the illegal students? Remember, it can’t deport them. And, it absolutely must prevent an economic and educational underclass. So, it must allow education and a path to citizenship.
“To qualify, the student must have lived in the state for at least three years before graduating from a Texas high school or receiving a high school equivalency diploma in Texas. The student also must have lived for at least part of that time with a parent or legal guardian and could not have an established residence outside of Texas. In addition, such students were required to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible to do so.”
The above seems to me, to be a realistic approach to a very serious problem – one caused by the refusal of the federal govt to deal with illegal immigration. Texas is not alone in this.
“Several states — Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Maryland (community colleges), Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Kansas — have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. Similar legislation is pending in Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (Connecticut also passed such a law, but the governor vetoed it.) The Nevada system of higher education does not consider immigration status for in-state tuition, but does require it for a state-sponsored scholarship.”
Other states refuse the in-state tuition rates for non-citizens. “Arizona, Colorado and Georgia ban in-state tuition for illegal aliens and South Carolina does not allow illegal aliens to enroll in state colleges. Virginia passed a law barring illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition, but it was vetoed by the governor. The state attorney general then stated that existing state law requires state colleges and universities to charge illegal aliens higher tuition. Legislation to ban in-state tuition for illegal aliens is pending in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina.”
These are not idle decisions; they go to the various state courts:
“Until 1982, Texas law prohibited local school districts from using state funds to educate undocumented immigrant children; furthermore, districts were allowed to deny enrollment to such children. In 1982, however, the Texas law was deemed unconstitutional. In Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas law violated the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. As a result of Plyler v. Doe, states may not deny access to public education to immigrant children residing within their boundaries, regardless of their legal status.[10] Subsequent court cases resulted in prohibitions against attempts to identify undocumented children because of the perception that they could then be discriminated against”
The issue of both offering or refusing in-state tuition is also a constitutional issue. The federal govt is alone, charged with dealing with immigration. Therefore, do states have the right to allow or disallow illegals even to attend the high schools much less the colleges?
@Jack – he needs to say so, then. Start a blog and explain his positions, whatever. He’s done many things as governor that told me he was a rino. I sure as heck am not excited about him being prez. I REALLY want Allen West for prez. He hits them (libs) between the eyes with every shot. He is soooo FUN!
” A military member stationed and living in a state for several years (and paying taxes) can’t get in-state tuition but some scoff-law can? Oh HELL no!”
Please don’t make things up. http://www.collegeforalltexans.com/apps/financialaid/tofa.cfm?Kind=W Specifically this page – http://www.collegeforalltexans.com/apps/financialaid/tofa2.cfm?ID=452 “Eligibility Requirements
Individuals who are members of the U.S. Armed Forces or Commissioned Officers of the Public Health Service from states other than Texas, their spouses and/or children.
Although nonresidents, the member, spouse and children may pay the resident rate while stationed in Texas.”
It is absolutely NOT true that Military that live in Texas (or anyone else) for 12 months don’t get in State tuition. You show proof (utility bills, bank statements, a variety of proofs) and you get in State tuition.
Way too many people that all the States are ‘cookie cutter’, what works for one MUST work for all. Texas has 1200 miles of a 2000 mile border with Mexico, we have issues the rest of the States don’t have. In spite of those issues, we still have more job opportunities that most States combined.
Perry did a crummy job of discussing immigration, but he is also battling not only the Federal Government which is supporting illegals and fighting any efforts by States to control the problems AND an un-educated mind set about what the problems actually are.
That wondermous ‘fence’ that everyone wants, is creating a mile wide ‘no man’s land’ on the border that is forcing Texas farms and homes into a buffer zone with no protection. That’s not right, it’s not right for Homeland Security to use imminent domain to take farms and homes and expel them to the Mexican side of the ‘fence’ – a ‘fence’ that will never work and is a geographical impossibility to even complete.
The “heart” comment from Perry should have been a “reality” statement about what it’s like in Texas. Texas is NOT California with their ‘reconquista’ movements. Mexican American citizens don’t want ‘amnesty’, they sure don’t want Texas to go back to Mexico – they want the immigration issue solved. It’s never going to have a solution as long until we start dealing honestly with the issues.
It’s beyond hilarity to think that Perry is soft on immigration.
But what we are finding out, in spades, is that there are many people who comment on PJM who are absolutely rigid about many issues…as if life is an absolutely rigid exercise, and anybody who doesn’t confirm to their specific opinions on every issue has to be cast into the dustbin. That would be everyone, I think, including Sarah Palin. There is a 100% chance that her opinion on several issues would cause as much consternation for the rigid nuts as do Perry’s. Overall, it is highly likely that Perry is more conservative than Palin. We just don’t know because she hasn’t been questioned except in 2008, and those question were vastly different than the ones that are asked in Republican primaries.
The difference between “in state” and “out of state” tuition in Texas is about $24,000 per year. That is a lot of money for the citizens to be giving to an illegal alien even if he(she) is a kid and even if he(she) was brought into the state at a tender age by their parents. The kid has presumably already got a free primary and secondary education (market value of about 1/4 million). Is that not enough of a subsidy? If you are going to deny a tuition break to a kid from Oklahoma why give it to a kid from Mexico? As for the magnet thing. Look at the data. People will do a lot to help their kids. We families move to a new city or state the first thing they check is the quality of the local schools. Thus offering free or subsidized education is a very powerful magnet. If this were not available then the typical Mexican worker would sneak across the border, work for a few months to make some quick cash, and then return home to his wife and children. Once free education is available then the picture changes completely. Instead of returning after a short stay, he will sneak his wife and kids over the border and set up permanent housekeeping.
I’ve watched Mitt vacillate and obfuscate so many times in the past that I just don’t trust him. He is not reliably conservative. If it’s Mitt; I will stay home and I’ve been a conservative Republican since I worked against Jesse M. Unruh for California State Assembly in 1954 when I was 14.
Mike, I know how you feel. My Republican credentials go back to going door to door for Ike in 1956 in Northern California. I worked for Goodwin Knight and Bill Knowland when Ronald Reagan was still doing shows for 20 Mule Team Borax. I remember when Marin County voted Republican (if barely)! And, of course, I worked for Dick Nixon in ’60 and ’62.
I really don’t like Mitt Romney. But, sad to say, I think we have to hold our noses and vote for him as at least willing to sign the repeal of ObamaCare and most other sensible legislation a solidly conservative Republican Congress — which I think we can elect — will pass.
Remember, politics is about what’s possible and minimizing the harm government does. I hate to say it, but between Romney and Obama, Romney is the Least Worst choice.
I would vote for a Paul-Bachmann ticket over Obama.
Why not Gary Johnson? Best resume in the field – check him out.
And
Why Bachman?
I like him too, but does have the ability to bore people to sleep like nobody else.
I guess Cain is my second choice, Perry 3rd, and Romney dead last.
No – no nose holding this time. I’m tire of voting for evil (voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil). Better to destroy the country all at once and let the war begin than to see it slowly die an agonizing death.
You got that right, you can’t get smaller government if you vote for Big Government Politicians. If the Republican Party insists on nominating Romney, I will not be voting for him.
Voting for Democrat lite is still voting Democrat.
Fully agree. I’ll vote for “None of the above” before I’d vote for Romney. IMO it will be better for the country in the long run to let Barry crash the country and pick up the pieces than let things drag on with another Big Government RINO. Just my opinion, I assume I’m in the vast minority on this.
www
Agreed. As bad as Obama is, Romney would be worse.
We CANNOT allow the RINO Establishment to continue to shove RINO candidates down our throats with the threat of, “Vote RINO or the Democrat will win!”
We’d be better off taking over the Senate and letting Obama keep the White House, than to let another RINO win a national election.
This election is as much about breaking the power of the RINOs as it is about stopping Obama.
BOTH threaten this nation.
If you live in California you vote probably doesn’t count anyway. I know what its like since I live in the peoples republic of Massachusetts. Never the less I would beg you to reconsider. As bad as Mitt is he is a dam sight better than Obama and we cannot afford to tear ourselves apart over small ball purity issues. I’m sure Mitt backers will support Perry if he wins the most delegates and Perry supporters should return the favor if Mitt wins.
but if you live anywhere other than california then your vote can snag the state’s electorals
jerry brown’s decision to throw all electoral votes to the popular vote winner may backfire dramatically
stay home, Obama wins, Solyndra’s Kaiser wins, Soros wins,… Can you stomach that?
Mike, you are being FAR too kind to that RINO.
Nevermind what he SAYS. Look at what he’s DONE.
Mitt Romney has a track record as governor of Taxecussetts. Look at what he did while there.
EVERY action he ever took as governor was the action of a hard-core LEFTIST.
What does it matter what he SAYS now? We’ve SEEN what he DOES.
But if (horrible thought!) Romney does somehow win the nomination, PLEASE DON’T STAY HOME!!!!!
There are plenty of other important issues on the ballot! Don’t let the left win just because of Romney!
Go to the polls and vote! For President? Write in someone decent! No, that person won’t win, but you’ll help to make a point, and your vote is needed in Senate, House, state and local races!
DON’T THROW IT AWAY OVER ROMNEY!!!!!
Well, yes, I would definitely hold my nose and vote for Romney if it were a choice between him and O. But Romney strikes me as so wishy washy, so snarky, that it would be with a heavy heart that I cast my ballot. I am still learning about Perry, but somehow there is something so direct, so convincing and so genuine about him (especially in contrast to the Mittster..nod and talk talk, nod and talk talk) that I am hoping he can remain the front runner. A debate between Rick and Bam would be a thing of beauty. And yes, Rick will be ready for prime time by then.
Once the electorate has had a chance to mull over all this a bit, I rather think Rick Perry’s outburst in favour of educating the children of illegal immigrants will resonate. Perry showed that he can step out of the conservative box if he needs to, and this is just the right issue on which to do it.
These kids will only have one chance at a childhood — and they aren’t responsible for the illegal status of their parents.
By all means, ship these families back over the border — but while they are on U.S. soil, the U.S. needs to do right by these innocent children.
He shouldn’t have said those against giving the tuition are “heartless”.
He should have said the law does not provide a tuition-break for illegal aliens but assumes graduates of Texas high schools who have attended for three years are not illegal aliens.
He should have said life is too short to investigate everybody and that it’s not the job of the Texas system of higher education to enforce the border.
In Re Taxpayer Dollars (and in Maryland also special preferences given to IA’s)
It looks to me as if Texans support the Governor’s position:
Almost unanimous support by the Legislature at the outset
In the most recent session;
Legislation to require these students pay “out-of-State-rates” was so heavily lobbied in opposition, it was withdrawn. This in the face of the need to cut State funding for education.
There are now 12 States with “Dream Act” Legislation on the books.
I have noted a few States make the dollars for it available via sanctioned private donations.
In at least one State (Maryland), citizen voters opposing it have filed a petition to put the matter to a vote in the 2012 election.
Dream Act provisions could be considered to “aid and abet,” illegal aliens in violation of Simpson-Mazzoli. It could further be considered a “magnet” encouraging further illegal entries.
This issue should be discussed in terms of a National Perspective and the current law of the land (never mind Obama’s extensive violations of this and many other “laws” and obligations).
One might explore a “State’s Rights” option where State citizens/taxpayers/voters support a “Dream Act,” are in a financial position to afford it and express the desire their tax moneys be used in that way. There are likely other approaches that could be considered too.
If Governor Perry is to prevail in the primary (I consider him the most desirable candidate to assume the Presidency in 2013) this aspect of his positions, imo could greatly benefit from further refinements. The matter is likely of more import in the Primary than the general election, but we need the Governor to win the primary!
>> while they are on U.S. soil, the U.S. needs to do right by these innocent children.
We can do the right thing by pruning the welfare state, and in this case by ceasing to feed the higher ed monster. Why Conservatives support state-subsidized higher ed as long as money doesn’t flow to illegals is beyond me. Education is the next bubble, and the sooner it pops the better.
I agree and support the bubble bursting. We graduate kids who are dumber than dirt and our artisans (trades) are virtually gone. We can’t make anything anymore.
Rick Perry is the only candidate who has direct responsiblity for dealing with illegal aliens. Texas has a long and porous border with Mexico. Without substantial help from the federal government, it is not possible to close the border. As Governor Perry mentioned in a previous debate if you build a fence, the people crossing bring a bigger ladder, and the fence does not serve its purpose any longer. It is easy for the other candidates to say I’d do this or I’d do that, but they have for them it’s all theoretical. In recent years, there has been much talk about illegal immigration but little action.
Perry needs a whole new prep team.
To amplify:
1) In a quick debate format don’t defend–use either a sniper-style counterattack (one shot one kill) or deflect;
2) Memorize a short range of counterattacks/ deflections (e.g., border fence: shall we put it in the middle of the Rio Grande (river) for 1200 miles??? That is where the border is, you know.);
3) If asked to lay out your plan, prepare bullet points, memorize them, then spit the plan out flawlessly in the time allowed (no overtime responses);
4) Gotcha questions: develop gotcha answers (ala Newt);
5) Gardasil: nobody makes the right call every time…it is critical that any good leader learns from their mistakes and doesn’t repeat them (unlike our current President).
Bryan, Re: the Dick Morris tweet.
Dick Morris is irksome. He talks like he’s being paid by Romney. While constantly trying to drive traffic to his site. Somebody should tell him he’s not fooling anyone with the rah rah Romney talk. Sometimes he can be as creepy as the Clintons.
I agree wholeheartedly. Morris is a shameless self promoter who has absolutely no principles. He’s part of a whole class (Matalin, Carville, Rollins, etc. who are pimps and enablers for the political class.
Дэлхийн хаад төрийн тэргүүнүүдийн дунд маш бүдүүлэг их доогуур түвшний үйлдэл болжээ. Жижигхэн хүн гэж хүндэтгээгүй байлаа гэхэд өөрөө ямар улсыг төлөөлж байгаа билээ. Тэр талаас нь харвал бүр л жижиг харагдана. Кени улсаас цагаачлан ирсэн цагаачийн 2 дахь үе гэдэг аргагүй л ийм төр улсын тэргүүний зиндаанд хүрэх болоогүй л байдгийг харуулж байна. Биеэ авч явах талаар маш их хичээдэг ч цусанд байгаа гени гэдэг бол ямар ч үед илрээд золигтоод байх юм даа. Манай Алтан ургийнхний хэмжээнд хүрэхэд наанадаж 5 үе шаарданадаа.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Hey! Spelling counts, you know!
The fact is Romney is better than Perry, but Romney can’t beat Obama.
Perry will ONLY be electable if Palin, gets on as his VP. Perry/Palin ticket will be like Superman/Supergirl, the sky is the limit.
Mr. Elmer, do you really think that people want Palin on the ticket again? You are so out of touch with reality, it is down right scary. Most people consider Palin a joke. Yes, she has fire in her belly and is a great cheerleader. But have you ever listened to her talk about international issues, or historical facts or current policy? She is way out of her league. She speaks without any fundamental knowledge or understanding about any substantial issues.
Romney is electable. With Marco Rubio on the ticket, Romney is unstoppable!
Since when does the VP have to have those sorts of credentials? Seriously, though, I don’t want her on the ticket either, but please stop advocating Rubio. He is NOT a natural born citizen and is ineligible to be VP.
Let’s try and draft Allen West.
So far, I like what I see in West, but I don’t think he’s ready for prime time yet. His lack of experience is just too big a target for the Dems, and in reality,it DOES count.
Also, any black person will have to be HIGHLY qualified or the left is just going to paint him as an “affirmative action” candidate. They’ll say he’s only on the ticket because the Republicans are shamelessly pandering to race. The Mushy Middle will believe this.
I think he’d be a drag on any ticket for those reasons.
Later, maybe, but not now. It’s not his time.
posada you and Elmer both admit that Romney cannnot get across the finish line without help to beat Obama. So you admit he is weak and sa heavy weight VP to boost him.Funny Elmer thinks its Palin who many here claim is unelectable. If she is so unelectable then how can she help a ticket! You want Marco Rubio, why? I have no problem with him but why can’t Romney close the deal himself. Because he can’t. He is not a strong enough candidate on his own to get elected and that is not the candidate I want to see run against Obozo!
Nah! Gonna be Perry/Rubio. Dream ticket.
Well, at this point i have to say based on the debates so far, Romney is the guy. Sure he has a problem with health care but Perry has one with border security, a wash. Romney has much better command on the issues. Soooooooooooo, I am goin ALL IN for ROMNEY, lol
So slick does it for you, huh?
Can anyone handle the truth anymore?
No to illegals and amnesty.
Privatize social security but do so in a transition
Privatize medicare to save it
Push medicaid to states and privatize
Cut taxes to corporations and individuals while reforming the tax code
Stop the global warming crap in it’s tracks
De-regulate the Fed Government by laying of millions of Fedcrats
Close DOE, EPA, Fannie Freddie and other meddlesome no nothing agencies
Cut spending and balance budget
Stop the lib agenda
Restore the consitution of the US and the people’s faith
That is enough. Whoever will sign on to the above–They Win!!
Yes. It’s so simple.
you die and go to hell!
There is nobody in the race who can deliver all of that.
Nobody.
Now what are you going to do?
Life really isn’t that simple, and trying to pretend that it IS will not help this country.
No matter who you voted for, at any time in history, you had a choice of two evils.
That is ALWAYS the ONLY choice you ever have – which of the two candidates is the lesser of two evils.
Deal with it.
First, the trajectory for Perry over three debates is all wrong: from passable to not good to bad. Let’s pray it doesn’t get worse, otherwise we’ll be stuck with Mitt as the nominee. And right now, as much as I want Obama out, I’m indifferent between voting for Mitt and simply staying home in November.
Second, Perry will die on the cross of illegal immigration if he doesn’t find an effective way to defend his position. People like me, who consider securing the border now and talking about other matters later, don’t like being accused of bad faith by Perry. Last debate, I’m told I’m a racial and ethnic bigot (“in Texas, we don’t care what your last name is”) because I don’t support state-subsidized tuition for illegal immigrants. This debate, I’m told I’m heartless for the same reason. Stop insulting those who disagree, by way of defending yourself, Rick.
Third, Perry’s health issues are clearly affecting his debate performance. He is tiring from standing in pain for two hours at a time. We’ve got Mark Hemingway, whom I never thought callous before, quipping on Twitter about Perry having had a stroke.
Fourth and finally, Rick needs to stop running for governor of Texas — he’s already got that job — and start running for President. Indeed, perhaps if he’s really serious about winning the nomination and election, he should resign as gov. Moreover, every defense of his record needs to be turned around to a criticism of Obama; every national issue must be turned around to a joint attack on Obama and Romney.
I’m still favorably disposed to Perry, but he’s losing traction. I think he knows that too. And given his history as a strong campaigner, I assume he will correct course. But the time is now.
You’ve presented only two possible choices. There are many other, and FAR BETTER, alternatives.
1. Go vote, and simply don’t cast ANY vote for President. Be sure to vote in all other federal, state, and local elections.
2. Go vote, and write in your preferred candidate. Be sure to vote in all other federal, state, and local elections.
3. Go vote, and write in the name of some fictional person. (Mickey Mouse, for example.) Be sure to vote in all other federal, state, and local elections.
Do you see the common denominator in all of those? Go vote, and be sure to vote in all other federal, state, and local elections.
Throwing your vote away because of Romney helps the country… HOW?
Both Perry and Romney have so much baggage it is hard to see how either will win the primary. Romney’s stance on Romenycare is arrogant (let the states do it) and his belief in the global warming lie is amazing. Yet because of these he is deemed electable by teh annoited ones. He is scary because he is such a good executive he will attempt to do the “wrong thing” to spite his critics even if it screws we citizens. Perry has voted once too often for illegals and their cause which plays well in Texas but is disastrous as a national spokesperson for protecting All our borders. So both are flawed and whoever wins of these two will get a lukewarm reception from conservativees but most likely will beat Obama. Maybe we have to suffer one more term with a BOZO and then elect a Rubio West ticket in 2016. Or Rubio Ryan or some combination of Rubio and somebody.
It’s illegal for Rubio to run. He is not a natural born citizen of this country.
Oh give it a REST! Rubio is legally a natural born citizen!
The Constitution does not define that term, and SCOTUS has not ruled on it. Current law says he’s a natural born citizen, like it or not.
I’d love to see that changed, but that is the legal REALITY now.
He was born in Miami, Florida. Therefore, he is a legal US citizen and, as well, a ‘natural born citizen’. The law does not insist that his parents be US citizens as well. So, he is eligible to be the VP.
Please get real on immigration and fiscal responsibility. 18M here:
$1000 (500 + plane ticket) = $18B
$10,000 to find their own way = $180B
$100,000 for our inept govt to find , house, prosecute = $1.8T
Provide them with legal immigration, fine for being illegal and make them productive. Don’t forget…if they have an education, they will be more productive!!!
We want and need the anti-Obama, which knocks out most of the current GOP field. They simply haven’t got the chops or charisma to qualify on that crucial factor.
That said, at this moment in time, I prefer Perry’s rough edges to Romney’s smooth finish. I prefer Perry’s record on jobs. I prefer his frank “Ponzi scheme” talk. I prefer his willingness and ability to say, I made a mistake on Gardasil. Other issues remain to be seen.
Not to give Perry a pass on what sounds like a feeble performance last evening, but doesn’t this guy actually have a day job? For all practical purposes, aren’t the others unemployed full-time campaigners? (And yes, that includes Bachmann.)
Romney has been prepping, polling and pontificating for more than 4 years. He should be blowing all the competition out of the water. The fact that he isn’t after all that time, effort, money and coaching is telling.
Is Perry perfect? No. Is he the anti-Obama? Maybe. But it’s pretty clear to me that Romney isn’t.
Sorry, GDI, but Perry’s ‘day job’ is un-demanding. He runs very little of our Texas government, most is run by state-wide-elected executives. His appointees are semi-autonomous. He, the Lt. Gov. and the Legislature have a great deal of intensive work to do for about a half a year every two years during our constitutionally limited legislative session. The rest of the time, they are a bunch of layabouts. The Civil War veterans who wrote our 1876 constitution were very mistrustful of government and sought to constrain it in every way.
Rick Perry can mail it in. Michelle Bachman can’t. Her schedule is much more demanding than Rick’s.
Excellent clarification, Bill. Also, you’ve made a powerful point about how very different each state in the union when it comes to self-governance. Have to confess, I like the Texas “less is more” approach.
Thank you.
Goldwater-Ford-Dole-McCain-Romney, let the debate continue.
Romney will get the nomination and forbid the use of Obama’s middle name.
what a bunch of losers. Time for Sarah to enter in
Perry irritated the hell out of me last night, and I am now convinced Romney is my man. All Perry seems to have on Mitt is that he passed what the liberals in Mass wanted, and they even overrode his veto’s of what he knew wouldn’t work. Mitt’s right, it is a state issue, not national, and his pledge to rid us of Obamacare is on the money. So what is left? Mitt and Herman Cain are the only two with solid real life business experience, and Mitt the only one that has a proven record of economic problem solving. His stand on Israel is solid as well. He’s my guy, and I’d like to see Newt as V-P. Flawed as he is, the man has a terrific mind and a invaluable historical perspective. If not Newt, Senator Marco Rubio comes to mind.
Perry won’t survive his open-border immigration problem.
You want Mr. “I Socialized Medicine Before You Ever HEARD of Obama!” Romney?
Why?
You want Mr. “I Rammed Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Through In My State By Executive Order” Romney?
Why?
What has this man ever DONE that makes him a viable candidate to anyone who considers himself a conservative?
Please note, I didn’t ask what he’s SAID. I asked what he’s DONE.
Lets get real–Perry was terrible last night. Not only did he rightfully get hammered on subsidies-for-illegals and the fence, but he was very poor at expressing himself in general.
Romney, whatever you think of him in the past, spoke much more effectively, and seemed much more presidential.
#4. Keep talking and thinking that way and we will have obamao for 4 more years with no restraints because he won’t be running again, and he will do his lib/progr/ communist shtick and we won’t have a country at the end, and maybe two lib/prog/communist supreme court appointments and that will about kill our democracy. But you do your own thing and stay home! So don’t come whining after and wishing you had made a different choice when the economy gets worse and the gov has 75% of the people out of work and on the public dole. And maybe even dead because of the wonderful health care system that will still be in place because people like you sat home. My first choice is Rubio, but I will vote for whomever comes through the primaries.
By the way, any student can go to college – they just have to have the grades and pay for it. Just like our kids do.
Perry’s answer to Bachman was deceptive (not great, more like Obama or Hillary). He did not meet the 31 year old cervical cancer victim until AFTER he had issued his executive order for cervical cancer vaccine. He met and used her later that year to try to get the Texas legislature to pass what he had done by fiat. He IS a crony capitalist second only to Barach Obama. And, Romney is a social medicine guy, second only to Barach Obama. Perry or Romney would be a one term, march in place, keep the status quo for four years, president. Then what? Hillary??? Or, as Mark Steyn might say, Armageddon!
Well, the debate was so boring, that I turned it off and watched some totally irrelevant show on how aliens built ancient structures.
We need someone with true character of the Patriots of old, and with a spine of steel, and charisma to get people to vote for reforms. Who is that person?
The blow-dryed Huntsman who just looks swarmy (sorry, but thats my opinion). Gingrich who debates well, but did the global warming commercial with Miss Nancy? I think not, give it up Newty. Gary Johnson or Santorum? No, they can’t get traction. Bachmann messed up badly when she ran with Gardasil caused mental retardation. Running off with rumors and untested theories doesn’t inspire my confidence. Romneycare Romney? Smooth, but not reliable. Perry is vulnerable on illegal immmigration. This will be a bigger issue in 2012 because of all the joblessness, so don’t dismiss it. Herman Cain is personally likable and is solid, I could vote for him but I don’t like his 9-9-9 plan. Vat taxes tend to rise over time. So could be stuck with two rising taxes (income and VAT) at the same time. Never underestimate the ability of pols to raise taxes as we have to pay for all the schemes they dream up.
My bet is on Sarah Palin. She has done some recent speeches on crony capitalism. This arrow goes straight to the heart of BOTH parties which is why the Establishment Republicans don’t like her. Sarah is true reformer.
Bachman, simply said that a woman told her her child was retarded because of the vaccine. That is called ancedotal evidence. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. After, the previous debate Palin said Perry was a crony capitalist (just as Bachman stated) and Ann Coulter said getting a vaccine for cervical cancer would be like getting your appendix removed because someday you might get appendicitis! Several talk radio pundits are the ones who misconstrued Bachman’s original statements.
No, the fact remains that Bachmann didn’t allow the comment linking the HPC vaccine to mental retardation to remain confined to the woman who told her.
She, Bachmann, made the choice to, without checking with medical experts for the scientific validity of such a connection – to make it public as an accusation against Perry. Again, Bachmann had a choice; either leave the comment confined to that personal exchange with the woman. Or, make it public to the world as a ‘possible result of the vaccine’. She chose the latter; she’s responsible for such an impulsive and ignorant act.
No, the fact is she repeated anecdotal evidence which at times is our best source of information. (She did not do what Rick Perry did last night and lie.
He said that a 31 year old woman lobbied him concerning the cervical cancer vaccine. He did not meet that woman until months after his mandate.) Besides, cervical cancer is not transmitted like mumps or small pox (unless those students in Texas classrooms are doing something even students at Berkeley were not doing IN CLASS during the 60′s).
Are you serious – that anecdotal reports are a ‘best source of information’? No they aren’t; they are subjective experiences, provide no information and must be put to objective validation. Correlated links between X and Y, based only on anecdotes, are the basis of superstition. These include such invalid connections as ‘women cause earthquakes’ (an Islamist remark); four-leaf clovers are connected to luck..and so on.
Bachmann made a choice; she should not have reported the anecdote until AFTER she had verified that the connection between the HPV and mental retardation was NOT a spurious and false connection. She is impulsive and does not reflect on what she hears. Instead, she CHOSE to make the interaction public. Wrong.
I agree with you about Perry; his handlers ought to have told him to stick to the facts: he chose to mandate the vaccine; it ought to have been completely voluntary and with an opt-in rather than opt-out clause. It was rejected by the Texas Legislature, never went anywhere, as Perry did not veto the legislative vote.
Right on Sarah. And, unlike Bachmann, Sarah has a resume of defeating cronyism.
The trouble with Palin is that she is weak on illegal immigration. NumbersUSA rates her a D- just like Rick Perry.
Lol. On what basis was Sarah Palin graded? Was it because she threw open the gates of hell to the Canadians?
Sarah Palin is very clear. Build the fence. No amnesty.
It looks like Sarah Palin is waiting for the current candidates to clobber themselves and each other into stumbling wrecks just in time for her to step in and brush them aside.
Precisely. Sarah is sitting back, critiquing the field on Fox News, watching the 9 throw bananas at one another from their respective cages, recording each of their foibles, conserving her campaign funds, and waiting as the weaker ones exit the race before she jumps in.
Pretty smart strategy.
In one year, whoever the GOP nominee is will have to debate Obama, who for all his flaws is at least a pretty good debater. Regardless of Perry’s positions, if he can’t at least hold his own, will really help Obama. Romney on the other hand, has proven he can take it to Obama, and some of his positions that conservatives may not like, won’t harm him against Obama.
At the end of the day, Obama has to lose. Who has the best chance?
Are we talking about the same Teleprompter Obama? The one who has never been in a serious debate?
Surely you don’t think he’s good because he’s better than the pathetic John McCain or Hillary Clinton???
Your all heartless and evil. We need a strong central government to defend vulnerable populations from the likes of you.
So; What’s it going to be?
We’ll either have the best educated, unemployable illegal immigrants in the World, or the healthiest uneducated fat slobs in the World.
With Obama the USA becomes the richest dictatorship in the world with the most healthy, uneducated, illegal, dissident, segregated, welfare recipients.
Only the CMA (Communist Media of America) knows for sure.
Finally, Gary Johnson gets a well deserved place in the debate.
Gary Johnson is the best qualified candidate in the field.
Popular two-term Republican Governor of Democratic New Mexico.
Lowered taxes, balanced the budget.
Vetoed 750 Democratic State Legislator bills.
Re-elected with more votes for second term than first term.
Self-made successful businessman.
No Newt-like personal life baggage.
No Romney-like policy baggage
Climbed Everst, competes in triathlons.
Principled, accomplished – proven electable!
I tend to watch expression as well as listen. Romney rubbed me wrong.He may have had some good deliveries, but he seems insincere. He’s flip flopped too many times. His continued attacks on Perry are old.
He snickered, he sputtered, he smirked, he snorted, he was smug…His words seemed to reflect convictions, his expression wasn’t quite there with it. When Perry pointed out the discrepancy between Romney’s book’s, I thought Romney was going to have a stroke. Apparently he didn’t expect that to be noted. He didn’t really dispute that–he stood by what he wrote. It left me wondering, if that was the case…in which book?
Bachmann came off OK, but had absolutely nothing new to offer. I admire on some things, but she’s rigid and I think too uncompromising in a country where there is so much diversity. She’s sneaky.
Santorum is a follower.
Newt had some good points and kept things grounded and pragmatic.
All in all I could still support Perry. But whoever gets the nomination, I will vote for that person.
I completely agree with you that Mitt’s body language is creepy. Kind of like a well-studied alien trying to pass as a human being. That being said, I would vote for him if he were the only alternative to President 0. On the other hand, on body language and sincerity, give me Perry. He is not as slick as Romney, but, hey, remember what slick got us last time………………..
If Romney takes the Oath of Office in 2013, the USA will be better off compared to Obama getting a second term – but not by enough.
We need a radical change in speed and direction or all is lost.
Is there anyone out there who tells us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear?
Palin. She recently polled -5 vs Obama. Just wish she would lower her pitch an octave or so.
Perry and Bachmann looked like they didn’t do their homework. Neither offered real solutions just hackneyed campaign slogans, not going to cut it, although Bachmann did rescue herself well from HPV. Romney still too middle of the road, not taking advantage of the country’s mood for a desire of bold steps and leadership. Cain, Santorum and Gingrich won the night overall. Huntsman like Obama talks down at times. Paul, not a chance because of foreign policy. Johnson like him but conservatives will never vote for a libertarian.
Bachman had to rescue herself from “right” wing pundits who criticized her biggest applause line of the previous debate. To repeat what I said above, the day after the previous debate Palin said that Perry was indeed a crony capitalist and Ann Coulter compared getting vaccinated for cervical cancer to having your appendix removed because someday you might get appendicitis. Bachman simply had said that a lady told her that her child was retarded because of the vaccine (anecdotal evidence, used frequently in medical discussions). It was a famous radio pundit who insinuated that Bachman had jumped the shark. Also, Perry responded last night with an Obama/Hillary tactic by saying a 31 year old cervical cancer “victim” lobbied him concerning the cervical cancer vaccine. Perry did not meet the woman until months after he issued his executive order! Will that same famous radio pundit accuse Perry of jumping the shark last night? I’m not holding my breath.
What you are totally and completely ignoring is that Bachmann had a choice with regard to the woman who told her that the vaccine was related to mental retardation.
Her choice was to keep the verbal interaction private, and check it out with medical expertise to see if there was any scientific validity to such a connection. Then, and then only, could she responsibly make any comment on the discussion she had with the woman.
Instead, Bachmann chose to make it public, without any proof, thus making public a possible connection between the vaccine and mental retardation. Such impulsive and irrational behavior is apparently a characteristic of Bachmann. Act first, think later. Hmmm.
As for Perry’s statement that he was ‘lobbied by a cancer patient’, I agree with you that it was the wrong approach. His handlers ought to have advised him to stick to the facts; namely, he approved the vaccine; it had an opt-out clause and ought to have been voluntary and opt-in. And, it never became operational as the Legislature refused to pass the Bill and Perry himself, did not veto this vote. End of story.
You are ignoring that the comment is what is called anecdotal evidence and is often used in medical discussions. One report claims that there is mercury in that vaccine. If true, the anecdotal evidence may be correct. Did Merk make the vaccine in China? To be hypercritical of Michele is just plain wrong.
Anecdotal reports are not evidence; they are anecdotes and require objective empirical testing.
I am not being hypocritial of Bachmann; I am critiquing her lack of realism and objectivity. She should not have accepted an anecdote of a connection between the vaccine and retardation – and she DID accept is by making the exchange public – until she had checked out whether such a connection was scientifically valid or not.
Do you want a president who swallows every tale told to them by some individual and blurts it out as an argument against such and such? Or would you prefer someone who listens to the anecdote and then, critiques it by verifying whether the claim is valid/invalid..and THEN..decides how to act? Bachmann is impulsive and irrational.
Again, I agree that Perry’s mention of the ‘lobbying woman’ was wrong; his handlers ought to leave him alone on that…he was obviously told to say that and it showed and was out -of-place. As for the vaccine, he admitted he was wrong; it ought to have been optional and an opt-in rather than opt-out.
Thanks for the clarifications. I still think that anecdotal evidence must be examined. Such incidents are what all too often lead to a product being pulled from the market.
Also, I would choose Bachman over Perry any day. She is honest. And, she is not as gullible as you might think.
Your other points were well stated.
That old “mercury in the vaccines” meme has now been so thoroughly debunked that it is surprising to see anyone use it.
Bachmann was wrong to use the woman’s anecdote as a means of attacking Perry, and she was wrong last night in attempting to dissemble on the fact that it was an attack by her. She is dishonest and not a terribly compelling candidate. She seems to be comfortable with lying–or at least not being completely honest.
After Paul and Johnson who are complete loons, Bachmann and Perry both gave the weakest performances. They were completely outshone by the others on the dais.
Off topic but important- Right now Solyndra execs taking the Fifth in Congressional hearings.
I agree with Rush. At this point, it doesn’t really matter who wins the next election because whoever it is, will be 100% better than what you got now.
Perry should really lay off the leftist talking points when discussing immigration policy.
Agreed, and he should never have used the leftist type example of the 31 year old cervical cancer victim. He did not meet her until several months after he had issued his executive order. He sounded like Obama.
The Republican “Fair and Balanced” Debate
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/
“Seriously People? We’ve already seen MSNBC and CNN “sales pitch”. Those of you reclining on comfy couches really expected something else then a repeat of former Elections? Look at the numbers and see who is being “sold” to us for 2012.
An Executive Order Governor who backtracks better than a bloodhound and a “Helmet Hair – Romney Care do what your told ’cause I know what you need” elitist. Welcome to the new political scene same as the old political scene.”
——————-
Great comment!
After watching the debate last night, I a convinced that there are three serious candidates to be considered and they are, according to me, Perry, Romnay and Gingrich. For the rest in the field, it is time to get real and bow out of the run. Except for the Limbaugh original, Johnson was not at all effective and so were Santorum and Bachmann. Cain was chanting the 999 and his engine seems to be running out of fuel. Huntsman is nether here nor there. He seemed to be an odd man in a conservative field. Paul once again proved that he will be a disaster for the job he is seeking.Gingrich responded to every question with diligence and authority and he was very impressive. Bith Romney and Perry looked silly going at each other like two boys fighting for a bar of chocolate. However,both are capable of taking on Obama and if the failures continue, he will soon be a GONE BAMA.
Agree.
I’m with Toronto Girl, and once again Republicans are missing the biggest picture.
I have heard Rick Perry talk before and he was excellent. What I saw last night was a zombie; a ghost; a shell. Then it occurred to me, when I had heard Rick Perry talk before, it was relevant only to the state of Texas. It’s like it takes four years to groom yourself for the Presidency once governor. It took Ronald Reagan four years – maybe it’s not Perry’s time yet. What troubles me most is I know Perry would make an excellent President.
Romney has a definite advantage – he’s been there before. But Romney leaves me cold. Part fraternity boy, part smarmy rich kid, vacillating on one important issue after another. The word RINO continues to come to mind. I’ll vote for him if he is what is left, but Mitt is a prettier, smarter McCain Redux for me. Herman and Newt are fine – neither will win the nomination. The rest are fringe candidates, and though Ron Paul has many fine domestic points and his answer on abortion last night excellent, he’s a danger outside the shores of the U.S. Iran with an arsenal of nuclear bombs? Are you kidding me? Even Obama doesn’t have a death wish.
The point is, Obama has to go. And though none of these candidates ideal for me, any of them short of Paul would be infinitely better than Zero.
Whoever wins the Republican nomination will be the next President of the United States provided he/she runs against Obama.
Perry did poorly which means Romney won. It isn’t more complicated than that, since the odds are 90% that one of them will be the nominee.
Perry isn’t demonstating the ability to articulate a vision. Romney is actually better at it even though everyone suspects that he will say anything.
Newt may be gaining some ground just by the fact that he is so clever.
The others are also rans, even though Cain did very well.
Perry simply can’t escape from Social Security, and Romney is more than willing to hammer the theme. It’s as hard as eating ice cream. Now it looks like immigration is another fatal blow, even though it is a winning issue for Perry in the general election. He can’t win if he can’t win the primaries. Romney needs to be more careful in what he says about it because he could end up pissing Hispanics off. And it looks like Bachmann has a theme on crony capitalism that will stick. So Perry has three hard things to overcome.
It’s kind of strage that by simply having weaknesses that have been around like forever, Romney gets an edge. Nobody has internalized Perry’s weaknesses yet.
Perry is in a crisis. He is going to drop like a rock if he doesn’t do something dramatic soon, or lift his game across the board substantially.
There are aspects of every one of the candidates who were on that stage last night, that I like. And, I’ll bet we all agree on that. Any one of them would be better than the current bozo in the White House.
Right now, the mood of the country is such that any one of them would win too!
I haven’t picked a favorite, but some of the ones I had discounted are starting to grow on me. It is just a shame that we do not have a Mitch Daniels or a Fred Thompson in this race. It would already be over.
This is a flawed field with no consensus candidate. So, let me piss off everybody at once who has already chosen a candidate and is cemented to them.
1)Sarah Palin. Nearly 70% of REPUBLICANS don’t want her to get in the race. I think she is a wonderful asset to keep the base energized, I think her candidacy would be a tragic mistake. I vote an emphatic absolutely not…sorry Sarah fans…she has an important role to play…but not in the West Wing.
2)Michele Bachman. Let me upset all the gender voters at once. As a Presidential candidate, Michelle makes a good tax lawyer. She is strong on conservative principles, but she gets trapped too easily, makes statements that require her to backtrack and while naturally articulate…she is not articulately natural. Sorry, too much rigidity leads to morbidity.
3)Gary Johnson. One toke over the line. And his tremolo voice always makes it sound like he’s on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The line about the dogs creating more shovel ready jobs than Obama is true, although both use the same technique to drop on the American taxpayer, the dogs have a more efficient delivery system. Johnson’s highlight reel in this entire election will be about excrement…and that’s only because nobody brought a bong.
4)Ron Paul. You know, you start to have self-doubts when you find yourself agreeing with him on some things…and then he goes careening off into crazyland and you breathe a sigh of relief that you disagree with him again and haven’t completely lost YOUR marbles. Has a very vocal group of idiots at every stop. He has the crazy and idiot vote sealed.
5)Newt Gingrich. Has the easiest command of the facts and is the most glib, at ease and comfortable in this setting. I don’t know that debates show the best qualities in a President in general, but it IS a part of the job to be able to think on your feet and deliver a message. Newt is good at this part of the game. The problem is, Newt wants to play six chessboards at once or else he gets bored. Another contract with America is in his future…but so many have been breached before, it would have to be written in blood before anyone would take it at face value. Can’t win, won’t win.
6)Herman Cain. I love this guy. I’m sorry…but I root for him in every debate. He’s as soft as microwaved butter on foreign affairs, he’s not as deep as I had hoped on domestic issues, ….but his heart is in the right place, he gives much needed humor, down home common sense, vibrancy and yes “color” (in myriad uses of the term) to a bland, vanilla, starched shirt Republican Party. And…alas, he has about as much chance of winning this nomination as I do. He doesn’t deserve to be President based upon his lack of qualifications….then again, if that stopped us…the current guy would be conducting bake sales in Hyde Park, and getting people to march on City Hall.
7)Rick Santorum. If Santorum is latin for emotionally overwrought and sanctimonious, this would make perfect sense. This guy is wrapped a bit too tight for my tastes. I like much of what he says, but not only does he need a Valium, anyone listening to him needs him to break one in half and share. Standing next to Johnson, I was half hoping he would pass Santorum a roach clip and tell him to chill. Not a chance he wins anything, except an ulcer and throat lozenges.
8)Rick Perry. Got hammered last night and painted himself into a corner. He is appealing to the Ruben Navarette crowd, but he just lost 8% last night on the “no heart” comment. Idiotic. He gave leftists a sound bite, which will keep the comment alive…and he will be beaten with backhanded compliments from the left which will enrage what should have been his base. Just plain stupid. He is clearly not in his element in the debate setting. He doesn’t think well, gets lost, dazed and confused. He doesn’t want to build a fence, he wants to subsidize Dream Act children of border crashers and he just doesn’t do a good job of delivering a message. We had a guy from Texas who struggled with articulating thoughts and ideas…unfortunately for Perry, we can’t afford another guy who gets tongue-tied going up against a propaganda machine.
9)Mitt Romney. Had a good night. He’s got a likeability factor, he did a good job watering down the attack on RomneyCare…as much as can be done with that issue. He is not ever going to be a red meat guy for the base. And, the yelps about “RINO’s” will come fast and furious (without any gun walking), from the imbecile portion of the base. Nothing can be done about that.
He is not a greatly skilled debater. NONE of them are, Newt comes closest. Obama could clean his clock, if Mitt isn’t prepared in a one on one in the general election. But, Mitt can win.
In a very flawed field…(I think Cantor, Ryan, Rubio, Daniels and Christie would all clean Obama’s clock in a one on one general election debate), Mitt may be our default choice. Let the screaming begin.
No screaming here. I think your analysis is excellent. I could easily pick CABINET positions for every one of these people. Finding the person who should run the show though, is problematic.
Excellent analysis.
I do disagree with your rejection of Perry for his inability to function in a debate. Being president is not about debates; it’s about decisions and leadership.
Obama is great in debates because he’s a skilled manipulator, a pathological liar, and has functioned, almost all his life, as someone who ignores reality and lives entirely in words. Words, words, words. The fact that Obama’s words are disconnected from reality and are meant only to persuade You to be His…ah, that’s a problem.
But it’s Obama’s actions that must be considered and they are, both domestic and foreign, absolutely and utterly disastrous.
So, I look to Perry’s actions, and to me, they seem to be based on a hard acceptance of reality. He’s almost incapable, in a debate, of articulating his reasons; I’ve had to look up a great deal on my own. If I listened only to, not just his words (or absence of words) and listened to the other GOP hopefuls in their rhetoric against Perry…I’d be misinformed and manipulated. By Romney, by Bachmann in particular.
I think that Romney flips and flops too much; and, his reliance on words makes me hesitant. I do admit – he’s great with the words. But, I don’t think that we need a presidency that lives within words; we need actions.
The successful use of words is crucial, though. A big problem with Perry is as cfbleachers suggests: the country is not going to elect a Republican who can be remotely compared with a certain Texan who didn’t express himself all that well. The pro-Obama “propaganda machine” will be in a full force, 24/7 onslaught against whichever GOP candidate gets the nomination.
Perry has convinced me that he probably doesn’t have what it takes to win the propaganda war. That’s probably fatal in going against Obama.
A better analysis than any of the professional pundits, cf.
You reviewed them through adult eyes and have reached to an adult conclusion, which I’m sure you will be re-evaluating as more data points appear.
I’ve noticed that there isn’t much flaming on this topic on PJM or other blogs that I visit, even though there is huge room for controversy. I’ve been playing bad boy conservative for several weeks and other than a few SS-haters, I haven’t been flamed much at all.
Maybe people are wising up and realizing this election is too important to insist on ideological perfection….since it doesn’t exist and wouldn’t win if it did.
I’ve gone from Pawlenty to Perry and now, for the moment, to Romney. But the game is still young. Let’s hope that whoever wins has more politial guts than McLame. This time, we HAVE to take it to the menace in the white house, and we can’t sit by while the mbm defines the playing field. And our guy has to want to win with every fiber of his or her being. It’s could be the last dance.
I had to cringe all night watching Perry, he seemed out of sync. Sorry to see that, As Candidate Romney will be like, supporting McCain, was for me.
Someone could have knocked, the loon, Paul out last night, by mentioning his ‘would consider Kucinich’ for a cabinet position.
I’d like to see Santorum back in the Senate, as McConnell’s replacement. And Huntsman????????? Back in China writing love notes to Barry.
Surprising to me that Santorum got so many positive comments. I thought he looked hysterical like a kid who has had too much candy. Looking forward to when they narrow the field and he is no longer in it….
10) Oh, I forgot Huntsman.
That’s because this guy is so plastic, he makes my teeth itch. I wouldn’t buy a used car from him…I don’t care how many of his family are sitting in the front row. If this guy kisses you…count your teeth.
Anyone who could watch that debate and say that Romney did not have a particularly good night has a problematic relationship with the truth.
Perry’s problem is not his lack of debating skills, though he is awful and looked weak.
His problem is that throughout his political career, he has done what he now bashes Romney for doing: taken the political stand that maximized Rick Perry’s prospects at the time, instead of the principled stand. He was then presented to the country as the next Ronald Reagan (or better) by a media that: a) wants a race, which no one was giving Romney; and b) wants Obama to win and knows Perry will be toast in a general. Now that people are discovering his career has been based on expedience, rather than Reaganesque principle, they are disappointed, making excuses and lashing out.
Perry is not the next Ronald Reagan, he is the next Fred Thompson.
Hey AZ! Fred has principles! Be nice.
Bachmann remains the most reliably and solidly conservative of the candidates.
Santorum is close, but his answers on foreign policy have been superficial, or just wrong, in every debate. He has not articulated why we should stay and keep spending billions in Afghanistan and Iraq, except that “the generals say so.” It is not up to “the generals” to make foreign policy, Mr. Santorum.
Romney continues to show he’s the most intelligent man on the stage. His answer on education was especially interesting, challenging the platitude that smaller class sizes are unquestionably to be desired. Some continue to be dead set agaist Romney because of his record, but there is nothing he can say to convince such people.
Perry is dreadful on illegal aliens, though at this point I would vote against Obama almost no matter what. To Perry’s credit, his criticism of Obama for not selling upgraded F-16s to India (something I didn’t even know about) was completely appropriate.
This debate hasn’t changed my mind: to support Bachmann in the primaries and to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election, unless that nominee turns out to be one of the crazy libertarians.
Good point about Romney eviscerating the old canard about small class sizes. I was so glad to see a major candidate criticize that old bogus talking point, which Clinton would use to set the hearts a-flutter of ignorant Soccer Moms everywhere.
I also agree with you about Bachmann. She still impresses me.
I have to disagree about the Libertarian Pair though. If by some totally bizarre sequence of events Johnson or Paul became the nominee, I would still definitely vote for them against Obama.
Every candidate on the stage last night is vastly preferable to Obama.
What you have to worry about is obvious candidate media support or attack by the same scum that sold the last one to US voters. They will again offer the best available to perpetuate progressive agenda or suppress patriotism. Watch the interview with Joe Miller to understand the effectiveness of media support combined with voter fraud. Expect more of the same in 2012.
Newt won the debate hands down. Mitt came in 2nd ,Cain, even the no-go Hunt had a good debate but overall, Perry ,Michelle lost and Santorum kept in his 2nd tier but made people realize, this guy is a guy who sticks to his principles. So, what is the outcome? When primaries occur, voters will go with the person who can whack Obama and the Socialist Dems. Period. Somehow,I hope to see Newt on the ticket if voters could be made to see that he has the solutions and in his new 21st Century Contract next week in Iowa, I think that will aid him.
Who do you guys think won the debate last night, or better yet who do you think is best suited to lead the country during these hard times?! Come discuss on an open political platform and discussion poll: http://bit.ly/pQxd5g
Romney, Perry and Hunstman demonstrated why they are excellent Democrats. Johnson wants to replace Ron Paul. Paul actually sounded sane but you could tell he was wishing to plat the Twilight zone theme.
Bachman slammed some provocative questions out of the park and you could hear the MSM heads exploding. Cain and Newt were both excellent.
Santorium was great. The questions were bad. Seems like Fox is as bad as the other networks in holding these kabuki dances.
Palin won. Honorable mention to Perry and Romney tying for the Elmer Gantry award.
I really liked the youtube question from the guy who said, “When are you going to stop sending our damn money to countries that don’t like us?” or something like that…
Perry was more than a “disappointment” yesterday; I was stunned at his tone-deafness. Anti-corporatism aside (run, Sarah, run!), I just wrote the following to the Perry campaign:
“I do not need to vote for a Republican if I want to support illegal immigration (which includes taxpayer dollars paying for their education). YOU HAVE LOST MY VOTE IN THE FLORIDA PRIMARY. I do *not* want any “BS” response (I’m originally from Washington, DC and worked in the Federal Government for 12 years), AT A MINIMUM a full admission of error for this akin to your public Gardasil statement. YOU LOSE.”
If we take them at their word what they want is documentation. They are not illegal they are undocumented. I say register them as non citizens and give them a document that is not revoked unless felony charges occur. No citizen papers unless they apply legally.
Maybe someone can explain to me Santorum’s outburst regarding the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Did he not say NO ONE should be talking about their sexuality in the military, as if husbands are not going to talk about their wives, girlfriends, or what they did over the weekend. Obviously he is against the repeal, but his “logic’ was more of an inarticulate sputter. He simply does not want to consider how “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is unfair to gay soldiers. Alas, the few boos in the audience were not for Santorum, but because one supposedly gay soldier got to make a point via video. Juan Williams pointed out that at the moment all the candidates are fighting to outdo each other on the righty end, getting closer to the deep end. There are no bad consequences right now, but in the general, there will be.
But that having been said, it appears to be Romney’s nomination to lose. As one of the top two, he clearly outdid Perry last night, partially because Perry beats himself. Romney won’t beat himself is may well beat Obama. He is your best shot, but then I have been saying that for four years.
My opinion is obviously not real popular here but I think Mitt Romney has done a great job in the last two debates. He has promised to rid us of Obamacare and I think he would be real tough on illegal immigration. He has also made an allegiance to stand with Israel and support our allies.
I live in Michigan with many family members from Tennessee and MA. Voters in Michigan supported Romney during the last primary and he won this state. I think he could win in the north, New England and carry a huge portion of the west. Making his decision to select a tea party candidate as his VP would gain him a win in the south.
He is articulate, intelligent and would give Obama a very tough debate.
Romney has almost secured my vote.
Come general election time, the liberal media would find a way to demonize Romney as “a dangerous ultra right-wing nutjob” and “a racist.” These days reality doesn’t matter much. Look at the way tens of millions of Americans, even some conservatives among them, believe Obama to be an exceptionally powerful orator, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Simply because it is repeated by others.
Well. they will undoubtedly TRY to do so, but the whole point is that he should be able to stand up to it better than most of the rest of the field. It’s that simple.
Prompted by the press, the question of who won the Florida debate was answered mostly wrong.
The piece “The Danger of Republican Debates” opened my eyes to why none of the so called winners really felt like a winner.
The piece says, “Romney didn’t win, neither did Cain, Santorum or Gingrich. We will tell you who won . . . . Obama. The proof of why Obama won was the discussion on the issue of immigration.”
It is a warning that Republicans seem incapable of heeding. Read why at http://robbingamerica.blogspot.com/2011/09/danger-of-republican-debates.html
Hi, i have to admit great website you’ve, i stumbled across it in Bing. Does you get much traffic?
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all folks you really understand what you are speaking about! Bookmarked. Please additionally discuss with my site =). We may have a link change contract among us
Fantastic points altogether, you simply received a emblem new reader. What could you suggest about your publish that you just made a few days in the past? Any positive?
Attractive element of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually loved account your weblog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing for your feeds or even I achievement you access persistently rapidly.
ya just try it !!
Usually I do not read post on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very forced me to check out and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thanks, quite great article.
Magnificent issues altogether, you just received a new reader. What would you suggest in regards to your submit that you made some days ago? Any positive?
Hi, Neat post. There is a problem together with your website in internet explorer, would check this? IE still is the market leader and a large part of other folks will miss your wonderful writing due to this problem.
Its such as you read my thoughts! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the ebook in it or something. I believe that you could do with a few percent to power the message home a little bit, but instead of that, that is excellent blog. A fantastic read. I will definitely be back.
You actually make it appear really easy along with your presentation but I in finding this topic to be really one thing that I feel I’d by no means understand. It kind of feels too complicated and extremely large for me. I am looking forward in your next put up, I will attempt to get the dangle of it!
Hello there, I discovered your web site via Google even as looking for a related topic, your web site got here up, it appears to be like good. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
I do accept as true with all the ideas you’ve offered for your post. They’re really convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are too short for newbies. Could you please prolong them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.
Hello there, I discovered your blog via Google while searching for a related matter, your website got here up, it appears good. I have added to my favourites|added to bookmarks.
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my website thus i came to “return the favor”.I am attempting to find things to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!