Perry’s pulling away…
For now, anyway.
I maintain that most of the public still doesn’t know Perry very well. The already-interminable-seeming 2012 campaign season has barely begun. But it seems that the real race will remain between Perry and Romney—unless, of course, Palin declares, and I just don’t see that as likely. We do know Romney pretty well since he’s been running nearly forever, but Mr. Smooth just doesn’t seem to be able to gain traction.
It’s not surprising, though, that the frontrunners are governors or former governors. That’s the classic way to gain executive political experience, as opposed to the legislative route (or even the pizza company route).
[ADDENDUM: So, is Perry being honest with the American people?]
http://www.intrade.com still gives Romney a small lead over Perry (37.8% versus 35.0%). There’s a sizeable move up there today for Romney…maybe because of Pawlenty’s endorsement.
So far, it doesn’t seem that the so called extreme things Perry has said have hurt him. My theory on that is that Perry is bluntly stating what many if not most people believe is true.
I’m looking forward to the GOP debate tonight on CNN to see if Perry has been coached on social security and global warming.
This Byron York link: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/despite-social-security-older-voters-perry
Excerpt:
In a new CNN poll that finds Perry at the front of the Republican pack, the Texas governor’s lead among GOP voters age 65 and older is actually bigger than his lead among younger voters. Fifty-two percent of respondents over 65 say Perry is their choice for president, versus just 21 percent who choose Romney.
Perry will continue, I believe, to gain more traction. And it was mostly due to his Ponzi statement, which, Romney took like a big mouth bass, as bait, hook, line and sinker. Now we have Romney and Bachman attacking Perry and alleging he wants to ruin SS. And Democrats are supporting Perry’s view.
Seniors are ready to make a sacrifice knowing that if they don’t it will be made for them. They are not like the welfare crowd and if someone (Perry) shows how their survival won’t be threatened, they will endorse changes that protect America. Romney pandered. Perry didn’t. Romney is sinking. Perry isn’t.
RomneyCare is all you need to know about Mitt.
Perry managed to shift the current discussion away from ‘crazy creationist’ to ‘crazy Ponzi scheme’, which has the virtue of mostly being true. Not to mention controlling the terms of the debate. I don’t know if he hooked Romney, but he certainly hooked the media, which is where most of the fight is going to be waged. Romney may well be the better debater, but so far Perry seems ahead of him strategically.
Neo, I don’t want to nit pick, but no amount of legislative experience equals actual executive experience.
Being the CEO of a pizza company is executive experience. But being a representative or senator is not.
And real world buisness experience, IMO particularly in small buisness, has serious lessons. Just ask McGovern: “I … wish that during the years I was in public office I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.”
Don: I agree that any kind of executive experience is probably better than legislative experience.
Another appeal of Perry is a hint of boot on the throat retribution for how the country has been treated by progressives and their media lapdogs these past 3 years.
To point out that Social Security is fiscally unable to fulfill its promises, a Ponzi scheme, or an insurance program that is actuarily unsound is one thing. Probably 75% of the people agree with or understand that. Where the rubber meets the road is in devising a way to make it capable of continuing to pay out or………convincing people to either change it to a personal savings program that they own or………to sunset it.
There is one other option – do nothing and let the financial markets decide. Most people probably do not favor that option. However, it will happen if we our leaders can’t agree what the problem is and provide a solution. wha
So far, the only solution that seems politically possible and has been described in any detail is Paul Ryan’s plan. That plan, however, has been attacked from both sides so even it will be difficult to implement.
If Perry can delineate a solution or sign onto Ryan’s plan, it will be a step forward for him. Pointing out the problem is, IMO, easy. Solutions? Not so easy!
You state that the primary seems interminable already. I would just like to point out that it seems that way because you care and are scrutinizing the candidates; as we all should. We all need to remember that each candidate is unique and would bring different strengths and weaknesses into the White House. Some of us have “key” issues that make a candidate unacceptable to us (abortion, healthcare, immigration, etc) but I ask people to not “hate” on any candidate when discussing him/her. Just state what is good and what is not, in your opinion. This will help separate issues from individuals as well as work toward solutions for the problems we’re facing. Maybe it’s interminable but we’re worth it!
Bush had a reform plan that was shot down, and it had some merit. But at the time there was no serious desire for reform. So it wasn’t gonna happen.
As time passes, and the need for reform increases, it will become even more difficult to reform SS in any fair manner.
One of the key problems is that reform suggests someone is goona get screwed. Those who paid it want theirs, while those who are just beginning to pay in don’t want to pay into a system that won’t be there for them.
Neo,
The lack of execitive experience leads to to discount candidates like Bachmann and Paul. And I wasn’t happy about McCain on this point, either.
The left seems willing to overlook any lack of executive experience, and even prefer a more academic sort of background. Some on the right overlook a lack of executive experience as well, the Ron Paul supporters I’ve interacted with, for example.
An addition to the list of non-executive experience “dis-qualifications”: community organizer.
In 2008 Romney had his best chance. He is a competent manager but will act to accomodate his opponents to get results (unfortunately this gave him Romneycare).
We will need someone with more fire in the belly than Mitt. He also has acquired the image of a perpetual candidate like Newt. What has Mitt been doing since he left Mass?
I sense that we have seen Romney’s best shot already and that Perry will get better with more national campaign experience, grinding his way towards the GOP nomination.
Romney just doesn’t seem to inspire enthusiasm. Hasn’t since he started running.
Off subject, this from AoS:
“A blonde, a brunette and Barack Obama walk into a bar. Over the first few rounds, President Obama explained his Jobs Creating Stimulus bill to the two ladies. When he got done, the blonde said, “That won’t work.”
Solution to SS:
1. Raise the retirement age
2. Decrease the monthly stipends
3. Drill baby drill (And get rid of Obama, Obamacare, regulations, welfare, federal education)
4. Stop abortion
5. Create incentives for the family
Sorry to keep heading more OT, but Curtis reminded me with “Drill baby Drill” of the new video up at minnesotans for global warming:
it’s on the frontpage.. Elmer and the gang do their usual hilarious first rate job
http://www.m4gw.com
A rabbi, a priest and Obama walk into a bar. When they get in, Obama spits in the face of the rabbi and kicks the priest in the balls. A Muslim cleric condemns Obama because he did not chop off their heads. The media reports Obama seeks to unify Jews and Christians and seeks to protect them from Islamic extremism.
Woof.
He was honest about SS as far as he went. To be more forthcoming, this is what needs to be said: There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund: it has all been spent already. The “trust fund” is not a pile of money to be spent: it is a heap of debt that has to be repaid.
Funny how Huckabee and Pawlenty, who probably aren’t the best opinionators, line up with Romney and are projecting that Perry’s SS statements are his undoing.
The extraordinary thing about Perry is he is a politician who projects a populist image. I prefer Palin because she is the real thing. Perry? Not so much but besides Palin, he’s the best we’ve got.
… or even the community organizer route?
I truly hope Palin realizes her main strengths are as a king-maker, and not as the candidate running. She does a great job of stirring the pot (on both sides — heh).
Ref SS. Too many people think–being charitable here–that it’s a matter of being “mean spirited”. They cannot conceive of the fact that, as somebody said, when there is no money to be spent, there will be no money spent.
It simply does not compute in their universe. IMO, they’re stuck in juvenilia. (Is that a classical roman holiday?). Still thinking like kids where anything they want is available, subject only to the parents’ agreeing they can nave it. The concept that it may not actually exist cannot be absorbed.
So, I guess, Wry Mouth, that if Palin had not succeeded so well in her role after being Alaska’s governor, that then it would be good strategy for her to run.
I know that is not what you are saying, but it does highlight that you are implying her only strength is kingmaker. I disagree. She did a great job as Alaska’s top executive. She articulates the best tea party policy.
Is it that she is not “electable.”
Well, good point, and here I cannot say you do not have a reasonable point. However, there is a reasonable counterpoint as well, which is, moderate Republicans don’t win Presidential elections. And, something rebels in my tea party heart; something cries foul; something says that the narrative, which has been crafted by my enemies, should not be the tune I sing.
Please try the green eggs and ham.
I’m with ya, Curtis.
The word “electable” is not in my vocabulary.
I seem to recall that the conventional wisdom was that McCain was the most “electable” Republican the last time around. ‘Nuff said.
1. As of this writing, Romney retains a narrow Intrade lead over Perry.
2. At the leftist site I have not yet been banned from, people were partisan jerks on 9/11/11. If Perry beat Obama, they would go into convulsions. It’s not a good reason to support Perry, but I confess I would enjoy watching them.
3. DirtyJobsGuy Says:
In 2008 Romney had his best chance.
Romney had his best chance in 2006, and he blew it. He declined to run for reelection as MA governor. Had he bucked the Democratic tide and defeated Obama-lite Deval Patrick in liberal MA, IMO the momentum, and the fact of being a sitting governor, would have gotten him the 2008 nomination over McCain et al. As the financial crisis broke, his business background would have made him the obvious choice for the Oval Office.
He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That dares not put it to the touch
To win or lose it all.
4. IMO the failure of the Bush Presidency debased the value of executive experience. We are relearning, the hard way, that such experience is usually necessary even though it may not be sufficient.
Go to Romney’s campaign site and click on the Issues section. The go to Perry’s site and do the same. Go the National Security and you tell me who is more thoughtful on this monumental issue (that these debates have hardly touched upon). Add Perry’s cluelessness about creeping sharia and it’s a no brainer. You may not feel a tingle up your leg about Romney, but I think it will be clear that he is he better choice of the two, presuming it remains a choice between them.
Jindal is endorsing Perry, that says something very important……
annonymous Says:
Go to Romney’s campaign site and click on the Issues section. The go to Perry’s site and do the same. Go the National Security and you tell me who is more thoughtful on this monumental issue…
You don’t provide hyperlinks and you expect your readers to search for them?
Perry is hurting himself with talk of the DREAM act and Amnesty. His pandering to the Hispanic vote is a ticking time bomb as more realize how liberal he is on illegal immigration.
Watched the debate last night (only the second one for me). Perry showed some genuine weaknesses that I didn’t like. The tuition program for illegals especially bothered me; the vaccine issue not so much. The way he could not really defend the tuition program sent red flags up for me.
Huntsman is off my list. Santorum was better, but has a narcisstic side that comes out occasionally. Gingrich sounds so great but there’s way too much baggage beeing dragged along.
After last night, Perry is moving towards the exit door for me, but still not out. Bachman still there, and is Romney, though he does not impress me. Frankly, after two debates that I’ve watched, Cain is my favorite. But Gingrich had it right: “it’s not Perry or Romney (or any other Repub on the stage) we should be afraid of, it’s Obama.”
I watched the debates last night also. Here is my take on a few things.
First, I thought CNN did a much better job with this debate than MSNBC did with theirs. More energetic and much less a hatchet job on conservatives in general and Perry in particular. Brian Williams should hide his face in shame. I was surprised that a fairly liberal network like CNN was pretty positive about the Tea Party and seemed to recognize it as a serious force in USA politics.
Perry was attacked by most of the other participants (he wasn’t by Gingrich and Cain). That’s to be expected and he fielded most attacks reasonably well. He’s getting a baptism of fire and isn’t getting all whiny and defensive about it. I do think he needs to improve in these debates and he shouldn’t mention Texas quite so much. People will get tired of that. He needs to find a way to point out his accomplishments without saying “Texas this and Texas that”.
I think the attacks about the vaccine are petty and somewhat desperate (especially by Bachman and Santorum). They are clearly reaching to find something to attack him about. He admitted his mistake in how he handled it and pointed out it did have opt out in its implementation and that he was only trying to save lives. Time to move on to more important issues.
I have mixed emotions about illegal immigration (aka Hispanic immigration…let’s don’t mince words). I think one of the best things about the USA is its strong tradition of Anglo Saxon law. I think too much Hispanic influence might harm that. I don’t think I’m being racist when I say that. In the past I have visited Mexico many times and have a high respect for their culture and their art. But not their politics. Just look at most of South America. Do we want our government to be like those in most of South America?
However, my experience is that Mexicans are harder working and better contributors to our economy than many people think. I know that the general contractor who built our house in Texas used some laborers who were illegals. I talked with some of them as they built my house. They worked hard and were good craftsmen. I got a well built house for much lower cost than if they hadn’t been involved. Many illegal workers may not have paid USA taxes but in their way, they have made measurable contributions to our economy. And their motivations for being here were usually just that they needed ways to support their families. Surely we can’t criticize them for that.
Here’s what I recommend about immigration:
1. Close the borders to more illegal immigration.
2. Implement a foreign workers plan that will allow persons to work here legally. Require them to pay taxes, social security, etc. just like citizens. But don’t allow them to vote.
3. Allow illegals already here to become citizens after they get in line behind immigrants who are already applying for citizenship legally. Also require them to learn English and pass a test on American history.
Accordingly, I don’t have a problem with Perry allowing illegal immigrants who live in Texas, pay property taxes (either directly or indirectly as renters), and pay sales taxes in Texas to improve themselves by going to state colleges at a reasonable cost.)
Getting back to the debate, Romney is slowly growing on me to the extent that I’d have no problem voting for him if he is nominated. He’s promised that he won’t try to implement health care a la MA version and I take his word for it.
All the other participants are also rans and will eventually drop out one way or another.
OK folks…now you can beat on THIS Texan for a while! 🙂
The debate last night was interesting. Once again, Romney did himself no harm. Perry had a couple of rough patches especially on immigration. He found it hard to defend the Texas policy of letting illegals pay in-state tuition.
Bachmann was on the attack as usual. She went a bit over the top accusing Perry of taking money for policy in the Gardisil innoculation issue.
Cain was calm, clear, and incisive. He is a leader and keeps impressing. Too bad he’s not getting any traction. I like him a lot.
Newt was good. A couple of conservative bloggers thought he carried the night. It is clear that he would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. Is his baggage too great? Well, there is more to come.
Huntsman, Santorum, and Paul did their usual performance. Few points scored for them.
They didn’t cover national security or energy policy in any detail. I hope they get into that in the next debate. After the tone of pacifistic-morality shown during the 9/11 memorial dedication we need to get back to looking at the fact that, ten years on, we are still in danger from radical Islam. We need fresh ideas about defeating this threat, not just trying to keep them from attacking us. I would like to see something like that from these prospective C-in-Cs.
Picking between Romney and Perry may be like picking which butt cheek; it’s the same butt. Romney has Romneycare. Perry was soft on Islam and illegal aliens. Both are politicians (liars) with Romney appealing to the cerebrals and Perry appealing to the instinctuals.
Here’s something for consideration. RINO’s are primarily a product of the voters, not the political class. If there are enough tea party voters, RINO’s become marginalized and disappear.
I was on a plane back from home last night, so I missed the debate. However, I did read Romney’s Believe in America (for free) on my Kindle while I was away. I was impressed. He has the big picture of our economic situation and has clearly layed out what immediate steps he would take to turn things around. His criticisms of Obama are devastating without being too snarky. I think a lot of non-polit- junky busines types will like his points, and I think a lot of small business types may take his message to colleagues and acquaintances. Perry may be successful in Texas, but does he have the international oversight to deal with things like the Euro crisis? I wouldn’t rule Romney out yet. It could be that Americans will tire of the firey types in a while and turn to someone who seems more strategic and analytical.
Romney’s response to the fairtax question was puzzling. Almost like he feels a need to pander to the class warfare crowd in punishing success to an acceptable degree.
texec, I’m just passing by and don’t have time to absorb, let alone respond to, your post, but there is one point I’d like to make.
I have no quibble with your positive words about Hispanic newcomers, but afaik their culture has an important deficiency: it does not put an overriding priority on education. Decent Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, are content to labor near the bottom of our economic ladder. If their children find themselves unequipped for upward mobility, they will be considerably less accepting of the situation than their parents were. Understandably so.
(The deliberate flouting of immigration laws is yet another example of the American elite grabbing short-term benefits for themselves and passing the ruinous costs on to future generations.)
If my impression of Latino newcomers’ attitude toward education is wrong, I’d be happy to have it corrected, with hyperlinks if possible.
gs:
As usual, you make some thoughtful points.
I guess my response to them is that there is a place in our economy and even society for people who are content to work at the lower end of our economic ladder. They are performing needed tasks that no one else wants to do.
I will point out that the issue that Perry is being criticized about is one in which (usually) Hispanics are actually trying to get a better education so they can be upwardly mobile. Not all Hispanics are the same regarding their respect for education.
I assume you implied that I was indirectly flouting immigration laws by buying a house from a general contractor who employed illegal immigrants. That’s fine, I don’t take that personally and you make a valid point. However, I feel that’s offset by the fact that I indirectly provided income to some men who needed it to feed their families.
And for what it’s worth, very few houses get built in Texas without illegal immigration labor. Wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t the case in many states, especially southwestern ones.
texexec Says:
gs:
As usual, you make some thoughtful points.
I guess my response to them is that there is a place in our economy and even society for people who are content to work at the lower end of our economic ladder. They are performing needed tasks that no one else wants to do.
The key word is “content”. Reminder to self: remember to respect the dignity of decent people who do these kinds of jobs.
I will point out that the issue that Perry is being criticized about is one in which (usually) Hispanics are actually trying to get a better education so they can be upwardly mobile. Not all Hispanics are the same regarding their respect for education.
Point taken. Still, the statistics of Hispanic attitudes relative to other immigrant groups and demographic US groups is a legitimate topic for inquiry.
I assume you implied that I was indirectly flouting immigration laws by buying a house from a general contractor who employed illegal immigrants. That’s fine, I don’t take that personally and you make a valid point. However, I feel that’s offset by the fact that I indirectly provided income to some men who needed it to feed their families.
Good Lord, no. That never crossed my mind. I’ve acquired too much respect for you to resort to an insinuation. If I had the concern you mention–and I don’t–, I would state it outright.
And for what it’s worth, very few houses get built in Texas without illegal immigration labor. Wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t the case in many states, especially southwestern ones.
I might well do the same if and hopefully when I’m in a position to get my place rebuilt. When in Rome,… I draw the line at advocating the undermining of national sovereignty via illegitimate immigration. If the price for secure borders is higher food prices and labor costs, I’m willing to pay it.
To be clear Bachmann knowingly misrepresented the content of the executive order on vaccinations. She had to because the opt-out provision, mentioned by Perry immediately prior to her speaking, clearly protects parental rights. Further NO child was vaccinated under the order before it was stopped by the legislature. Bluntly put, either she lied about this so that she could attack him, is incapable of remembering the opt-out existed for 60 seconds. Sorry NOT executive material, not presidential material, not qualified. She serves a very useful purpose in the house, she should stay there.
As for the in state tuition for illegals. I find it interesting that Federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states: “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” This law signed by Clinton in 1996 makes the Texas statue on in state tuition for illegals itself illegal. Further conference Report 104-828 states, “this section provides that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.” There is no question that the federal is intended to prevent states from passing into law such a statue.
I would like to have someone ask Perry about his position about this and should he gain the presidency would he direct the justice department to bring suit against states with such laws in federal court? Would he enforce this federal law? If not why not?
On many issues I rather like Perry, but this issue raises some interesting questions about what a Perry justice department would look like. Questions I would like answer before he is nominated.