Tea Party debate turns into Perry pile-on

posted at 9:25 am on September 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Last night’s debate turned into a fine donnybrook at times, as the candidates took off the gloves and started landing a few blows.  As one would expect, and as many of us expected for last week’s debate, most of the Republicans on stage took aim at the undisputed front-runner, Rick Perry, and this time they scored points.  Perry remained cool under fire, but two issues may have lost him a few Tea Party voters in the audience.  Will it have an impact, or will Perry maintain his momentum as he did after his initial foray into the fire?

Perry actually did well in the initial attack.  This time, Mitt Romney didn’t wait for the moderators to ping-pong questions and follow-ups between himself and Perry but started directly asking Perry questions about his writings on Social Security.  Romney wanted to press the Texas governor on whether he still thought the program was “unconstitutional,” but Perry delivered a big body blow when he brought up Romney’s own written claim that the funding system for Social Security was akin to a criminal enterprise, which left Romney sputtering and trying to parse the meaning of the word “criminal.”

But two other issues tripped Perry up.  When a Tea Party question about the Gardasil HPV vaccine came up, Perry admitted again that he had made a mistake in issuing his executive order for mandatory vaccination, reminding people that it did include a parental opt-out.  Romney was notably silent on this issue, but Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum hammered Perry on the very notion of an EO that forced parents into an opt-out, rather than offering an opt-in.  Bachmann, who had a restrained performance last week, ended up sounding as if she was opposed to mandatory vaccinations in general, while Santorum was clear that the government only had an interest in mandating prevention for diseases easily communicable in classroom settings.

However, Bachmann became the first candidate to go after Perry on his connections to Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil — a very fair point, and one for which Perry should have been prepared.  Instead, Perry seemed rattled, finally offering a defense that the notion that he could be bought for $5000 “offends” him.  My Twitter feed exploded with the obvious question: well, how much does it take?

The other issue that tripped Perry was, predictably, immigration — specifically the Texas law that allows the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state rather than out-of-state tuition.  Perry defended the law, noting that it had almost no dissent in the state legislature, and that it kept a number of young adults from drifting onto the “government dole.”  But Perry lost several opportunities to refute the notion that these students were getting free access to universities and/or not paying tuition at all.  Perry also tried to draw a distinction between his law and the federal DREAM act opposed by the GOP, but other than the states-rights basis didn’t come up with any substantive difference between the two.  The Tea Party audience booed his defense at times, which isn’t a good sign.

Overall, Perry improved his delivery, but that didn’t keep him from having a tougher time in this debate.  Like last week, Perry’s energy seemed to flag in the second half before catching a second wind near the end.  And while the issues that allowed his opponents to score points have been known for quite a while, Perry seemed strangely unprepared for the attack, perhaps most on Gardasil and Merck.

Romney didn’t have the same problems as Perry; his vulnerabilities have been well known and well exploited, and Romney knows how to respond to them.  The audience gave Perry a big response when he blew up Romney’s attempts to paint him as an extreme voice on Social Security.  His “Texas had four aces” line fell flat, especially after Perry reminded the audience that his job growth included the period during and after the recession; after that, Romney didn’t go on the attack.  He reverted back to his above-the-fray approach to the debate, perhaps deliberately so after it became clear that Bachmann and Santorum would do the heavy lifting on the Perry attacks.

Bachmann finally got aggressive and distinguished herself over the Gardasil/Merck issue, and also with good responses on Social Security and ObamaCare.  However, the Gardasil/Merck exchange highlighted her predilection for taking a real issue and both overpersonalizing and overreacting to it.  Her comments during and after the debate left the distinct impression that Bachmann opposes all vaccination requirements, a position that is far out of the mainstream — and not really a federal issue in the first place.  Santorum scored the best points on the issue because he didn’t make it into a personal attack and very clearly stated why HPV was different than measles or mumps.

The rest of the field had good moments, but the main show was between Perry, Romney, and Bachmann.  It should be noted that Jon Huntsman offered up one tone-deaf moment after another, and drew boos after calling Perry “treasonous” on border security in a joke that backfired badly (Perry laughed, though).  He made a “Kirk Cobain” joke about Romney’s book that likewise left the audience wondering what in hell Huntsman was thinking.  His answer on Afghanistan meandered from ordering a troop withdrawal all the way to allowing Afghan women to shine with no real connecting thread.  If Huntsman remains in this race for another week after last night’s debate, it won’t be because he’s making any new friends among Republicans.

If I had to pick a winner from the debate, it would probably be Romney, who limited the damage to himself and benefited from the pile-on his other opponents conducted on Perry.  Perry needs to step up his game, and Bachmann has to work harder to find the line between aggressive response and wildness.

Addendum: I thought the debate format and presentation was actually quite good last night.  The questions didn’t seem to be derived from White House talking points, and the Tea Party format worked well. Wolf Blitzer allowed the candidates to directly engage one another, and didn’t insert any ridiculous bits into the debate; remember John King’s “This or That”?  We spent a good portion of the evening on entitlement reform, which Fox missed completely in the Ames debate.  There were some legitimate issues, including the fact that it took ten minutes to finally ask the first question, and the last silly question could have been replaced by a short closing statement.  Those seem minor, though, especially considering what we’ve seen this summer.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

You’re right … no one is perfect. That’s still no reason to disregard their record and tendencies and say “everyone makes mistakes”.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM

And I am not, that is why I brought up that fact that he has ran Texas for 10 years…and this is the “dirt” they have on him.
Look how he managed during some of the worst disasters, how he has handled the economy, education, the onslaught of immigration, legal and illegal…he has one of the most diverse and difficult states to run, and has for 10 years, but this is all they have to attack him on…and that he doesn’t think much of how the SS is run.
But this is what the candidates have decided is his weakest part of his leadership the past 10 years…one decision. Not his policies, his beliefs, but this one error…it’s the opponents who have defined the debate, and they have decided this is his only weakness, one mistake in judgement.
I think this speaks volumes of how much respect they have of him…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:00 PM

JohnGalt23 on September 13, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Last night in the open thread, I mentioned Frank Luntz, and words that work like REPEAL.

I heard about the wavier and EO replies last night. I identify TEA party, I only want to hear about REPEAL.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So says you, the obsessed @ssclown who mentions me in almost every thread you comment in before I even comment myself. Hey dude, your grammy is calling you….and here is a clue for you…..don’t tell her you are have perverted thoughts when she asks how you are doing. She doesn’t deserve that.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Nobody’s more obsessed with my dead grammy than you are. Necrophilia is a new low, even for you.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So let’s see you take into account his record and tendencies instead of focusing on trying to make the exception prove the rule.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 11:54 AM

His tendency is to cater to voting groups, whether they be democrat, hispanic, Tea party or conservative. In Texas, he definitely catered to hispanics with regard to illegals … that isn’t a good tendency. His answer on the Texas DREAM Act was frightening to say the least and if anyone else had said it they be lambasted. Instead people are trying to rationalize why fighting illegal immigration is now hopeless and we should just give in to whatever Perry thinks is a-ok.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Usurping legislative power =/= “leading with convcition”

gryphon202 on September 13, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Let me try again…what candidate are you supporting?

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 11:42 AM

I notice you are ignoring a simple question…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Hey dude, your grammy is calling you….and here is a clue for you…..don’t tell her you are have perverted thoughts when she asks how you are doing. She doesn’t deserve that.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Wow, that is pretty sick…you are not well.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM

The mandating of HPV by EO was a mistake. Do you want Perry to self-flagellate in public?

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Wrong. He still thinks mandating the Gardasil shot was okay as long as the legislature mandated it. Anyone who has a problem with Romneycare has to have a problem with Perry’s position also. The difference is that Romney did it through the legislature AND 80% of the citizens of MA wanted it. And to this day, they still love it.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

It’s already been ruled unconstitutional by at least one court.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Had it been the DC Circuit Court, I might allow you that one.

But the Atlanta Circuit doesn’t have jurisdiction over the White House, and if memory serves, they did not enter a stay.

JohnGalt23 on September 13, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Wow, that is pretty sick…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Yeah, that’s what I thought when he mentioned it yesterday. I was shocked that anyone would hear an honest concern for a fellow human and would process that as a perverted action. His focus determines his reality and he certainly does need to address how he views his grammy.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Necrophilia is a new low, even for you.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:00 PM

This. Dude…..why do you see your grammy that way?

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:07 PM

The mandating of HPV by EO was a mistake. Do you want Perry to self-flagellate in public?

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Wrong. He still thinks mandating the Gardasil shot was okay as long as the legislature mandated it. Anyone who has a problem with Romneycare has to have a problem with Perry’s position also. The difference is that Romney did it through the legislature AND 80% of the citizens of MA wanted it. And to this day, they still love it.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

You just repeated what I stated.

A vaccine mandate should be decided in the state legislature. You do know that there are mandated vaccines already? How do you suppose came into existence? It’s a mystery huh:)

Romneycare is the equivalent to a mandated vaccine by EO? Not hardly.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM

His tendency is to cater to voting groups, whether they be democrat, hispanic, Tea party or conservative. In Texas, he definitely catered to hispanics with regard to illegals … that isn’t a good tendency. His answer on the Texas DREAM Act was frightening to say the least and if anyone else had said it they be lambasted. Instead people are trying to rationalize why fighting illegal immigration is now hopeless and we should just give in to whatever Perry thinks is a-ok.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM

That’s it? You are only focusing on the things you don’t like?

Thanks for establishing that you cannot be objective.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Welcome to B group.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Was it me, or did Perry’s “no matter what their last name sounds like” comment seem to be taken out of the DNC playbook? I’m just saying. Immigration status has nothing to do with a person’s last name. A legal Hernandez should get in-state tuition, an illegal Hernandez should not. Plain and simple. I hope he wasn’t implying some sort of discrimination going on by denying illegal immigrants in-state tuition.

ncconservative on September 13, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Palin is on Fox New’s payroll. Should she tell Roger Alies she refuses to perform the job they pay her for?

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 11:56 AM

We all know she is a paid analyst….yet she pretends she is a candidate. The point is that to be an honest politician, she should announce one way or the other immediately.

And if she is intent on being a candidate, as many of her worshipers have been claiming for months, she should just quit Fox and get in the race. Believe me, if she does announce, people will look back at the last few months and judge her according to her actions. Of course the loony toons who worship her will bleat about how clever she was to beat the system. The rest of us will call what she did cheap, dishonest, and cowardly.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Wow, that is pretty sick…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Yeah, that’s what I thought when he mentioned it yesterday. I was shocked that anyone would hear an honest concern for a fellow human and would process that as a perverted action. His focus determines his reality and he certainly does need to address how he views his grammy.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM

He was talking to you, dumbass.

LOL

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yeah, that’s what I thought when he mentioned it yesterday. I was shocked that anyone would hear an honest concern for a fellow human and would process that as a perverted action. His focus determines his reality and he certainly does need to address how he views his grammy.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I was posting about your post…it was shockingly low class, even for you…if you thought it was wrong, than why would you even think about dredging it up…you need help, you really do, honestly, spend some time with a professional.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:15 PM

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 11:35 AM

No one is trying to silence you. The point is to shame you into behaving like an adult. Something your saintly grammy probably tried to teach you for years. But because you had necrophilia on your mind, you missed the lesson.

You are one sick 8astard.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

AND 80% of the citizens of MA wanted it. And to this day, they still love it.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

If Peter robs Paul, Peter never complains…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM

State laws require children be vaccinated for certain communicable disases before they attend daycares and schools. That goes on in Texas and Massachusetts, with or without the existence of Romneycare.

Babies get vaccines in hospitals before they are discharged. They get follow up vaccines in doctor offices, clinics etc..

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to inoculate adults that have already been exposed to the disease – what would be the desired outcome/results in vaccinating exposed adults, it wouldn’t help them.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

No one is trying to silence you. The point is to shame you into behaving like an adult. Something your saintly grammy probably tried to teach you for years. But because you had necrophilia on your mind, you missed the lesson.

You are one sick 8astard.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Only a progressive uses personal attacks to silence the search for truth.

csdeven on June 23, 2011 at 12:12 PM

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM

The Gardisil shot was not mandated as a public health issue. It was done to prevent cervical cancer in females correct? The only way to get the virus is through sexual contact whereas the only mandated vaccines were contracted through casual contact among children.

What Perry is advocating, as noble as it is to want to prevent the horror of cancer, is akin to what the progressives are constantly advocating. That being that if something is good, the government must force it upon the citizenry.

In the case of the citizens of Texas, they overwhelmingly did not want it implemented. Had they wanted it, I would have less of a problem with it because that right is reserved to the people. I would even be okay with this if there was an opt in provision in place of the opt out provision.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM

If Peter robs Paul, Peter never complains…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

In our republic and in the federalist system as designed by the founders, Paul can move to a state where Peter wont rob him.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM

We all know she is a paid analyst….yet she pretends she is a candidate. The point is that to be an honest politician, she should announce one way or the other immediately.

And if she is intent on being a candidate, as many of her worshipers have been claiming for months, she should just quit Fox and get in the race. Believe me, if she does announce, people will look back at the last few months and judge her according to her actions. Of course the loony toons who worship her will bleat about how clever she was to beat the system. The rest of us will call what she did cheap, dishonest, and cowardly.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM

By definition in order to be a candidate one must declare an intent to run for public office.

Has Governor Sarah Palin declared she is running for the Presidency of the United States or any other office? The answer is No ipso facto she’s not a candidate. What is she than? A private citizen with 1st Amendment right to free speech and freedom of expression.

Her supporters believe she will declare and become a candidate. Governor Sarah Palin’s supporters have no legal authority to declare her a candidate, ipso facto, Sarah Palin isn’t a candidate. What is she? An employ of Fox News, her position is as a contributor is for political analysis, she does have a political background at many different levels of U.S. government. Governor Sarah Palin is fulfilling her contract to Fox News.

It’s really all pretty straight forward. They announce her position at Fox News when she makes an appearance, and is introduced by a Fox News anchor/commentator.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I don’t have an argument with your position. I think the HPV vaccine mandate was a mistake.

This is the bible belt. Perhaps Merck back in New Jersey, thinks mandating HPV would sell in NJ. There is no way Perry was going to sell it to the Southern Baptist.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM

No, I’m not kidding you and you’re a complete idiot if you don’t see how the gov’t footing the bill of the vaccine for poor families with … TAX PAYER MONEY is not redistributing the wealth.

Are you kidding? Please tell me you’re kidding. You don’t think the state via taxpayer money should help ensure all children are vaccinated against whooping cough, polio, rubella, measles, mumps, and all the other debilitating, communicable, and wholly preventable diseases that can kill untold numbers of people? I say preventing the spread of communicable diseases among its citizens is one of the government’s few required jobs.

Do you know who Itzhak Perlman is? He’s a virtuoso violinist, born in Israel. He’s my parents’ age and walks only with the aid of braces and crutches because he was stricken with polio when he was a child. That wasn’t so long ago. There are other famous people who were stricken with polio and survived. Many didn’t. Now polio is on the rise again in parts of the world. As you know, the world has become very small.

You should read about what life was like in America during the polio years before you scream about redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth is an economy and freedom killer. Vaccines aren’t redistribution of wealth.

Kim Priestap on September 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Exactly whom is trying to silence you? If you feel that the sickness you suffer from, and which you revealed to us willingly is making you feel like you need to be quite, that is your issue. You are more than free to talk about sick stuff and your dead grammy if you choose. But I submit to you that that what you are feeling is a natural function of a conscience. It is telling you to shut your mouth because you have embarrassed yourself. But don’t accuse anyone else of trying to silence you.

I have explained this to you obsessives in the past and you never listen. It’s time for you to discipline yourselves to stick to the thread topic because you ALWAYS end up typing publicly what you think privately. And once you say it out loud, the absurdity of it becomes evident, you embarrass yourself, and you finally cease the obsessive behavior.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM

There is no way Perry was going to sell it to the Southern Baptist.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Agreed.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM

He was talking to you, dumbass.

LOL

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Yeah, from a position of total ignorance. You know for a fact you are the one who brought up perversion and your grammy. Then you doubled down today by telling us the depth of your perverted thoughts.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

That’s it? You are only focusing on the things you don’t like?

Thanks for establishing that you cannot be objective.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:10 PM

lol

Objective = ignoring Perry’s illegal immigration positions.

Got it.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

No, I’m not kidding you and you’re a complete idiot if you don’t see how the gov’t footing the bill of the vaccine for poor families with … TAX PAYER MONEY is not redistributing the wealth.

Distributing health is not the same as redistributing wealth.

lexhamfox on September 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM

lol

Objective = ignoring Perry’s illegal immigration positions.

Got it.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Willfully obtuse?

Objective = examining all positions, not just the ones you don’t like.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Yeah, from a position of total ignorance. You know for a fact you are the one who brought up perversion and your grammy. Then you doubled down today by telling us the depth of your perverted thoughts.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:41 PM

You bring up my grandmother every time you talk to me. You won’t shut up about her.

She is dead.

You are a lunatic.

I simply connected the dots.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Stop obsessing over me.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Did he really say “Kirk” Cobain? Even so, the song is “All Apologies”.

John the Libertarian on September 13, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Objective = examining all positions, not just the ones you don’t like.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Illegal immigration is too big of an issue to pretend one can look “objectively” at Perry’s positions on other issues and think it matters.

Too many people here have done an instant about face with regard to illegal immigration simply because they want Perry.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM

You realize that what Romney is doing with Social Security is straight from the pages of Ted Kennedy under Ronald Reagan and Harry Reid under George Bush? Based on this alone, he should be ruined forever among conservatives. In the end, the argument he will ultimately take to the people — like all small men impersonating stature in difficult times — will be cynical, paltry and fearful: “You must vote for me, for you have no better choice! I’m not as bad as Obama!”

Perry is a less sincere simulacrum of George Bush and, like Romney, a man hopelessly out of tune with his times. While Romney would be crushed by Obama, Perry might only be narrowly beaten. But he would lose. Neither understands how Obama plays and will play this game, and neither — certainly not the prissy and hollower Romney — is remotely up to this game.

I wouldn’t vote for either with a gun to my head and if Satan were the sitting president. I’ve come too far and can’t go back. I would prefer the country devolve to rack and revolution. We would actually have a better chance of restoration under that circumstance.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I simply connected the dots.

fossten on September 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM

No rational person connected those dots. That is because those dots are of your own imagination. Your focus has determined your reality. Your reality is that concern for your grammy makes you think perverted thoughts. How utterly sick, and unfair of you not to understand her love for you is of a saintly nature.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Hahahahaha!!!!

Nice one! You’re giving Bishop a run for his money in the baiting department!

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/cnn-tea-party-partnership-odd-best-unethical-worst-165205711.html

Would this reporter have a problem with the CBC or the Rainbow Coalition or some other group like CAIR sponsoring a debate like this?

PappyD61 on September 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I have to say that I agree with you. I felt exactly the same way at the beginning of the summer, but the Palin worshipers wore me down and I accepted that she was running a stealth campaign.

Thanks for reminding me that my faith that Palin as an honorable person was not in vain. I will accept that the moment Palin decides her course of action, she will announce it immediately.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Did he really say “Kirk” Cobain? Even so, the song is “All Apologies”.

John the Libertarian on September 13, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I’m not sure he knows the lyrics….What else should I be, all apologies, What else could I say, Everyone is gay……

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 1:23 PM

In our republic and in the federalist system as designed by the founders, Paul can move to a state where Peter wont rob him.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Interesting, so if someone is robbing you, than you move, not the robber…
What I was referring to was the 80%, of course the 80% love it when the 20% has to pay and they don’t…that is why the Government is so nefarious, more and more people rely on the government, so it continues to expand.
Which explains why you are such a Romney supporter…you are hoping that he will give you, what you expect others to pay for.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM

I wouldn’t vote for either with a gun to my head and if Satan were the sitting president. I’ve come too far and can’t go back. I would prefer the country devolve to rack and revolution. We would actually have a better chance of restoration under that circumstance.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM

So looks like you are sitting this election out…since no other candidate can meet what you consider worthy…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Thanks for reminding me that my faith that Palin as an honorable person was not in vain. I will accept that the moment Palin decides her course of action, she will announce it immediately.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Her window of opportunity is closing. I don’t think she has much time left to make her decision. Money has to be raised if she’s going to run. If the folks with money think the field is set, they will pick their candidate, and start filling those campaign coffers.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM

So looks like you are sitting this election out…since no other candidate can meet what you consider worthy…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM

It is September in the year prior to the election. We’re not even close to the composition of this race resolving itself.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Too many people here have done an instant about face with regard to illegal immigration simply because they want Perry.

darwin on September 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM

You’re sounding like a broken record on this talking point and it’s not a fair charge. I’m for sealing the border, but I also understand in-state tuition.

John the Libertarian on September 13, 2011 at 1:38 PM

And I am not, that is why I brought up that fact that he has ran Texas for 10 years…and this is the “dirt” they have on him.
Look how he managed during some of the worst disasters, how he has handled the economy, education, the onslaught of immigration, legal and illegal…he has one of the most diverse and difficult states to run, and has for 10 years, but this is all they have to attack him on…and that he doesn’t think much of how the SS is run.
But this is what the candidates have decided is his weakest part of his leadership the past 10 years…one decision. Not his policies, his beliefs, but this one error…it’s the opponents who have defined the debate, and they have decided this is his only weakness, one mistake in judgement.

I think this speaks volumes of how much respect they have of him…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 12:00 PM

I love this and it deserves to be repeated over and over again.

I also guess this means the others believe themselves to be saints with spotless records. Well, we will see… won’t we?

TheRightMan on September 13, 2011 at 1:50 PM

kerrhome on September 13, 2011 at 11:07 AM

I wonder if in private Palin has stated to Fox that she is not running while publicly stating she is undecided. It’s interesting that Huckabee had to make a decision to get off Fox payroll but not Palin. And if you think about, Fox does not mention if she has been asked this same question after giving speeches and stating that she is thinking about running.

Is Palin being held to different standard or has he told Fox she is not running.

meMC on September 13, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Interesting, so if someone is robbing you, than you move, not the robber…

Your hyperbolic use of the word “robbing” is, as you know, not what is happening in MA. MA is a representative democracy where elected officials vote their conscience. The rule is that the majority rules and the minority suffers the majority until they can elect officials that will change the direction. Until that time, the civilized way to balance the two positions was considered when the states gave some power over them to the federal government. A citizen of MA may retain their US citizenship by moving to a different state where their position is in the majority. In that case, the minority in the second state have the right to move to MA.

What I was referring to was the 80%, of course the 80% love it when the 20% has to pay and they don’t…that is why the Government is so nefarious, more and more people rely on the government, so it continues to expand.

I live in a state that doesn’t intrude into my life. If they did, I would move.

Which explains why you are such a Romney supporter…you are hoping that he will give you, what you expect others to pay for.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM

That is just silly. First, my support of Romney is conditional on electability. 2nd, I challenge you to find a pattern of comments from me that support your claim that I want a nanny state.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM

It is September in the year prior to the election. We’re not even close to the composition of this race resolving itself.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM

You have eliminated the two front runners, and if Palin hops in, you have eliminated her…so you are down to a very narrow field, most not too different from who is now in front.
So by deduction, you have to be sitting this one out…

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM

True. And endorsements start to fall. IE Jindal and T-Paw. BTW, on Fox, Jindal just gave an excellent defense of his endorsement of Perry. Additionally, from what I caught in the segment, he didn’t disparage the other candidates.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 2:00 PM

That is just silly. First, my support of Romney is conditional on electability. 2nd, I challenge you to find a pattern of comments from me that support your claim that I want a nanny state.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Look at the post I was quoting your comments from…it stated that 80% of the people like the nanny state, you accept that as being a positive. I don’t have to go any further than hours ago to see your claim.
Romney has failed in any national campaign to win support, even when spending record money. And you supported him before he spent his record millions to prove that he was unelectable…that is understandable, but now that he has proven he can’t garner support, I can only assume that you are looking for the handouts that he so willingly created as governor. And you accept his increased “fees” as being acceptable to pay for his handouts.
So I accepted your challenge…and found the pattern.
There is only two conclusions…one is that you are Mormon and support a fellow Mormon, which is fine and justifiable, it worked for Obama, and Lieberman carries a substantial Jewish vote, nothing wrong with that, or you like Romney’s policies of raising taxes, ummm “fees”, to pay for things like ObamaCare…which is also fine, but only if one is honest and admits the reason for support.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM

and if Palin hops in, you have eliminated her……
right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 1:57 PM

?

I think your time would be better spent opining than deducing.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM

True. And endorsements start to fall. IE Jindal and T-Paw. BTW, on Fox, Jindal just gave an excellent defense of his endorsement of Perry. Additionally, from what I caught in the segment, he didn’t disparage the other candidates.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Being positive is going to go over well with the electorate, especially during hard times – the only thing the democrats can do is go negative. Obama can’t run on his record so they will attack the republican candidate, it’s going to be ugly. I believe it will backfire on them. Americans are as a rule hopeful, optimistic, positive people. No matter how many times we are told we aren’t worthy by the likes of people, like Krugman -Paul of Shame.

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I think your time would be better spent opining than deducing.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Well seeing as Palin had taken federal money for what you are accusing Perry of, that would eliminate her also…just sayin, if you are consistent.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Haha. Hot Air’s ownership by for-profit pseudo-Christians is making Ed Morrissey’s bromance with Perry make perfect sense.

bifidis on September 13, 2011 at 2:35 PM

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Now this is more familiar terrain — emotional extrapolation and chop-logic. It must feel better after all that straining to be “deductive.”

I didn’t accuse Perry of “taking federal money.” I “accused” him, as it were, of being an insincere political simulacrum and of being out of tune with his times.

As cynical as I am, I’m still not capable of accepting the notion that Republicans in 2012 would abuse their historic opportunity — the nation’s opportunity in the teeth of this aggressive leftist assault on nothing less than our soul — by turning to some meagre unimaginative “player” like Perry or, even worse, Romney. And no, I won’t vote for either.

rrpjr on September 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Romney wanted to press the Texas governor on whether he still thought the program was “unconstitutional,” but Perry delivered a big body blow when he brought up Romney’s own written claim that the funding system for Social Security was akin to a criminal enterprise, which left Romney sputtering and trying to parse the meaning of the word “criminal.”

This is not true. He was not trying parse the meaning of the word criminal, he was pointing out that he was talking about Congress and not social security. This is the actual statement Perry seems to be referring to:

“Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned eighteen, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years.”

The truth is that every since Perry opened up this can of worms his supporters have been trying to act as if everyone said the sort of stuff themselves..and then they have gone in search of examples. It is obvious that Romney was talking about Congress abusing his authority.

Now Perry is trying to walk back his comments and pretend he did not say anything unusual.

Speaking of sputtering it seemed to me there was a lot of that going around last night.

Terrye on September 13, 2011 at 2:58 PM

There is only two conclusions…one is that you are Mormon and support a fellow Mormon, which is fine and justifiable, it worked for Obama, and Lieberman carries a substantial Jewish vote, nothing wrong with that, or you like Romney’s policies of raising taxes, ummm “fees”, to pay for things like ObamaCare…which is also fine, but only if one is honest and admits the reason for support.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Oh please. This is so ridiculous.

Terrye on September 13, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Cain won.

Gingrich came in second.

The rest was all crap.

Sammy316 on September 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM

it stated that 80% of the people like the nanny state, you accept that as being a positive.

No I accept that as the right of the state and the citizens to do so if they choose.

I don’t have to go any further than hours ago to see your claim. Romney has failed in any national campaign to win support, even when spending record money. And you supported him before he spent his record millions to prove that he was unelectable…that is understandable, but now that he has proven he can’t garner support, I can only assume that you are looking for the handouts that he so willingly created as governor. And you accept his increased “fees” as being acceptable to pay for his handouts.
So I accepted your challenge…and found the pattern.

Your imagination is working overtime. If I wanted a nanny state, I would be more than pleased to say so. You WANT to pigeon hole me for your own desire to be biased and you’re making sure that proof doesn’t get in the way.

There is only two conclusions…one is that you are Mormon….

What gives you that idea?

or you like Romney’s policies of raising taxes, ummm “fees”, to pay for things like ObamaCare…which is also fine, but only if one is honest and admits the reason for support.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Exactly why would I deny I want the nanny state if that is in fact what I want? What percentage is there in doing so? Your claim is nonsensical.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Dr Evil on September 13, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I agree. Obama’s message of optimism got him elected even though he was hiding his agenda to destroy the free market and usher in a Marxist society. Now that he is exposed and his policies are quite evident, all the dems can do is go negative.

All we have to do is be positive and lay out clear plans to fix what Obama has destroyed.

csdeven on September 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Well seeing as Palin had taken federal money for what you are accusing Perry of, that would eliminate her also…just sayin, if you are consistent.

right2bright on September 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The Federal government routinely provides vaccines or funding for vaccines to states (all of them). Alaska availed itself of that funding to provide vaccinations to low-income families who voluntarily wished to have their daughters vaccinated. Palin doesn’t appear to have been pushing for the funding herself.

Perry was the driving force behind Texas’s Gardasil mandate. He issued said mandate through an executive order, bypassing the legislature and overstepping his authority. The need for a mandate was questionable at best, considering that HPV is not a communicable disease in the same way that measles, mumps, or rubella are. Add to that the fact that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck, Gardasil’s manufacturer, at the time Perry issued his mandate. Add to that the fact that the mother-in-law of Perry’s chief of staff was leading a Merck-funded initiative to have states require the vaccine. Add to that the fact that Perry has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Merck.

There are no parallels to be drawn between Palin and Perry regarding Gardasil. To assert otherwise is dishonest.

steebo77 on September 13, 2011 at 6:15 PM

That picture is NOT good.

Kiss, kiss.

stenwin77 on September 14, 2011 at 7:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5