Could Perry stage a comeback?

posted at 4:00 pm on December 4, 2011 by Karl

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour seems to think so:

Q: Is it becoming clear that Mitt Romney will emerge as the Republican nominee?

A: I don’t think it’s clear. I think people make the mistake of writing off Rick Perry and believe he can’t come back. He’s got a mountain to get over, but I don’t think it’s impossible. Both Newt and Romney have a lot of support, but I don’t think it’s a two-man race. I think Perry could get back in it with Gingrich and Romney. I can’t look you in the eye and say nobody else can come up. You’ve got to learn your lesson this year not to say that about anybody.

Coincidentally, this subject came up a day or so earlier on Twitter, in a conversation involving Allahpundit, blogger Karol Markowicz, fundraiser/adviser Nathan Wurtzel and me. AP, skeptical of a possible comeback, asked me what I thought Perry would have to do to get back into contention.

I think the first and most difficult step is for Perry to stop being a bad candidate. He has gotten a bit better under the radar, but needs to continue to improve.

If Perry does improve, he may stand a shot at placing third in the Iowa caucuses. The new Des Moines Register poll has Perry near the bottom at six percent, but the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. PPP has a poll in the field in Iowa and teases that Perry appears to be in double digits.

The Register poll shows more respondents choose Gingrich as their second choice than any other candidate. However, Perry could benefit not only from Herman Cain’s collapse, but also from lingering doubts about Gingrich.

In Iowa, the doubts will primarily come from the religious right. In past cycles, social conservatives ensured victories for candidates like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee. This year, there is no consensus candidate.

Newt — he of the serial infidelities and divorces — bought himself some goodwill with some religious conservatives by pouring $150,000 into the successful 2010 campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court judges after the state’s high court struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage. But even that support has proved controversial among social cons in Iowa. And Newt probably did not help himself with them by telling Jake Tapper human life begins at implantation rather than conception.

Michelle Bachmann also hurt herself recently with this demographic by gaining access to the email database of a group of parents who homeschool their children in Iowa and sending them two unsolicited email blasts. Nor does there appear to be any groundswell in Iowa for Rick Santorum.

Perry seems to have figured all of this out; his latest ad is aimed squarely at religious conservatives. If Perry climbs back into third place (or at least ties it with Ron Paul) in Iowa, he has a shot at maintaining a viable campaign. There is the traditional spin about there being three tickets out of Iowa and Perry — like Romney and Gingrich — is blessed by his rivals. Conservative voters are looking for a viable NotRomney, and while they are currently flocking to Gingrich, all the polling suggests his support (like those for his rivals) remains soft.

NotRomney voters may also be looking for an insurance policy, given Gingrich’s demonstrated propensity to implode. Indeed, Gingrich looked as though he had his final implosion just a few months ago. And if Newt can make a comeback, it is possible that Perry could do the same. But it’s not likely unless Perry continues to improve his campaign over the next month.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

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 2 3

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:44 PM

You don’t understand what the issue is/was in Texas.

The 2004 NHANES study revealed an alarming rate of HPV among black & Mexican-Americans. There was also an earlier NHANES study that indicated a high rate of HPV & oral cancers (likely attributable to HPV) among Hispanics. One of those reports addressed the lower age of sexual contacts & higher partner rates in those populations. Here’s an excerpt from a CDC report that fully explains it:

“Along the U.S. Mexico border in 1998–2003, invasive cervical cancer incidence rates were twice as high among Hispanic women as non-Hispanic women in border counties. Hispanic women in border states had higher rates compared to Hispanic women in non-border states”

Its new information for me. But I fail to see how this makes it OK for the government to take away from parents their rights. The Opt-Out was not just a simple easy, I do not want the shot, sign once and you are done option, it would have made them act in order to prevent them from having the government have medical procedures performed on their children. We are free citizens, allowed to make these decisions.

Our legislature meets every two years, Perry didn’t call a special session to ask them to make HPV one of the mandatory vaccines. He has said repeatedly that he handled the situation poorly.

Yes, because something like that could not wait. Drug companies needed money now, right now. And again, mandatory STD vaccine. Conservative state, conservative legislature, progressive (R) Governor.

Gardisil is a safe, effective & well tested vaccine. People only get freaked out about it because it covers an STD. No one was up in arms over the mandatory Varicella vaccine because chicken pox is an inconvenience to parents & doesn’t have the word S-E-X in the transmission.

batterup on December 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Its somewhat safe. The parents of a few girls who died might object to that. The women who have had brain damage and seizures afterward would probably also argue that it is not perfectly safe. The many women who fainted (how many were driving and died when they fainted and are not included in the statistics?) might make and objection or two about that as well.

Do not get me wrong though. I am not against the vaccine. Anyone who wants to take it or have it given to their children should be able to do so. Did you know severe adverse effects, similar to those listed above are in fact more common for the drug than the risk of death from the cancer it protects against? I did the calculations back when Perry was top dog and I was supporting him and asking if he deserved my support. Did you also know that the disease this treats self cures over 90% of the time, and if a woman gets regular checkups can easily be cured before it causes cancer. Did you also know that even if it causes cancer, that if women got regular checkups and were then treated for the cancer the survival rate for early detection and treatment is almost perfect? Thus the 3700 (not all of which are caused by the HPV) deaths are not caused by a lack of Gardasil, but free people doing what free people do and not going to doctor as often as would be required to prevent these deaths. But, one extra opportunity for people to stop a death is a good thing, but not good enough to do the bad thing and take away their liberty.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Not my only problem with Gingrich, but a problem still. He lets his mind, too often, spill from his tongue. A danger if you are president or anyone with responsibility for others.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Gardisil is a safe, effective & well tested vaccine. People only get freaked out about it because it covers an STD. No one was up in arms over the mandatory Varicella vaccine because chicken pox is an inconvenience to parents & doesn’t have the word S-E-X in the transmission.

batterup on December 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Gardasil’s effectiveness diminishes over five to seven years, and the protection is practically non-existent for women past the age of 20 who receive it after 12. And besides that, nothing you said addresses the fact that parent should be able to decide when their children get it instead of opting out. Neither do you address the very real and practical fact that because HPV is an STD, it’s not subject to casual contagion or herd immunity.

You know what is even more effective than Gardasil in preventing HPV infections? Sexual abstinence.

gryphon202 on December 4, 2011 at 11:40 PM

. . . But in all honesty, who here is willing to admit that in 2007, before climate gate 1.0 email were released thought that we were not going to eventually have climate change laws enacted sometime in the following presidency?

Yes, it was stupid of him. But the Main Stream Media we all hate was not otherwise allowing any conservative voices to be heard on the subject at that point.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I knew long before 2007 that the speculation of anthropogenic CO2 warming up the world to catastrophic levels was just an excuse to promote a leftwing political agenda. If I could figure it out, why couldn’t Newt? All you needed was a little history (he’s an history professor, remember?): just think about the Medieval Warm Period, the LIttle Ice Age, the last glaciation, etc., and you knew the Hockey Stick was a fraud. Or look into who was behind the creation of the IPCC (think Club of Rome).

In point of fact, Newt was covering his political behind, for reasons I don’t quite understand—maybe just to stay in the loop. His consulting operation made a lot of money peddling advice, but more likely influence, to the causes of the day, whether electronic medical records, or affordable housing—and they were all statist causes. Maybe that’s OK; Newt is an idea guy, and loves thinking about ‘solutions’, and never mind if they are ultimately statist solutions. Hey, everybody deserves to make a living.

Is he at heart a conservative? Paradoxically, I think so, at bottom. He may not be a ‘small-government’ conservative, but he’s surely not a socialist, and the guy in the White House is.

Neither, for that matter, is Perry a ‘small-government’ conservative. By reports he plays fast and loose with (Texas) government sponsorship (goodies) of private industry, to lure them to and keep them in Texas. My problem with Perry is that he’s slow on his feet. The well-tutored Puppet President, even without his teleprompter, would talk circles around Perry. Those debates will be crucially important in the general election. I don’t think Perry can close the sale in the TV age with the Republican primary voters.

I like Rep. Bachmann’s views, in general (but she doesn’t know that we haven’t had an embassy in Iran since 1979? how can that be?). But she strikes me as rather small-minded, even vindictive at times. I have trouble seeing her as a leader.

Rick Santorum is a true-blue conservative, but still strikes me as too earnest by half, and about half his age.

Mitt Romney was an OK, but often absentee governor here in Taxachusetts. He probably could have won a second term, but wanted to run for President—more fool, he. If he can’t stand up to Brett Baer, he can’t beat Obambi.

At this point I’m for Newt, if only because he’s the most entertaining—and challenging—guy out there. If Rudy, or Sarah, or Bobby, or someone else were running, it might be a different story. But if I had to vote today, I’d vote for Newt.

MrLynn on December 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Not my only problem with Gingrich, but a problem still. He lets his mind, too often, spill from his tongue. A danger if you are president or anyone with responsibility for others.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 11:40 PM

We each have our issues and views on each of them that are important to us. I was just giving my take on it. I agree, it can be a problem for Newt. I have decided it is one I am willing to risk considering the alternative, Obama. For the primary, I want Tardasil to win! I could only wish. But, I will vote for one of the following three candidates for President. Bachmann, Santorum, Newt. Perry has a chance to change my mind, he said a few good things last night, but none of them address the concerns that I have about him.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:48 PM

At this point I’m for Newt, if only because he’s the most entertaining—and challenging—guy out there. If Rudy, or Sarah, or Bobby, or someone else were running, it might be a different story. But if I had to vote today, I’d vote for Newt.

MrLynn on December 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Sorry for you that Lady GaGa didn’t make the filing deadlines. Jeesh!

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM

MrLynn on December 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM

I do not think Newt believed global warming. I think he understood that the left was winning the battle, and that it was not going to be long before solutions were going to start being enacted and if there was not one conservative proposal, the only alternative was going to be fully of the progressive’s making.

We had more than 50% of Americans who thought global warming at the time was a problem we needed to solve. That number at the time was still rising, and only came down due to the recession.

I have been a long time anti global warming advocate. I have a long record of anti global warming statements under this name going back many years. I hated Newt at the beginning of this cycle. But I have come around to believe I can trust him as president.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:54 PM

Sorry for you that Lady GaGa didn’t make the filing deadlines. Jeesh!

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 11:51 PM

I said “entertaining—and challenging.” Don’t think she qualifies—as either, actually.

MrLynn on December 4, 2011 at 11:56 PM

MrLynn on December 4, 2011 at 11:46 PM

I do not think Newt believed global warming. I think he understood that the left was winning the battle, and that it was not going to be long before solutions were going to start being enacted and if there was not one conservative proposal, the only alternative was going to be fully of the progressive’s making.

That’s what I was suggesting: his ‘solutions’ mill was going to get left out in the cold. But if he knew it was a fraud, he should never have sat on that couch. And to date, he has not really discussed the whole issue, not that I’ve seen, anyway. Is he even aware of the Climategates?

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM

And to date, he has not really discussed the whole issue, not that I’ve seen, anyway. Is he even aware of the Climategates?

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM

I’d like to see a better explanation. Then again, 4 years has gone by, I do not think I would give any of the explanations much veracity unless it made it look worse than it already does.

astonerii on December 5, 2011 at 12:04 AM

And to date, he has not really discussed the whole issue, not that I’ve seen, anyway. Is he even aware of the Climategates?

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Newt very clearly answered last night on Huckabee’s Presidential Forum that his position on global warming was that “we don’t know.”

sleepingiantsup on December 5, 2011 at 12:14 AM

It just seems that folks are quick to condemn Newt for refusing to cover his ears and say “blah blah blah” to the global warming proponents. He’s a solutions guy – he looks for a way to deal with the problem. More likely than not, “the problem” in his mind was the imminent green legislation landslide, and he was trying to influence that. He deals with the facts as they are, and the facts (especially at couch time) were that the GW movement was gaining huge traction, and he jumped in there and tried to do something about it. Again, mistake, but that’s sometimes what happens when someone actually does something. It doesn’t make him a sell-out, in my mind.

sleepingiantsup on December 5, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Could Perry stage a comeback?

If God has a sense of humor — and judging by the GOP’s 2012 candidates, it’s clear she does — the answer is YES!

benny shakar on December 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I think Rick Santorum is more deserving of a first look than Rick Perry is of a second look.

But better either Rick than Newt.

David Blue on December 5, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Did you know severe adverse effects, similar to those listed above are in fact more common for the drug than the risk of death from the cancer it protects against?
astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:32 PM

In the US there are around 5,000 deaths a year from cervical cancer & around 12,000 new cases reported each year. According to VAERS there were a total of 34 confirmed deaths after receiving the vaccine – but the no causation information only correlation. All vaccines have risks, before you or your kids receive any vaccine your healthcare provider should go over those

…but not good enough to do the bad thing and take away their liberty.

Really the opt-out for all vaccines in Texas is ridiculously easy, please call one of the school districts & find out for yourself. It’s a form you fill out that says you are opting out & which vaccines or all you are opting out of you sign it & give it to the school nurse. After the Andrew Wakefield fraud vaccine hysteria remains in our pop culture especially since Wakefield is now running a clinic out of Austin – no kidding.

Perry isn’t a Progressive. He acted imprudently, Texans let him know about it & he rescinded what he did. If he were a Progressive he would have told us all to shut up & let the Noblese Oblige decide what is best for us.

gryphon202 on December 4, 2011 at 11:40 PM

You have to get a TD booster too, that doesn’t change it’s efficacy.
Around 96% of the Texas schools teach abstinence only. Obamacare is going to try to eliminate that with another gem in the healthcare law “Personal Responsibility Education Program” it offers grants for comprehensive sex education programs in schools, Obama has also scaled back the federal funds for abstinence only education.

batterup on December 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM

You have to get a TD booster too, that doesn’t change it’s efficacy.
Around 96% of the Texas schools teach abstinence only. Obamacare is going to try to eliminate that with another gem in the healthcare law “Personal Responsibility Education Program” it offers grants for comprehensive sex education programs in schools, Obama has also scaled back the federal funds for abstinence only education.

batterup on December 5, 2011 at 1:10 AM

All of that is peachy-keen. But from a strictly practical political viewpoint, Perry comes across as a guy who thinks he knows better than his constituents. And I’m just here to tell you, there are reasons for that, that have to do with his actual policy initiatives. Even if you don’t think that a gardasil mandate — whether by EO or otherwise — is statist, even if you don’t believe that the TTC would have effectively crippled agriculture in the heartland of Texas, Perry’s actions and words still look bad to the bulk of voters nationwide. And yeah, that includes me.

Now I’m not saying that I have any personal animosity towards Perry. I defended him during the n!ggerhead controversy which I thought (as many Perry supporters did) was much ado about nothing.

But as a governor, I feel the same way about Perry that I feel about Romney and every other governor that’s run for president in my lifetime: Policy speaks to character. And if that annoys or offends you, you have a vote to cast for whoever you choose, including Rick Perry.

I just hope you don’t continue to persist in the belief that somehow Perry’s detractors are ill-informed when they speak on matters of policy; they’re really not. They just think some aspects of policy are a bigger deal and ergo deal-breakers where you do not. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re content to remain in a solid and shrinking nationwide minority.

gryphon202 on December 5, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Magic 8-Ball says “Concentrate and ask again” :D

AsianGirlInTights on December 5, 2011 at 3:20 AM

Yes. I have a good, gut-feeling about this. I’ve watched enough primaries of both parties to know how quickly things change, how candidates implode, and how candidates can make comebacks for “surprises”.

Marist/NBC’s IA poll came out tonight with Perry at 9% (it’s at Real Clear Politics) and now tomorrow, PPP seems like it will show him in double digits.

I’m praying and sending $$ because Perry is the only Washington outsider in the race (but he has political experience which is a must); he’s the only consistent conservative; he’s the only conservative with executive experience; and he’s the only one with a record I can trust. He has a great personality and he’s humble.

His record is strong on life, marriage, military, guns, energy, states’ rights, border control, faith, listening to his constituents (when they said no to Gardisil, he backed off), and is a terrific friend of Israel; he’s proposing the best policies with his flat tax & his energy plan. He’s worn the uniform of this country and never dodged serving it, and he continues to support the military with his whole heart and soul (see Marcus Lutrell and this link). He lived a life outside of politics as well, he was a farmer and an Air Force pilot before turning to public service. He’s never fallen for the global warming hoax that would destroy America. He learns, too, as is evidenced from his ever improving debates, which shows he takes advice (months ago, people close to him said that he is never too thin-skinned and listens to critism so he can improve). He’s also got great advisers, among them Liz Cheney and John Bolton.

I love the guy. Not just for his record, but for him, personally.

I’ve been “all in” for Perry since July and I’m staying that way. There is no one else, period.

GO PERRY!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 5, 2011 at 3:41 AM

Aslan’s: Outstanding summary of reasons to support for Governor Perry. I’m with you – behind him all the way. There is no one else. He’s the one I want to see taking that oath.

capitalist piglet on December 5, 2011 at 4:11 AM

I knew I’d forget things… oops ;)

He was one of the first elected leaders to join the Tea Party rallies. He went to one in April ’09, when the movement was only two months old. It’s on youtube. He’s also been to Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concerts in ’09 and ’10.

When he says that he’ll cut government waste, it’s not the same old rhetoric we’ve heard a million times before from a million different politicians: he’s actually done it to TX’s budget… SIX times! He’s even cut the sacred cow of education.

He’s called Obama a socialist and says of Obama’s policies that they are “miserable failures” (recalls “SCoaMF”).

And he’s been on the “drill here, drill now” bandwagon for YEARS.

Aslans Girl on December 5, 2011 at 4:13 AM

capitalist piglet on December 5, 2011 at 4:11 AM

Thank you! I tried to remember everything and couldn’t. That’s how many boxes he checks for me… I can’t remember them all! He’s that good.

Go Perry!

Aslans Girl on December 5, 2011 at 4:20 AM

And, just for good measure, here is his stellar speech to the NH legislature from December 1st:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0l6XBPgrtI&feature=player_embedded#!

Aslans Girl on December 5, 2011 at 4:21 AM

I do not think Newt believed global warming. I think he understood that the left was winning the battle, and that it was not going to be long before solutions were going to start being enacted and if there was not one conservative proposal, the only alternative was going to be fully of the progressive’s making.

I think that this statement encapsulates Newt quite well. Whether or not his positions came from cynical political calculation or not, he was leading the GOP to think outside the box and come up with solutions in anticipation of issues.

A deliberative Congress could put the brakes on Newt’s embrace of “the next big thing” if makes the argument in dollars and cents. I think that Newt is at heart a fiscal conservative.

At one of these pre-election forums, much like the one Huckabee had, the moderators should ask the candidates to list areas where they view the Constitution having the federal government have the empowerment to legislate and where the states should maintain those rights. What limits would they put on the federal government?

onlineanalyst on December 5, 2011 at 5:18 AM

Newt was pushing Cap and Trade. AllahP, just in the last week or two, posted a whole bunch of articles showing just that. They were in the Headlines as well as QOTD.

Aslans Girl on December 5, 2011 at 5:35 AM

Gov. Perry will be lucky to be re-elected governor to Texas after his abysmal performances so far in the Presidential race. While Gov. Palin made a couple of interview missteps during her VP run, her campaign actions and her debate performance against Biden were stellar, and thus could be used to offset those interviews. Gov. Perry has no such offsets to date. One wonders whether he ever took any civics or political science classes in school, and if he did, how could he have forgotten so much when he desired to enter politics. He is a nice guy, but whenever he’s on stage it’s cringe inducing, and that is not a good position for a candidate for leader of the free world to be in.

eaglewingz08 on December 5, 2011 at 6:20 AM

eaglewingz08 on December 5, 2011 at 6:20 AM

You can add yourself to suckers who buy into every media meme.

Perry initially struggled with the 3-minute soundbite debate format. He does perfectly fine in interviews and other one-on-one or campaign formats. He has also improved in the last few debates.

But I doubt you have watched the last few debates or were smart enough to think for yourself.

Or should I also chalk you down as another bitter Palinista blaming Perry for Palin not running?

TheRightMan on December 5, 2011 at 6:30 AM

I think that this statement encapsulates Newt quite well. Whether or not his positions came from cynical political calculation or not, he was leading the GOP to think outside the box and come up with solutions in anticipation of issues.

onlineanalyst on December 5, 2011 at 5:18 AM

Oh irony of ironies… Newtbots never cease to make me laugh.

You guys/gals go through hoops to defend your man just as the Cainiacs did but continue to cite Perry’s “have no heart” comment as an unforgivable sin. Newt’s “humane” comment is meanwhile excused as another example of the superior “smartness” of Newt.

Just answer this for me:

Newt vs. Perry – who does the dumbest things?

TheRightMan on December 5, 2011 at 6:34 AM

J

ust answer this for me:

Newt vs. Perry – who does the dumbest things?

TheRightMan on December 5, 2011 at 6:34 AM

LOL! One is glib, the other tongue-tied. Newt can say six dumb things while Perry is just getting his mouth open. But at least Newt is thinking on his feet, analyzing a question and proposing solutions, while Perry when he gets around to it is just trying to remember campaign talking points.

But if John Bolton is supporting Perry, I’ll have to take a closer look. I’d like to see John as President (but, like Newt, he may be too smart for the job).

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 7:51 AM

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Big fail (F) for you!

I didn’t ask for who says the dumbest things. One can talk smart but act stupid or talk dumb but act smart.

So I’ll ask once again:

Newt vs. Perry – who does the dumbest things?

TheRightMan on December 5, 2011 at 8:03 AM

Newt was pushing Cap and Trade. AllahP, just in the last week or two, posted a whole bunch of articles showing just that. They were in the Headlines as well as QOTD.

Aslans Girl on December 5, 2011 at 5:35 AM

Yes, it appears he favored Crap-and-Tax at one point (Glenn Kessler in the WaPo):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/gingrich-and-cap-and-trade-a-flip-flop/2011/12/04/gIQANXNVVO_blog.html?wprss=fact-checker

The Pinocchio Test
By all available evidence, Gingrich has changed his position on cap and trade. That’s fine, but it is disingenuous of him to claim that he has “never favored cap and trade.”

When you think that had C&T not been stopped in the Senate, we’d have been saddled with it since 2009. I can’t give Newt high marks for sniffing the political wind and deciding, years later, that it was a bad idea.

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 8:06 AM

How many jobs did Perry create again? Come on, give me a number.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Indirectly, every single job in Texas.

He created a business friendly climate in Texas. He worked with the legislature to keep taxes in Texas low. He brought medical jobs to Texas with torte reform.

tmontgomery on December 4, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Indirectly. Right. And indirectly Romney’s “dealt aces” remark has a lot of validity. Perry deserves credit primarily for not screwing things up. He inherited a fairly favorable situation. The big mark against him in my opinion is the same big mark against all the GOP candidates: none of them has a record of reform, and reform is what we desperately need. Not status quo, not some sort of “innovative government solutions” or similar rot. Overselling Perry as Super Job Creator has only helped in his downward spiral.

ddrintn on December 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM

Newt vs. Perry – who does the dumbest things?

TheRightMan on December 5, 2011 at 8:03 AM

Ooooh, that’s pretty close.

ddrintn on December 5, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Big fail (F) for you!

I didn’t ask for who says the dumbest things. One can talk smart but act stupid or talk dumb but act smart.

So I’ll ask once again:

Newt vs. Perry – who does the dumbest things?

TheRightMan on December 5, 2011 at 8:03 AM

I don’t know what dumb things (aside from the two or three constantly referred to here) Perry has done. I don’t live in Texas (though I’d like to—”Bob Wills is still the king!”), and all I’ve seen of Perry has been in this campaign. I do remember his offering to secede from the Union (which he now denies), which I thought was hilarious, so not a dumb thing.

Newt has been in the national public eye now for decades, so I know of a lot more dumb things he has done. And I’ll admit, he’s an intellectual bull in a policy china shop; on any given issue, he’ll barge in and break a few things. But you gotta admit: he’s interesting!

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 8:14 AM

The big mark against [Perry] in my opinion is the same big mark against all the GOP candidates: none of them has a record of reform, and reform is what we desperately need. Not status quo, not some sort of “innovative government solutions” or similar rot. . .

ddrintn on December 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM

That’s a good point. The problem is, the real reform we need is the dismantling of the welfare state, and what candidate is bold enough to say that? Ron Paul, maybe, but he’d also dismantle our military.

Newt is offering a yet-to-be-defined “21st-Century Contract with America,” which he says is so big and complex that he wants “your” input to create it. To which I say, “Nuts!” We need a new Contract, all right, and five or ten points ought to do it. Lets start with Term Limits (part of the original Contract with America, which never got passed), and go from there to sunsetting every piece of non-defense legislation. Then we deny the vote to anyone taking federal money that is not payment for a good or service. . . That’s just three, and they’d upset the apple cart plenty.

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Have you seen the polls in this race? Anybody can make a comeback. A second look at Perry is almost inevitable given the dynamics of this race. I would say the real question is: will the timing be right?

I really like how Perry has handled himself while he is down. He didn’t give up. He remained cheerful and optimistic. He owned his mistakes, showed he had a healthy sense of humor, and he dug deep and worked on improving.

He knew getting into the race that debates were his big weakness. He made sure to amass a war chest that would carry him through the primary before he ever even stepped on the debate stage. Obviously, there has been a strategy in place to deal with his weak debating skills. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that he has a few more cards to play. Memories are short, as we get more familiar with the unsavory aspects of other candidates, Perry’s debating won’t look so bad anymore. A few prominent, well placed endorsements will put him back on top.

I think Perry picks up Giuliani, Barbour… And, yes… Sarah Palin. Giuliani and Barbour are pretty much no brainers for Perry. Palin is the interesting one. They are both strong pro-lifers and big advocates of states’ rights. They have a professional acquaintance going back several years through the RGA, and Palin has already endorsed Perry for gov in 2010. Yes, she was critical of him during the early debates over the Tardasil debacle, but that was a love tap compared to the criticism she can unleash if she really wants to. Ultimately, if Palin wants to play kingmaker in the GOP, Perry’s candidacy is a golden opportunity for her. You don’t play kingmaker by endorsing someone who is already in the lead that you don’t really agree with. You play kingmaker by boosting someone… that you fundamentally agree with… from the single digits to frontrunner status. Also, Perry’s energy policy was practically a love letter to Palin; I think she would love dismantling the EPA and running Perry’s new department of Drillbabydrill. Heck, after pulling his biscuits out of the fire like that, Perry would probably make her Secretary of State if that’s the job she wants. She won’t have those kind of opportunities in a Gingrich or Romney administration.

Would a Giuliani – Palin endorsement be enough to put him back on top? I don’t know for sure, but Guiliani would be a big asset in New Hampshire, Barbour and Jindal would be assets in South Carolina, and Palin would be a powerful ally in Iowa. Then it’s on to super Tuesday when the rest of us get to vote.

Obviously, that is a lot of speculation, but I was right back in June that Palin wasn’t going to run and Perry was so I am going out on a limb and predicting that Palin endorses Perry.

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Whoops. Mega italics fail. Need more coffee.

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Who does the dumbest things? Perry or Gingrich?

As you can guess, I am still waiting for an answer.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Who would you rather have on your chess team?

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I don’t know? First do Gingrich, and Perry both play Chess? If they do, who have they played against? What are their Chess stats? Have either hired a Chess coach to improve their game? How seriously does either take the game of Chess?

It’s not a bad question, but I don’t think we have any data on either man’s Chess stats if they exist. A media performance isn’t an outlier of the application of intelligence. If what you are suggesting, that Chess ability is a good measurement of mental skill, and dexterity, it can be applied as a predictor of the candidates media performance. Is this the new standard we are going to apply to the republican candidates running for President? A smart leader surrounds themselves with good chess players, and doesn’t micro manage. The office of the President comes with a lot of weight, an anal retentive control freak micro managing every aspect of governance would not be desirable- SEE Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich’s fellow couch surfer speaking to the Chinese about AGW.

“We have so much room for improvement,” she said. “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory … of how we are taking responsibility.”

Actually Nan, Free People living in a Free Country “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” don’t have to inventory sh1t, let alone every aspect of our lives.

Dr Evil on December 5, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Who would you rather have on your chess team?

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:57 PM

I would want Deep Blue on my chess team. But I think Perry would make a better POTUS.

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 10:19 AM

There could be room for two Chrisianist candidates.

lexhamfox on December 5, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Contrast

“Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory … of how we are taking responsibility.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi – Speaker Newt Gingrich’s sofa buddy, speaking to the Communist Chinese about Climate Change.

I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can,” Governor Rick Perry

In response to question about Al Gore’s Global Alarming Movie, flogging AGW. Perry said he’d never seen or read “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore’s documentary and book about climate change, “I generally don’t watch or read a lot of fiction” Governor Rick Perry.

I don’t know what Newt thinks he was accomplishing with the Nancy Pelosi ad, he wanted in on the progressives big government “Carbon Credits Scam” ?

Meanwhile Al Gore moved to Malibu Beach in California, although his movie claimed the seas would rise and our country’s shores would disappear because of AGW. In the UK scientist found major flaws in Gore’s movie, it’s not allowed to be shown in British classrooms.

But still Newt’s unsure after Climate Gate, and Climate Gate 2.0, shouldn’t he have some kind of informed opinion by now?

Dr Evil on December 5, 2011 at 10:40 AM

. . . Would a Giuliani – Palin endorsement be enough to put him back on top? I don’t know for sure, but Guiliani would be a big asset in New Hampshire, Barbour and Jindal would be assets in South Carolina, and Palin would be a powerful ally in Iowa. Then it’s on to super Tuesday when the rest of us get to vote. . .

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM

My problem is that at this point I’d rather vote for any of those putative endorsers—Guiliani, Palin, Barbour, or Jindal—than Perry himself.

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM

My problem is that at this point I’d rather vote for any of those putative endorsers—Guiliani, Palin, Barbour, or Jindal—than Perry himself.

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM

So write one of them in when you go to vote. Last time I checked it’s a free country, you can vote for whoever you want to.

Dr Evil on December 5, 2011 at 10:56 AM

It’s not a bad question, but I don’t think we have any data on either man’s Chess stats if they exist. A media performance isn’t an outlier of the application of intelligence. If what you are suggesting, that Chess ability is a good measurement of mental skill, and dexterity, it can be applied as a predictor of the candidates media performance. Is this the new standard we are going to apply to the republican candidates running for President?

Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest chess players of all time, but nobody in their right mind would want him for President! Fischer himself wasn’t in his right mind…

Steve Z on December 5, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest chess players of all time, but nobody in their right mind would want him for President! Fischer himself wasn’t in his right mind…

Steve Z on December 5, 2011 at 11:25 AM

And if we were to go the “Deep Blue” route, and elect a computer model over a human model, we have all that Skynet issue to deal with ;)

Dr Evil on December 5, 2011 at 11:35 AM

My problem is that at this point I’d rather vote for any of those putative endorsers—Guiliani, Palin, Barbour, or Jindal—than Perry himself.

MrLynn on December 5, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Palin was my original first choice, but she’s not running. Sometimes you have to work with what you’ve got.

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM

And if we were to go the “Deep Blue” route, and elect a computer model over a human model, we have all that Skynet issue to deal with ;)

Dr Evil on December 5, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Skynet 2012 !!

We will win the debates for sure!!!!11

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 12:14 PM

On Border Security and Rick Perry….

The Texas Virtual Border Watch is a pilot program created by the State of Texas that allows individuals with internet access to observe and report on the Texas-Mexico border via their computers. On June 1, 2006 Texas Governor Rick Perry announced 5 million dollars to be used with the voluntary participation of private land owners to install the cameras.

The trial version of the Texas Virtual Border Watch received 2,780 reports of suspicious activity before November 2008.The site has attracted participation from individuals around the world, including Australian pub patrons. Users range from those who want to help stop illegal drug traffic and illegal immigration across the border to those simply looking for “something to do”.

From November 2008 to February 2009, the program has been credited for four busts yielding 1,500 pounds of marijuana, and 30 incidents where illegal immigrants were repelled.

It is funded by the Texas governor’s criminal justice office, at a cost of $2 million in its first year. The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition (TBSC) instituted the program with BlueServo Inc. to provide the free service.

Kermit on December 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I can’t look you in the eye and say nobody else can come up. You’ve got to learn your lesson this year not to say that about anybody.

I will come out and say that Cain will not come up again.

jeffn21 on December 5, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I don’t like Mitt Romney, I certainly don’t like Newt Gingrich, and with Cain out, I think Rick Perry is the best choice. He may not be a brilliant orator, but really, haven’t we had enough of that? He does have a solid record of governance.

RebeccaH on December 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM

. . . Would a Giuliani – Palin endorsement be enough to put him back on top? I don’t know for sure, but Guiliani would be a big asset in New Hampshire, Barbour and Jindal would be assets in South Carolina, and Palin would be a powerful ally in Iowa. Then it’s on to super Tuesday when the rest of us get to vote. . .

bitsy on December 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM

bitsy, spot on. I have had a feeling as well that Palin will endorse Perry before the Iowa caucuses. She’ll do so if she thinks he can pull it off. Hopefully the PPP poll (if it is ever released) will bear out an upsurge for him in Iowa.

TheRightMan — as I’ve said before, keep it up.

jaschenb74 on December 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I would sooner see Perry than Newt or Mitt.

crosspatch on December 4, 2011 at 4:08 PM

97% of republicans don’t want Perry to be the nominee. Sorry.

hanzblinx on December 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

97% of republicans don’t want Perry to be the nominee. Sorry.

hanzblinx on December 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Given that the Iowa Caucuses the first in the nation is still up for grabs (majority – undecideds) your math doesn’t added up, because there is a large demographic of the republican caucus and primary voters that haven’t made up their minds probably because the voting hasn’t started yet the only polls that count.

General favorablity polls don’t mean a thing it’s who get’s out to vote in the caucuses, and primaries that count, the people who actually vote. Gingrich is having difficulty with his ground organization, because he’s been running his campaign on a shoe string. Perry’s campaign has the $$$ so does Perry PAC that is running ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Dr Evil on December 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM

97% of republicans don’t want Perry to be the nominee. Sorry.

hanzblinx on December 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Then the party has lost it’s collective mind, because he is the only candidate running with the full experience necessary to do the job and who is a reliable conservative with true conservative principles. Yes, he has had a couple of mis-steps, but I remember Newt as Speaker, he worked too tightly with Clinton and more than once pulled the rug from under the GOP caucus, he twisted arms to get Medicare Part D passed (even though he was no longer in congress) He has been meddling in health care clear back to 2003 (or earlier), he is brilliant but totally unreliable.. Mitt is — well — Mitt…… Paul is nuts and the rest of the field are all auditioning for Veep.

Rapunzel on December 5, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Then the party has lost it’s collective mind, because he is the only candidate running with the full experience necessary to do the job and who is a reliable conservative with true conservative principles. Yes, he has had a couple of mis-steps, but I remember Newt as Speaker, he worked too tightly with Clinton and more than once pulled the rug from under the GOP caucus, he twisted arms to get Medicare Part D passed (even though he was no longer in congress) He has been meddling in health care clear back to 2003 (or earlier), he is brilliant but totally unreliable.. Mitt is — well — Mitt…… Paul is nuts and the rest of the field are all auditioning for Veep.

Rapunzel on December 5, 2011 at 3:30 PM

To do which job exactly? I want someone who stands up and fights for conservative policies. Someone who will bring those ideas to the people in a way that can persuade them that they are the right policies. Someone who can use that push from the bully pulpit and from those he inspired to get congress to do what is right.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Two days latter that whole fight was over and he buckled completely.

I remember a few more times in the last ten years when it would have been good for our President to have stood firm.

Fannie Mae and Freddie mac are distorting our housing market and driving a housing bubble in 2002 and 2003, and he proposed to make changes then. That did not last long. He caved with not even a fight. I can imagine many of you did not even realize this.

Social Security needs to be fixed, and the president proposed personal savings accounts. he did so while the economy was doing good. How long exactly did that fight last? A little longer than his push to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I suppose if your looking for another can kicker, I would recommend Romney, Perry and Huntsman to be your pick. If you want a candidate that is actually going to spend a bit of time tackling the issues, I would recommend Bachmann, Newt and to a lesser degree Santorum. I will leave Paul out of the equation here because I just cannot stomach the loon.

Lets look at another topic for the job. If you do not support my proposal, you are heartless. It was not the first time he has delved that deep in the insult his base department and it will not be the last. He spent a good deal of time insulting conservatives over his Gardasil EO about how heartless they were, but maybe did not use that specific word. His fight seems to be done using the exact same methods the progressive left and main stream media uses. If I want a president to be the conservative insulter in chief, we already have that job filled just fine.

I remember a recent president who also did not hold the conservatives in high esteem. Demonizing them for not supporting his shamnesty bill. Perry definitely has the background to ensure that we will have just exactly that same battle occurring if he is president. Remember, it is heartless to not discount the price of admission to higher optional education for illegal aliens, and if that is his position, I wonder how many heartless things we conservatives want done by our government in pursuit of gaining control of our borders and getting rid of the illegal aliens already in our midst according to Perry. Sure, he said sorry, but it goes directly to his core as to why he would make such a statement. Anything he fights for that is progressive is something he will fight you tooth and nail on. Too bad he does not have such a fighting heart when it comes to conservative positions!

I am sure he can change. But as it stands, he is not ready to do the job from day one.

astonerii on December 5, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3