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

I find it funny that the so-called “smart” ones dumb enough to fall for the Cain gimmick and the new Newt (old wine in new bottle) dare to describe a three-term successful conservative governor of the most prosperous state as being dumb.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:06 PM

You make a very good point.

Tim Zank on December 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM

If he can get his state working, why don’t you think he can get America working?

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:12 PM

How did HE “get his state working”? Could it be that you’re giving Perry personally a tad too much credit as some sort of job-creating superhero? I think that’s one factor in his downfall: people overselling him.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Evict the criminal “kids”. No Perry!

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Their parents brought them here. Some of them have only known Texas as a home.

The Supreme Court ruled they must be allowed to go to K-12 legally.

It was overwhelmingly popular in Texas. He has no intention of a federal policy like this, so…what? If it’s a big deal to you if kids in Texas pay a price that isn’t inflated to go to community college to learn a skill, have at it.

And gee, let’s nominate Governor RomneyCare or a guy with a long history of character problems because of it. Good idea. /

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM

I’m listening to Bachmann on a re-run Fox News Sunday. A crisp, clear conservative emphasizing Newt’s AND Romney’s non-conservative history. Someone who is CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY against amnesty. Why do we need to consider the great friend of illegals, Vicente Fox, and Aga Khan a supporter of bi-national health insurance and pro-Muslim curriculum Rick Perry?

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Newt frequently comes out towards the left with his policies, and then proceeds to move rightward with them as he find their flaws. I have thus determined that with the speed it takes for policy ideas to become proposals to become law, that in all likelyhood, policies he advocates for in the end will be conservative.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 6:09 PM

You know, this is one of the dumbest comments you made yesterday and I see you are still sticking to it.

- Newt, the Washington insider, frequently comes out towards the left with his policies – in your own words. But you trust he can be tamed and made to see reason. This is despite his large ego ( remember Scozzafava?)

- Perry, the three times re-elected conservative governor, who governs naturally to the right save for a single decision that his legislature and him parted ways over (Gardasil EO) – cannot be tamed and made to see reason, in your opinion?

Wow! Did Perry once turn you down (if you are a female) or did he seal your girlfriend (if you are a guy)? Because I can’t for the life of me understand your hostility towards him.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM

I’m listening to Bachmann on a re-run Fox News Sunday. A crisp, clear conservative emphasizing Newt’s AND Romney’s non-conservative history. Someone who is CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY against amnesty. Why do we need to consider the great friend of illegals, Vicente Fox, and Aga Khan a supporter of bi-national health insurance and pro-Muslim curriculum Rick Perry?

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM

LOL… aren’t you a Romney supporter? Since when did you gravitate to Bachmann? You need her back as a viable attack dog running interference for Romney?

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:21 PM

How did HE “get his state working”? Could it be that you’re giving Perry personally a tad too much credit as some sort of job-creating superhero? I think that’s one factor in his downfall: people overselling him.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM

The same as any governor responsible for the business climate in his/her state. He believes in encouraging businesses through fair tax policy and a predictable regulatory climate.

This is fun! Let’s split some more hairs!

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:21 PM

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:21 PM

That one is for Romney? I wouldn’t have guessed.

Perry too liberal on tuition rates for illegals for him, but he likes Romney. Go figure.

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:23 PM

The same as any governor responsible for the business climate in his/her state. He believes in encouraging businesses through fair tax policy and a predictable regulatory climate.

This is fun! Let’s split some more hairs!

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Splitting hairs? The former Democratic governor of my state has pretty much the same beliefs, in that case. You attribute all of that personally to Rick Perry, get called on overselling the guy, and then talk about “splitting hairs”.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Why do we need to consider the great friend of illegals, Vicente Fox, and Aga Khan a supporter of bi-national health insurance and pro-Muslim curriculum Rick Perry?

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:18 PM

That health insurance proposal was not what Santorum made it sound like (it had to do with the ability to purchase), and the “pro-Muslim curriculum” has been thoroughly debunked.

Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Splitting hairs? The former Democratic governor of my state has pretty much the same beliefs, in that case. You attribute all of that personally to Rick Perry, get called on overselling the guy, and then talk about “splitting hairs”.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Okay. He’s been governor for how many years? If he deserves no credit as you seem to be asserting, tell me who gets it- in your mind.

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Wow! Did Perry once turn you down (if you are a female) or did he seal your girlfriend (if you are a guy)? Because I can’t for the life of me understand your hostility towards him.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM

I’ve been tryin’ to figure that one out. The hatred runs deep in this one. Though, he/she did claim to be a Perry supporter at one time.

The Perry haters remind me of the Palin haters more and more at the lengths they will go to.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 6:28 PM

How did HE “get his state working”? Could it be that you’re giving Perry personally a tad too much credit as some sort of job-creating superhero? I think that’s one factor in his downfall: people overselling him.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:17 PM

The same way you go around crediting Palin for her work as city councillor, mayor, and half-term as governor.

You do know you are a hypocrite for assigning a superhero status to Palin and yet you cannot even credit Perry a teensy bit, right?

Also those claiming Perry deserves no credit for his work in Texas, how can you with a straight face blame Obama for the mess the country is in currently? After all, he doesn’t create jobs, does he? Dumbasses.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Okay. He’s been governor for how many years? If he deserves no credit as you seem to be asserting, tell me who gets it- in your mind.

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:27 PM

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

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM

The same way you go around crediting Palin for her work as city councillor, mayor, and half-term as governor.

You do know you are a hypocrite for assigning a superhero status to Palin and yet you cannot even credit Perry a teensy bit, right?

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM

When did I ever say any of the above about Palin?

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:31 PM

LOL… aren’t you a Romney supporter? Since when did you gravitate to Bachmann? You need her back as a viable attack dog running interference for Romney?

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:21 PM

I am not a Romney supporter by any means. If it comes down to Newt and Romney, I will support Romney, just like if it comes down to Newt and Obama, I will support Newt. That doesn’t mean that I’m either a Newt or Romney supporter. I supported Cain, and now I consider Bachmann the best conservative of the ones that are left.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Perry polls below non-candidate Cain.

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Bachmann polls alongside Huntsman and Johnson.

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM

You do know you are a hypocrite

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Here’s hypocrisy, TheRightMan: “Seventy-five percent of GOP voters don’t even want Palin to run!!!! We need Perry!!!!!” Now, 96% of GOP voters apparently want someone other than Perry, and you’re still waving that Perry banner with all your might for a revival.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM

That health insurance proposal was not what Santorum made it sound like (it had to do with the ability to purchase), and the “pro-Muslim curriculum” has been thoroughly debunked.

Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:26 PM

I didn’t hear about the health insurance proposal from Santorum. Notice you didn’t “debunk” Aga Khan who was the first thing I saw when I researched Perry the day he first surfaced as a viable candidate. Rick Perry is too kind to Muslims and too kind to illegals for my taste. I prefer people who HATE Muslims and who HATE illegals.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Yeah, let’s support those who poll well today. Backbone to the max!

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Yeah!! Perry could come back just McCain did in 2008!!

Oh, wait…

Kaisersoze on December 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Yeah, let’s support those who poll well today. Backbone to the max!

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Well, as a Palinista I’ve had polls thrown in my face for 3 years now. Time for payback.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Well, as a Palinista I’ve had polls thrown in my face for 3 years now. Time for payback.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Payback to WHO? I would be excited to have Palin in the race.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Payback to WHO? I would be excited to have Palin in the race.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Poll-humpers wherever and whoever they may be.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Those who oppose Perry appear to always list one or more of the following:

1. His EO on Gardasil.
2. The Texas Dream Act.
3. His “have no heart” comment.
4. His debate flubs.

Consider that the first two are the only items that conservatives can pick out of his more than ten year governing record. The last two all relate to his initial weakness in the 3-minute soundbite gotcha debates – a format that he has shown great improvement in.

And yet conservatives want to throw their support to a Washington insider, Gingrich, who has stabbed them repeatedly in the back just because… oooo… he debates sooo goooood. *rolls eyes*

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Some things are simply non negotiable. My body, my life, my medical decisions. Those should only be over ridden when there is a legitimate social and governmental standing. STD vaccines do not fit that bill, and I do not care that it was state level only. Perry has never come out and said he no longer thinks his EO was a bad policy. Instead he has argued that he was ahead of the people, it did not have the proper level of or right PR spin put on it, but that he still supports. Essentially, if he had the power and the people would not rebel against him for it, making them do what for their own good, according to himself, is good policy.

Some other things are also not negotiable. This land does not belong to people who are not citizens. It is that simple. The dream act entices those who are not citizens to break our laws and enter this nation to take advantage of our prosperity, as the expense of our most vulnerable citizen workers. It crosses the line when the government gives special privilege to illegal aliens over citizens of this nation. Every single seat that an illegal alien takes is one less seat available for an American citizen or an invited guest. While I understand it is not a total zero sum game, the facts are that school enrollment sizes cannot be expanded overnight and the cost of an education being as high as it is shows that there must be limiting factors in number of seats to get an education.

“If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,”

It is actually a frequent style of arguing against his constituents and his own party members. he did it in the EO fight where he did not back down until rebuked by both houses of the Texas legislature by veto proof margins.

“I Challenge Legislators To Look These Women In The Eye And Tell Them, ‘We Could Have Prevented This Disease … But We Just Didn’t Have The Gumption.”
“A Defiant Gov. Rick Perry Accused Legislators Tuesday Of Sacrificing Women’s Lives To Score Political Points…”
Are those the kinds of attacks we conservatives should be willing to be the targets of by our own sitting president? Those are the arguments of the progressive left.

I think his long loss for words endeared him to me really. I would never hold that against a person, it happens to me multiple times a year. Of course, I know to start looking for a new word, but that is impossible in his situation.

I like Perry, I really think he could make a great leader. I do not think he will make a great leader until he matures a little bit more and addresses these issues.

First, get the idea of shoving what is good for us down our throats. It is called freedom, get used to it.

Second, figure out who you are representing, hint, it is not some kid who was dragged here by their parents who were looking for a better life for themselves and more likely for their children, as it hurts American citizens when you make them the benefactors of your big government, which is exactly what adding the cost burden of illegal alien children’s to the lower cost in state tuition, allowing them to take seats away from American citizens.

Third, learn how to actually talk like a conservative. It will help you.

Fourth, a bit more time learning to debate would not hurt you. 2016, 2020, your a young guy!

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 6:46 PM

NotRomney voters may also be looking for an insurance policy, given Gingrich’s demonstrated propensity to implode.

Not a question of if, but when, he implodes again. I don’t normally quote communists or socialists, but Paul Begala had it right the other day on the Imus show when he basically said that Newt’s a walking gas can in search of matches.

That’s a problem he’s had from the first time he climbed on the national stage. Yes he deserves much credit for the Contract and welfare reform and balanced budget and a host of other accomplishments, and for how well he’s done in the debates, but when reporters get him one-on-one, his tongue has often become his own finely sharpened Seppuku sword.

Not to mention a number of former House Members who have said on and off the record that they could not support him for president, the latest beingTom Coburn this morning on Fox. People seem to forget the mutiny from his own leadership team that almost brought him down long before his affair with Calista finally did.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM

FWIW: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13896

The column calls both Romney and Gingrich big government supporters, each in his own way.

While it dismisses Perry’s odds for the nomination, Perry does want to limit the federal government’s intrusion in our lives.

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Yeah, but I don’t see a Newt implosion helping Perry. I think it would help Ron Paul or even Santorum before you’d see Perry’s numbers go into the stratosphere again. Those days are gone.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Really OA? Does the executive order not hint at some big gov tendencies?

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Really OA? Does the executive order not hint at some big gov tendencies?

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM

So does the Dream Act.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Weighing in for the first time in a very long time.
I do monitor HA, but it’s not the same “site of old.” However, that’s a topic for another day.

I see a lot of conjecture about whether it is going to be a)Newt, b)Romney or (longshot c)Perry who will benefit. I sure don’t know the answer, I’m not wild about a,b or c…had great hopes for Cain, but knew they were totally unrealistic for a bakers’ dozen reasons. I for one feel that any of these three could get creamed like corn by the Obama machine and they (Obama-ites)would be tickled to death to run against any of them.

Santorum and M.B. have absolutely NO chance…at this point: meaning, we aren’t giving them a chance. We’re piling on to the LSM meme that they’re not serious candidates.

Until OUR side takes them as serious candidates, they won’t be taken as serious candidates (“Fer real, Jasmine, the, like, um conservatives even say they’re hosers…ha, ha, ha…hey, I even read that Santorum called some dude the N word back in college…he’s like, soooo establishment!”)

My point: Quit piling on ANY of them. Our side brought Cain down (deservedly or not), not the other side…we ran like rabbits at the first volley…not the way to win a war.
Let the fruit throwing commence.
Love, Chewy

Chewy the Lab on December 4, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Yeah, but I don’t see a Newt implosion helping Perry. I think it would help Ron Paul or even Santorum before you’d see Perry’s numbers go into the stratosphere again. Those days are gone.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:55 PM

I’m not sure a Newt implosion will help Perry that much either, but something’s got to be done because who knows when the next one’s going to happen. Newt, unfortunately, is like that extremely bright Executive VP you might have but who, because of his tendencies to brainstorm and throw out ideas just to see how everyone else thinks, you don’t want anywhere near a conference call with the stock analysts or the bankers. You want him on your team, mind you, because every now and then he comes up with a brilliant idea or solution, but the way he gets there scares hell out of anyone else who doesn’t understand his methods.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 7:31 PM

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 7:31 PM

That is a pretty good analysis. I am still willing to back him. I like Bachmann, and I vote for her every single hotair candidate survey. Santorum would be someone I could back, but he does not sell himself well and has been unable to even gain on other candidates implosions to date. Newt is the only one left I am willing to back at this time.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Yeah, but I don’t see a Newt implosion helping Perry. I think it would help Ron Paul or even Santorum before you’d see Perry’s numbers go into the stratosphere again. Those days are gone.

ddrintn on December 4, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Ron Paul is a non-starter for at least 60% of the GOP voters and I think that number is actually higher. Every candidate could implode EXCEPT Paul and he still wouldn’t get over 30% support.

Santorum? He doesn’t have the money to hang in the race very long – he’ll be out very quickly if he doesn’t place in the first two primaries.

HondaV65 on December 4, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Really OA? Does the executive order not hint at some big gov tendencies?

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Do you really think that Perry would abuse the EO the way that Obama has? Do you think that he would have a shadow government of czars and agency heads to override what Congress does or does not enact?

Really OA? Does the executive order not hint at some big gov tendencies?

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 6:57 PM
So does the Dream Act.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 7:02 PM

As limited as that education provision is for children of illegals in Texas, it surely is a better use of taxpayers’ dollars to give the few who are eligible for that assistance a skill that will contribute to the tax base and not bleed it with multi-generational welfare payments.

onlineanalyst on December 4, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Could Perry stage a comeback?

Maybe, if he refuses to let media catch him up in personal and religious feeling and remember, its the economy stupid!

And don’t forget it!

Speakup on December 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM

If he can get his state working, why don’t you think he can get America working?

capitalist piglet on December 4, 2011 at 6:12 PM

I am not sure that it’s anything that Perry did. Texas has been outperforming the country as a whole for the past 50 years. In the Carter years, Texans referred the Michigan ex-patriots as “Blackplates” because Michigan had black license plates at the time and were so prevalent in Texas at the timw.

bw222 on December 4, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Is anyone really sure Perry knows who Madison is? I’d like to see someone ask him about Madison: Which president was he? What did he contribute to the framing of the Constitution? I have a feeling the response would shock everyone (in a bad way).

andy85719 on December 4, 2011 at 8:00 PM

I would sooner see Perry than Newt or Mitt.

crosspatch on December 4, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Me, too. Though RightMan and ALT make me hesitate a bit. They are almost as annoying as the Romney-acs.

Fallon on December 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Thanks, but if this were Blackjack and I was playing with the house money at this point, I too could see supporting Newt, and ask for a hit on 16. But, here, I’m playing on my own money and I’ve looked around the table and seen far too many low-number cards dealt, thus can’t risk the hit.

He may be a second choice, as he is in your case, but is he a card you’d ever really want to take at all?

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Fallon on December 4, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Aw c’mon, they ain’t so bad. I would take even more of them, well, maybe a couple but no more, over the lunatic Perry haters.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 8:10 PM

OT: watching reprise of Huckabee’s show last night…really wish I’d known about it and watched it then. So far, pretty impressed with Newt’s resonses…though just 11 minutes in….

Chewy the Lab on December 4, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Some things are simply non negotiable. My body, my life, my medical decisions. Those should only be over ridden when there is a legitimate social and governmental standing. STD vaccines do not fit that bill, and I do not care that it was state level only. astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 6:46 PM

PARENTAL OPT OUT.

That’s so conveniently forgotten in every tardisal rant.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 PM

That’s so conveniently forgotten in every tardisal rant.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Give it a rest. It was tried last night. The Perryhatin’ is strong in this one. Next he will demand that you prove it instead of looking it up himself. He’s a Cain hater too.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM

PARENTAL OPT OUT.

That’s so conveniently forgotten in every tardisal rant.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Some of us don’t like the idea of the state commanding obedience and we being forced to request the right to make our own decisions.

How about we ban salt cause its bad for you, but you can Opt Out and get a special dispensation from the government if you really want to be able to use it?

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Aw c’mon, they ain’t so bad. I would take even more of them, well, maybe a couple but no more, over the lunatic Perry haters.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Which ones aren’t so bad. The Perry-annes or the Romney-acs. I guess if I have to ask…

That said. I am taking a second look at Perry. Both Newt and Mitt are that distasteful to me.

Fallon on December 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Which ones aren’t so bad. The Perry-annes or the Romney-acs. I guess if I have to ask…

Fallon on December 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM

The Perry-annes…I couldn’t imagine what things would be like with more sheryls…ack.

I figure Newt has mellowed a bit, well, I hope so anyway. There are only a couple in this field I would be really averse to.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 8:28 PM

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:22 PM

You mean like this mandatory vaccine that requires babies- not tweens, to get shots that Michelle Bachmann never complained about….you mean like that kind of vaccine that already exist in Minnesota with no parental opt out?

By all appearances, she felt no need to mention, much less work towards stopping, a vaccination that, by her own standards, is an assault on liberty. Even more so actually. The HPV vaccination, while called mandatory, made available an opt-out provision so that the parental rights that she felt were so paramount could be protected in this decision. The Hepatitis B vaccination in Minnesota (state law since 1993) doesn’t even require parental consent at all. And Hep B’s communicability is similar to HPV in that it is primarily transmitted through intercourse, as opposed to being an airborne illness. Currently, no records can be found of Michele Bachmann sponsoring legislation in the Minnesota legislature to repeal the Hep B vaccination or to add a parental opt-out.

Congressman Bachmann served in the Minnesota congress for 5 years. In all that time, she never felt quite as driven by her parental instincts and conservative nature to decry or work to reverse what now she clearly consider to be an incredible breach of conservative values.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Perry can do it. He has the conservative record, an excellent record on jobs, he’s the only outsider left, and his debates are getting better each time (Huck’s debate was the best yet). he can do this and we don’t have to settle for an inside the Washington beltway elite or a part-time conservative. We have someone that can crush Obama’s job record.

kerrhome on December 4, 2011 at 8:31 PM

You mean like this mandatory vaccine that requires babies- not tweens, to get shots that Michelle Bachmann never complained about….

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:29 PM

What does Bachmann have to do with it, and how does that make what Perry did right, or an indication of a small government individual?

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Newt is too ‘smart’ for his own good. He will implode, it’s inevitable.

Perry will make a come back, he is a Texan.
Perry 2012! Yeah Baby!

purgatory on December 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM

A little OT, but not much: My friend was at Tiger’s tournament today and described to me the unbelievable explosion of excitement in the crowd as they watched Tiger kill it. This country loves a comeback like nothing else. I’ll bet there’s a huge contingent that would love to catch a rising Perry wave right about now.

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 8:44 PM

What does Bachmann have to do with it, and how does that make what Perry did right, or an indication of a small government individual?

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM

What does Bachmann have to do with it? Are you serious? That’s the best you have?

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM

A little OT, but not much: My friend was at Tiger’s tournament today and described to me the unbelievable explosion of excitement in the crowd as they watched Tiger kill it. This country loves a comeback like nothing else. I’ll bet there’s a huge contingent that would love to catch a rising Perry wave right about now.

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 8:44 PM

+55555!!

And thanks for the heads up on Tiger Woods – I’ve been praying for the guy to put things together again.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 8:53 PM

What does Bachmann have to do with it? Are you serious? That’s the best you have?

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Did she make Perry sign the EO?

We are talking about Perry as a candidate, and you think Bachmann doing the same thing gives Perry a pass because she was the one who brought it up?

He’s NOT a small government conservative. His first instinct is for big government, top-down directives.

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:56 PM

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Indeed! To be fair, though, Newt is something of a comeback story, too, which is likely part of his appeal, as well. Go Tiger.

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 9:02 PM

I forgot to mention something as important as being a FEARLESS CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE…..

The candidate needs A VISION!!!!

Where do they want to lead the country?

People will follow a vision, well communicated.

They followed Obama in 2008 and they will do it again in 2012 if the GOP nominee doesn’t have a plan, a vision.

PappyD61 on December 4, 2011 at 9:06 PM

He’s NOT a small government conservative. His first instinct is for big government, top-down directives.

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:56 PM

And who is a small government conservative in the field? Gingrich? Romney? You surely jest.

Bachmann? Based on what? Santorum? He is first and foremost a social conservative although he is also credited with some fiscal conservatism.

Sorry, pal, based on record – only one man has walked the talk more than any other: Gov. Rick Perry.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 9:21 PM

1) The number of seats at the University are Limited. Do you claim otherwise?
2) The student body consists of a mixture of American Citizen Texas residents, American Citizens, Foreign Exchange Students legally in the United States after a long process of paperwork and fees, and apparently illegal Aliens. Do you claim these are not the groups that are enrolled or that the list is incomplete?
3) If you give a group of people who want to consume something an extra incentive to do so, more of those people will consume that something. While not able to prove exactly which individuals took advantage of the discount price that otherwise would not have enrolled, statistically it is assured that someone did in fact enroll who otherwise would not have. Do you claim otherwise? (Remember, the reason for the law according to Perry is that having the price higher for them is denying them an education, so if you argue that this is not the case, then his reason is false.)

Thus, logically, the only conclusion you can come to is that

Texas students + Illegal Alien Students + United States of America Citizens from another state + foreign exchange students = possible university enrollment. Any pool of students on the left side of the equation that increases in size means you must decrease an equal number from one, two or three of the other pools.

You cannot honestly say any of this is a lie. They are true and rock solid facts that will not change just because your candidate is Rick Perry from Texas.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Perry said he was wrong, either you accept what he said or you don’t. That doesn’t make Perry anything except not perfect. There is no perfect candidate. But there are qualified candidates, and Rick Perry is one of the most qualified to be President of the U.S. he certainly is heads above what we have now.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 9:23 PM

And who is a small government conservative in the field? Gingrich? Romney? You surely jest.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 9:21 PM

There isn’t one, unless you include Ron Paul and he’s extremely poor on too many other subjects.

sharrukin on December 4, 2011 at 9:24 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM

What, getting spanked in one thread using this logic isn’t enough?

You have to post it in at least two?

Things must be really boring in your (notice the correct usage of the word and remember it this time) bizzaro world.

Ya’ know, saying it over and over again may convince you, most other folks have more intelligence.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 9:27 PM

I think Team Perry is not out of this thing yet…:)

PS..Go Rick Go!!..:)

Dire Straits on December 4, 2011 at 9:32 PM

What, getting spanked in one thread using this logic isn’t enough?

You have to post it in at least two?

Things must be really boring in your (notice the correct usage of the word and remember it this time) bizzaro world.

Ya’ know, saying it over and over again may convince you, most other folks have more intelligence.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Got boring over there. You are not a worthy debater. There for two posts, you actually made it seem like you were about to actually add something other than an attack to the debate, but you went right back to Calling names, making claims of lying that you cannot back up, slandering, and regular old trolling.

For those not acquainted with cozmo. Here is the entire list of every single post he made on one thread.

The dance isn’t over. Lots of folks still checking out the candidates. Heck, it may still be a toss-up come super Tuesday.

As for Perry, his political life gets pronounced dead at least once during every election of his. Its the Perry haters having an obamagasm.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Words from someone showing complete ignorance of the entire debacle.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM

And your continuing rant on the subject proves your ignorance. You would fit in well with the OWS crowd keeping watch for the black helicopters.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

No, it has been argued here several times already. If you really were interested in what happened here in Texas concerning Gardasil and the human papillomavirus it is all in the public domain and a simple search will reveal the truth. The times it was explained here, the people who wanted to remain ignorant did so and no amount of links would help.

You can continue to show your ignorance, or you can educate yourself…your choice.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Heh, I tried to help y’all with plenty of links.

Heh, it is easy enough to find the facts on your own. And therefore without a perceived bias.

Heh, you prefer to argue your ignorance and blame others for it.

Got it.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Pure genius on your part. Why you could be a tenured professor at an ivy league school with that kind of thought process.

That bunch of money from a drug company part actually brought forth a good belly laugh.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM

And it was enough to purchase the governorship in the state of Texas.

As for loser, Perry ain’t my candidate.

It just tickles me at the lengths that y’all Perry hatin’ nuballs go to sometimes. I take it you are a Romney fluffer? Only they are so willfully ignorant of the other candidates.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Yep, ya’ got me…I’m just an ignorant fool…compared to y’all rocket scientist “any candidate but except for your chosen savior” haters.

Did these tactics work for you in grade school (last week) when you tried to bully real students into doing your homework?

Can’t speak for cartooner, but that is the way political funding works in Texas. That the donations are in the open are very important to us Texans. We like to know where the money is coming from. And the money is a legitimate complaint about Perry. It hasn’t gone far because there is nothing illegal to it. Trying to tie it to big government rights violations is where it gets fun.

There is plenty to go after Perry for. ignorant, and false, ranting over Gardasil isn’t one of them.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Kissie, kissie. That you chose your ignorance is your own doing.

Oh, and its you’re…______________(fill in the blank, hint, its what you call those who don’t agree with you).

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 2:51 PM

But you are the one who continues to be willfully ignorant instead of educating yourself.

When you get the big government you desire, maybe it will be a job forced on me to educate you. Until then, you can remain willfully ignorant.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Your (this is the time to use that spelling) facts are not in dispute. Your conclusions are just comical.

We finally have some apples to compare to apples for the two front runners and Perry, since he is the one you fear with your constant attacks.

Romney – still defends Romney care

Gingrich – admits he was wrong when he called for insurance mandates.

Perry – admits the way he went about the HPV issue was wrong, but believes in his desire for the vaccine to be administered.

Comparing apples to apples to apples, Romney comes out third.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Aw, nothing like a feeling jilted Perry lover turned hater.

Though I find that hard to believe considering your (correct use of the word again, unlike you) willful ignorance with it comes to Perry.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Intriguing, its okay for Gingrich because there is a legislature to keep his big government tendencies in check.

Its not okay for Perry to bend to the legislature.

Yet, both admitted earlier stands were wrong and haven’t tried to implement them again.

You give a pass to one, but hold it against the one you claim to have supported earlier.

I would be sexist if I said you acted like a woman, but you are the epitome of the saying about a woman and scorn.

So, I’ll now refer to you as a willfully ignorant hypocrite nutball.

Or, am I wrong and you actually do view the past stances of Perry and Gingrich equally?

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Well howdy, ya’ went and got a recharge and are back with your over the top made up bile spewing.

He has shown absolute loyalty to the illegal alien base for some reason, and it will continue, as he said, if your not for educating children who were brought here illegally, you have no heart.

I just love this one. Your (again, correct usage, unlike you Mr. OWS lovin’ ivy league rocket scientist).

For one who demands irrefutable evidence for any of your (again, correct usage) wacko claims. you’re (correct usage again Mr. grammar challenged) quite a ranter of total nonsense. Or, are you channeling Perry now and just know that he is doing this?

What happens when his base and crony benefactors are on opposite sides? Will he abandon one?

You are now the caricature of the nutball Perry hater.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Oh yeah, go right ahead a double down on Texas attacks. After all, Texas is doing so much worse than the rest of the country.

KBH and Debra Medina are total losers.

You really are some kind of genius…in bizzaro world.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Opt. Out.

Why doesn’t anybody around here seem to know what that means?

#headdesk

capitalist piglet on December 3, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Nope, either political ignorance or outright stupidity keeps that in play.

When that begins to fail, blame Texas for not being able to see how bad Perry is.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Even the articles that just scratched the surface of the EO you are so against went into that.

A little further research would have explained why it was an opt out instead of an opt in.

You have no idea what the whole thing was about except it is your stick to beat the candidate you hate.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Heh, still relying on that debunked attack I see.

I guess that is why you left off the link. Even wiki does a better job of explaining it.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Better and better. You now swallow a debunked statement on the opt-out and chose to ignore data to the contrary because you claim it is biased against conservatives. If it is how you claim, wouldn’t it repeat the false claim you are clinging to?

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Sure you do…that is why you are such a well of information.

Heck, bozo, I have a daughter that would have been subject to the mandate. I actually did the research you claim to know all about now. But earlier in this same thread you claim to want information about the EO. And now you cling to a debunked statement on the opt-out.

Are you just makin’ this stuff up as you go along?

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Because it is easy enough to find on your own, yet you refuse to do it. But, that doesn’t stop you from bashing Perry out of ignorance.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Dude we laughed at you when you posted the same drivel earlier.

Nope, there is plenty to criticize Perry for and I have joined in it. Especially when it looked like Medina had a chance.

Its just nutballs posting ignorant attacks that get my attention. Same as with Cain, Gingrich, Palin and Romney.

I don’t attack any of the candidates, except for maybe Paul and Bachman. Just the nutball supporters.

cozmo on December 3, 2011 at 8:58 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Testing..:)

Dire Straits on December 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM

making claims of lying that you cannot back up, slandering, and regular old trolling.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Oh, it was backed up. You just don’t like getting caught. I guess that’s why you didn’t show that.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM

And who is a small government conservative in the field? Gingrich? Romney? You surely jest.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 9:21 PM

The only small-government, morally-sound conservative with a chance to win is Perry. Romney, OTOH, is the only big-government, morally-sound whatever with a chance to win. Gingrich is the only big-government, morally-doubtful time bomb with a chance to win. Do the math.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Perry said he was wrong, either you accept what he said or you don’t. That doesn’t make Perry anything except not perfect. There is no perfect candidate. But there are qualified candidates, and Rick Perry is one of the most qualified to be President of the U.S. he certainly is heads above what we have now.

Dr Evil on December 4, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Wrong? Yeah, he was wrong, but not in the way a conservative constituent would want him to admit he was wrong.

An update: from Perry’s Speech in New Hampshire at the Home of New Hampshire Deputy Speaker Pam Tucker (8/13/2011):

When a voter in New Hampshire confronted Perry on the Gardasil issue, here’s what he said, “I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

Perry said he’d invested government resources in cancer cures, adding, “I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did.”

A cynic may not buy his explanation, but most politicians would never admit to a mistake at all.

Look, I am willing to accept apologies. What he did wrong was not propagandize the people enough before acting. He also learned that you do not stick your neck out for things. You get cover from other people, like the legislature, so you can shift the blame from yourself.

Probably both good lessons. I did not hear the words I was looking for. Maybe someone knows where he said them. “I was wrong, it is not the government’s place to force people to do what is good for them. It is to ensure that the people have a fair and just foundation on which to enjoy their life, liberty and their own pursuit of happiness.” Or something close to that. Until otherwise informed, my thoughts on the EO are that he still thinks that the nanny state is a beneficial state.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Oh, it was backed up. You just don’t like getting caught. I guess that’s why you didn’t show that.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM

That was a previous post that we we no longer talking on. I am sure you can provide the proof. Be sure to include it all. Like that would ever happen with you. But as a good sport…

Oh, there’s plenty of us. Most just don’t hit back at the hatin’ nutballs. Not doing that gives the willfully ignorant jerks a larger voice than they really have. The internet anonymity gives them a shield to hide behind.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Oh, there’s plenty of us hatin’ nutballs. The internet anonymity gives us a shield to hide behind.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Much more to the truth.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM

You took a quote, changed the wording and kept it as a direct quote. You wanna’ accuse slander, what you did was at least fraud.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM

As I stated, I thought the statement “Much more to the truth” would have indicated that there were changes. If you are incapable of understanding it, it is not my fault, and does not make it a lie. It makes it an error.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:51 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Gingrich, Pelosi, Couch. The ultimate nancy state. He said it was the dumbest thing he had ever done, but never has said whether that applied to his statement on the couch about needing to address “climate change” or just appearing with Pelosi on the couch. Phony, squared.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Gingrich, Pelosi, Couch. The ultimate nancy state. He said it was the dumbest thing he had ever done, but never has said whether that applied to his statement on the couch about needing to address “climate change” or just appearing with Pelosi on the couch. Phony, squared.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Climategate 2.0 emails – thread #2
at wattsupwiththat dot com
Posted on November 30, 2011 by Anthony Watts

NOTE: Thread #1 (the original still available here) has gotten unwieldy due to size. Many browsers can’t complete the load now. So, I’m starting this second open thread on the issue and moving all updates here. It will remain a sticky post for a few days like the original. New posts will appear below this one – Anthony

UPDATE 60: Out of context comes understanding – a collection of contextual quotes from Climategate 2.0

UPDATE59: It seems that WUWT graphics have found their way into lectures at the University of East Anglia, first alluded to in a UEA Climategate 2 email where Phil Jones got it wrong. Happy to help.

UPDATE58: 11:55PM PST 12/3 The Weekly Standard summarizes Climategate II in a cover story titled Scientists Behaving Badly Part II. WUWT is featured prominently.

UPDATE57: 8:45 AM PST 12/2 The Team makes a call to get a PhD thesis revoked of a skeptic they disagree with. Only one problem (besides the ethics) their scientific basis is bogus.

I am not very worried about Climate change laws getting enacted under a conservative president. If you still are, well your mileage may vary…

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:00 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Nice of you embolden what you consider a caveat this time.

It doesn’t discount that you purposely changed the written word and left it attributed to someone else.

Kind of like you do against the candidates you don’t like. Then demand others do your research for you.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 10:02 PM

I prefer people who HATE Muslims and who HATE illegals.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Lovely. Thank you for being so helpful to our cause as conservatives.

kg598301 on December 4, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Gingrich, Pelosi, Couch. The ultimate nancy state. He said it was the dumbest thing he had ever done, but never has said whether that applied to his statement on the couch about needing to address “climate change” or just appearing with Pelosi on the couch. Phony, squared.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM

My understanding is that Newt stands by his statements made on the couch, but says it was a mistake to deliver the message alongside Pelosi, as she had become such a polarizing figure that the message would simply be lost. Is that phony?

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Gingrich, Pelosi, Couch. The ultimate nancy state. He said it was the dumbest thing he had ever done, but never has said whether that applied to his statement on the couch about needing to address “climate change” or just appearing with Pelosi on the couch. Phony, squared.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM

My impression is that he was dumb because he put himself in a position to get busted on his global warming views. Just my opinion after hearing him address this several times- I’ve been listening pretty closely and he has never actually explained why he did it.

kg598301 on December 4, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I prefer people who HATE Muslims and who HATE illegals.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Good grief.

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Could Perry stage a comeback?

Sure. It’s still a wide open race and as usual, anything is possible.

kg598301 on December 4, 2011 at 10:14 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Nice of you embolden what you consider a caveat this time.

It doesn’t discount that you purposely changed the written word and left it attributed to someone else.

Kind of like you do against the candidates you don’t like. Then demand others do your research for you.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 10:02 PM

It was the only text written in my post. So highlighting it seems a bit excessive. Is it proper to bold a full post?

So you admit that I had the caveat there but are still arguing that it was a lie. Even though it had your name and the date/time posted from the exact same thread such that anyone could have so easily researched it? Sad, sad little people in this world.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:15 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Only noticed it as a caveat after you claimed it left you off the hook for changing people’s words.

What I noticed was a quote of mine that I never wrote.

Yet, by posting it, you claim I did.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM

My impression is that he was dumb because he put himself in a position to get busted on his global warming views. Just my opinion after hearing him address this several times- I’ve been listening pretty closely and he has never actually explained why he did it.

kg598301 on December 4, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Spot on!

I have challenged the Gingrich supporters, especially Punchenko, who keep calling Perry dumb because of his initial poor performance in the 3-minute soundbite gotcha debates (never mind his perfectly okay performances in other formats) to answer the question:

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

I prefer people who HATE Muslims and who HATE illegals.

Igor R. on December 4, 2011 at 6:38 PM

LOL… for real? You think Americans hate Muslims and illegals?

With respect to hating illegals, I can only name one person on this forum: rightwingyyahooo. Seriously, the guy was having wet dreams fantasizing about illegals getting zapped by Cain’s proposed electric fence.

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 10:22 PM

My understanding is that Newt stands by his statements made on the couch, but says it was a mistake to deliver the message alongside Pelosi, as she had become such a polarizing figure that the message would simply be lost. Is that phony?

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:05 PM

My understanding of his argument was that Pelosi had already became such a polarizing figure, that no one was going to be seen with her from our side in order to get our side of the message out.

To be honest, it fits his first defense that I recall which was that Global Warming was winning the argument and that if we do not make our voices heard in debate about what to do, the solutions will all be dictated by those who were making their voices heard. I still detested him sitting on the couch. 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

First look Huntsman?

AshleyTKing on December 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Only noticed it as a caveat after you claimed it left you off the hook for changing people’s words.

What I noticed was a quote of mine that I never wrote.

Yet, by posting it, you claim I did.

cozmo on December 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Again. Your failure to see the caveat does not make it a fact that I lied. Yet, you are arguing that it does. You are also claiming that this statement which came more than 12 hours later justifies you claiming back then that I was lying. When a person lies, it becomes exponentially harder and harder to keep their story straight. Looking at your current arguments, it appears to be happening. Take a while and review things and you may see the truth.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM

First look Huntsman?

AshleyTKing on December 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM

The only thing I got against him is spy level tin foil hat innuendo I made up in my own mind. But that is enough to keep me from ever contemplating voting for the man.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 10:29 PM

First look Huntsman?

AshleyTKing on December 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Why? Just because we love punishment – we vote for someone who never hesitates to call us dumb hicks?

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM

My understanding of his argument was that Pelosi had already became such a polarizing figure, that no one was going to be seen with her from our side in order to get our side of the message out.

To be honest, it fits his first defense that I recall which was that Global Warming was winning the argument and that if we do not make our voices heard in debate about what to do, the solutions will all be dictated by those who were making their voices heard. I still detested him sitting on the couch. 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

Yes. It’s the do-ers who make mistakes. Newt’s done many things, so there will be much material. That’s how it goes. We need a do-er.

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Thanks for showing why no one here should take you seriously. And no one does, in case you weren’t aware.

xblade on December 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Don’t speak for all of us. I happen to agree with TheRightMan the majority of the time.

tmontgomery on December 4, 2011 at 10:37 PM

TheRightMan on December 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM

OK, first look Johnson? I don’t have a long list here.

AshleyTKing on December 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

My understanding is that Newt stands by his statements made on the couch, but says it was a mistake to deliver the message alongside Pelosi, as she had become such a polarizing figure that the message would simply be lost. Is that phony?

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Welcome to the window of his soul. Or lack thereof. If he stands by his couch talk, he is disqualified ab initio from being considered as a conservative candidate for president. Obama, et al., would stand with his position on AGW as well … in fact, they have instituted it.

If, OTOH, he says it was a mistake because the message — i.e., the hoax of AGW — was lost by partnering with such a polarizing figure as Pelosi on a couch, that is even worse than phony, it is fraud.

Enjoy the meanderings of the mind of Newt Gingrich all you want, but he is what he is, an extremely bright and intellectual thinker, with less common sense than a mosquito in a frog pond.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 10:45 PM

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 10:45 PM

The position of “we don’t know” the cause of global warming is disqualifying for a conservative candidate? I don’t know the precise text of his couch talk, but that appears to be his global warming position today. I think a lot of moderates fall into the “we don’t know” camp.

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:49 PM

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

sleepingiantsup on December 4, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Listen closely, as I whisper it, slowly. There is no global warming. There is no global warming. There is no global warming.

It’s all a lie by those who wish to use that as an excuse to cause nations like ours who go out of their way to “protect the environment”, another tilting at windmills kind of problem, to pay billions of dollars to regimes that care not about the environment, only their own pockets. A real leader should be able to inform the electorate on that point, but anyone who sat on a couch with Pelosi and who, like Romney, supported Cap and Trade, has no relevant voice in that conservation.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 11:04 PM

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

Gingrich does the dumbest things. Gingrich also does the smartest things. Gingrich also does the harder things. As well as Gingrich does the things no one else is willing to do.

Perry does some pretty dumb things. Perry also makes some very great arguments. Perry mostly sticks to easy things. Perry also does not do very well standing up for the great arguments he makes.

We had Bush II. He saw the housing bubble forming in 2002 or 2003 and started working on bringing it under control. He then hit the headwind of the liberal media and democrat minority and caved. At a time when he could have fixed the problem and had a minor recession, he caved and led the nation to the brink of financial collapse. First the housing bubble burst, and then the Bernanke made it far worse, then he pushed for and eventually got the Wall Street Bailout money that was never used for its intended purpose, and once everything was settled down, it comes out that the Fed was able to accomplish everything and more that the bailout law allowed to happen without the law having ever passed and set a new benchmark for federal spending.

I am not willing to say that Texas politicians are all like Bush. But lets look at Perry for a moment. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. How long did he hold that view, one which could lead him to be a great leader as he helps to ween America off the teet of big government? I think it was a whole two days. Should we trust him, like we did Bush? I would imagine we would end up with similar results. Crisis that might happen in the future seen, but completely ignored until it is too late and forces us back into the lets not let a crisis go to waste moment.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Crisis that might will happen at a time indeterminate happen in the future seen, but completely ignored until it is too late and forces us back into the lets not let a crisis go to waste moment.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:07 PM

fixed.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:09 PM

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”

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.

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

Listen closely, as I whisper it, slowly. There is no global warming. There is no global warming. There is no global warming.

It’s all a lie by those who wish to use that as an excuse to cause nations like ours who go out of their way to “protect the environment”, another tilting at windmills kind of problem, to pay billions of dollars to regimes that care not about the environment, only their own pockets. A real leader should be able to inform the electorate on that point, but anyone who sat on a couch with Pelosi and who, like Romney, supported Cap and Trade, has no relevant voice in that conservation.

TXUS on December 4, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Listen closely. The government did not need $700 TARP bill passed. It is not needed.

Now, we all know what happened though, do we not? It was not needed, but the government still passed the bill and made it law.

In 2007, most people were pretty well convinced that the Global Warming cabal were winning the argument and that legislation was going to happen. In fact, it is highly likely that Obama would have tied America to the UN, until right before the big meeting Climate-gate 1.0 happened. They were set to send trillions, not billions, trillions of dollars to third world countries to compensate them for climate change. No one could know in advance that the climate-gate emails would surface and save us. So is it completely bonkers to imagine that in 2007 Newt really thought it was a good idea to try and make the laws that would pass a bit less damaging to the nation?

I think it was stupid still, but it certainly is not as bad as your argument that the simple fact that Global Warming does not exist, so anyone who wanted to address it should be turned away as a potential candidate. Of course, everyone is allowed their opinion. But trying to make arguments such as yours is beyond just opinion.

astonerii on December 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM

My point: Quit piling on ANY of them. Our side brought Cain down (deservedly or not), not the other side…we ran like rabbits at the first volley…not the way to win a war.

Chewy the Lab on December 4, 2011 at 7:27 PM

You should post more often. A good man, who has lived the American dream of success and know’s how it’s done, and so far is innocent of anything he’s accussed of has dropped out of the most important Presidential election in most of our lifetimes.

The libtards in this country are eating our candidates flesh well enough at every opportunity, they don’t need our help.

Hog Wild on December 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3