Quotes of the day

posted at 9:00 pm on January 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

“While Iowa-watchers obsess over Rick Santorum’s miniature surge and Mitt Romney’s late strength, there’s one other candidate on an upward trajectory: Rick Perry.

“Aided by millions of dollars’ worth of television ads boosting him and tearing down his rivals, the thoroughly humbled Texas governor has crept up in Iowa polling in recent weeks, improving from his crash-and-burn to reliably score in double digits…

“As the days to the caucuses wane, Perry has things other candidates would kill for: Crowds who want to meet him, ads all over the airwaves, a decent ground organization, an anti-Washington message people are hungry for, and terrific hair. The question is whether it’s too little, too late, to get through the crowded pack ahead of him.”

***

“A few months ago, who would have believed that Gov. Rick Perry would spend his last five days before the Iowa caucus running attacks on Rick Santorum? But there Perry was, in a tiny room upstairs at Doughy Joey’s Peetza Joynt in Waterloo, uncorking a mini stem-winder, assaulting Santorum for his time in Washington: Santorum voted for pork barrel projects and earmarks, including a teapot museum in North Carolina and Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere. Santorum also voted—multiple times—to raise the debt ceiling. (Perry has an ad up on the air hitting Santorum on these same points.)

“It was the kind of performance that reminds you why Perry is still dangerous. He was forceful, direct, and fluid. The crowd of 100 interrupted him with applause. Both before and after the speech, he worked the room with smooth professionalism. Perry hasn’t won every election he’s entered since 1985 by accident.”

***

“Aside from Iowa frontrunners Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, Perry is thought to be the only Republican candidate here with the kind of sophisticated ground game to pull off a much-needed comeback

“As of Friday, the Texas governor had signed up 1,500 precinct leaders in Iowa, a source inside the Perry campaign told CNN…

“The Perry camp also has 470 out-of-state volunteers descending on Iowa this weekend (including Perry’s own family, which flew in on Friday).

“The source said that by caucus night, ‘we will easily have over 2,000 Perry volunteers’ fanning out across the state knocking on doors and speaking for Perry at their voting sites.”

***

“A flat tax. A part-time Congress. An ad that praised celebrating Christmas in schools and scorned gays in the military. A sharpened stance against abortion. And this week, Perry barnstormed Iowa with a conservative rock star, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, condemned by the Obama Justice Department for alleged civil rights abuses.

“Ever since Perry vaulted to the top of the pack upon entering the race in September — and tumbled almost as quickly in part because of a series of erratic, and sometimes downright comedic, debate performances — he’s been groping for a way to get hot again. And more than any other candidate in the field, he’s resorted to the kind of gimmick plays that can sometimes turn things around, but can just as easily backfire

“Perry has pledged other seemingly Herculean feats. He vowed to balance the budget by 2020, in part by capping federal spending at 18% of gross domestic product — a cap so low that most economists have dismissed it as impossible. He told one attendee at an event in Creston that if he failed to balance the budget by then, he’d slash his own executive salary — never mind that 2020 would be the final year of a second Perry term…

“Supporter Bill Thomas, 63, of Indianola was impressed, saying Perry had overcome his debate foibles. ‘Yeah, he’s getting better,’ Thomas said. ‘It’s not so much what they say; it’s what they’ve done.’”

***

“Almost all the candidates had one or another of these factors working in their favor. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, was named the most knowledgeable, for instance, Mr. Romney the most electable, and Representative Ron Paul of Texas the most likely to reduce the size of government. Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Rick Santorum, the former senator of Pennsylvania, rated well on the attribute of relating to ordinary Iowans.

“Mr. Perry was the exception; he did not lead the field in any of the nine categories. For all his swagger, in other words, Mr. Perry is failing to stand out from the crowd. Despite spending $4.3 million in advertising, his brand has become poorly differentiated from the other Republican contenders…

“In turning his attention to Mr. Santorum and to socially conservative voters, Mr. Perry may have helped to entrench his status as a second-tier candidate, competing for a fraction of the electorate that can help a candidate to win Iowa but becomes less relevant outside of it.”

***

“The two Iowa surveys released this week (from CNN/Time/ORC and NBC/Marist) have each shown Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum in the top three. Senior Romney advisers argue, convincingly, that if those three ultimately constitute Iowa’s top tier the order in which they finish won’t matter much: any of those combinations would benefit Romney. The reason is that such a finish would deny an Iowa boost to Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry.

“Each man, for all of his struggles in the race, still probably has more residual potential to attract a broad coalition against Romney in other states than Paul or Santorum. But given the wounds Gingrich and Perry have accumulated (many self-inflicted), neither is likely to revive enough to present such a threat without a strong injection of momentum from Iowa. Even that might not be enough to really earn them a second look in other states, but without such a boost their odds of making a last stand against Romney could dwindle toward the microscopic…

“What’s more, it’s highly possible that even if Santorum finishes near the top here, the outcome will be too jumbled to convince Gingrich or Perry, and maybe even Michele Bachmann, to quit the race before making a last-stand in South Carolina. That would create what the Romney camp considers ‘an ideal situation, to be blunt,’ as one puts it: the possibility that several candidates to his right will continue to fragment conservative voters in New Hampshire and especially in South Carolina.”

***

“‘We have Fred Thompson to thank for McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008,’ wrote Lane, who said he sees Santorum playing a similar role this time by undercutting better-funded opponents.

“Referring to the local social conservative leaders in Iowa who have endorsed the former Pennsylvania senator in recent weeks, Lane continued, ‘If Santorum gets traction, we’ll have Santorum (and the IA ‘Family Policy Boys’) to thank for Romney as the Republican nominee in ’12, and the reelection of Obama on Nov. 6, 2012.’

“In an email to POLITICO, Lane elaborated: ‘Right now it looks like 2008. Evangelicals, generally speaking, don’t understand politics.’”

***

“Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry will skip New Hampshire Wednesday, hours after the nation’s first presidential contest in Iowa, to campaign in South Carolina — a strong sign the Texas governor is depending on the Palmetto State to help keep him in the race…

“‘Why use resources in a state where there is no fit?’ said the source close to the Perry campaign, who requested anonymity because he had not been cleared to comment by Perry’s national campaign. ‘The effort is being made to focus and hunt where the ducks are. For Rick Perry, those ducks are clearly in South Carolina. For Mitt Romney, those ducks are clearly in New Hampshire.’”

***

“Two thousand twelve was supposed to be the year the Tea Party picked a Republican presidential candidate. It was supposed to be this great, historic opportunity for conservatives to finally get a nominee without compromising. But the two candidates who would probably be judged the most pure of all could be days away from seeing their campaigns ended, and the two candidates who are seen as having strayed the most from the party line over the years are leading nationally.

“Lots of factors combined to bring us to this point, but the simplest explanation is that Republicans are going for intellect — which brings with it a sense of competence — over ideology. Bush fatigue probably explains a lot of that, as does the desire to beat Obama, who is far less intellectual than he is made out to be, but who is nonetheless a sharp and nimble adversary. Republican voters seem to be seeking a nominee who is sharper than Obama and more competent than Bush, and judging both Bachmann and Perry as inadequate by both measures.”

***

***



Related Posts:

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 4

colonelkurtz on March 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM

It was James Dobson of Focus on the Family, I believe, who took the unprecedented step (for him and his organization anyway) of endorsing a presidential candidate in the last election. It was then I realized how much trouble Romney was in with Evangelicals.

We constantly hear that Romney lost because conservatives didn’t turn out in sufficient numbers. But that’s not precisely true. It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon. I think it’s important that we not only remember that, but that we address it whenever the subject comes up. It would also be nice if the religions cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Religious conservatives wanted someone who didn’t pivot on his principles. If you were to forget for a moment that Mitt Romney was a Mormon and just look at how attractive he was as a candidate to religious conservatives, you’d see that they wouldn’t have wanted to vote for him no matter what his religion was. He pivoted on abortion, believed in big government healthcare, and not only surrendered on same sex marriage but actually gave the left more than they were asking.

There is, on the other hand, lots of evidence that Democrats were not about to vote for a Mormon. But that doesn’t advance the narrative, does it?

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM

It was the religious conservatives who simply in the end couldn’t pull the lever for the Mormon. I think it’s important that we not only remember that, but that we address it whenever the subject comes up. It would also be nice if the religions cons would own up to it.

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Anti-Mormon evangelical bigots cost Romney the election. OK, how many scapegoats does that make? Let’s see: Latinos; Sarah Palin; Candy Crowley; Chris Christie; evangelical bigots (no doubt from the South, which Romney incredibly carried); anti-abortion zealots; Todd Akin; Christine O’Donnell; Sharron Angle; the primaries; Newt Gingrich…everyone except that weak, unelectable nominee himself.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:57 PM

There is, on the other hand, lots of evidence that Democrats were not about to vote for a Mormon. But that doesn’t advance the narrative, does it?

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Nor does the fact that about 60% of moderates voted for Obama.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Anti-Mormon evangelical bigots cost Romney the election. OK, how many scapegoats does that make? Let’s see: Latinos; Sarah Palin; Candy Crowley; Chris Christie; evangelical bigots (no doubt from the South, which Romney incredibly carried); anti-abortion zealots; Todd Akin; Christine O’Donnell; Sharron Angle; the primaries; Newt Gingrich…everyone except that weak, unelectable nominee himself.

ddrintn on March 21, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Blah. Don’t bother. Asked her (?) hours ago for a cite or at least where that meme came from and I’m still waiting.

kim roy on March 21, 2013 at 10:05 PM

SukieTawdry on March 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM

shove your concern up your wedge driving pie hole loser.

tom daschle concerned on March 22, 2013 at 5:08 AM

There are a great number of us who’d like to feel more comfortable voting for Republicans out there who have to flog ourselves to make it to the polls. Ya see, we’re as deeply troubled by a big religious government as we are by a big secular government.

The big religious government “might” be our kind of religion or it might be something else more extreme or not extreme enough. But, being a Big Government we either abide by its Big Government laws its way or spend time in the big house, have our property taken, and so forth. No thanks. It’s no worse if a Calvinist dominated government does this than if a Mohammedan dominated government does it or if a secular government does it.

I want a government small enough it doesn’t make a practical difference if it tries to make stupid religious based laws about not working on Tuesday because its the Great God Wumpus’ sacred day. It should be too small to make such laws and too tightly constrained to even consider trying.

I’ve nothing against lawmakers being “informed” by their religion. But, I do insist that if they make a law it be a law that has solid secular reasoning behind it. If some religion figures it’s not legal to bathe your feet on Thursdays for some silly reason they MUST be free to exhort their members to follow that stricture and free to expel those who disobey it. But they must not be allowed, for example, to stone violators to death.

This requires a non-negligible government. But it certainly does not need a government with sheaves of regulations large enough to fill the Statue of Liberty to overflowing. That rather violates the spirit of Liberty, doesn’t it?

{^_^}

herself on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM

herself on March 22, 2013 at 5:12 AM

I asm assuming you are talking about socons when you say “big religious government.” Here’s a hint, not all socons are religious. Many of us and I know several of us on Hotair are agnostic and atheist. We just see the world the way it is and not in theoretical terms.

I never wanted to be a socon. You think as an agnostic, I want to keep being compared to the church lady? I was forced to become a socon basically by Republicans like you who scream “let’s get out of social issues and let’s the states decide.” The problem is you people completely ignore the fact that we have an opposing party that ignores these rules. I was happy to live in my conservative state and vote on things like abortion and gay marrriage just in my state. It was not me who made that a federal issue. My position as a socon came as a direct response to the Democrats and the liberals using federal legislature and judicial fiat to make Massachusetts and California values federal values. You may be okay living by those state’s values because you agree with them, but I am don’t. If fighting to keep the littlest among us from keeping from having their spine snipped with scissors or thining children deserve to grow up with a mom and a dad makes me an extremist- so be it.

melle1228 on March 22, 2013 at 7:27 AM

In answering the opening question just think of the media and that includes all TV, radio, magazines, newspapers that are heavy progressive agenda screamers and the question answers its self. The only unedited TV we saw were the debates but immediately after these debates the crews of the left were falling all over themselves saying what was really said, the code words used, the lies that Mitt used and now the media asks a question as to what went wrong with the election? Gimme a break!

mixplix on March 22, 2013 at 8:04 AM

Probably because the Republican Party has morphed into Democratic Party Lite.

TulsAmerican on March 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

It is because anti-liberty states have an undue influence on the primary elections. Hold the primaries in order from most to least conservative/red and we will have a great candidate. Stop rewarding the douchebags by allowing them precedence over the reddest states like Texas.

TXJenny on March 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Close the primaries and than see what happens.

Did you ever wonder why the GOP won’t close the primaries to only republicans voting?

oldyeller on March 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Why can’t conservative candidates win Republican presidential primaries?

Because the RINO leadership in the RNC blocks them in every possible way, and works hard to disenfranchise conservative voters.

The RNC is the problem.

landlines on March 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Close the primaries and than see what happens.

Did you ever wonder why the GOP won’t close the primaries to only republicans voting?

oldyeller on March 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM

.
Y . E . S . ! ! !
.
ABOLISH OPEN PRIMARIES !

listens2glenn on March 23, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Why? Bcause conservatives eat their own and RINOs don’t!

redware on March 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I’ve never heard anyone offer even a passable argument for why Iowa & New Hampshire must always be first in line in the primaries. I live in Texas, the biggest red state in the union no less, and by the time I vote in the primaries the nomination is essentially wrapped up already.

Again, does anything make sense about this?

Reggie1971 on March 24, 2013 at 3:12 PM

because the liberal wing of the republican party don’t want a conservative.

mmcnamer1 on March 25, 2013 at 7:00 AM

I think GOP voters that year put a premium on “electability” in choosing McCain.

This was not correct, it was veteran’s groups who thought we could not possibly have a commander in cheif that had not served in the military service, that put the kabosh on the Romney campaign starting with the N.H. primary. The veterans groups were organized by the McCain campaign staff. At that time they thought the dem candidate would be Hilary; the fiscal meltdown had not happened.

Fleuries on March 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4