October 12th, 2011
I’m getting enough email about Perry that I want to, again, clarify something: I’m not in the tank for the guy. I’m not even sure I like him and I’m certainly not sure that he’d be a good president. Let me put it this way: I was never very impressed by George W. Bush and the best line about Perry is that he’s the guy W. was always pretending to be.
People seem to confuse what I think about Perry’s prospects with what I, personally, want to see happen. (In much the same way some people thought that I was a Federer hater just because I realized his eclipse had begun. I doubt you’ll find anyone who loves Federer more than I do, and I hate watching him in decline. But that doesn’t mean that he’s not declining.)
And so: Despite everything, I still like Perry’s chances.
Now, one big thing happened, which I certainly didn’t expect: I thought Perry would unite the insurgent and establishment wings of the party. Not only has that not taken place (yet?), but the opposite occurred. The establishment pushed back against Perry, hard. Like, Palin-in-2009 hard.
But the big question is whether establishment types (both in the actual establishment and the voters who reflect their thinking) are enough to win the nomination today. I think that’s also a very open question.
I’d remind people that for the last two cycles, everything we knew about the nomination fight changed drastically and quickly in the lead up to the actual voting. Dean imploded. Kerry used Iowa to catapult himself away from the entire field. (It helped that he had the money and organization to take advantage of the win.) Huckabee came out of nowhere in Iowa, and Romney was never able to make the sale in any of the other important early states. Obama used the split anti-Hillary vote in Iowa to drive the early part of his march through the caucuses. (If he loses Iowa, I think it’s an open question whether or not he wins the nomination.)
I mention all of this not to say that Perry is Kerry (or Obama, or anyone else) but just to remind people that with three months before the voting, I think fundamentals are more important considerations than a tight-grouping in the polls.
So what are the fundamentals of the race that (for now) we know?
* Romney has firmly secured the GOP establishment, as he did in 2008.
* Romney is an improved candidate, but is still the guy with a very poor electoral record. This doesn’t mean voters will never warm to him. But I’d like to see it happen before I’ll believe in it.
* Supporting the idea that voters are resisting Romney is the pinging around of poll numbers among the other candidates. First Bachman. Then Perry. Now Cain. Clearly there is a substantial anti-Romney vote that’s coalescing, breaking up, and then re-forming around other candidates.
* The question is, will these voters give up the ghost and sign up with Romney at some point? Maybe. But maybe not. In 2003 people thought, My God, the Democrats can’t be crazy enough to nominate someone like Dean! And despite Dean’s lead, they were right. It seems entirely possible that, like the anti-Dean votes in 2004, the anti-Romney votes are eventually going to stop being split among Santorum, Bachman, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain and coagulate around one of them. Of that group, Perry has the money and the infrastructure to best take advantage of such a move.
* That doesn’t mean it will happen, of course. But I keep coming back to this: There must be a reason why Republican voters haven’t rallied around Romney the way they did George W. Bush in 1999. Remember, there was an anti-Bush vote then, too. But it was never substantial enough to challenge the front-runner. Bush was up over the 40 percent mark by summer of 1999 and was at 62 percent by October 1999. If Romney had those kinds of numbers, he’d be unassailable. But I think it’s telling that, despite his money, his organization, his establishment backing, and the fact that he’s been running the longest–he hasn’t been able to get over the mid-20s. If you like Romney’s chances, you have to have an explanation for why this is.
* Remember: Even Bush, with his 40-point lead, got dragged into a dogfight with John McCain–who was in third place until late fall of 1999. Why? Because one of the axioms of American politics is this: All races tighten.
* None of this means that I want Perry to win or that I want Romney to lose. (The only thing I really want is for Mitch Daniels to suddenly jump in and ride to the nomination. And that ain’t happening.) What it means is that I believe Romney has structural weaknesses and has not been seriously challenged by his opponents yet; that early momentum from Iowa has proved very powerful; that Perry has positional and political strengths (to go along with his obvious weaknesses in the debates and on immigration); and that a 7-point gap between lead candidates right now is not dispositive.
* I still think it more than an even-money proposition that someone other than Romney will be the nominee; and of those alternatives, I’d give Perry the best odds. (Though probably all of them–even Santorum and Huntsman–will get a second look by the time New Hampshire rolls around.)
I hope you’re right.
Romney is too slick and too far to the left. Dont get me wrong I will vote for him, if I have to, but come on- Christie endorsed him, after that speech at the Reagan library…Really?
Newt is amazing- but sadly too much personal baggage. If we could all pretend he has been married to Calista for this whole time, kept his zipper zipped, and well you know the rest. He’s a brillant historian.
Cain, seems like a nice man, But in our view- a one trick pony. Enough with the 999.
Santorum- strong morals but too far to the right for most of the country.
Dr Paul- His monetary experience and pro life stance is admirable but his foreign policy is sometimes scary.
Perry is best aligned with my and my wifes values. I think the Palin supporters ought to give him a look.
I agree John – Although Perry has been slow at the debates, I have seen him at small town halls here in TX, and he is genuine and appealing. He has good qualities, and has done well for our state. He is a good Govenor. He may not be eloquent but look what fancy speaking got us in 08.
Although I feel SP supporters will ultimately chose their own candidate to back Gov Perry should reach out to them for support. He is close to her positions on many things, and she endorsed him in the 2010 election cycle.
Perhaps Perry will run the unconventional campaign Sarah Palin alluded to.
Romney wasn’t the establishment in 2008, McCain was the favorite…you don’t know your history.
What establishment rallied around Romney? They went for McCain, big time.
That’s why it’s go disingenious to hear Rush, Levin, etc go after Romney now when they were prompting the heck out of Romney in 2008 as the anti-McCain because McCain was what the establishment wanted. Rush, Levin have lost credibility.
Perry will never win, it doesn’t matter how much money he has. Here’s al the reasons why:
Perry’s almost reasonous & get “ugly” on Bernake remark
Perry’s scorched earth rheoteric on SS, entitlements and parts of the constitution
Perry’s HPV remark implying that it would take more than 5k to bribe him
Perry’s implied racism at the GOP for the ‘what your last name sounds like’ and ‘heartless’ remarks
The n-word rock, the confederate flag stuff and Perry’s very muted response to it
Perry’s job record under scrutiny isn’t that stellar when from 2005 to 2011 80% of the jobs went to legal & illegal immigrants & it still has a high unemployment rate too.
Perry’s crony capitalism, pay to play will be a minefield in the general
Perry’s poverty rate in Texas is higher than the nat’l average, 1 milion children without decent healthcare……kinda hard for Repubicans to tout jobs being a cure all when Perry’s state has terrible stats like that…what is Perry’s motto ‘we always err on the side of life in Texas’….with stats like these you could add ‘just not the quality of it’.
Perry’s inability to debate. I mean really…. how many voters in Texas now believe that Perry wouldn’t debate his opponent White becasue of not disclosing his tax returns. Pathetic.
And last but not least Perry’s creepy pastor connections. Jeffress, C. Peter Wagner, Bryan Fischer, Mike Bickle, Alice Patterson, etc…..all of them have organized with Perry or are supporting him or have endorsed him……and all these people say vile, offensive things, they are hurting the GOP brand more than anyone is even talking about.
yawnnnnnn Sheryl. your talking points are stale.
But just to go over one, or two, or three….The Confederate flag is part of history. should everything be erased due to political correctness?
The N rock, it was painted over- it was a lease, what more could they do?
You’re right tho’ it is amazing that good people such as yourself are going after Govenor Perry for being a Christian. I guess thats a crime now. Personally I dont have ANY problem with Govenor Romney being a Mormon. Every Mormon I have ever known has been a good decent honest person.
BUT if he gets the nomination, BE SURE every media outlet, will take the religion apart. There will be magazine specials, History channel mini series and pull out inserts in the news papers, all in an effort to discredit the Republican nominee. In my view its better for some of this to trickle out now.
the confederate flag represents racism and bigotry to almost every person in this country that doesn’t live in the deep south.
being a christian to most of us means tolerance and forgiveness not hatred for different groups of ethnic and social minorites.
our party will never advance until we stop being so polarizing and realize that we live in a melting pot country that is changing every day into a more diverse place.
the best part about perry is his stance on immigration. at least he’s main stream in the respect…
The confederate flag is a part of history. Race baiters have used it as an excuse for years. Do you think not recognizing history will create jobs, repair the damage that the Pretender in Chief has caused. Perry can do the job, I love Cain, have listened to him for years, just still not convince he can do things nationally, the debates have helped him enormously in getting out name recognition.
Perry doesnt quit, he will be back. I would love to see a Perry/Cain ticket, that one would take all 57 states in a landslide
So you speak for “almost every person in this country”? I live in Washington State and I don’t know anyone who views the confederate flag as a racist symbol. Get a life.
CAN U WANKERS SPELL GOVERNOR CORRECTLY PLEASE?
It is good the mormon issue is coming out now because you are right it will be an issue in the general election… so might as well get it out. I DID think it was interesting how much the liberal media got behind Romney on this issue… BUT I would agree with you, they will be talking a different talk if Romney gets the nomination.
However, the same goes for Perry… all this stuff needs to come out now because if it didn’t come out now, sure as hell it would be coming out in the general election cycle. I would not be surprised at all if the media didn’t have stories about Perry that they were holding on to, just to see if he gets the nomination (same with Romney)…
The more that comes out on both of them, the better… the last thing we need is to nominate someone and then all the sudden find out all kinds of new crazy information that discredits them completely.
as an obama supporter i am hoping that the republicans defy all logic and nominate perry. i am looking forward to the debate when obama asks perry to his face why he would question his love of country.
good comment fred. its a mystery why it still awaits moderation
If Romney is the nominee I will not vote.
I know how you feel, but deep down, in the end, we MUST defeat Obama so I am hoping that you will open your heart to whoever is the Republican nominee.
Romney is not backing down about Romneycare and I refuse to back Romney. I am not comfortable with the Mormon thing either.
I’m for Perry. He’s pro-gun, pro life, pro smaller government, pro state’s rights, pro drill baby drill and everything to promote new energy ways; he’s anti obamacare,anti global warming–and I like what he has to say about the border. And I especially like the fact that he isn’t afraid to talk about Jesus!
Ah, seems sheryl had been spending copious amounts of time over at Alex Jones’ website. I wonder if sheryl agrees with Jones that G.W. Bush blew up the World Trade Center buildings and FDR helped plan Pearl Harbor.
Rick Perry is not your typical campaigner. He is, to quote Karl Rove who can’t stand Perry, a retail campaigner who is down in the trenches with the voters. Perry understands that not one of those people on the debate stage with him are going to vote for him. But the people in Iowa, who he takes time to explain himself to, will if they like what he has to say.
I understand that Perry has been hitting Romney pretty hard, but that is not really his style. Romney has given him no option. But I also know that from the git-go, the press started going after Perry. The Washington Compost started printing anti-Perry articles weeks before he ever entered the race. The NYSlimes has printed a number of “Perry is a racist” articles. I find it odd that the left wing press seems uninterested in going after Romney or Cain, who are also front runners.
Once again, the state in play is going to be Florida. I know that Cain took the poll in Florida, but it was a sample poll, and I don’t think reflective of the state as a whole. It all depends on how northernized Florida has become with transplants. Romney cannot carry the deep south or the midwest, and that may be his Achilles heel.
A few things are worth mentioning; Romney spend considerable money and resources in Iowa. He won the Ames Straw Poll, and then when it came time for the Iowa caucuses, he lost miserable to Mike Huckabee who was operating on a shoe-string budget and McCain was dragging his own luggage through the airports on his way to campaign. Within a month, McCain had regained some popularity, and Romney was out of the race. The rest is history.
Two other things are important; Romney keeps trying to beat up on Perry although Cain is now leading him in some polls and the press is definately out for blood with Perry. That tells me that although some are saying Perry is now dead in the water, Romney, and the left leaning press, are not so sure.
What does northernized mean?
It would be really nice if the media, television stations and GOP Machine would actually let the voters chose the nominee.
Whats up with NH moving their primary to DEC 2011?
I totally sick of the “next in line” getting to be the choice.
I think the real issue is that the “anti-Romney” vote has been having a very hard time finding someone worthy of their allegiance; Cain’s support of TARP and chumminess with Romney will likely result in yet another rise and fall of an “Anti-Romney.”
Every alternative to Mitt has blemishes on their record, or has an aura of eventual unelectability (Newt, Santorum). But ideological purity is en vogue to a lot of the GOP, which I think among other things kept Daniels and Christie out.
The people desperately searching for an electable, “true” conservative will be disappointed (since there are none in the field), but they’ve got to settle for a flawed candidate at some point, right? The big question is whether by that time they’ll just want someone who has the best shot at Obama or will they push their luck and hope someone more conservative than Romney will still be a good general election candidate.
I am going to tell you a simple fact about Rick Perry that is said in our home state of Texas. “Texas landscape is litered with the bodies of Rick Perry’s political opponents that underestimated him.” Until Rick himself hollers calf rope (& I do not see that happening he is not a quitter) or the last vote is counted don’t count him out.
As for his so-called immigration problem. First please do not call yourself a conservative & whine about our way of dealing with the illegal immigrants in Texas. We have the largest percentage thanks to the Federal govt refusing to do their job & secure our borders-Rick Perry as Gov has spent a small fortune of OUR MONEY & done all within the Governor’s power to secure our borders (at least unlike AZ we have not given land back to Mexico). Immigration & Border security are 2 different issues. Rick is the ONLY candidate that has a clue about the border & how to secure it. A fence is a ridiculous idea, we are not talking about the small border that most states share, we are talking 1200 miles of terrain that in many cases is rural, isolated & rough. Also, our border is a RIVER that some of the ranchers on the border use for watering – are you going to shut down these ranches? Where do you plan to build that fence? Mexican side-I don’t think so…middle of river-that I would love to see…our side-& kill ranchers-hell they will be cutting it. So, please Gov Perry is dead right on how to close the borders, any politician that keeps hollering fence the entire border is too ignorant to be President they have obviously never looked at a geography book.
As for our in-state tuition that people whine about. Here are some facts. In 2001 within 6 months of Rick Perry taking over for Bush, WE the people of Texas rammed this down his throat. Yes, you heard me right, 80% of Texans & 99.6% of our legislature pushed this through-& in any one’s books that is a VETO PROOF majority. So, Rick Perry’s options, veto (which would have been over-rode easily) & piss off all Texans who don’t take kindly to having the government (be it governor or president) ram things down our throat or sign the damn thing. Rick Perry Choose to LISTEN to what we wanted. Now, today he is defending it, you should respect him for it. He could have very easily (& I guarantee you every other candidate would have) said this was not my idea, did not have my support & was rammed down my throat by a Veto Proof majority & more IMPORTANT he would have been telling the TRUTH. But no he is taking the heat for it, like a man, he is not trying to pass blame (even when it is true). And yes I get furious at people that claim to be conservatives & then attack on this. This is a STATE issue. It was OUR right. Also a FYI in Texas thanks to Rick Perry standing against our legislature we do not have a Texas state tax, most of our school funding for higher ed is oil/gas related & SALES TAX-which EVERYONE including illegals pay. In 2001 this was the best solution for Texas & our right, so please don’t claim to support the Constitution & then turn around & be a hypocrite.
Thanks, Victoria. Those things needed to be cleared up.
victoria, I remember how proud I was when Governor Perry signed the legislation that he fought so hard for that abolished property taxes on the homes of veterans who suffer from 100% military related disabilities. He did it quietly, surrounded by veterans, not political playmates. And I remember when our Congress passed a bill that would have required Texans to pay sales tax on Amazon purchases (and other out of state retailers) and because it was not passed by a majority, Perry vetoed it because it was just one more tax that he felt Texans should not have to pay.
Texas, like no other state, has taken on the feds. Oh, yes, we all hear about poor little Arizona and their legal battles with the Holder DOJ, but how many know that Texas has been suing the EPA for two years now because the Obama EPA is strangling both large and small businesses. How many know that we Texans are now in a battle over the Sonigram bill and our Voter I.D. bill with Holder’s DOJ?
Now, a lot of people who post comments on the web about the in-state tuition are totally unaware that their own state allows the same. It is a 10th Amendment issue, and there is not one GOP candidate that is as supportive of the Constitution, as it was written, as Rick Perry.
The Eastern press started doing a hit job on Perry before he ever got in the race. And when that didn’t work, then they tried to slam Texas itself. Nice tactic there; when you can’t totally destroy Perry, go after the entire state. Disgusting.
WOW. I couldn’t have said it better myself. People whose state is 1500 miles from Mexico know EXACTLY how to solve the border problem. Ever have a special needs kid?? When I had my first “perfect” kid that eventually PUT HIMSELF THROUGH HARVARD… I would have told anybody with my SECOND kid that they just had to parent him like me… yeah, right. except my second kid attacked me with a 2 by 4 while I was sleeping and he was 18 months old. Hell the kid was kicking and biting IN HIS SLEEP at 8 weeks. We, in Texas, ACTUALLY HAVE a border. I tried posting pictures of Santa Elena Canyon with the 80 foot cliffs coming right up to both sides of the RIVER. Put a fence on “every mile, every inch” of that Ms Batman. How about half way up the cliff on our side?? Duh.
You go Victoria!! I love Rick Perry, pray he’s nominated. Thanks for sharing the information.
GO RICK PERRY!!!!!!!
Rick Perry and Illegal Immigration
Plenty of folks have objected to Perry’s supports for in-state tuition for illegals. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Perry is a full fledged Open Borders activist. He has never seen an immigration law he is willing to enforce. Perry is another mass immigration, cheap labor corporatist, no different than the Bushes (Jeb and George) or Rubio for that matter. Of course, while he loves illegals for cheap labor, he doesn’t want them to vote. He pushed hard for, and passed, a Voter Id bill in 2011. A few notes on Perry and illegals.
1. Perry claims that in-state tuition is a “States Rights” issue. Actually, it is not. Federal law specifically prohibits the granting of in-statue tuition to illegals unless the citizens of all states have the same privilege. See “Rick Perry, In-State Tuition, and Federal Law” (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278242/rick-perry-state-tuition-and-federal-law-heather-mac-donald) by Heather MacDonald.
Here is what the law actually says.
“An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States,” declares Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
Note that the California Supreme Court ruled otherwise. However, a more germane point is that niether Bush nor Obama has ever tried to enforce the law (by suing the states).
2. Perry has consistently opposed any type of immigration enforcement. He opposes E-verify (because it has been shown to work). He opposes fences (because they work in Israel and the U.S.). He opposes using police to catch illegals (along the lines of SB1070 in Arizona) because it works. What does Perry support? Make believe border enforcement. Perry has asked for 1000 National Guardsmen along the border. That’s less than one per mile. Allowing for 3 shifts per day and weekends, that less than one Guardsman for every 5 miles. However, it gets worse. What does the border patrol actually do? It catches illegals and returns them to Mexico so they can try again. Many are caught several times in one day. “It ain’t over until the illegal wins” is the Perry way.
3. Perry Perry is about as pro-Amnesty as you can get. He just doesn’t have the guts to call it Amnesty. So he talks about “work permits” and waiting in line. Guess what? A work permit makes an illegal alien, a legal resident of the United States. You can use any word or words you like, but Amnesty is still Amnesty. As for “waiting in line”… People who come to this country wait in line at home. Under they Perry plan, the illegals “wait in line” right here in the USA draining our country every day of our taxes, jobs, schools, etc.
4. Perry supports the NAFTA superhighway. Enough said.
5. Don’t buy the argument that people feel differently in Texas about immigration. Texas polling data shows immense opposition to illegal immigration. See “UT/TT Poll: An Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Government Mood” by Ross Ramsey over at the Texas Tribune. Texas politicians are a different matter. The cheap labor lobby is (much) stronger in Texas than elsewhere.
6. Perry’s job creation record is actually rather poor. A detailed study found that Perry has created two jobs for illegals, for each Job that an American got. Another two jobs went to legal immigrants. In other words, Perry has created 4 jobs for immigrants (half illegal) for each new American job.
7. You can find a rather good video on Perry’s record over at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3umQUb_PcDs&feature=player_embedded#!
8. Perry talks about “jobs American’s won’t do” in the video mentioned above. Of course, what he really means “jobs illegal aliens will do for a lot less”. The “jobs Americans won’t do” claim wasn’t true before the Crash of 2008. Back then the Feds raided a meatpacking plant in Colorado and removed the illegals. American workers of all races and legal immigrants lined up the next day for the jobs. That was before 9.1% unemployment and 16.2 % underemployment.
Excellent Post, Victoria! Definitely information that needs to get out there.
Now, someone needs to help Rick Perry get those points across as well as you have. I like him a lot, but he’s got to work on his delivery.
[…] “Remember: Even Bush, with his 40-point lead, got dragged into a dogfight with John McCain–who was in third place until late fall of 1999. Why? Because one of the axioms of American politics is this: All races tighten. […]
I like to see Perry as our candidate. But he came very unprepared for the debates. I could have given better answer for his stand on social security. He was totally blind sided. His supporters are moving to Cain. I support his stand on social security as well as immigration. But he failed to deliver. Sad.
Excellent Victoria-amazes me how so many are ready to slam Rick Perry over something that Texans felt was a good thing to do given their circumstances. Yet these same people will drool over Marco Rubio(NOT a slam on Rubio, he’s top notch), who supported similar action in Florida.
rick perry has stated that as a devout christian he considers human life as sacred. how then does he justify the execution of 234 people ?
another good comment fred. i guess it expresses a point of view that is not popular with the moderator.
Why is it when the discussion of Capital Punishment versus Abortion comes up that those who stand against Capital Punishment equate the life of an unborn child with that of a convicted murderer whose numerous appeals for various trial related irregularities have failed to pass muster.
Can anyone explain the comparison?
What’s the worst act a newborn has committed? Dirtying the changing table? Urinating in the face of his attending adult?
Just asking the question.
Furthermore, why don’t anti-Capital Punishment proponents look at the situation from the perspective of the family and friends of the person who was brutally murdered? I write ‘brutally murdered’ because nine times out of ten, a person who murders another by way of a single, premeditated gun-shot will rarely face the death penalty. The death penalty is generally reserved for the criminal who not only planned to kill someone by their actions, but performed unspeakable acts leading up to that person’s eventual death.
Why does a convicted, brutal murderer get any consideration whatsoever in the discussion?
In Texas you get the death penalty if you kill a policeman or a child. Some lives are more sacred than others. I know John Donne said that the death of any man diminishes me. I also had a MAJOR set of hemorroids cut out of me. Over 10 ounces.
I’ll say one thing, the national media definitely is trying to sink Perry’s ship, which means he’s a threat to somebody (Obama.) The hunting camp thing is a classic example of inventing a non-issue when there is no real issue. Polls are meaningless – at this point in 2007 Gulliania and Thompson were leading and McCain was way down. Romney is popular with 23% of Republicans, which is a long way from the nomination. Perry never has had a reputation for debating but he’s a great campaigner. Romney was a Mormon missionary after all, and has been trained to debate since he was a kid. In the end, it’ll be Perry.
Also, he has been running for President for 6 or 8 YEARS NOW CONTINUOUSLY. He could be a mentally challenged hamster and have all the answers by now. If fact…. have you noticed how you never see Romney and Alvin the Chipmunk and the same events…..
Hang in there, Jonathan! The media & GOP didn’t like Reagan either. Yet Reagan won and turned our country back around. We need experience. Perry is the only candidate running with 11 years of governing experience. Perry is the only candidate with boots on the ground experience at securing our border. 1254 miles of border. Perry is the only candidate that has created jobs in an Obama recession. See Bloomberg’s report on who was actually correct as to jobs between Perry, Romney & Huntsman. Perry ‘by far created more jobs,’ Megan said. Huntsman was next and Romney’s numbers did not even come close.
Perry can get America back to working again!
Every President this country has ever had that’s hailed from Texas has been a disaster for this country. I don’t think the rest of the country wants to aspire to the high poverty rates and low wages that Texas has.
Boo, now you’re not being a “statist” are you? Dems don’t believe in discrimination.
Look at the numbers, half of the jobs created under Perry as Governor are government jobs, which he claims he despises, and the other half are low wage jobs that don’t earn someone a living wage.
Heart —- With 70% desiring someone else than the current frontrunner, and many having an attitude of “if I have to I will vote for him” that does not motivate a large group that needs to be motivated to win. It is difficult to win with that motivation. We had that in 08.
The conservatives and social conservatives will be more motivated with Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and maybe Cain. Passion & heart can win over obligation(if I have to vote for someone I will) Passion and heart gets people volunteering, working to get people to register and then getting your people out to vote. The heart of a candidate also makes up for a lot of mistakes and imperfections. Todays polls do not reflect Americans knowing the GOP field much, especially those who did not run in 08. Rubio was behind 20-30 pts, but was tied at that time with Crist among those who knew him. Eventually Florida got to know Rubio.
Oct 12, US News & World polled 1,000 who had seen a video clip & read a short 120-word biography of all choices, Perry won. “Despite several bad debate performances by Perry in September, when respondents watched a clip of the Texas governor, he actually gained more support than any of the other candidates and beat Obama by 6-points, 42-36.” http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/10/12/poll-herman-cain-rick-perry-mitt-romney-all-beat-obama
Many of us who read Redstate.com saw a much stronger Perry in a non-debate style speech: http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/10/12/rick-perrys-post-dartmouth-remarks-part-i/
Heart – Passion can win over obligation in elections.
Finally, soemone writes an article that is honest and realistic. Watching Fox News diss Perry every chance it gets (Roger Ailes must have threatened every panelist and “journalist” with their job if they don’t talk up Romeny’s chances despite embarrassing poll numbers) has been making me think here the Repubs go again. On the brink of nominating a sure loser. If one is a true conservative, and wants a conservative to win the presidency, the only horse is Perry.
In state tuition for illegals is not a conservative position. His bigger issue is crony capitalism.
Forgive me for my lack of understanding on this, but why does Newt’s past personal life disqualify him from the presidency. I am a very conservative homeschool mom who takes integrity very seriously. BUT, I’ve read the accounts of his two past horrible marital infidelities and am not sure that they count him out of running the country. (One of the best bankers in my small town was known to have an ongoing and unrepentant rotten personal life.) Newt goofed up royally twice in his marriages. ROYALLY! I agree he was a bad, bad husband to leave his two wives the way he did. Now, tell me why I shouldn’t vote for him for president because he was a bad, bad husband twice. Every candidate is going to be imperfect. How are these past two events (his affairs) affecting his current ability to run the country? No one even discusses this. Why aren’t there discussions about WHY “his baggage” is the kind that is disqualifying? Enlighten me?????
Well, it hasn’t stopped Clinton from still being popular. So, why not Newt?
The so-called immigration problem for Perry is a state issue. He has defended his state’s right to deal with the issue through legislative action. Governor Perry is running for the federal position of POTUS. His clearly stated opposition to the Dream Act and to amnesty for illegal immigrants, along with the definitive steps that were taken in Texas to secure the border, demonstrate his allegiance to American sovereignty and to the legal process of immigration. His respect for states’ rights should reassure conservatives that he would not, as President, encroach on each state’s right to govern within the bounds allowed by the Constitution. We, as conservatives, should be thankful for his leadership in Texas and his willingness to bring the sound principles that created a favorable climate for jobs there to the national stage.
Giving in state tuition to illegals is not a conservative position.
To the Texas basher above, all you need to know about Texas’ unemployment rate is that it is driven much higher by the fact that people are flocking here from all over the country. Any study saying quibbling about whose jobs are being created while jobs are being shed nearly every where else seems to miss the point. As to any metrics regarding health care, poverty, etc., please keep in mind that the feds open border policies of the past, well in Texas forever, because it was consistent with state policy for decades, means that we have borne the brunt of seccessive waives of uneducated immigrants on a continuous basis. If you compare apples with apples, we are doing just fine and Rick Perry has been a big part of it.
People NEED to take a second and THIRD look at Gov. Perry. The crazy system where a man is declared the leader in some poll and then appears on TV where all the other candidates gang up on him about what? A law passed by 90 percent of the Texas legislature which does NOT give instate tuition to “illegal aliens” unless they went ALL THE WAY THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL IN TEXAS — is that REALLY the way to pick a candidate. Last time that got us WHO?? Think, people. The guy wandering around the PRESIDENTIAL debates like a wandering Alzheimer’s patient with both thumbs in the air. Remember HIM?? The guy who started his campaign with the famous “my vice presidential candidate fought Republicans in her state while I fought Republicans in Washington” ad?? The guy who thought the MSM were “my base” or was that his “BASS”? Perry has won four governor races and been GOVERNING while Romney has been running for President for 6 years continuously. OF COURSE, he’s smooth. He’s been driving around with his staff asking him the same questions and writing out answers to memorize that whole time. He’s like some Indian girl who has been studying for the spelling bee 24/7 for 6 years. Does she know anything about anything else?? More to the point…. Does Romney?? Mr. Vanilla? Hello??
The MSM is all for Romney now and ready to rip apart Perry because some guy announces him at a meeting and then says something dumb about Mormans. Don’t get me wrong. I didn’t say what he said about Mormans was wrong, just dumb. AND as soon as Romney is nominated Time and Newsweek and the networks will all come out with “informative” front cover, headline stories and 3 night specials about the LDS church and…. believe me…. there is plenty there that can make people say HUH?? Like “hey it’s been the FORTY YEARS since they said Blacks are lesser humans, and THIRTY YEARS since they allowed them to be pastors, sort of. And American Indians?? someday God will forgive them and lighten their skin…..”
First off, I don’t like Romney. Never have, never will. Anyone who can be that passionate of an advocate for abortion, government-run healthcare, same-sex marriage, bailouts, etc. will never have my allegiance. If he is the nominee, he will get my vote, hands down. People who say they won’t vote for him under any circumstance are just being childish. Seriously, you would rather have a second Obama term than give the Office to Romney?
I don’t quite understand the logic in saying that Perry is going to get the nomination. The reference to Howard Dean applies more to someone like Perry or Cain than Mitt Romney.
Democrats in 2004 settled for the less liberal candidate who seemed less partisan–aka John Kerry.
Will Republicans settle for the less conservative candidate who seems less partisan–aka Mitt Romney? At this point who knows.
I’ve heard rumors that Mitt Romney’s camp is the one pressing various states to move up their primaries/caucuses. If that’s true, the methods being used appear, at least at this moment, to be working. New Hampshire the first week of Decemeber? If that comes true, then Iowa will want to move theirs to the week after Thanksgiving. If that all comes to pass, it appears that Mitt will be pretty close to the ‘inevitable’ candidate by the time everything shakes out. The primary electorate won’t be able to settle on one mostly ‘true’ conservative in the next eight to twelve weeks.
I’ve read the stories about Perry’s exquisite retail politics abilities. To perform well using retail politics, a candidate needs time. To perform well in a national election using retail politics, a candidate needs LOTS of time. I’m just not sure there’s enough time for Perry to make it happen. If Perry can come off as being more polished in the debates over the next several weeks and nail Mitt down on the flip-flopping charge, he may stand a chance, but will Perry’s attacks on Mitt benefit him directly or will it benefit the conservative flavor of the week?
Many looming questions, and what appears to be an ever shorter timeline, getting shorter from both directions.
I’m in the Anyone But Mitt camp, leaning towards Cain or Gingrich, maybe Perry; but losing a little hope.
Time will tell,
P.S. Oh and by the way, Rush Limbaugh NEVER endorsed Romney in 2008. Rush didn’t endorse anybody. He was smart then and he’ll continue to be smart now. I’m not sure of his reasons, but I can think of two:
1. Endorsing any Republican candidate will be an instant MSM hit. The smears won’t stop–ever; and I mean ever. 2024 byline, “Rush Limbaugh endorsed (insert 2012 candidate) and it (worked/didn’t work) it appears like he (will/won’t) be endorsing (insert 2024 candidate) so it seems like the end of the line for (insert 2024 candidate).”
2. Rush knows that not endorsing is better for his name and influence. He’s not tied to any one candidate and when (and I do mean, when) that politician says or does something liberal, nothing will stick to Rush and he stays conservative.
That’s all folks. Quit calling him and asking him to endorse someone. He’s not going to do it.
Great post! And, agree with you about Newt. If Clinton’s despicable behavior, in the Oval Office, hasn’t hurt his popularity, or the public’s opinion of him as a President, then why should it stop Newt?
I too am hoping for the impossible and that is for Mitch Daniels to jump in and win.
Romney’s a good debater. No doubt about that. I don’t think any of the current Republican candidates could seriously hang with him in a debate.
However, he’s been unemployed now for nearly five years now, and I’m sure this has given him plenty of time to hone and polish up his debate skills.
Perry on the other hand, has been gainfully employed as the highest ranking official in his state for nearly ten years now, and unfortunately, tending over the second largest state in the Union doesn’t allow for nearly enough time for debate practice.
The fact that Romney is more intelligent than Perry also helps him in the debates.
He’s also long-time unemployed. Being unemployed lets you do fun stuff like occupy Wall Street and practice your debating skills.
I agree. This analysis is spot on and the chance it gives Perry is plausible.
Romney represents too much risk, especially that the Establishment will use him to stick it in the TeaParty’s eye. Rememeber, Braveheart never thought Robert the Bruce would stab him in the back. Charlie Brown was sure Lucy would let him kick the football. The frog thought the scorpion would not sting him and doom both of them.
Not going to let the Repub establishment do to us what it did to us in 2008 with McCain. (Remember Charlie Crist handing Florida to McCain. Christie, former U.S. Sen. Martinez (R. Fl.), and Sen. Thad Cochran (R. Miss.) are trying to do the same thing now with Romney). If it’s Obama and Romney, then it’s Obama for me.
— A Dyed in the Wool Conservative
I made that mistake in 2008 because I bought into all of the “McCain is a RINO” noise from conservative media. I won’t make the same mistake again. I will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is because Obama is destroying the country. If you give him 4 more years, we may never be able to turn it around.
By the way, I’ve been trying to figure out exactly who the “Republican establishment” is. If it is the talk show voices, they certainly don’t support Romney.
I agree and disagree. I hate the idea of Federer in decline. I think he just got mentally sloppy at some key moments (French open 1st set; Wimbledon quarters; US Open Semi 5th set serving at 5-3). He’s not done; he just needs to re-tool. I think in some ways the last year will be affirming for him because he knows he can get to the end: he stood at the finish line and just stopped running. He’s gotta feel better about himself than Nadal, who can’t play Novak at all. In that respect, I think Fed is the true #2 because he’s better against Rafa than Novak.
Anyway, Perry is still the likely nominee unless he totally implodes. Romney has no natural affinity supporters, other than the DC establishment. And we know how their record is with picking nominees, e.g. Dole, McCain, etc.
While I like Perry, I like Newt even more. Yeah I know, the personal baggage. But think about it, what can the Dems say after Clinton? The only place that hurts Newt is among us social conservatives, and there, I’m inclined to forgive! Of all the Republican candidates he’s the only one with a proven track record in DC. As much as Clinton took credit for balancing the budget it was Newt who sent the balanced budget to clinton’s desk to be signed! Truth is, if we want to get out of this mess were in, Newt needs to be involved. He was there with Reagan in the 80’s. He was in the midst of the welfare and budget reforms of the 90’s. I really believe it’s time to lay aside Newt’s baggage, as well as his occasional foot in mouth and go with the proven horse.
Newt sure seems to understand ALL of the issues very well (and he is usually quite effective in articulating solutions to virtually all of the problems caused by a liberal government). And you are right that it was his leadership (with the Contract for America) that really balanced the budget (and pretty much everything that Clinton takes credit for). I’m not sure if he is electable in a general election. He also has the baggage of the scandal that forced him out of Congress.
JL — Buy a clue about Huntsman. He’s not very smart; he’s not smart enough to figure out that he’s a Democrat. Only the media and the inside the Beltway pundits talk about this guy.
This article is good and has great points. What speaks most to me is the comments. The people here seem to be behind Perry. I believe Romney is a horrible choice. His Flip-flops would be torn up from coast to coast by Obama. They would make him a laughing stock and they would expliot his Mormon doctrine to hurt him among the evangelicals and independents that vote. I was at CPAC in Fl and presidency 5 Fl straw poll. Perry was the 2nd best speaker there behind Cain but one thing that hurt the others was Cain campaigned. He went out and met the people. I also think Perry came out swinging and thats the Perry we need. Its like they told him to calm down and be suttle but Republicans want energy and passion. We need the old Texan back but I lean towards perry for several reasons: He is sound on on social conservative issues. He is culturally appealing to the base. No matter how you twist it he is a leader in job creation in this country. Strongly against Federal government over reach, we may have a little barry goldwater on our hands; and finally he does have the capability to raise money and a mini-army. His main problem is the debates, and I do not know why he does so poorly in debates but if he could just shine in a few debates and take the lead and command he would come right back. His people need to let Perry meet and greet every voter, and let him speak from his heart and then we will have our great nominee.
There also is a bit of a problem for Perry with crony capitalism. He is seen as a lifetime politician who has used his influence to get rich and favor his friends.
JL — Buy a clue about Huntsman. He’s not smart enough to figure out that he’s a Democrat. Only the media and the inside the Beltway pundits talk about this guy.
Rick Perry Announces
13 August 2011 (original posting date)
Today, 13 August 2011 in Charleston, South Carolina, Texas Governor Republican Rick Perry announced his candidacy for US Presidency in 2012. My predictions: 1) immediately, big money will start flowing to his campaign, 2) quickly, Democrats will become deeply demoralized and begin saying all sorts of foolish things, and 3) ultimately, Perry will beat Obama for the Presidency in the November 2012 US General Election. The 2012 Electoral College vote will be a landslide for the Texas Republican, Democrats 228, Republicans 310. Texas has created 49.5% of all jobs in the US in recent years. Texas has disallowed teaser mortgages and has not had a real estate melt-down. Texas enacted Tort reform limiting medical malpractice awards, thereby creating a positive business climate for medical doctors. As they used to say about California, Texas is just like the rest of the USA, only more so.
The question now is whom will Perry pick for a VP running mate? VP candidates are (according to my wife): Rice, Palin, or Bachman. My guesses are: Rubio, Cain, both extremely capable.
How is Romney going to argue against Obamacare, which is unconstitutional, therefore illegal, and modeled after Romneycare?
Texas, under Governor Rick Perry, has created 49.5% of all jobs in the US in recent years.
Herman Cain, Republican
02 October 2011
Herman Cain has “the Right Stuff”. He is articulate in his speech, well educated, has a business background, has a plan to fix the US tax system (9-9-9), and is charismatic.
Cain has a proven business record America can understand and trust. Cain has created jobs.
And Rick Perry’s Texas has created 49.9% of all US jobs in last 2 years.
After witnessing the destruction of the US economy and US jobs by the Obama administration’s Marxist policies, Americans now know that “Change We Can Believe” means Leftist government with resulting massive unemployment, destruction of the currency, huge yearly deficits, and huge unsustainable long term debt.
Cain is a mathematician, former Navy civilian statistics contractor, former chairman of board of directors of Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas city, and rescued Godfather’s Pizza and part of Burger King.
Mr. Herman Cain would make an excellent conservative Republican US President in 2012.
Largo, FL, USA
Republican & Tea Party member
Cain/Perry 2012, Perry/Cain 2012
Perry’s too pro-gun, too anti-abortion, and too much of an arrogant shoot from the hip guy for me. I would never vote for anyone who looked at major issues so simplistically that he would call social security a ponzi scheme. I like some of Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, but don’t think a straight out libertarian is what the country needs right now. Overall, Romney seems to be the best qualified of the Republicans. I don’t understand people who lean toward Perry but who would vote for Obama or stay home if Romney’s nominated. Even if Romney’s not your first or second choice, why vote to keep Obama in office for four more years. At the very least, Romney would do less damage and could well do some good.
The important difference bettween Romney and Perry is not moderate vs. conservative. It’s SMART vs. DUMB. For ONCE, Republicans have a chance to have a candidate who can stand on the stage with their Democratic opponent– and for all of Obama’s failings, he’s exrtremely inteligent and a highly skilled debater– and not be intellectually outclassed.
On top of that, Romney just SOUNDS like he knows what he’s talking about on the economy. You can’t overstate the importance of that. He will pick up Independent and Democratic voters not only because of his moderate stances, but because people just want to be LED by someone who sounds like they have a plan. And who knows? His plan may even work.
But, cling to your purism, Romney-phobes. After four more years of Obama, that’s all you’ll have left to hold on to.
Your shortsightedness astounds me. The concept of “brand identification” is obviously lost on you or else you have no clue how badly the GOP brand was damaged after Bush. The very word “Republican” became toxic. The Dems could’ve won a stuffed bear in 08 and won.
You should thank McCain because according to head-to-head polling, he was the only candidate who could’ve come within double-digits of Obama (Romney ran as a right-wing robot). Thank him for the 2010 House takeover too because if Obama won by double-digits, there’s no way even the 2010 wave would’ve been enough to return the House to the GOP. On the other hand, BLAME the Tea Party because they nominasted crazy Senate candidates that prevented a takeback of the upper chamber too.
The Tea Party’s approval ratings are worse than the Republican Party itself whose own ratings have beeen dragged down by the Tea Party. The GOP needs someone to redeem the Republican brand name FIRST before it can try to shift the country to the right. Right now people just want someone to fix the economy. Romney is the guy to do that AND to redeem the party’s image. Once that happens, then you can try to elect a disciple of conservatism. But, think in the long-view, please.
Romney is smarter…but that doesn’t seem to matter to most Republicans. Romney, Cain and Gingrich are the smart ones of the bunch.
The “establishment” did not cause Perry’s free fall in the polls, he did this all himself.
I am surprised that you ignore how the issue of instate tuition for illegals is playing around the nation. In one fell swoop Perry caused conservative and moderate American voters concerned about the very real problem of illegals in the country, to distrust his judgement. The small numbers of illegals who have actually availed themselves of the program is not the issue. Simply put, by a large margin, the majority of voters and an overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters want the illegals currently in the country gone. They understand that the most effective way to accomplish this is to deny them jobs and social services and allow them to self deport. Perry’s unbending support of instate tuition flies in the face of this desire, and makes clear that down the road a Perry administration would not oppose a path to permanent residency or citizenship for the illegals here. That makes him unacceptable. His attempt to make this an emotional issue insults voters whose opposition rest on principle. Further college tuition costs are a personal issue for many parents who, rightly, see this as a benefit to illegals that they are denied. Many have made the point that this is a minor issue, clearly the response of the votes indicates otherwise.
There are several ways that Perry could walk this back. This is not 2001 and the illegal immigration problem is much worse, that alone is sufficient reason for him to reconsider his position. I sincerely hope he does, he is far preferable to Romney, but as long as his position on this issue is unchanged he has no shot at the nomination.
Great read… and lots of great comments.
Just for transparency… I am supporting Romney.
That being said, I think there are a lot of great points that come out in this article… and a couple that I don’t agree with.
1. The race is going to get closer
2. Perry is still the anti-Romney candidate, despite Cain’s rise.
3. Mitch Daniels would have been awesome, so would have Chris Christie or a number of others.
not so much
1. I think the statistics on Bush, while accurate, are part of the problem… a majority of republicans ended up very unhappy with Bush and blame him for the republican loss in 2008. I believe this is part of the reason why republicans have not warmed up to anyone candidate yet.
2. I think the Dean comparison is more accurate of Perry… Dean’s plumet started after he got 3rd place in Iowa and gave that unfortunate speech which included the Dean scream. Perry’s debate mishaps, particularly his horribly missed jab at Romney could eventually be considered the Perry Fumble…
I personally think that a candidate like Romney is exactly what this country needs… and just what the republican party needs. Is he the best? No. Is he up for the fight? Yes. There are a lot of comparisons to Romney and McCain… the vast difference in them is that Romney was a conservative in a liberal state and McCain is a liberal in a conservative state.
On a side note… I was seriously disappointed that Perry didn’t have an economic plan by the NH debate, SERIOUSLY disappointed. Perry’s failure to produce a plan and Chris Christie’s endorsement of Romney were the major factors in my decision to support Romney.
“Perry still the leader.”
Please Jonathan, save me some of whatever it is that you’re smoking before you write stuff like this. Whatever it is, it’s GOOD!!!
Perry’s candidacy is dead, just as I told everyone it would quickly become once he was forced to open his mouth and actually talk about issues outside the state of Texas.
[Hi Jonathan, Here’s what caught my eye on the web!]
LDS a “cult”? What about the “rapture”?
by Bruce Rockwell
Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is “not a Christian” and Mormonism is a “cult,” according to Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the Dallas (TX) First Baptist Church.
His “cult” remark is based on his belief that the Latter Day Saints church (which didn’t exist before 1830) is outside “the mainstream of Christianity.”
But Jeffress hypocritically promotes the popular evangelical “rapture” (theologically the “any-moment pretribulation rapture”) which is outside mainstream Christianity (Google “Pretrib Rapture Politics”) and which also didn’t exist before 1830 (Google “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty”)!
And there are 50 million American rapture cultists (some of whom turn Wikipedia into “Wicked-pedia” by constantly distorting the real facts about the rapture’s bizarre, 181-year-old history) compared with only 14 million LDS members.
The most accurate documentation on pretrib rapture history that I have found is in a nonfiction book titled “The Rapture Plot” which is carried by leading online bookstores. I know also that the same 300-page work can also be borrowed through inter-library loan at any library.
Jonathan — why didn’t you post this in your column on the Weekly Standard website — would this have been censored by Messrs. Kristol and Barnes ??? (both of whom I admire on other [non-Perry] issues, but are in the tank for Romney).
one cannot rightfully blame perry’s decline on the “establishment” if there is one.
rather, perry is all to blame for himself.
i knew nothing about the guy. i waited for his appearance and watched.
now, perry has some talents, but what amazed me was how everybody else in the debates could push him around and fluster him. i thought, if these mere nomination candidates can do that with him, how will he stand up to our enemies–even though i understand he’d WANT to stand up to the enemies of the u.s. perry was like a deer in the headlights.
perhaps ironically, however, down beneath perry’s chosen hardened exterior, his debate performances made him seem like a really nice guy–something he’s probably not called that often.
that was just my objective call on the man, and i would much rather he had succeeded in proving himself the one for the job. he just didn’t.
keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago
Here’s the title of a book you definitely need to buy: Strunk & White.
I feel the same way. When I heard Perry was running, I immediately thought he would be our candidate. I had heard about his job creation success in Texas, and I figured he would walk away with the nomination and right into the white house. But his debate performances have been less than inspiring. Not only did he seem like a deer in the headlights, but frankly he doesn’t seem very smart. In fact, I keep imagining him just getting shredded by Obama. And some of the issues that have come up with immigration and crony capitalism make me question his positions too. Plus his job creation record doesn’t sound so good when looking at all of the facts, and the lack of health care coverage for many Texans doesn’t impress either. I wish Perry was a stronger candidate, but I’m just disappointed.
it is interesting to read about the the hypocracy of some people on the right killing muslims and executing 234 people as perry did in texas that gets applause. taking a life is wrong period.
You are in the tank for Perry.
Perry received a complete free pass during June – September, 2011 from Fox (who wanted to unite conservatives behind anybody against Romney) and the liberal media (who wanted to stampede Republicans to anyone but Romney, whom they know will beat Obama). Perry then raised over $10M in his first few days as a candidate.
Now that people have seen how verbally, intellectually and politically inept he is, he trails Romney by 10 in the RCP average. He has far less organization, cannot compete evenly on money (Romney wrote a $45M check last time), is terrible in debates, is trailing Romney in all states, including SC and Iowa and Romney also came in second last time. Turn out the lights Perry supporters, the party’s over.
Romney is currently enjoying a lead in the polls because the support of the GOP’s conservative wing is split between 4 other candidates at this time (Perry, Cain, Santorum, and Bachmann). Eventually those 4 will be pared to one (Perry) and all of the GOP’s conservative wing will unite behind him. When that happens, Romney will fade to a distant second and stay there.
I have a hard time getting interested in horse race stuff when all the horses are nags.
Perry looks good on paper but he’s *such* a bad debater, I mean the worst of the bunch, that he does not give me any confidence in his abilities. I’m leaning toward Cain. Or Bachmann–I really think she could win.
Perry is a bigot. He has refused to repudiate the man who introduced him and then said that “Christians” should vote for Perry and against Romney because of religious affiliation. Would Perry have repudiated him if he had said that Americans should vote for Perry over Cain because of race? Would we have said that Perry was a bigot for failing to do so? Of course we would. Perry is a bigot
The latest ARG poll of likely GOP voters in Florida has Perry at 5%. I’m not saying he can’t come back, and its guaranteed that he improves on that 5%, but to put the poll results in perspective: Cain, Romney, and Newt were 1,2,3, respectively. If every other vote cast were shifted to Perry, including ALL the undecided respondents he would still be in third place… behind Romney.
Romney support won’t go down much at all, and I think Cain’s will, but I think a decent share of Cain voters would move to Romney in that case. Regardless, Perry is in a HUGE hole in a place where he’s been aggressive and is a must-win state in both the primary and the general election.
He’s still got a path, as well as money, but he’s got his work cut out for him.
Mitt Romney is the nominee. The banks, the Bushes, and the “one percenters” want him, and their votes are the only ones that count. The fundies and teabaggers will fall in line like the sheep and lemmings they are. The preacher who shilled for Ranger Rick said it best when he assured that godless Chris Matthews on PMSNBC that if it came down to choosing between the non Christian Romney or the Christian (his opinion) Obama, he was with Mitt and his money all the way.
Dogs for Romney!! Dirty Air For America! Jobs for China!
Join the “Poop on America 2012” campaign today!
“A. Hick” is a good name for you.