My assessment of the Vegas debate remains the same at the top of the ticket, Perry won by exceeding expectations. There were some negatives to his performance, such as the issue of Romney’s lawn care company hiring illegals, which even if it was worth a mention hardly was the gotcha it was presented as. But feisty and combatative is what people are looking for from Perry, and he finally delivered. The question is, is it to late to change the first impression?
Cain was damaged not so much by the debate, but by the debate pointing out his policy weaknesses. He needs to be able to defend 9-9-9 better than saying “go to my website.” The problem when a candidate runs on a specific policy is that the candidate can rise or fall based on that policy. Cain also hurt himself by stating in an interview prior to the debate that he would consider releasing all Gitmo detainees if an American solidier were taken hostage; he tried to walk it back during the debate but it didn’t work. Cain continues to impress, but his weaknesses are beginning to show. I share the question of many as to whether he is running for President or Vice President.
Romney survived but for the first time was rattled on Romneycare. The more he defends it, the worse it seems. I still think I was right back in February, Sorry Seems To Be Mitt’s Hardest Word. Other than that, it’s still Romney versus the non-Romneys.
Santorum and Bachmann were fine, but they are done in terms of chances of winning the nomination. Ron Paul is Ron Paul.
But the rising star again seems to be Newt. Steve Hayward at Power Line sees Newt emerging as the non-Romney challenger, a sentiment I expressed after an earlier debate, Newt rising? While Newt is a throw-back to the past, it’s a past when we balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and for a moment in time, appeared really to be ending the era of big government.
Yes, I know, baggage, some of which was exposed last night such as a long-ago support of a federal health care mandate. And yes, Newt’s fundraising has left his campaign running on fumes.
But damn, is there anyone you would rather see on stage hammering Obama other than Newt?
Newt’s challenge of 7 three-hour debates with no moderator in Lincoln-Douglas fashion would be tremendous. Obama would not take the challenge, of course, which itself would become a “what’s the doughboy boy afraid of” anti-Obama campaign theme. But if by some miracle a free-wheeling debate about the past and future of the country were achieved, it would be lights out for Obama.
Newt still is the long-shot, but not as long a shot as before the recent rounds of debates started.
Update: I had not seen this prior to my post, but Palin is sounding like a Newt fan, via Real Clear Politics:
“I think we (Republicans) are more interested in substance and that’s why like tonight Newt Gingrich again I think did the best because he seems to be above a lot of the bickering that goes on,” Sarah Palin told FOX News after tonight’s CNN debate in Las Vegas.
Everybody could learn from Newt Gingrich and the way his calm, cool, collected manner. He’s kind of seen it all before in this political game, if you will,” Palin said about Gingrich’s debate skills.
“Newt Gingrich would — he would clobber Barack Obama in any debate, any forum that had to do with substance when it comes to policy and solutions for the challenges that America faces. Newt Gingrich would clobber Barack Obama. I don’t know if he’s going to be the one that surfaces as the fortunate candidate who gets to face Barack Obama because unfortunately, in this day and age, sometimes conventional wisdom would dictate that he who has the most money, the campaign dollars, wins. I don’t want to believe that this is going to be the case this go-around,” Palin said about a debate between Gingrich and Obama.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Professor, I have to agree somewhat. Perry won, by showing a spark and getting underneath Romney’s veneer. I hope the embers in the belly develop into a roaring fire.
Cain’s comment about Gitmo detainees lost me completely. Right now, Perry I view as the best shot to challenge Romney — especially as he if he keeps up the new trajectory.
I don’t care for Gingrich, much. I read accounts how arrogant he was when he was Speaker, and having an affair while Clinton was being impeached was insanity. But I would be OK with a Perry/Gingrich ticket.
Gingrich’s arrogance is no different that any other candidate who seeks the highest office in the land. i.e. Obama. Having met Gingrich, Perry and G.W. Bush, I can say that G.W. was the least arrogant of the bunch. But that is on a personal meeting level. Of all three, Perry has the closest grasp on what everyday Americans face in ecomonic downturns. There is a reason for that. You can’t be a farmer and predict the future because Mother Nature is never cooperative. One year you are buying new tractors and the next year you are filing bankruptcy.
Perry is also the only candidate that is in the top-tier that has served in the military. For me, knowing that we are fighting a war on two fronts, and the Middle East is going to blow up in Obama’s face any day, is important.
I’m not a huge fan of Romney’s, but I’ve been impressed all year over how well he has been performing. He’s just a much better candidate, QUA candidate, than he was four years ago. It’s a marvelous sales job, if you think about it. You know that the thing he’s selling has defects, and you know that his excuses for those defects are BS, but he keeps working you and working you and you can never quite get to “no” with him. It’s pretty easy to see why this guy’s a gazillionaire.
To switch metaphors, Romney is the sports team that proverbially “wanted it” more than the other team. Nobody else on that stage seems to really crave the presidency the way Mitt does. Perry’s like, “Hey, you told me this thing was mine for the taking!” Paul and Santorum know they can’t win, but they want to score some points for their causes. Newt’s just looking to establish himself as conservatism’s foremost intellectual. Cain is enjoying the ride; he won’t spend ten minutes sulking about it if and when he loses. Bachmann, I think, is passionate about what she believes in, but doesn’t really want the presidency, per se. But Mitt clearly wants this job and he wants it bad.
Here’s the problem with Romney. The first priority of any Republican who wins is to pass a law overturning Obamacare. I have heard Romney say he will give waivers to all 50 states. This is not good enough. All the apparatus of government to administer Obamacare would still be on the books including the new taxes and the 4,000 new IRS agents. Obamacare must be legislated away.
The second problem with Romney is his stated belief in the global warming tomfoolery posing as science, settled science. I don’t want to hear Democrat talking points, obviously false ones, coming from Republicans. It’s bad enough when the Democrats make stuff up to further their government growing agenda. It’s worse when a Republican falls for the gambit.
Here’s the only saving grace I give to Romney and I don’t want to depend on it. I think in his heart of hearts he’s much more conservative than his stated positions. He’s had to adhere to a more leftist line to be a successfull politician from Massachusetts. Now that he’s running nationally he doesn’t want to change his previously stated positions because he doesn’t want to be tarred with the Kerry brush. The I was for it before I was against it thing.
On the one hand the analysis in the previous paragraphs might be true and and even then it shows weakness on Romney’s part. He should have the skill to be able to change his position without expressing himself like the lead tongued Kerry. On the other hand the analyis might be totally wrong which would be even worse. Because then we’d have a nominee and maybe a president who would continue policies inimical to the public interest.
You’re wrong about his stance on Obamacare. He clearly and unambiguously supports repeal. Just take a look at his campaign website if you don’t believe me. While it’s true he promises to grant waivers to all 50 states on his first day in office, I THINK he came up with that as a way of trying to one-up the other candidates on this issue (who all support repeal) and to tweak Obama’s nose for having granted hundreds of waivers to various unions and what-not.
As for global warming, it shouldn’t be that big of an issue. Yes, he says he believes, “based on what I’ve read,” that humans are a contributing factor to GW. But who cares? What matters is what he would do about it. As a practical matter, he’s not going to do anything as long as the GOP controls at least one house of Congress. Second, he’s opposed to cap and trade and has only really implied that people should individually cut back on their greenhouse emissions, and that as a country we should reduce oil imports. It’s not like he’s advocating a Manhattan Project-style federal response to AGW; he’s simply saying he thinks it’s a real phenomenon.
Mitt’s far from perfect, but so are a lot of the other candidates. And, at some point, basic competence does have to trump ideological purity. Cain and Bachmann are more than adequately conservative, but neither one of them is remotely fit to be president if we take the demands of that office seriously. And you have to weigh Mitt’s sort of CALCULATED apostasies against the conservative catechism against a guy like Perry, who seems to prone to give in to some SINCERELY liberal impulses. In some ways, I’d feel more comfortable with the former than the latter.
I’m not sold on Romney, or any of them at this point, but the thing is, the new president can’t repeal Obamacare. Only a new Congress can. As long as we don’t think that Romney would veto that (and I don’t think he would) we shouldn’t worry about that as much as making sure we also win the Senate (hopefully with a filibuster-proof majority) and keep the House. Getting the Senate back is the most important thing right now, in my opinion, because then, even if Obama wins, the Congress can block his agenda.
Gingrich is the only politician capable of the revolutionary vision to overturn the comfortable Socialism of the post war America. It is a shame his personal life would derail his campaign should he win the nomination.
What is really a shame, is that if Newt was a socialist, his personal life would be an indication of his sophistication.
Other than that he needs to figure out a way to change his first name or get a job doing commercials for Geico.
I’m with you on Newt, though I did not know about the federal health care mandate, that could be a problem for him. I doesn’t really bother me as well as his personal flaws. He seems authentically repentant about his past problems. I prefer to see people for who they are today. Don’t we all have skeletons in our closet? Not sure if other voters would see it that way though.
Dan Riehl has the best description of McRomney: “Mitt Romney, the proverbial frozen TV Dinner of GOP Presidential politics.”
I didn’t watch the debates, but I did watch Sarah Palin on Greta’s show and agree with her that she’d thinks it’s time the candidates state specifics of their plans instead of “the bickering that goes on.”
It bothers me that right now people are concentrating on how so’n’so will do debating Obama. Most of that centers on style, not substance. We need to get a feel for each candidate’s character, which is where McRomney loses my support and which is why I like Cain. It drove me crazy when Repubs constantly harped on Sarah Palin’s voice and her hair instead of her plan and her character.
‘… it’s time the candidates state specifics of their plans instead of “the bickering that goes on.”’
I did not watch the debates, have not watched any and will not because they are held on an enemy’s choice of field of battle. However, I read the reports and the impression gained is that the enemy succeeded finally in assembling its enemies, the Republican candidates, into a circular firing squad at which the “moderator” gleefully threw loaded clips. That’s brilliant warfare, maneuvering an enemy into self-destruction by friendly fire, even providing their logistics, but it also means the force that was maneuvered thus is badly led and stupid.
It appears last evening and before that Gingrich declined to be maneuvered into joining the circular firing squad. Good for him. Sarah is right, the friendly fire should cease, i.e., the candidates should not allow themselves to be herded into a circular firing squad. They should pose their own agendas on their own battlefields.
In the area of the country were I live, Mormons are saturating public media with claims they are normal people. They’re producing the opposite impression by the vigor with which they ram that message into citizens’ ears and eyeballs. John F. Kennedy did not claim his Roman Catholic status made him “normal.” He left it alone.
The international progressive/communist conspiracy is stirring up a maelstrom of chaos to spread FUD and come through with power extended, and the Republican candidates, less Gingrich, seem to be responding to that work of the conspiracy rather than, as Sarah says, laying out their plans for systematic re-formation of a strong nation. Voters want to hear genuine content of “sudden and relentless.” What specifically is to be suddenly and relentlessly re-formed, re-stored, re-acquired and how specifically?
The candidates should pose their own questions and then answer them with their own specifics on ground of their own choosing. Right now, less Gingrich, they are answering questions posed by the enemy on ground of the enemy’s choosing. Madness. That’s not fighting, that’s slaughter brought on by stupidity. Stop the bickering, boys and girl. And pick your own fighting ground and compel the progressive/communist blighters to fight there. Tell us how to re-form the nation. Tell us how you want us to help you do that. Tell us what you need to get the job done. Ask us what we think you need and will do to help you get the job done. Lay a vector of attack at the enemy’s supply line – fear and fanaticism – and task formations to sever it. Lay off the money, lay on the content.
And BTW, boys and girl, these recent civil war attacks, an international progressive/communist operation to penetrate civil society with a bulge of chaos that bursts open for clear running, should have been pinched off at least rhetorically by you long since, and its supports named and condemned by you in media you choose on your own initiative.
I have had the pleasure of working as a volunteer for three of Newt’s campaigns here in Georgia and have always thought that he had the smarts and capability to be a good POTUS. And, so did the Democrats and you have to tip your hat to the Dems for going after Newt following the ’94 Republican electoral victory. With the death blow being the 67 ethics charges the Dems filed against him and forcing him to resign the speakership to defend himself, which, to this day, I think was a huge mistake on Newt’s behalf. Because, of the 67 charges, 66 were dismissed and the only one he admitted to was an administrative oversight – hardly the malice of forethought the Dems and their willing accomplices in the media had the public believing at the time. But, the template was set and perception is reality in far too many minds.
I think it is too late for Newt to grab the brass ring, so to say, and like a lot of folks, I would love to see him in a one-on-one debate with President Zero, but the chance of this occurring is extremely low. I am proud of how the Republicans are going after each other and this baptism under fire in the primaries is only going to help us Republicans forge a stronger candidate.
Thanks for reminding us of the Alinsky tactics of Dems back in the 1990’s. That is just what they did to Sarah Palin, by the way.
Newt could use that as ammo, if it is ever brought up, as a way to expose the Dem leftists for what they are:
Hateful leftists who use the politics of personal
destruction to remove a “target” who is succeeding
in helping people and the country.
Good points! 😀
And no coincidence that freshman representative Rahm Emmanuel had LOTs to do with the serial ethics complaints againt Newt.
And lo and behold, he was Obama’s Chief of Staff when the ethics complaints flowed against Palin.
I don’t believe in coincidences.
I believe Cain, Romney, and Newt all have the speaking and debate skills to clobber Obama in any debate forum. Perry, unfortunately, is too unpredictable thus far to believe he can take Obama on and win a debate. Sorry, but that’s my take.
As he has demonstrated in EVERY debate, Newt is by far the most intellectual, well-rounded (no pun intended), and savvy of the three contenders.
The question, to me, is one of vetting. Everyone changes their mind, as hindsight is 20/20. Newt changing an old opinion on cap and trade, or a federal mandate of insurance, is, IMHO, hindsight – seeing the outcomes and changing his views accordingly. Whereas Romney has flipped and flopped on nearly every issue out there; he has sold himself as a liberal Republican, moderate Republican, and/or Conservative Republican depending on which way the wind blows. That is not viewpoint change; that is politics as usual, and Obama-lite. We do NOT need more of the same, not even a lite version.
Cain is what he is. He is proudly NOT an experienced politician, and is a savvy political outsider. He is a man of great character, morality, economic success, and insight. He knows how to lead. He knows how to succeed.
Who will emerge as the frontrunner? Only time will tell. Will voters want Newt – who can be framed as “an old dinosaur, with baggage” ala McCain? Will they choose the slick political fave with the big-money donors? Or will they choose the political outsider who can successfully lead?
It’s just too early to say. I am hoping that it won’t be Perry – not because he would be a bad choice, but I am almost certain Obama will run rings around him and take him out of serious contention in the debates. Sad, but true.
By May of next year, if not sooner, we will have a clear frontrunner. I will support him (or her, on some outside chance Bachmann is the one).
I will VOTE for WHOEVER is nominated.
May the best contender (i.e. the one that can DESTROY Obama in a debate) WIN!
Let’s face it. Obama will only run on style because the facts and his policies don’t support him. The MSM mistook his ability to be a “blowhard” for being an “orator.”
I just don’t see Romney taking it to Obama. He is a “deal maker,” which will ultimately doom us because he will be more focused on the “deal” and not it’s contents. How do you think Massachusetts got RomneyCare ? This sort of thing is what killed Bush. “No Child Left Behind” and “Medicare Part D” were both ideas that Democrats embraced until they would have to give Bush credit for them.
Huntsman is the “David Gergen” candidate. This means he will do anything to save the government, but the American people .. not so much.
Santorum is just too nice of a guy.
Bachmann lost me with that HPV thing. While I actually agree with her point, in the scheme of things, it was small potatoes. There are much bigger “fish to fry.” She should have moved on after 24 hours and let it live or die on it’s own (this is exactly what Obama did in 2008).
Ron Paul is a loon. I’d like him to debate Lyndon LaRouche on about anything, but that’s all.
Perry has a list of problems that we have already heard.
Cain has an impulse problem. If you give him some good advisors, he’d probably be fine. I love how the MSM always overlook his time with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City .. it’s almost as if they don’t believe a black man could do that.
This leaves Newt. Newt is strongly susceptible to the “deal” but has made enough mistakes in life that he won’t “get fooled twice.” His AGW ad with Nancy Pelosi is “Epic Fail,” so it’s really scary to say that I am left with him.
I think you should, in fairness, that Perry also has a list of successes.
I find it rather disheartening that all I read is a list of everyone’s problems, liberally (take that any way you want) larded with comments on the candidate’s ideological purity.
So what have the candidates (any of them) accomplished that is positive? And how is that relevant to the job they are applying for?
Who wants to go first?
Anyone?
All in all, I’d say Jon Huntsman had his best debate performance yet. I would not be surprised to see his poll numbers soar into the high 1%’s.
Newt’s baggage is his demonstrated incapacity as a executive leader — that’s what counts.
I also don’t think much can be read into Palin’s comments. She’s talking about Newt’s ability to talk (which has never been in question) — not to govern and not to lead. If she does not know the difference, she’s not the person I think she is.
I suppose it’s normal for lawyers and professors to obsess over debates and speaking skills, given what they do for a living, but really, you should get a better grip on how things work outside the courtroom and the classroom. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)
They must stop fighting among themselves and focus on Obama’s many, many failures. That will be his downfall. All they are doing is giving Obama ammunition to use against the ultimate Republican nominee. Tell us how your plan differs from Obama’s and the democrats. And explain your plan in simple terms.
Maybe even have a plan that forces congress to live with the same laws that they inflict on us, like retirement, healthcare, etc.
“They must stop fighting among themselves and focus on Obama’s many, many failures.”
Sorry, I disagree totally. I want the GOP candidate completely vetted NOW, not in Oct. 2012. If a Republican candidate cannot handle a little verbal sparring and being asked to discuss their past actions or statements, how on God’s green earth are they going to be effectively able to take on the juggernaut of Team Obama’s smear machine?
The candidates will grow, change, and be steeled as a result of this process. The winner will deserve to be there.
In the next four years a new Republican administration will have to shepard a repeal of ObamaCare through the Congress, uproot all vestiges of Obama socialism now entrenched in the Washington bureaucracy, force the Washington elite to accept massive cuts in spending, make critical and well-founded decisions in coming economic crises, and convince the public to accept a significant overhaul of entitlement programs and the welfare state culture, not to mention act as a strong guiding hand in the rebuilding of social and moral ethics in our society. This effort will require a President who is libertarian/conservative to his core, much as Obama is socialist/progressive to his core. A mealy-mouthed McCain sort cannot do and will not do what needs to be done.
Are the Republican frontrunners up to the task? Is Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry or Herman Cain the knee-jerk, feel-it-in-your-bones, economically astute, libertarian/conservative Republican needed to save the Union? Hardly. I’d have to hold my nose to vote for these so-called RINO’s and economic illiterates. Herman Cain is the most attractive of the lot but only because he has no record. We only have his words to hold him to and they are critically suspect. I don’t have confidence that, if elected, any of these men would turn the country around as needed.
Santorum, Bachmann and, especially Paul, seemingly have the right stuff for the job philosophically and economically, but they lack charisma and electability. So where does that leave us?
Very, very worried about the next four years and the future of this nation. And very, very hopeful that Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum can pull a rabbit out of the hat. Or, better yet, that a charismatic, libertarian/conservative will step forward at the last minute and take the nomination.
Ron Paul probably could not win the primaries, but he sure would bring the strongest and smartest libertarian principals to the table as VP. I like the idea of a Gingrich/Paul ticket.
Paul could pull it off though. He has a lot of the youtg vote, which is what we need to beat Obama. The problem is that he is a bit too much for many conservatives to swallow. He is an equal opportunity cutter.
I would disagree regarding the lawn care company hiring illegals.
Mitt Romney has attacked Gov. Perry with lies regarding Perry’s
illegal immigrant position. Gov. Perry was correct in managing to
have Romney basically state that he was all for illegals working on his property until he was against it. Romney did not state it
exactly as I have, but basically that is what it comes down to.
Romney has put forth that Gov. Perry was soft of illegals, etc. Gov. Perry, has spent close to a half a billion dollars of Texas money to secure the border. He has called out the Texas National Guard and all other resources possible. Texas has had little if any assistance by the Feds. Gov. Perry is not soft on illegals, he does not want amnesty for illegals.
It is my opinion that these so called debates are accomplishing nothing more than providing the Democrats with ad material to go after the eventual Republican nominee. They are more like a game show format. I think Gov. Perry has rocked the boat of the Republican establishment. Texas has put up with the Obama administration doing everything in it’s power to cause damage to the state, shutting down off-shore drilling, trying to shut down
coal fired electricity generation. They have dragged their feet regarding the horrible wildfires. The list goes on and on. The EPA and all of the regulators gone wild must stop. Gov. Perry has dealt with this on a daily basis. He may not be the best debater, but we are not electing the head of the debating club.
He is a man of action. He spent five years in the Air Force, on active duty, the only candidate who has actively served our country. He is also a Distinguished Eagle Scout.
Newt has won all the debates, regardless of what the chattering heads say. He’s a dynamo in debates. He’s a long shot, but at this point I’d prefer him (or any of the candidates) over Romney. When I read over the weekend that as governor Romney employed Obama’s chief environmental activist, John Holdren, who helped engineer in MA the most restrictive CO2 regulations in the nation, I wrote Romney off as a candidate. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The cumulative effect of all of my concerns about Romney now exceeds my ability to vote for him. He’s disqualified. If the Stupid Party nominates him, I will NOT vote for him.
I still like Cain, but he needs to buttress his foreign policy. I remember after Reagan won the nomination in 1980, there was talk of adding former President Ford to the ticket as the V.P. to create a sort of co-presidency. The Reagan people ultimately nixed it because the Ford people wanted more power than Reagan wanted to give up — they effectively wanted him to cede all authority on foreign to Ford while Reagan focused on domestic/economic issues.
While Reagan rejected it in the end and did just fine anyway, the co-presidency idea strikes me as an idea that Cain may want to consider. He’s very competent on domestic economic/fiscal issues. I’m sure that during his executive career he’s been comfortable delegating authority to others in areas where he knows he is not strong.
If Cain announced a strong foreign policy expert as a sort of “co-president”, I suppose it may be viewed as a weakness. But voters may say, “hey, this guy knows his strengths and weaknesses. He understands he’s weak on foreign policy and he doesn’t want to bluff his way through knowing he’d be over his head. He really has the best interest of the nation at heart by delegating an area where he’s weak to someone with far more expertise.” Maybe voters will find the honest admission of relative weakness a refreshing change of pace after falling for Obama’s Messianic personality that he thinks he knows everything.
I can dream.
Ditto.
Bullshit.
Newt says he has already drafted over 80 EO’s that he will sign within hours of Inauguration. To do that, he must have already done the homework. Like he said, reversing the march to socialism must begin immediately before it is too entrenched.
You can all stay down in the weeds all you want–and believe me, the Obama campaign will have our nominee buried in a weed field.
Someone has to articulate the philosophy of Individualism vs. collective socialism.
Somebody with a message…like Reagan.
If you want to sit around proposing and dismantling specific programs/policy…fine.
But, what wins elections is a message.
A message like “Hope and Change”.
I hate to say it, but I don’t see anyone up there that can deliver except Newt.
As far as Romney, he’s waaay to interested in looking good. That is, looking good to the liberal mainstream.
“But damn, is there anyone you would rather see on stage hammering Obama other than Newt?”
Rather see Cain on stage. He’s not perfect but has the least baggage… Have gone from considering Newt…to Perry… now gravitating towards Cain. As to his “…lack of political experience…”; our constitutional crisis strikes me as a result of a government operated by people with excess political experience.
Newt is incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent, more so than all of them put together. If he can show that he could govern, could use that intellect to make a coherent plan to turn this country around and make it understandable (the simplicity of 9-9-9 but with better ideas and maybe a bit better fleshed out, but not the 150+ pages of Romney’s plan to make plans)…if Newt can start chatting this up and how to take down Obama and the Dems and not spend/waste time on attacking the other Republicans as they do in the debates…he could make some inroads.
His past?
After Obama, I don’t give a crap. Does he hate America? Does he have a history of hanging out with terrorists? Did he vote “present” on everything? Yeah, he made tremendous mistakes, all the better if he owns up to them and shows that he has learned…he is not the inexperienced person with no history, GOOD.
Is he a conservative? I think he will do what’s right. He is not McCain, he is much smarter. He has a tremendous no. of positives, and yes, those can overcome his negatives, but only if HE does what is smart and right from here. If so, then he deserves to end up on top. A few debates doesn’t tell me much, though yes, Newt would run circles around O, so what? But I want to see what Newt can do outside of the debate format.
well look to the 90’s Newt built bill clinton’s record and even the liberals agree its a good one
Newt maybe incredibly knowledgeable; but I thought we were done with entrusting the presidency to silver-tongued academics/professional politicians with zero private sector experience (like the current one).
so you think Newt has been getting by on welfare since he left office or has he been in the private sector
I disagree with assessment of Perry winning the debate.
Be careful as to what you wish for… Look at his record in Texas and it will show that he’s soft on immigration and IN FACT could not provide the leadership for the legislature to enact E-Verify, punish sanctuary cities despite the fact that the Republicans hold a bullet proof majority in both houses of the legislature. But he did get the legislature to pass his version of the “Dream Act” way back in 2001.
Perry is a RINO former democrat who may not have increased taxes but watch out for them thar’ “fees.”
To obtained a closer look at how “connected” Perry is, gander on down to http://www.texasturf.org/ where much can be learned regarding ties to toll road/road construction lobby even to the point of issuing bonds with junk status. Bear in mind that “texasturf” is a very conservative group.
As a Texas resident, I cannot find one single item that Perry has ever done to benefit the state. In a lot of ways, he resembles John Kerry to include the “good hair.”
Again, be careful as to what you wish for!
Obviously that’s because you never looked for any. I’m not a TX resident — although I know quite a few — and several are obvious to me.
I doubt very much you are actually from TX. Please provide incontroverable proof. Then at least part of your comment will be based on fact.
I like Cain personally but I think it would be a mistake to elect a man with no proven track record. We have that now. We know what Cain says he supports but we have no proof that he would govern that way. Obama said a lot of things he would do and reneged on just about every one of them. A politician will say and do anything to get elected. All we should go by is his/her record over the years. The lame stream media will not report any accompishments of republicans. They did not with Reagan or with Palin. They only reported trivia or made up lies. Their whole modis perandi is that our candidate has done nothing and will do nothing. They are, always have been and allways will be in the tank for the dims. Whoever our candidate is will be trashed to the max. The dims know their party is dying and they will pull out all stops to prevent this.
“I like Cain personally but I think it would be a mistake to elect a man with no proven track record. We have that now. We know what Cain says he supports but we have no proof that he would govern that way. Obama said a lot of things he would do and reneged on just about every one of them. A politician will say and do anything to get elected. All we should go by is his/her record over the years.”
Excellent point!