Posted on 08/12/2011 1:07:19 PM PDT by smoothsailing
What a an insult to Mr Reagan.
Any respect I had for Ron Paul's expertise on finance vanished with his idiotic rants on foreign policy.
Who wrote this article? Dana Carvey’s church lady from SNL? He’s going to have to get over his queasiness about women mixing it up in the arena. I just wish all the candidates could fight like a girl.
I thought the debate was terrible...except for all the others. Could it have been better, yes. Worse? Wait for the general, then it will be back to brainless soundbites.
Finally, we had halfway intelligent questions being asked rather than the moronic CNN/PBS-type “moderators” going on and on with gays and abortion.
I’d say Rick Perry did best, but so did Michelle Bachman and so did Herman Cain. Let’s try to keep in mind how much better this was than what usually passes for a campaign debate.
As for Ron Paul, boy! He really let his freak flag fly! I agree with whoever said he is Dennis Kucinich’s crazy uncle. I like what he has to say about the Fed but his sanity ends at the water’s edge, and let’s not even get into drugs and marriage.
When asked at the state fair who she would support if Perry and Romney were the last two standing, she replied, "I don't see that happening."
Check out her writing on her t-shirt.
And they're both Peter-principle ruling-class swells striving to rise above their level of incompetence.
I've posted some mild but factual criticisms of his Bush like stance on open borders and ties to the Chamber of Commerce/Cheap Labor lobby and been accused of being an Obama plant.
For the record, I do not hate Rick Perry and I do not hate Mitt Romney. I see either as a vast improvement over what we have in the white house now, but another Bush-like mediocre president who would merely slow our march toward socialism, rather than reverse it.
Perry is Romney without the enthusiasm for socialized medicine. Romney is Perry without the enthusiasm for open borders.
There were beanbags in Lincoln's time and long before, it's in all the history books!
"Politics ain't beanbag, as Lincoln famously observed."
I don't know if Lincoln said that, but he could have. I think the writer was just making an attempt at humor.
However, we do know that Lincoln said; "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to beanbags" and "A beanbag divided against itself can not stand".
:o)
And it’s certainly good that not the many share that wrong opinion.
So you read the article from the Dallas Morning News, a totally commie rag that more than likely took some of her statements and put them together to say what they wanted her to say?
Sarah Palin holds her cards very close to her chest. And I know for a fact that she and Perry are talking.
Another Romney
They all have flaws, it is still going to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils. We can choose the least socialistic of the batch, but we will be the ones who have to be united on a candidate. The demwits don’t have to.
The person who goes up against 0 will have to have charisma, tv appeal, which means a decent set of choppers to smile not grimace at you, not sound dull as a droning professor, and has some fire in their belly, and a touch of the old time preacher man. Along with their facts straight.
And they better have a clean childhood, because the FBI has been busy digging dirt on all of them at 0’s command, which he will drop on the right Friday nights.
Until you start hearing the Reform word, and placing congress people under Medicare, instead of their life time platinum health care, and make them live under the same exact laws they foist on you, they will remain your Lord and Masters, and you the SERF with an open wallet to rape.
Force them to replace the SS funds they stole too. And fix it so they can’t raid it again.
I agree, he has to earn it, but the potential is pretty good that he is going to out perform the rest of the current field. He’s got the best narrative by far of the group. Only Pawlenty has more than one term of executive expeirence, but he’s the longest serving and his state is doing the best in the country. He still has the show us he has the political accum to take on Obama and a platform we are willing to fight for.
I disagree that he is anything like Romney. Perry isn’t the perfect conservative, but he’s long been a champion of building a strong business environment, low taxes, and less government. Romney has not demonstrated much of that at all. Perry is much closer in philosophy to Bachmann and the tea party than he is to Romney, although he has weaknesses. Perry’s downsides are the traditional ties to big business and immigration. He has to convince me as a voter that he has a practical but strong policy on illegals beyond a strong border, and also show a bigger allegiance to shrinking government spending and intrusion than he does to the big business lobbyist.
Do you mean Rick Perry did best by not being there?
1) He had bad grades.
2) His job creation is all low-wage jobs.
3) Conservatives in Texas have bad things to say about him.
Maybe that’s why he won last nights debate. He escaped the platform where he’d have been asked those questions. ;)
It’s deceptive to consider those who did not attend the debate the winners. It’s not winning to avoid debates so that you can avoid questions. Deceptive yes, but not winning. Unless of course you’re Charlie Sheen.
I am totally committed to Sarah Palin, if she runs. If she doesn’t run, here are my priorities.
2. Rick Perry
3. Michelle Bachman
4. Rick Santorum
5. Ron Paul
6. Huntsman
7. Pawlenty
8. Romney
9. Gingrich
If Palin doesn’t run, then Cain would head the list for me.
As an aside, I talked to a lot of people today who say they’re taking another look at Gingrich, based on last night’s showing.
Yes, I forgot Cain. He would be ahead of Ron Paul. I just don’t know about Gingrich. He is brilliant He is the author of the contract with America. But he inserts foot in mouth and has some personal baggage.
The challengers have a substantial advantage in debates especially when the incumbent is generally out of favor as is Obama. In these circumstances the challenger in the general election must merely show that he/she is "presidential" to "win" the debate. That's because the debate is really a contest over undecideds. Those who have already decided their vote are not going to be swayed to the other side unless there is a really profound gaffe.
The undecideds are undecided because they are unhappy about the incumbent but not yet convinced about the challenger. The challenger's job is to show that he will not embarrass the country by looking presidential and avoiding gaffes.
So we looked through the debate last night and we ask first, whether any individual who did not look "presidential?" The answer is no but Pawlenty, Huntsman and Cain only barely qualified. Ron Paul is sui generis and does not really factor in. Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum all looked completely presidential and would therefore be acceptable as alternatives to an unpopular incumbent. Second, we ask did anyone make a disqualifying gaffe? The answer is no but Pawlenty came close. Therefore, the debate last night was a great success because it demonstrates that all of the candidates are presidential timber.
Now the question arises from a conservative's point of view, whom should we pick? That is always a subjective weighing of true conservative commitment vs. electability. That is a tension which need not exist but does because the media makes it so. All true conservatives are painted by the media as being crazies and therefore their electability suffers. That is what is going on now with Michele Bachmann and we saw it in the 2010 elections.
Right now Gov. Perry seems to have the best balance of conservative values and electability. That does not mean that he triumphed his absence last night as the author asserts. It means that he has a good record subject to complaints especially about immigration and he combines that record with an extremely good telegenic appearance. In that respect he ranks right up there with Romney. The problem for Perry is that he comes off too Texas and too much of a folksy shit kicker which people will describe as a resemblance to George Bush but which can turn off a lot of Easter and Northern voters as well who might as a result regard him as a masculine version of Sarah Palin.
So Gov. Perry must submit himself to the process like every other candidate and he must show that he can look presidential and avoid gaffes. He must to some degree mitigate his good old boy image If he does so we can expect him to emerge at the head of the pack and, most important, he can beat Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.