I hate to say it, but the whole field of candidates looks weak to me.
Posted on 09/14/2011 6:07:46 AM PDT by shield
There were two questions going into Monday's GOP presidential debate, which was sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express. First, who would emerge as the victor in the battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two Republican front-runners, over Social Security. Second, which candidates would elbow their way into the conversation?
Perry Wins Battle Against Romney
After Perry characterized Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" in a debate last week in California at the Reagan Library, Romney tried to pounce on those comments by accusing Perry of trying to kill Social Security. Romney tried to depict Perry as a candidate Democrats could frame as being out of the mainstream, which, according to Romney, would obliterate Republicans in a general election.
On Monday, Perry responded by saying it was a "slam dunk" for "seniors on Social Security and those moving toward it," that the "program will be there for them."
Calling for the system to be reformed, Perry said politicians have not had "the courage to look people in the eye" and tell them that "this is a broken system."
Romney cited heavily from Perry's book, Fed Up, and accused Perry of implying that Social Security was unconstitutional and a failure. At one point, when Romney and Perry were arguing over what the other had written about Social Security in their respective books, they argued over what Perry meant when he accused Romney of saying "it" was criminal. Romney said "it" was criminal for Congress to rob the Social Security trust fund. In making his point, though, Romney looked like a wonkish Al Gore debating against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential debates, and Perry came away looking more steady than Romney.
Further, in a CNN/Opinion Research Poll that was released on Monday, Perry led the field in the category that asked those polled about a candidate's conviction.
Like with his comments on Social Security, when Perry did not back down from his earlier comments in which he called Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's potential actions to be "almost treasonous," he both appealed to the base and showed a firm resolve, qualities Romney has had trouble with.
"If you are allowing the Fed to be used for political purposes, then it is almost treasonous," Perry said again.
Against Romney, Perry came across as a leader and an executive who had conviction while Romney came across as a politician intent on racking up debating points as if they were Olympic medals.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Romney looked like a wonkish Al Gore debating against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential debates, and Perry came away looking more steady than Romney.
_________________________________________________
Yeah there was that...
[Against Romney, Perry came across as a leader and an executive who had conviction while Romney came across as a politician intent on racking up debating points as if they were Olympic medals.]
That is so true. Romney IS NOT an option. Bachmann and Santorum should be focusing their attacks on the RINO in the race, not a fellow small gov’t conservative in the race. Makes me question their motives. I wish conservatives were smart enough to have the backs on their own and focus their attacks on the statist. The goal is to take Obama out with a small government conservative. It they are really running with a “servant’s heart” it shouldn’t make much difference to them whether it is them or someone who shares their beliefs.
I hate to say it, but the whole field of candidates looks weak to me.
Both Bachmann and Santorum are part of the DC crowd. Romney is a RINO, a NE Republican in Texas we call them dems. So I would expect all three of the above to attack Perry. He’s not one of them. He is the outsider of seedy DC. How easily people forget who are against the average Americans. No matter what Bachmann says she is a snotty politician...and a lawyer on top of that.
Another mis read by the media. This vaccine issue is being discussed nationwide with most conservatives not happy with the Texas king dictating his will over parental rights.
Sorry Charlie....Carville says it is the economy stupid...average Americans aren’t political junkies...jobs and the economy is the only issue with average Americans the rest are non issues. IF you are so determined to be against Perry....then you’ll end up with Romney. There is no one else in the race and no one else is coming into the race...you can take that to the bank. So you must be a RINO Romney supporter.
He is also a race baiter that's accused people opposed to illegal immigration to be racist based on people's last names, and not willing to protect our borders from the illegal invasion.
We already have a race baiter in the WH we don't need another one.
OK...so you're a RINO Romney supporter, I get it.
Bachmann destroyed herself the other night and Santorum can't win nor can Newt nor can Cain [who I'd support in a heartbeat if he could win]. So you have Perry.
Just because someone is concerned about the flaws of a particular candidate does not necessarily make them a RINO lover. I will vote for the Republican candidate who wins the nomination, but it would be really nice to get excited about our nominee.
He isn’t accusing others of racism.
That’s your interpretation of his remarks.
In Texas we have millions of Hispanics whose families have been here for generations. As far back as they know, they’ve been in Texas. But many ignorant people just assume they’re illegals. When a child graduates high school and desires college, it’s a problem to start investigating their backgrounds simply because they have an Hispanic name. Like it or not, that is a problem. It’s what Perry meant, not that people against illegals are racist.
It’s unfortunate this was called the Texas Dream Act. All it ever was is a law that says, if you graduated from a Texas high school and were enrolled at least 3 years, you are considered in state, not out of state, no matter where you came from before that. Therefore, you’re tuition rate is what Texas residents get, not out of staters or out of country.
Perry said:
“This issue is about education, it’s not about immigration,” he said.”
“So it would be I think the wrong message to say somehow or another that you can’t go to our colleges, or we’re going to punish you because of the sound of your last name.”
That’s race baiting. Its about illegal immigrants, be he is in denial and a race baiter. No one cares about last names, only if they are here legally or not.
If you don’t see that then YOU are the RINO. Boders mean something and so do our laws.
To accuse people of not wanting them here based on their last name and not because they are law breakers IS race baiting! plain and simple.
OK...I see...Romney is your man. That’s fine go for it.
I guess Vincente Fox is your man, but Perry is as close as you can get in the states...
This is the part of Perry’s EO regarding parental rights:
“Parents’ Rights.The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law.”
The EO very directly states it is “the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care.” This order makes it easier for parents to opt out by being able to request the opt out form on-line.
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.