Posted on 12/14/2011 5:30:22 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It’s now a three-way race before voting begins for the Republican presidential nomination. as either Newt Gringrich, Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry will be the GOP standard-bearer to challenge President Obama.
The same pundits that have confidently miscalled the GOP race all along are now declaring it’s a two-way race between former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Governor Mitt Romney.
They’re wrong. Either man might be the nominee, but not necessarily.
Romney is the former frontrunner. He’s educated, polished, and has tremendous private-sector success and some high-level public experience. He even has a picturesque family.
But a majority of Republican primary voters do not support this consummate establishment candidate. He has a record of flip-flopping on issues that should be consistent because they should arise from a personal worldview and set of core principles that usually hold steady throughout a person’s adult life.
Newt is the current frontrunner. He’s brilliant, knowledgeable, articulate, and experienced across a wide spectrum of policy and political issues.
But he has serious weaknesses. There are matters of personal conduct that shock many core Republican primary voters, and policy issues such as previously believing the federal government can impose a healthcare individual mandate or pursue cap-and-trade to more recent issues involving immigration.
There’s also a bombastic tendency, seen in kicking a Middle-East hornet’s nest with the Palestinians, backhanding Paul Ryan’s reform plans, and attacking capitalism by vilifying Romney’s business success.
And Newt tops it off by proposing that instead of three coequal branches in our federal government, Congress and the president should destroy judicial independence by subjugating the federal courts. This would abolish the courts’ power to uphold the Constitution when the political branches violate it (such as with Obamacare).
But there’s no perfect candidate. So all that said, one of them might win the nomination and become the next president of the United States.
However, these flaws are sufficiently serious that there is room for a third candidate to emerge. Romney is stable but has not been able to rise above 25 percent. Gingrich has had a meteoric rise but could misstep and implode just as quickly.
Who could it be? Filing deadlines are past in many states and talk of a brokered convention is fanciful; it’s almost certainly someone currently on the stage.
Jon Huntsman is at low single digits because he’s shown contempt for the GOP base and he’s about as exciting as reading the Economist, so it won’t be him. And despite the thrill at rebelling against the machine that drives so many people—especially young people—to support Ron Paul, he might be the only literally unelectable Republican in the field.
That leaves three. Of them, Rick Santorum has tremendous policy expertise. Michele Bachmann is short on public experience, but has a great personal story and private-sector experience.
But they don’t have money or organization. Even a surprise win in Iowa—which won’t happen—wouldn’t bring money in fast enough to build a national team and saturate the media markets in the other January contests.
Which leaves Governor Perry. A long-serving governor of America’s second-largest state, Perry has executive experience and an almost-perfect record on economic, social, and national-security issues. Three of the best lines from the last debate were his—seeing the big picture on Newt’s Palestinian comments, knowing Obama should have recovered or destroyed our stealth drone, and declaring that securing the borders will change the national mood enough to discuss long-term immigration reform.
Moreover, he has tons of campaign cash and a large organization. And coupled with pushing for a flat tax and Balanced Budget Amendment, his support for guns, marriage, and faith will help in Iowa and South Carolina.
If Romney or Gingrich falter, Perry might take it all.
You betcha he can.
Why do people think Obama is so formidable. He can’t string a sentence together without a telelprompter and a full-length movie could be made of his gaffes.
The press ignores all that, but you shouldn’t.
Perry would be fine debating the Won.
And you don't think Rick Perry's goal of abolishing lifetime judicial appointments accomplishes a similar outcome? (I agree with it, BTW).
Does anyone know what happened to Newt’s big GA presser that was supposed to happen yesterday?
I had car trouble and other glitches that kept me away, but when I came back, I still couldn’t find what happened.
Was still looking to find out last night, but fell asleep instead.
What’s up with that whole thing??
#1 Perry is NOT GWBush - NOT even close
#2 Perry has been taking it to Obama for 3 years already - look at his record. He has hit Obama on every issue:
Stimulus, Tarp, EPA, Illegal Immigration and the list goes on. And before that, he fought against GW Bush on many issues as well.
#3 Perry CAN debate Obama!
Obama cannot do jack without his teleprompter.
What’s Obama going to say? debating Perry?
I’m better on immigration?
NOT- Perry put more money and manpower on the border than Obama did.
I’m better at creating jobs?
Huh? (None of the candidates created jobs other than Perry)
I’m better because I’m pro abortion?
NOT— Perry is and always has been.
I’m better because I cut taxes?
NOT— Perry did. (None of the other candidates cut anyones taxes)
I’m better because I balance the budget?
NOT - Perry and the TX Legislature balanced the Texas State budget for the first time since WWII.
I’m better because I created obamacare?
NOT— Perry is against Obamacare and has spoke out against it from day 1. He has been very vocal about mandates.
(Newt and Romney are on record for mandates)
I’m better because I supported Israel?
NOT— Perry does and always has. He has awards from Israel for defending Israel.
I’m better because I’m stronger on the 10th Amendment?
NOT— Perry is a huge supporter of the 10th Amendment.
Nobody and I mean nobody is stronger on the 10th Amendment than Perry.
I’m better because I’m stronger on the 2nd Amendment?
Nobody and I mean nobody is a stronger supporter of the right to own guns than Perry. Nobody.
(check Newt’s record on 2nd Amendment - it’s not good)
What’s Obama going to say? I’m a supporter of guns for the drug cartel???????????????
I’m better because you don’t have experience?
Only Perry and Romney has experience in governing - you choose
I’m better because I lowered regulations?
NOT- Perry did.
I’m better because I’m a conservative?
NOT
I’m better because I served in our military?
NOT
Perry served in the military as a C-130 pilot in the United States Air Force.
(Obama) I’m better because I uh uh um uh uh um uh uh um uh uh um uh can work with foreign leaders?
NOT - AND YOU WON’T SEE PERRY BOWING TO ANY OF THEM.
YOU WILL NOT SEE PERRY APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA EITHER!
Perry has had to deal with an international border that was suppose to be secured by the Federal Government on behalf of all the United States.
Perry has had to deal with Obama Administration that does nothing - except send troops to other countries.
Perry has had to deal with a United States Government that is corrupt and has committed treasonous crimes by running guns into Mexico to criminal drug cartels.
Perry has had to deal with a Supreme Court order that we educate illegals.
Perry has had to deal with a Homeland Security and ICE that will not punish violators, will not deport violators but instead puts them right back on the streets.
WHAT CANDIDATE has dealt with illegal immigration and with a border not secured by Obama?
WHAT CANDIDATE has fought tooth and nail with Obama for 3 years?
WHAT CANDIDATE has experience dealing with a 1200 mile border - they have not. They know nothing about it but
Perry does.
WHAT CANDIDATE has got laws passed to defund Abortion or made it mandatory that women get a sonogram before making that decision? Perry did. And now Obama is fighting back against Perry and Texas for doing so even while Planned Parenthood is closing down clinics here in Texas.
WHAT CANDIDATE got laws passed to require a Voter ID so that illegals cannot vote. Perry did. Now Obama and Holder are fighting Perry and Texas over this as well.
WHAT CANDIDATE created an environment that resulting in a better standard of living? Perry did.
WHAT CANDIDATE got tort reforms in place to get businesses back to hiring people? Perry did.
WHAT CANDIDATE lowered taxes, lowered regulations and fought against Obama regarding the EPA? Perry did.
WHAT CANDIDATE jumped in and helped Arizona in their fight against Obama? Perry did.
WHAT CANDIDATE put their constituents own money and manpower on the border to fight the drug wars? Perry did, Texans did and all the while Obama is running guns TO the cartel.
Perry takes crap from the Feds every day every week every month every year. And he still oversaw one of the best economies in the US.
WHAT CANDIDATE HAS BEEN HANDING OBAMA HIS ASS ALMOST DAILY?
RICK PERRY HAS.
I agree with Perry’s judicial plan as well and thought that was one of the weaker points the article made about Newt.
I also thought criticizing Newt on the Palestine jab was weak.
Why should we pussy foot around those middle eastern countries? Perry’s bringing up the drone was just as confrontive and I like it also.
There are other weaknesses to bring up about Newt but I don’t think those are two of them.
Good try but Perry’s idea of term limits on lifetime judges doesn’t deactivate court jurisdictions.
I understand but think you should give Perry another look for the primary.
When it comes to Perry, I think you are wanting to hear Kate Smith sing.
Wow. That was great. I think Holder is launching a massive attack against the states requiring photo I.D. in order to vote.
It was on Fox this morning. Never mind that I have to show photo I.D. to pick up Sudafed (or some drug like that) at the drugstore.
Wonder if any light globe manufacturers will move to Texas since Perry is saying that we can still buy the loathsome, destructive 100 watt bulbs if they’re manufactured here.
The two ideas on judiciary appear quite different to me. The courts would still hold a seperate branch position under Perry’s plan to end lifetime appts, but would be subjected to term limits for individuals.
The other approach seems to change the relationship among the three branches.
By whose lights is this sweeping, overwhelming change Newt wants actually allowable...other than because it popped up in Newt’s brain and out of his mouth?
One problem he has is just that, IMO...Newt’s standard often seems to be............Newt.
I said when this big announcement was reported that it was probably nothing, just Newt’s way of staying in the news.
I’ve heard nothing about it. Anyone?
WOW! this “info” coming from the extreme Enviro-wacko Leftist group the “Bulldog Blog”.
You must be doing some serious closet surfing there. Working for the MSM? You might just give it up. Those of us who support Newt don't care about 25 year old rhetoric and propaganda.
And we certainly take your sad effort as a direct reflection on who you are supporting.
Perry is history, thanks in part to your kind.
WHAT CANDIDATE sued the Feds and won Texas the "right" to spend their own dollars! Promise Kept.? Gov. Perry!
WHAT CANDIDATE refused to bow to the EPA and took it to them? Rick Perry’s Air War (with the EPA)......."Texas alone opted for the unfriendly approach. It’s the only state that did not issue a plan for compliance—and Perry has made it clear that Texas has no intention of complying. The move was a blatant slap to the Obama administration—and once again gave Perry the national spotlight. Defying the climate rules offered him the perfect opportunity to loudly decry the science of global warming—which in his book Fed Up! he calls a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight”—and to slam EPA as a “rogue agency” with an “activist mind-set” that has “targeted Texas.” Such rhetoric is viral catnip to the tea party voters who could help catapult Perry to the 2012 presidential nomination."....
I, and Perry, said APPOINTMENTS. Nov 14, Scott Co. IA, Ronald Reagan Dinner. http://www.startribune.com/133880483.html?source=error
What he needs to do is develop a personal debate style, not try to debate like Newt. If he’d go with simple statements to the voters/audience and not engage the others on stage, I think he’d do well.
“A contrived phony mess.” Perry’s got that right. I guess Newt has forgotten he wrote the forward to the book when he rushed to agree with Nancy and get cosy on the couch with her.
He did write the forward to the book, did he not? Or one of Perry’s books.
Newt is as flighty and grandiose as ever.
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.