Replies

Sheeesh! 2% of the states have made their preference, 2%, ONE of FIFTY! Yes, that's true.

Based on that very strange caucus, which allowed D’s to vote, we should dump all but the top two candidates? Point 1, it's your take that the D's are the reason Perry came in fifth? Really? Point 2, Perry has dumped a lot of cash in Iowa. That didn't garner him more than fifth place. I suppose there's an outside chance he might do better in South Carolina after skipping New Hampshire. I don't see that happening.

NO, that caucus has NOT selected the national candidate reliably, it’s doubtful they speak for the majority this time. That may be. There's still a large hurdle to overcome, and that's that Rick Perry isn't catching on. He led for a while. Folks learned more about him, and he tanked. I don't remember seeing anyone recover from being in the lead, then tanking.

Rotney will NEVER be my candidate, Paul lost any chance after I witnessed his zealots attempted putsch at the last Nevada convention. I agree with regard to these two. Unfortuantely, Perry appears with these two on my short list. His amnesty bull-carp, his gardasil decision, and his decision to act as Gore's campaign chairman in Texas rather that support a continuance of the Reagan Legacy, prevent me from considering him as someone I could support.

Santorum? Virtually unknown and not even taken seriously until last nights peculiar caucus! A caucus which settled NOTHING for anyone who is not addicted to jumping aboard the band-wagon of the MSM anounced leader of the moment! "A peculiar caucus?" If Perry had won that caucus you wouldn't have seen that as a good victory? Why was he there contesting the caucus if it was such 'a peculiar caucus', and you seem willing to dismiss the guy who virtually tied for the victory there?

No western state has chimed in yet, it is WAY too early to be pronouncing who is a legitimate candidate and who should drop out. I'm curious which western state you'd like to hear from? Would that be California, Oregon, Washington, perhaps Arizona? California, Oregon, and Washington are Leftist states. Arizona was stupid enough to return McCain to W., D. C. I'm not sure I really care what they have to say, and I live in California.

The MSM are giving each candidate a day in the sun, the real race will be decided by a majority of citizens, not one or two open primaries. Here you go again dissing the Iowa Caucus. Rick Perry and Bob Santorum virtually tied for the win there. That's a full blown Lefty and a guy most folks think of as a Conservative. Open caucus or not, Rick should have fit in there somewhere. The full spectrum was represented in that virtual tie. Rick finished fifth.

Perry should stay in until a clear consensus emerges, he may yet take the nomination, he should not quit at the first opportunity to become a future trivia question. IMO, Rick is already a trivia question. What real Conservative was Al Gore's Texas Campaign Chairman in 1988, ignoring the Reagan policies and trying to advance them into the future? What real Conservative issued an executive order that would have forced every girl in the state to have a Gardasil regimine, before they could attend classes, unless they could talk their parents into signing a waver? What real Conservative has telegraphed that he wants to keep all 20 to 35 million illegal aliens here, and put them on a track to citizenship over time? What real Conservative wants to see those illegals bring over five to ten family members each, as soon as they become citizens?

I think it's reasonable for you to support Rick staying in longer. It is premature for me to advocate otherwise. I'll admit I don't have any affinity for Perry's candidacy whatsoever.

None the less, I would like to see him drop out. The idea that he is a Conservative, a Tea Party member, are things I find laughable.

Some good points there, but some bad ones. For example: You bring up Perry's 1988 support of Al Gore. This isn't nothing, but it ain't much, either, considering the political changes between 1988 and this century. In 1988, Perry was a "southern Democrat" and already rather conservative. Al Gore specifically ran as a conservative, DLC-type anti-abortion, pro-Israel Democrat (which is why he lost the nomination to a liberal). By the time Al Gore had been VP for 8 years, of course (in 2000), Al Gore had gone far left, whereas Perry had become a Republican, like millions of other conservative southern Democrats have done.

I think these are hugely important qualifiers, yet you appear to imply that Perry's support in 1988 was for a lunatic leftist like Gore has since become. What I notice you don't bring up is a much more recent endorsement of a leftist, namely Santorum's 2004 support for Benedict Arlen. At the very least, I expected Santorum -- now that Arlen has not only fully betrayed the GOP but also been sent out to pasture -- to issue an explanation (and a rebuke of Arlen), but to my knowledge, Santorum hasn't done that. I'd say a 2004 endorsement of Arlen Specter is at least as much of a negative for Santorum as is Perry's 1988 support for Gore. I have other issues with Santorum, primarily that he "hasn't ever run anything" other than his Senate office and campaigns, whereas Perry has extensive executive experience (albeit, unfortunately, none in the private sector).

Re: Point “1”. No, it’s my take that this caucus was as much a random event as an actual valid sampling of the electoral will.
You have to personally witness the zealotry and willingness to engage in ACORN type tactics of the RP brigades to truly understand how far from normal American values many of them are.
Some are sincere, some are nuts.
Then remember that it is also an “Open” caucus, so the results are even less meaningful.

Point “2”. We are fortunate that “a lot of cash” does not directly translate into success, else the rich guy would always buy the election.
As I said above, I feel this caucus result was too random due to wild card factors to be taken seriously.

Perry may begin to “Catch on” again, it’s still very early in the race.

You appear to mistake me for a strong Perry supporter, not true, I’m more a strong Rotney/Paul opponent.

Gingrich and Perry come up about equal in my view, both have issues they need to address in strong terms.
I would probably give Perry a slight edge among those two, Gingrich has made some major blunders over the years.

I will have to do some research on Santorum, now that he is the “Leader” of the moment it will probably be harder to find unbiased information on him.

As to western states, Nevada goes first, not Kalifornia.
Sadly Rotney did very well here last time, mostly due to the too strong Mormon influence (the same influence that saves Dingy Reid each time he has to run).
RP also did very well here, we have two major universities and he has genuine zealots.

Hopefully the Nevada electorate learned from the last NV caucus and will vote a bit smarter this time.
I am sure the party structure will be on guard against RP zealot disruptions such as they carried out last time.

My main point is that too much emphasis is being given to the result of this one small caucus, so far as I am concerned even Bachman could have stayed in a while longer.