As the Republican primary moves ahead, the definite narrative is that the contest is a two-man race between Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Both Governors tout their jobs record; the former as Governor and the latter as a private businessman. Both Governors have their own strengths that they bring to the race that makes them formidable contenders. Perry for instance, has an easier time connecting with the primary electorate and is from the GOP’s strongest region. Romney has experience on the national stage and the best poll numbers against President Obama. Both men are strong in different areas of the country. In short, both Romney and Perry appear to have something to offer the Republican electorate.
All this together makes for an interesting dynamic in the Republican primary. The contest between Romney and Perry has the potential to extend far beyond Super Tuesday, the traditional point in the primary season where the Republican nominee is all but certain. In fact, the 2012 race could be the longest Republican Primary since 1980, when Ronald Reagan finally vanquished George H. W. Bush in late May of that year.
As I said earlier, Romney and Perry are strong in different areas of the country. Perry is strong in the South and probably the southern Midwest (downstate Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Ohio). Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has strength in the Northeast and the Western states. With more Republican primaries being proportional, the ability of a candidate to rack up a huge delegate lead, like the one John McCain had after Super Tuesday, is diminished. With the exception of Florida and possibly Arizona, front-loading is less popular this time around than in primaries past. To make things more complicated, both candidates could also have beach-heads in the other’s areas. Romney could probably win Florida in the South and Michigan in the Midwest, while Perry could probably crack some of Romney’s strongholds in the Mountain West. Finally, both men can establish a large war chest, enabling them to stay strong much later in the primary season. After all, one of the main problems with Mike Huckabee’s campaign in 2008 was his chronic lack of funds. Romney and Perry will not have the same problem.
Of course, all this assumes that the conventional wisdom is correct and it will be a Romney v. Perry race. Who knows; maybe Bachmann keeps her strength in Iowa or Huntsman starts picking up steam in New Hampshire? Maybe something comes out about Perry during this initial vetting process? Maybe someone else catches fire or jumps in the race? We simply don’t know. But, if the contest for the Republican nomination does become Rick Perry v. Mitt Romney, don’t count on the race being over by Super Tuesday. This is not a bad thing either; Obama didn’t seem particularly damaged by his grueling primary season versus Hillary Clinton. Moreover, the more states and voters that get a say in who the Republican nominee is, the more likely that the eventual nominee will be more accepted by the electorate at large. A long contest will also allow the eventual nominee to build up their state-by-state infrastructure in the first half of the year. President Obama might not have won Indiana or North Carolina in the general election if he hadn’t had a strong organization left there from the primary season.
So, we Republicans should prepare for a long primary battle. And it might even be a good thing.
August 28th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Prepare for Ron Paul!
August 28th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
I cannot wait till the season heats up. Constant coverage of the race on TV, debates, ads, and of course, the horserace.
The best parts of all are the primary days. Going to work, and coming home like it’s Christmas morning, awaiting the results. Watching the results pour in at the bottom of the screen as Michael Barone does county-by-county analysis and projecting. Watching anecdotal accounts of reporters on the ground at the polls. Watching the concession and victory speeches. Endorsements, attacks, implosions, dropouts. It’s like playoff basketball season.
And election day 2012 is like the Super Bowl.
August 28th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
We are ready.
The conventional wisdom is often wrong.
August 28th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Given the high level of analysis demonstrated on this blog, just based on this one post I would bet dollars to donuts that the primary season will be over before it begins–in a very real sense it’s already over–with the primary contests themselves serving as only afterthoughts, and with Gov. Perry as the foregone conclusion as there is no other sitting governor in the race from a region consistent with the GOP’s regional base, or who enjoys a solid record of delivering economic performance through priorities that support growth. All that matters now is the economy. There is no other issue.
August 28th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
4
A common misplaced thought is the role of blue and purple states in selecting our nominee.
Just because a state is blue, doesn’t mean there aren’t TONS of Republicans (and delegates) in that state.
California has more Republicans than South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas COMBINED.
August 28th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“the best poll numbers against president obama”. Ummm…yeah, if you completely ignore Ron Paul.
August 28th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
And it will deliver zero electoral votes for the GOP in the general. California used to give us Republican presidents, but in our era it’s Texas that has taken on that role. But in any case no Republican can win without the full support of the regional basis of the GOP, the south and the south east. This just one in a long list of why a Romney candidacy is a fantasy vanity-enterprise apart from an historical political realignment that hasn’t happened yet, and probably never will.
August 28th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
#5 Mass Conservative
If it’s still around, check out the Red State, Blue State map of CA. for the 2008′ General election….California is almost solid red…….
LA, San Francisco, and Marin county is why CA went to Obama.
August 28th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
7,
Any republican candidate is going to win the republican strongholds. The south is the least of our worries. Obama can’t crack the south…it was a miracle he won states that he did last time…and this time he is much less popular. We need someone that can compete in swing states…and possible swing states. Most republican electoral votes are a lock in the first place….it’s the swing states that we really need to win, and Perry doesn’t resonate well outside of the south. He’s the kind of guy that can lose the presidency but win the popular vote. He might win 80% of the votes in the south….but outside of the south, he might struggle to gain traction. Romney as the nominee will win states that perry wins…plus more. I’m not suggesting romney should be our nominee, i’m suggesting that perry is weak in the general.
August 28th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
7
How many times has the Republican Party nominated a purely southern person for national office since Reconstruction? Almost zero.
Even the Bushes are hybrid Texans, a product of the elites in Connecticut (Yale).
So the idea that we need a southern candidate to win is laughable.
Anyway, Bill Clinton (AR) and Al Gore (TN) did just fine in northern states, right?
August 28th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
In fact, i would take it a step further….romney is the kind of candidate that can lose the popular vote, but win the electoral college. Not very likely…but it could happen. Perry will have a hard time in places like pennsylvania, ohio and Nevada. We can pretty much write off Colorado anymore…it’s solid blue now. But perry will have a hard time with those states. Romney gets us a win….almost guarenteed. The question we have to ask ourselves is, can we risk nominating someone that will have a harder time winning? Depends on how much obama rebounds…he’s low now, but he won’t stay that low i don’t think.
August 28th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
For the electorate, the issue will be the economy and jobs. But for the party establishment, both those that represent the RNC and local GOP committees and the people who largely bankroll the various races, the issue is ELECTABILITY. Top of the ticket losses kill candidates all the way down to Justice of the Peace.
Sure, Perry might be more exciting to the base, but he will kill the independents. He’s further out than either Paul or Bachmann ever thought of being. He’s Goldwater without a brain. He’s a modern day Jackson. He’d be a 49 state rout. He’d kill the Senate and the House, governorships and state legislatures. And when this reality starts to settle in, the long knives will come out.
August 28th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
11
I don’t agree that Mitt could lose the popular vote and still win.
The way I look at losing the popular vote and winning the electoral college is this:
Red states: High turnout of GOP voters
Blue states: Low turnout of GOP voters
But Mitt would produce the opposite effect, if anything.
As a GOP voter in a blue state, I would be more inclined to turn out for Mitt, thinking he has a slight chance of winning here. If Perry were the nominee, I probably wouldn’t turn out, since MA is a lost cause for him anyway. I have better things to do.
In the red states, you can bet that the Republicans would be quite fired up over Perry, and he would likely win huge margins in reliably red states the way Bush did in both of his victories. But I’m not at all convinced Mitt would stand a chance of losing KY, TN, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, AR, MO, OK, KS, TX, IN, MT, ID, ND, SD, UT, WY, or NE. Those are all red states, but they are all out of reach for the Democrats, especially Obama.
So I believe Mitt would perform better in the popular vote than Perry, but also, he would perform better in purple states than Perry, winning the electoral college.
August 28th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Can someone please make a case for the last GOP nominee that wasn’t chosen, ultimately, by the establishment?
Who will the establishment choose: Romney or Perry?
August 28th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
#10 Mass Con: It’s not just “almost zero,” it is zero. Since the Civil War ended, the only Southern residents who have been on the Republican tickets are Bush 41 and Bush 43, who were born in Massachusetts and Connecticut respectively. The GOP has not placed one person who was both born and a resident of the South on the ticket in the post-Civil War era.
August 28th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
14
Anyone But Perry.
And not because he’s anti-Establishment. It’s because he can’t win. He is an electoral disaster.
August 28th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“Sure, Perry might be more exciting to the base, but he will kill the independents. He’s further out than either Paul or Bachmann ever thought of being. He’s Goldwater without a brain. He’s a modern day Jackson. He’d be a 49 state rout. He’d kill the Senate and the House, governorships and state legislatures. And when this reality starts to settle in, the long knives will come out.”
I 100% agree, especially about Perry being Goldwater. I think Perry has the potential to really damage the Republican brand.
August 28th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Thanks MassCo. That is the correct answer. So with all the Sturm und Drang over Romney’s wilting in the face of Rick Perry, remember that there is no nominee until the establishment picks one.
I believe Romney was to be that in 2008, until he got beat by Huck in IA and the establishment feared that Huck would run away with it. They turned to McCain instead and the rest is history.
I also believe that the same establishment has been more hesitant after 2008 about rallying behind Romney. But now we have largely reduced the real race to Romney and Perry, the establishment having failed to entice Christie, Daniels, Ryan, or Christie off the sidelines.
By October, the establishment will begin to coalesce around Romney, with endorsements and contributions. If he is the choice, we will see many establishment types touting him on the Sunday morning shows, and on FOX.
Perry waited to run because he knew he would never be the establishment choice. He knew it would take a very unique set of circumstances to win the nomination, almost a vacuum or a void. He hopes it works.
I think this race is already over, but Perry doesn’t know it. (One of the ways I know Perry has already lost is that one of his biggest supporters is Craig for Anybody.)
August 28th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Anyone with a brain can look at Perry’s record and notice that something about him is really dangerous for the office of the presidency.
I don’t care how much you distrust Mitt on Conservative issues. I distrust Rick Perry on corruption and ethics.
August 28th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
18
Good analysis. However, if Mitt is seen as the “Establishment Candidate,” some voters may be drawn away from him for that reason alone. What we need is for Mitt to catch on with Fox and Talk.
A very large portion of the GOP electorate trusts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin very deeply. If the three of them (and others) continue to stay cool to Mitt, this thing could be a lot tougher than it should be.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Perry is already beginning to implode, its just a mater of time as his record is exposed like international health care Gardesel, Cronyism, etc. Its also obvious that he will not be able to handle the presser, like poking his finger in that guys chest. He is going to stink at the debates. Perry will be lucking to hold onto Iowa. Iowa’s are not going to take to him, and he has no idea how to organize for a caucus. Perry has no clue how to run a national campaign. And he has foot in mouth problems.
Perry simple will be gone by November.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
# Massachusetts Conservative Says:
A very large portion of the GOP electorate trusts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin very deeply. If the three of them (and others) continue to stay cool to Mitt, this thing could be a lot tougher than it should be.
========================
You mean like they did McCain in 2008? That really helped, didn’t it. I know we both like Romney but your over evaluate the degree with which these guys have a influence. The difference between Liberal and Conservative is most conservatives (not all) think for themselves and are not going to buy into these guys hype. Besides, they will all have to come to grip with Perry”s controversial record or lose credibility.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Yeah, dude! The kids from Huntington Beach, CA just beat Japan 2-1 to become the best Little Leaguers in the universe.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
7.casusit Says:
August 28th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
“And it will deliver zero electoral votes for the GOP in the general. California used to give us Republican presidents, but in our era it’s Texas that has taken on that role. But in any case no Republican can win without the full support of the regional basis of the GOP, the south and the south east. This just one in a long list of why a Romney candidacy is a fantasy vanity-enterprise apart from an historical political realignment that hasn’t happened yet, and probably never will.”
====
Exactly, Casu..
Btw, It’s always a pleasure to have at least two folks on each thread with intelligence and common sense that who aren’t merely cultish Romney fanboys.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
We will find out if the same social media that have been used to fuel the uprisings of the Arab Spring can be used to overcome the organizational strength of the establishment. It hasn’t been done yet on a national level, though we have seen some selective success in smaller Tea Party contests. We have also seen some massively stupid failures, the NV senate race primary among them.
Ultimately, I think only a minority of the real primary attendants follow the “talkers” at this point, the rest tuning in late after the establishment has made its choice. Even those who are tuned in now have only a low level of commitment to the candidate.
Again, look how quickly McCain assimilated the strength he needed to win in NH.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
22
I hope you’re right. You’re right about McCain. But since 2008, Republicans and the talk radio hosts have been through a lot together. The talk radio people were proven right about a lot of things regarding Obama and McCain, and they played a major role in getting the Tea Parties off the ground in terms of motivation and community. So there’s a big element of trust now that didn’t exist in 2008.
With that said, I have been relying on “Regular Republicans” – who follow politics very little all year until November, and they form their opinions based on over-arching themes (such as “McCain’s a war hero and he was right about the Surge”). I expect those voters to look at Romney and say “He’s a businessman and we need to get business going” or “He was right last time about Washington being ‘broken’ and we made a mistake with McCain so let’s pick the right guy this time.”
August 28th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
#26:
What’s to stop them from going “Perry’s been Governor for a long time and he’s got a great record on jobs”? After all, if the “Regular Republicans” aren’t obsessivly analyzing this (unlike us folks), then the attacks on Texas’s jobs record won’t resonate as much. We know that there are a lot of wholes in the Perry record, but those people who have less interest in politics won’t be looking that closely.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
# Bachmann/Perry ’12 (Or reverse it!) Says:
Exactly, Casu..
Btw, It’s always a pleasure to have at least two folks on each thread with intelligence and common sense that who aren’t merely cultish Romney fanboys.
=============================================================================
You mean zealots like yourself, where all a candidate has to say is I am a Christian, and lets say a prayer. After that their record doesn’t matter, their intelligence doesn’t matter, all that matter is they saddle up and try to act like the holier than thou candidate. I mean really, how hypocritical of you. After supporting Al Gore, then Rudy, are your really a social conservative, or are you easily swayed by the right holier than thou candidate.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I think Romney will win California…Republicans here are less ideological, a bit more independent and very pragmatic…And we don’t have that Tea Party anger….plus there is always a high Republican turnout on election day……
So if Perry runs as a Southern Republican Evangelical, I don’t think he’ll win.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/08/rick-perry-mitt-romney-to-address-vfw-this-week-in-san-antonio-but-no-obama/
August 28th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
27
They could do that, for sure. But if they see ads on Sunday Night Football telling them about how Perry sold south Texas oil fields to a Chinese tech company known as a quasi-governmental company that sells spy-enabled equipment to NATO countries, they might think twice.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
29,
That’s the only way he can run. Without it…he is just a bad record that can’t win. So he will run the way he has too…and lose.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Texas is 26th in employment rate, which is the true indicattor of employment health in a given state.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Here is the funny thing, Rick Perry could easily lose Texas….
Perry, however, is almost as unpopular. Only 43% of voters approve of him with 52% giving him bad marks. Most striking in Perry’s numbers is a horrible 33/62 standing with independents. He also has 21% of Republicans disapproving of him while only 12% of Democrats cross over to give him good marks. Perry may prove to be a strong Presidential candidate but his numbers in Texas are nothing to write home about.
The only potential Republican candidate for President in Texas who does as bad as Perry is Sarah Palin. She has a 37/55 favorability breakdown and trails Obama 46-44 in a head to head. That’s just more confirmation that the GOP nominating her could lead to a 400+ electoral vote landslide reelection for Obama.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-lukewarm-on-perry-bid.html
Most of the rest of the GOP field leads Obama. Mitt Romney fares the best with an 8 point lead at 50-42, Ron Paul is up 5 at 45-40, Michele Bachmann has a 3 point advantage at 47-44, and Tim Pawlenty’s up by a single point at 44-43. Herman Cain ties the President at 43%
August 28th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Bachmann visits megachurch, plans an extra day in Florida
August 28th, 2011
August 28th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
And our unemployment rate is set to exceed the national average by the end of the year
August 28th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
#31:
The problem with attacks like that (which are totally legitimate btw), is that they have less resonance than “My state has created jobs while I’ve been Governor and I’ll do the same as President”. If people are unemployed or worried about their economic status, Chinese espionage just doesn’t mean too much to them.
As long as Romney has a counter to the old Huckabee line about “not being like the guy who laid you off” he can hang in there, but attacking the jobs that Texas has created isn’t going to strike a chord with people.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
GOP Leaders Bring Some Bad Blood to Race
AUGUST 28, 2011, 6:21 P.M. ET.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
#22
Hannity, Rush and Levine and the other conservative radio host are completely catering to the Tea Party now…..I listen in just to see what they’re talking about and I feel like it’s a brainwashing session..Some of Rush’s caller’s have to be phoney……I mean, who waits two hours just to tell Rush how great he is and to keep up the great important work….and Levine doesn’t take any callers other than TParty people…Hannity is just getting crazy…..
August 28th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
37
Negative ads work, man. Mitt needs to just stick with his private sector skills and let the third party groups tear Perry a new one.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Be careful LV
We wouldn’t have a majority in the House without the Tea Party.
In fact, the Republican Party may have been defunct by now without the energy provided by the citizen uprising against the out of control government spending.
I understand your patrician revulsion of us little people…we can’t just eat cake, in this country we are sovereign, just as you, and thus our voice has a place in the dialog…as distasteful as you may find it.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
#38……So Perry wouldn’t want to live in MA..because it’s not like Texas..So what!..This guys only lived in Texas…That’s his problem he’s never been anywhere..He’s small potatoes everywhere but Texas, and he knows it.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“As long as Romney has a counter to the old Huckabee line about “not being like the guy who laid you off” he can hang in there, but attacking the jobs that Texas has created isn’t going to strike a chord with people.”
Mayhaps. But I can also see the “As a governor, and as a businessman, I also created jobs – sure, we saw jobs cut to ensure companies could survive, but we still created more than XX,XXX jobs…good jobs, jobs you can feed a family on, and go to the mall, and purchase healthcare, and pay for college…”
=====
It remains to be seen how much longer Perry will cause this race to by dragged out. He has yet to face any considerable amount of criticism in the eyes of the general electorate. Give it a month or so, let the nasty stuff come out of the closet, then we can figure out whether or not he will seriously drag out the race.
I pray to God we aren’t stuck with a long, brutal, dirty primary….but you should pray for the best…and expect the worst.
August 28th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Reply to 38… Just another reason why Perry is unqualified to be President. Mitt Romney who was an Eagle Scout and a Scout Leader for many years, and his 5 sons were all Scouts.
Next month in Grand Rapids, The Boy Scouts of America will host a dinner celebrating 100 years of scouting and their record 2009 ‘Eagle Scout’ and ‘Silver Award’ Class. The BSA has invited former Gov. Mitt Romney to be the keynote speaker at the ‘Building Character’ celebration.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/15/romney-to-keynote-boy-scouts-of-america-100th-anniversary-dinner/
August 28th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
teledude….What good has the citizen uprising against spending done….It hasn’t done anything but make it harder to come to a solution to fix the budget….Come on, the TeaParty Caucus is on Vacation….
And when you say the citizens do you mean the well paid Teaparty CEO’s that they call themselves now who organize a rally twice a year…And have to get people like Palin in order to get a crowd…The Rally they had a month ago in DC had about 20 people show up ….Oh well “let them eat cake”
August 28th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
#43 Matthew Kilburn…..
There is one thing that is for sure…..Romney is not going to do anything that will make Perry look good….
August 28th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
#43……Long dirty primaries IS the only reason Rick Perry has been able to stay in power all these years.
August 28th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
So you don’t believe it was their enthusiasm that brought a record of over 70 seats to the GOP side in the House in 2010?
Well, you are wrong.
The ‘Tea Party caucus’ is a joke started by fake Tea Partier and Washington D.C. insider Michele Bachmann. Most Tea Part congressmen did not join her self aggrandizing joke of an organization.
As to your point about Tea Party CEO’s…that’s a pretty good bullshit liberal talking point, but if you’re going to do it right you have to mention the Koch brothers…
C’mon! It’s like you’re not even trying.
August 28th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
44. ha! Pay to play Perry, the Republican Blagoyevich, wasn’t invited to speak to the BSA and Romney was?!?! Very satisfying.
August 28th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Perry may hang in there for a long, drawn-out campaign, but Mitt is better prepared to win a war of attrition. Perry may wear well, or may not, but in either case, Mitt is likely to remain more electable and remain less likely to blow a campaign in the General.
In my view, Rick’s Pay to Play governorship will cause his numbers to decline. There are too many idealists in the Republican Party, and they will gravitate to Mitt’s competent Conservative campaign.
August 28th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
teledude….How many of those candidates who won a seat in the House were actual TParty candidates..I really don’t know… I can only think of a few. I don’t think 70 seats gained in the House were TParty candidates like you said…
The TeaParty got behind a lot of conservative Republican candidates that were already getting money from the establishment..
August 28th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Most of the rest of the GOP field leads Obama. Mitt Romney fares the best with an 8 point lead at 50-42, Ron Paul is up 5 at 45-40, Michele Bachmann has a 3 point advantage at 47-44, and Tim Pawlenty’s up by a single point at 44-43. Herman Cain ties the President at 43%
===============================================
I don’t believe PPP polls as far as you can throw them. If that’s your evidence then you should be thrown out of court.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Twitter: PerryTweets2012
August 28th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
The northeast and west coast states aren’t worthy of choosing our nominee. The Republican Parties of each respective blue states are jokes and in most cases have been unable to deliver their electoral votes since 1988.
I am downright giddy at the prospect that any statewide executive candidate of a state not in the red column in presidential elections at least once since 2000 gets automatically vetoed by the base.
Why should liberal Republicans get to choose the nominee of a conservative party?
August 28th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
51 yes, but that’s my point. without the Tea Party getting behind them…they may not have won…many were in tough districts.
Bush destroyed the Republican brand. that’s why the Dems won control in 2006. Too many conservatives said to hell with the Republicans if they are going to spend like democrats.
Look. There are a lot of average Americans who are fed up with government’s overreaching…this is not something totally new..it probably goes back as far as the Perot voters…
Governor Palin deserves a lot of credit too. The Tea Party formed and was mad at both parties, as they share some culpability. It was her work in 2010 that kept everyone on the reservation.
I just get tired of the elites disdain for average American’s trying to have a voice. I don’t agree with all their collective decisions. I can’t stand Michele Bachmann.
But their message of wanting a smaller constitutionally restrained government is right on and exactly what this country needs or it’s going off a cliff.
14.5 trillion in debt! If they’re not upset by that they haven’t got a clue, and I know the elites think they’re so damb smart with those ivy league educations and sharply creased slacks…I think they’re crazy if they think politics as usual is going to get us out of this mess.
The Tea Party is not the problem and should be embraced by the Republican party. Republicans used to be for frugal conservative governance.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Fox News Sunday Panel is very bullish on Perry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/28/fox_news_sunday_panel_on_rick_perrys_surge.html
August 28th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
The Boy Scouts are a great organization
August 28th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
54
The electoral process isn’t a matter of punishing or marginalizing large portions of the nation. No one gets to say who’s “worthy” of choosing the nominee.
If Republicans want to continue winning elections, they will simply have to be a big tent party. Without northeastern or west coast Republicans, we’d have FAR less Republicans in the House and Senate.
Liberal Republicans don’t “choose” who the nominee is. Americans do. Don’t you think Republicans across the country, regardless of what state they live in, should have a say, since they are, after all, REPUBLICANS?
This isn’t a regional party system. We have the Republicans and Democrats, not the South and the North.
Could you imagine how it would have been if the Republicans were the “Northern Party” still, as they were before 1980?
August 28th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Republicans ought to be the party of Americans who believe that anyone can make it in America if they work hard, and that laziness ought not be rewarded.
This isn’t supposed to be 2 parties that are exactly the same, and the only differences are on social issues. Because that’s where Bush took us.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
#58:
I totally agree. We are a national party, not a regional one and Republicans from every state in the country should have a voice in choosing our nominee. Like I said in the top post, if Republicans from all over the country get to have a say in who our party nominates, then that nominee will be more accepted by the Party as a whole.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
#59 – MassCon,
Right on. I’m tired of the regional dichotomy that has strangled the political parties over the past few decades. Not only does it ruin political discourse and enable the inevitable stereotypes of Republicans as inbred hicks and Democrats as patrician snobs, but it isn’t a model suited for future political engagements. People are moving from state to state and region to region more than ever, and we need to be a party composed on individuals from all regions and all conceivable backgrounds. To me, Perry perpetuates the stereotype of the gun-totin’ Texan, and his cronyism feeds into the same narrative. To be honest, I’d rather have Bachmann as a candidate than Perry, and that’s saying something, considering the fact that I do not believe she would be a very competent or capable executive.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Well I am just one guy (even if you think I’m 3). Take it up with the GOP base.
Are Democrats ever going to nominate Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu as a presidential candidate? No. In 2008, They went balls to the wall when they smelled blood in the water and went with a true ideological liberal “change” candidate.
With Obama’s approval falling into the 30′s, the GOP will do no less. Romney can’t run from his record. Perry and his allies at Fox will showcase Romney’s past liberalism and it will only reaffirm what the base already suspected.
We don’t just have Republicans and Democrats. Republicans in Vermont are more liberal than Democrats in Georgia.
If New York and California can’t support a conservative candidate then there is no reason for the Republicans to change their platform in order to accomodate the ideology of liberal states.
The argument over the House isn’t the same thing because of gerrymandering. You can get a conservative rep from a liberal state. On the senate side the way to a surefire GOP majority is to snuff out the Blanche Lincolns and the Ben Nelsons and the Byron Dorgans. Which we are in the process of doing.
If the New York State Senate wants to be a collection of liberal pork spenders who are just a-okay with legalizing gay “marriage” in New York that’s fine. But I don’t want a liberal New York state senator to ever speak for the entire GOP.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
The regional dichotomy is great and it safeguards against liberal presidential nominees.
Regardless of whether or not any of us likes it, it’s undeniably a powerful force in today’s Republican Party.
I can understand why Rombots don’t like it. It essentially says Massachusetts governors need not apply.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
And the fact is, the only reason blue states are blue is because of how many large cities a state has. Believe it or not, Massachusetts would be a swing state without Springfield and Boston.
Pennsylvania is perhaps the best example of my point. Without Pittsburgh and Philly, Pennsylvania would be a solid red state.
Look at states like Kansas and Oklahoma. Those 2 states are perhaps the reddest in the country. It’s because neither state has a large urban and minority population.
So if anything, a state’s politics is dominated by its CITIES (or a lack thereof), not its geographic location.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
“We wouldn’t have a majority in the House without the Tea Party.” Bingo
August 28th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Telly,
Too many of these folks in the actual establishment, along with their apologists, are stuck in groupthink thanks to having similar backgrounds as they’ve climbed the ladders of the political and academic hierarchies. They’ve all seen cries of looming disaster time and again, and in looking back, they’ve concluded that “muddling through” will work, as they believe it always has.
The leftist-infested academic establishment, above all, believe that their political ideas have no negative consequences that cannot be remediated by subtle adjustment in policy. They believe themselves to be wiser and morally superior to individuals who try to make a living in the private sector by chasing profits, which naturally implies satisfying customer wants, needs, and demands while under constant threat of competitors who do not sleep.
Lacking any experience in the private sector, only familiar with their pie-in-the-sky tenured dream world, these academics and establishment folks cannot understand what Teapers are talking about. And their only response to Teaper challenges is visceral hatred of the Teapers for not sharing the untried ideals.
Amen. In fact the Dems used to be for frugal and cost-effective government. But that seemingly has been generations ago.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
#63 – Sojourner,
I think the regional balance played well in the past, but I still contend that it is not a good model for future (or present) political battles. And, I’m not a Rombot; I’m actually a Huntsmaniac (I suppose that may actually be a worse sin in some people’s minds).
August 28th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
And it elects conservative Republicans to the state level once in a blue moon.
And what happens the moment political winds shift? The conservatives are gone. Or they are forced to morph in Arlen Speter like squishes that we don’t want anywhere near the presidency.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Republicans from “all over the country” gave us John McCain.
I’m sorry but I don’t see how anything that New York wants ought to be relevant if there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of that state ever delivering its electoral votes to the Republican Party.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
#63:
That is absolutely, totally the wrong view of how a national political party should work.
If you look at Bill Clinton in 1992, he defeated Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown, both of whom represented the Democratic Party liberal-wing far better than he. Yet Clinton won, and is the most successful Democratic politician of the last 20 years. Democrats tried twice in a row to pick a nominee who appealed strickly to their base in 1984 and 1988. They lost badly both times. Do we in the GOP really want to make the same mistake as the Dems made in the 1980′s?
August 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
44.. Ah, that’s why I thought he was a Silver Buffalo recipient. No matter. He’s still something Perry aint. Eagle Scout!! And so are his five sons.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
63
You don’t seem to understand. We don’t need a southern nominee to win the South.
If the GOP nominates a corrupt, pathetic, stupid, arrogant loser so he can lose all the swing states, they will learn their lesson soon enough.
You can’t get to 270 with just the Bible Belt. Sorry to break it to you.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
69
If the South had its way during the whole process, liberal spending Mike Huckabee would have been the nominee. Not much better than McCain.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
68
Why shouldn’t Pennsylvania REPUBLICANS (VERY Conservative people) have a say in who the Republican nominee is? Just because there aren’t ENOUGH of them, doesn’t mean we should alienate ALL of them!
August 28th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Of course not. But the south is our solid bloc. We ought to care what they want in order that they stay that way. And then we build from there, on the border of the Old South and Appalchia, into Ohio and North Carolina and Florida, etc.
Assuming you are talking about Perry, didn’t Rasmussen show him better positioned to beat Obama than Mitt? And if ou don’t like Rasmussen, Gallup had Perry and Obama tied among REGISTERED voters.
Well we sure as hell won’t do it with Massachusetts and California.
Our last successful president was also branded as an evangelical hick. He got 286, and enough to win.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Well seeing as how they haven’t helped us too much since 1988, would we be any worse off?
August 28th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
I also would quibble with your characterization of Pennsylvania Republicans as
very conservative”.
Democrats are often more conservative than Republicans in Pennsylvania. That’s only just now starting to change a bit. Bob Casey is pro-life. Tom Ridge isn’t. Arlen Specter wasn’t.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
77
We’re not talking about elected officials from PA, we’re talking about rank-and-file Republican voters in the geographic center of Pennsylvania.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Adam X (Sojourner Truth)
This would be Perry’s electoral map against Obama. You simply have to play in the suburbs in swing states, which Perry simply does not.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/perrymap2.png/
August 28th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
78 – Right. But all of thse rank-and-file Republicans get to vote in a closed primary. So do the Democrats.
In 2004, Pat Toomey LOST to Arlen Specter in the primary. That wasn’t all that long ago. So let’s not pretend that Pennsylvania Republicans are like Virginia Republicans.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Forgot to fill in DE. We all know who it goes to.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Then how, Professor MassCon, is Perry leading in FL, tied with Obama nationally, and in at least one poll, doing BETTER against Obama than Mitt?
August 28th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
80
I actually agree that Democrats should not be able to vote in the Republican primary. That’s just stupid and absurd.
And Arlen Specter won because he was an established, long-serving Senator. Incumbents tend to win because of familiarity and massive bankrolling by donors.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
82
Why do you give ANY credence to polls at this time? I’m looking at things based on reality, not the hypothesis candidate Rick Perry currently is.
Have you seen all of his baggage?
August 28th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Actually I’m surprised that you favor closed primaries. I like open primaries. If someone in say, North Carolina, is only a Democrat because his dad and his grand father were Democrats – but said voter really likes one of our potential nominees and would like to offer him support in the primary and then cross over to vote in a general election, that’s only to the good for Republicans.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
84 – Oh spare me. I’ve seen Mitt’s baggage.
Look – Rick Scott had baggage. He won in Florida.
Mitt has IDEOLOGICAL baggage. That’s worse.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Sojourner Truth:
Why should we be playing defense in presidential elections? If we cede every blue or blue-ish state, then we are inviting the Democrats to fight in red and reddish states. I would rather have the national election being fought in Democratic states, making them fight for their states instead of the other way around.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Whoa…lookee what I found!
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Richard_Albert_7926E5A3-A982-4D0C-9905-2A9AAED074D6.html#.TlrgqM-rj7p.twitter
Has Saran Palin been eclipsed?
Richard Albert Professor of Law, Boston College :
Sarah Palin is a rarity in American politics: a superstar candidate who could win a primary election with only minimal campaign staff to support her candidacy.
Current polls do not reflect the breadth and intensity of her support among voters because her support remains dormant while she ponders a run.
But were she to jump into the GOP presidential race, she would immediately become the favorite to win in Iowa and South Carolina, two of the three early voting states.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
87 – We don’t need to play defense. Far from it. We just ought to make sure we keep our base happy first. And then we can expand the map.
In 2000 – southern hick evangelical Bush was able to break through in Arkansas and West Virginia. Those states were more Democratic than not for a long time. But we didn’t sell out who were were in nominating Bush.
That’s the difference.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
85
That’s wayyyyy too anecdotal. A registered Democrat is a registered Democrat.
86
Rick Scott barely won his race, in the right-leaning state of Florida, in a wave year for Republicans, and his baggage pales in comparison to Perry’s. Mitt’s baggage is tame. Rick Perry has corruption and cronyism baggage, along with blasting Social Security as “unconstitutional” (which would play just WONDERFULLY in Florida!).
August 28th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
We know that Fox has lost its fair and balanced logo when they have a Perry website. We also know they’re not going to vett Perry nor are they going to really allow any of their talk show eople to vett this guy. It is pretty safe to say. Perry is owned by Fox news. I heard conservative radio shows defending Perry. FOX is no more fair and balanced then the moon. The more people dig into Perry’s colorful past the more corruption they find. And this is the guy the evangelical Christians want to support. If this is where they want their heart fine, but which god is Perry following? Corruption isn’t the way my God works. Palin is right, Rich Perry is not a fiscal conservative, nor any other kind of conservative. He’s just another Politician pulling tons of wool over people’s eyes. The problem is FOX news has their poster child. I now know the right wing talk shows people for who they are. This is a sad day for the Tea Party movement, the press, and all the good candidates that entered politics after 2010.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
sell out who we were*
August 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
#86:
Rick Scott barely won in the best year the Republican Party has had in decades; and he won by 60,000 votes, or 1.1% of the vote.
Oh, and he now has an average approval rating of 32%. Rick Scott will never get reelected the way he’s going. Heck, he’ll be lucky if he gets renominated.
August 28th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
But it’s not if you can look at exit polls and see that Appalachian and Southern Democrat voters in states like North Carolina and like Ohio actually do cross over and vote for our guys.
There is a reason that in close elections like 2004, Bush got twice as many Democrats as Kerr got Republicans.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
93 – But he got elected in a strong Republican year despite his baggage. Right?
Just like the Democrats didn’t in 2008 – Republicans have no need to ideologically go wobbly when our opponent, the president, has an approval rating in the high 30′s.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
89
Nobody owes a certain kind of candidate to the base. This isn’t a rationing program. This is an election, conducted by people, who share similar ideals all across the nation.
United we stand, divided we fall.
On another note, which states do you see Perry winning to make up for losses in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Hampshire?
August 28th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Mitt is weird corporate CEO sell-out who killed American jobs.
And even if you don’t think so – the Dems will make that case more effectively than anything they can about Perry. The base WANTS to like Perry and they’ve always been distrustful of Mitt.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
#95:
Scott was not facing an incumbent Governor. He was fighting against a candidate (Alex Sink) who was caught in a big gaffe in the last few days of the campaign, and had absolutely no support from the Democratic Party. The Florida Democratic Party is a laughable, pathetic shell of an organization. If it were half as competent as the DNC, then Alex Sink would be Governor now.
Obama is not going to be an easy candidate to beat; the American people don’t like to fire their President. Obama is going to be a tough opponent with an impressive organization.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Adam X
Do you think George W. Bush was a Conservative?
Because I sure don’t…
(1) Medicare Part D
(2) Added $4 trillion to the national debt
(3) Bailouts, TARP
(4) Stimulus in 2007 (Remember?)
(5) Wayyyy too limited of an operation in Afghanistan
(6) Attempted amnesty for illegal aliens (!!!!!!!!!)
You see… Bush was a southern guy… but he was a liberal in Conservative clothing.
It’s not about region. It’s about a lot more than that.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
96 – Even liberal PPP said that Ohio is a tossup with Mitt or Perry once you allocate the undecideds.
And in what warped world would Perry not win Indiana? You do know that Bush won it by 21 points, right?
Perry seems to be doing well in Colorado, certainly in a hypothetical primary. That tells me that if you want to make the argument that Mormons will rescue Mitt in Colorado they would at the very least be able to do so in a primary. That they aren’t doesn’t tell me that Mitt would fare any better.
Mitt’s not winning Michigan or Pennsylvania. Wisconsin wouldn’t be any more likely with Mitt as the nominee or with Perry as agaiin – even Bush almost won there. If anything the unions would be even tougher on Mitt.
I’ll trade New Hampshire for Iowa.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
97
Not gonna work. Americans in swing states want someone smart, competent, and wholesome like Mitt. No one wants a corrupt bastard who doubled his state’s budget while maintaining notorously poor schools and paying tuition for illegal aliens.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
98 – In this environment I bet the Dems wish they didn’t have an incumbent to defend. Clinton would be a better candidate because she wouldn’t have to defend the Obama domestic policy.
99 – I have no confidence that Mitt would be ANY better. Mitt’s a “get along” kind of guy. There isn’t anything Mitt did that pushed the state in a measurably more conservative direction. And don’t give me that balanced budget crap because even Russert called out Mitt for his “fee” gimmick to the tune of 700 million dollars.
Picking a nominee is always about choosing among the best of imperfect options.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
101 – Americans in your “swing states” haven’t voted Republican in many cases since 1988. There’s isn’t anything inherently charismatic about Mitt that will make them change their minds. And they dislike Wall Street as much as they dislike Washington.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
100
Don’t cite polls at this stage. Americans don’t know Perry. They are projecting their ideals onto his blank slate.
Bush won Indiana in a landslide because it was out of reach for the Dems. We just lost it 3 years ago.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
71-Ellie/rightgal
He’s still something Perry aint. Eagle Scout!! And so are his five sons.
As you know, I don’t like Perry. However…
“As a child, Perry was in the Boy Scouts (BSA) and earned the rank of Eagle Scout; his son, Griffin, would later become an Eagle Scout as well. Perry is also a lifetime member of American Legion Post #75[7][8] The BSA honored Perry with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award.[9]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry
You really should check the facts before opening your yap.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
103
Mitt isn’t Wall Street. Mitt is a smart guy with an obvious patriotism for America (you know Mormonism is all based on America, right?).
August 28th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
104 – You don’t get to say that we can’t cite polls at this stage and then say that Perry would lose all of the swing statesas if you are privvy to information that the rest of us are not.
Campaigns affect outcomes. And Mitt’s record on that score is not one to brag about. He’s also vulnerable because of his ties to Wall Street in what may well wind up being a recession.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Born? It doesn’t matter where you were born. It matters, however, where you govern, or governed, and the political culture that condition you–Texas and California have been the 2 states to deliver Republican presidents in our era–Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. Even Bush 41 served in Congress from a seat in Texas. Ford is the exception but he never won a national election.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
#102:
Incumbents in swing states are always hard to beat. Ted Strickland in Ohio lost to John Kasich by 77,000 votes, or 2%. This was at a time when the unemployment rate in Ohio was high and the incumbent’s approval rating was abysmal. It is simply very, very hard to beat the incumbent in a closely divided state.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
102
I have confidence that Mitt would fight to balance the budget by adjusting social safety net programs responsibly, while not raising the ire of the left too much while doing it (since he’s a “get along guy”)
Mitt is exactly the person we need in charge of this country. He is not divisive. Our politics are too toxic and divisive, and have been since the Bill Clinton sex scandal.
Mitt has the ability (being a northerner and not a lightning rod for hate by the left) to unite and pursuade Americans without compromising his principles. He governed very effectively in MA and solved tough problems even though the state is deep blue.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
I agree that Bush was no conservative. But neither is Romney. Romney gave us RomneyCare, the model for ObamaCare, and for that reason alone he will never be president.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
106 – Mitt’s campaign money is coming quite a bit from Wall Street – especially now that they’re shunning O.
Don’t think for a second Democrats won’t try to parlay that into an “Obama is looking out for you while Wall Street donates to Romney” contrast.
That attack won’t work nearly as well on Perry, given his more humble beginnings.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
107
Perry is a hypothesis. Polls regarding him at this state mean absolutely, positively nothing.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
MassCon:
The Founders intended to block the establishment of political parties. They considered them inherently bad, and feared that their rise would promote potentially violent factionalism.
Of all the Founders’ ideals, this one was the shortest-lived. It turns out that different political districts, different states, and parts of the country have shared political interests.
At the present, the Democrats primarily represent the accrued interests of the “post-industrial” (failed industrial) urban and academic parts of the country. The Republicans primarily represent the accrued interests of the rural, newly reindustrialized, and resource-extracting parts.
So it actually is by and large a “regional” party system. The country is still deeply divided by interests and factionalism. We just happen to be living in a time when those competing interests are more at cross-purposes than they have been in quite some time.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Mitt could be Mother Theresa and it wouldn’t matter.
When you have a president saddled with 39 percent approval and 10 percent unemployment and a crade score slash – you’re going to get “toxic and divisive”
We all better just wake up to that right now.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Not divisive!? Romney? That’s only by virtue of his non-competence as a uniter of any kind.
He sure hasn’t united the Republicans behind him. Even the establishment treats him with disdain and he’s supposed to be the “establishment” candidate.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
My keyboard is a POS. My apologies.
Credit score slash*
August 28th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
112
Perry is the ultimate hero of financiers and big donors. Have you seen this video? He’s a MAGNET for these scumbags.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRhb0awjAg
Have you read about Merck and Gardasil?
What about Huawei?
August 28th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
115
I mean AS PRESIDENT, not as a candidate.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Why I’m a Tea Party Conservative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQEmEZ-uj0A&feature=channel_video_title
August 28th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
119 – Not buying it.
Bush was “compassionte conservative” in the campaign.
A lot of good it did him with the Dems.
I’d rather have someone irritate the ever living piss out of the left and move the country in a more conservative direction. After all – Democrats did the same to us in nominating Obama.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
121
Bush was divisive only because of the Iraq War
August 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
121. “I’d rather have someone irritate the ever living piss out of the left and move the country in a more conservative direction”
Have I got a candidate for you!
August 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
121
And the 2000 election
August 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
122. Not true
August 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
109 – I’ll see your Ted Strickland and I’ll raise you Rick Santorum and Mike Dewine.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
122 – Bush was divisive from day 1. The Dems tried to block the Ashcroft nomination and fought him on the tax cuts.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
125
Then why was he divisive? Because he was Conservative? LOL!!!!!!!!!!
August 28th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I should it was the Dems that were divisive.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
127
Because of the 2000 election debacle.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
128 – He was divisive because he as a Republican. In other words – I reject your premise completely.
If we nominated Arlen Specter (god help us) the Democrats would hoot and holler that he was the most extreme rightwinger ever to assume the office.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
131
If Arlen Specter won the presidency by losing the popular vote and winning a Supreme Court case on hanging chads, he’d be divisive.
Other than that, no he wouldn’t. Because he’d be a lefty president.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Even social moderate (by today’s standards) Mitt would be tarred in the suburbs as the guy that will end a woman’s right to choose and force women back into alleys for abortions. Mitt is a hater because of his stance on gays in the military and gay marriage.
Mitt’s a dinosaur because he questions anthropogenic global warming.
See how that works?
If they’re going to say that sort of stuff about any of our guys then we might as well put up an actual conservative.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Wrong.
Just how did the Dems feel about Nixon?
And no one says “Nixon” more than Willard Mitt Romney.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
MassCon 122: Bush was divisive only because of the Iraq War
You should know better than that. Bush was pilloried by the press non-stop from Day One for not congratulating Gore on winning the election as opposed to fighting for it through the Dem court challenges. After that, Dubya vacationed too much, spoke stoopid, and pushed an agenda that got Dem support but MSM hate.
The aftermath of 9/11 led to a brief hiatus of some 24 months when the MSM and Dem establishment rallied around the president and backed everything Bush wanted, until they remembered that they hated the guy from the get-go.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
135 – He knows. He’s just being stubborn.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
#126:
DeWine, like all other Ohio Republicans were tarred by the scandals of Bob Taft and Bob Ney. Santorum was always on thin ice; when the Democrats got a candidate with a great name (Bob Casey Jr.) Santorum was doomed.
Bob Ehrlich, the Republican Governor of ultra-blue Maryland, only barely lost to Martin O’Malley in that bluest of blue states in the awful 2006 election.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
133
The Dems would SAY that, but it wouldn’t work. This election is going to be about Obama anyway, unless our candidate is a corrupt, dumber version of Obama’s predecessor.
134
AMERICANS thought Nixon was pretty damn good. And I’ve never heard Mitt say “Nixon”
135
Read my subsequent comments.
Just for summary:
Bush was divisive because: Florida 2000, Iraq War.
August 28th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
133 – Or unless our cadidate even “colder” and more detached from regular folks and is even less able to “feel pain”. Are those metrics stupid? Maybe. But they matter. And Mitt lost low to moderate income voters in state after state in 2008.
134 – Democrats hated Nixon. And Reagan/Goldwater he was not.
135 – Then why did mainstream Dems, NAACP, even during the campaign, call Bush a racist and tie him to the murder of James Byrd? All the while Bush kissed more Hispanic ass than any nominee in recent memory. Answer: Because he is a Republican. Moderate/conservative/northern/southern makes ZERO difference.
August 28th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
MassCon: Just for summary:
Bush was divisive because: Florida 2000, Iraq War.
Bush was “divisive” in the MSM narrative because he bore an R behind his name. Heck, even Arlen Specter was divisive until he switched affiliations back to the D column.
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you can be considered “non-divisive” without promising to become a Dem formally. Even worse, your arguments give an advance pass for your hero Mitt to bend over backwards towards the left in search of Obama-esque MSM approval in the hopes of his being declared “non-devisive.” Had you been paying attention, you would know that this will not work.
Why else do you think that the Dem-centric Boston-based media trounced Governor Willard for being an extreme and unreasoning far-rightie until his term ended? Mitt was a “divisive” governor until he had the support for his policies from supposedly moderate brainiacs like Ted Kennedy and Bonnie Fwank. End of story.
August 28th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
140 – Exactly what I have been saying, only far more eloquently phrased.
August 28th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
140. Hear, hear. Well said.
August 28th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
140 – y’all are confusing disagreeing with to being divisive/extremist. The MSM will always disagree with “someone with an R by their name”, however, they will find it difficult to paint them as extreme, divisive, etc. Just look at the 2008 election, McCain was not tarred as an extremist/divisive character even though he was a Republican. He was old, white and just “not as exciting as that Obama fellow.” Not to mention, the Republican brand was a “little” tainted by Bush at that point and the economic collapse under his watch – maybe you would argue they didn’t need to resort to that cause of everything else, but speculation is all that it would be.
August 28th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
143 – Six in one. Half dozen in the other.
If they can’t go “extreme” then they will go with character. McCain, the war hero was somehow reduced to being crochety and a little nuts. And they lied about him having an affair.
If Mitt the jobs killing CEO winking at the Chinese isn’t enough then it’ll be weirdness, phoneyness, etc.
It’s going to be a divisive campaign no matter who we nominate.
August 28th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
#144 ST
How would they characterize Perry?
August 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
145 – Pretty similar to how they characterized the last Republican nominee to go on to win the presidency.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
100. Mitt would win Michigan against the democrats. It would be an easy victory. He would also bring Nevada over. Nevada has as many electoral votes as Iowa.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62111.html
For anyone who thinks the Dems will be able to label Romney as the wall street candidate…Obama will likely have more Wall Street money than the Republican candidate.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
You all seem to be missing an important thing – the MSM attempting to “characterize” you is different than it STICKING to you.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Mass Con. You are correct. Much is made of Teflon Candidates. The argument is made that the most teflon based dude is the winner, regardless of policy position or record. Sadly, Mitt’s criticims seem to stick, which is a function of how long the MSM keeps them alive…and if Mitt’s their feared target, then they’ll work overtime to keep him labeled as “flip flopper”, awkward and all the rest. If you’ve ever met him in person, you know he’s anything but awkward.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
MSM and Libs will attempt to characterize:
Romney as a heatless, cold, rich, aloof CEO who put money ahead of sympathy.
Perry as a far-right, extreme, evil, carbon copy of Bush without the “compassion”
So what. Both characterizations are probably equally bad, as Perry’s comes with his declaration that Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme, and that the direct election of Senators is unconstitutional.
Mitt’s would be bad as well, mostly because of how he looks, not because of what he’s done.
Both candidates, however, would be tasked with effectively arguing that he has the experience, skills, and demeanor to handle the nation’s economic challenges and solve the debt crisis without cutting benefits to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Both candidates would be tasked with claiming that he has the knowledge and experience to deal with foreign affairs as effectively as Obama has. And both candidates would be tasked with providing evidence that he understands health care and has a non-mandate plan to replace Obamacare.
Edge: Romney.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
By the way… what is Rick Perry’s foreign policy?
August 28th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Gardasil – Here is the timeline that we know. While Perry was pushing for legislators to let his executive mandate stand….?
1.During this time Rick Perry’s former Chief of Staff, and creator of a pro-Perry SuperPAC, Mike Toomey lobbied for Merck & Co., creator of the HPV vaccine GARDASIL. Toomey stood to make millions in the mandate took hold
2.During this time Rick Perry’s mother-in-law served as state director for Women in Government.
3.Merck & Co funneled big money through Women in Government.
4.On February 2, 2006 Rick Perry signed an executive order mandating HPV vaccination for sixth grade girls beginning in September 2008.
5.On October 16, 2006 Perry’s Chief of Staff Deidre Delisi and aides discussed concerns regarding GARDASIL according to documents obtained by the Associated Press.
6.That same day, Merck & Co’s PAC donated $5,000 to Perry’s campaign and $5,000 total to eight Texas lawmakers.
7. Despite great pressure from Perry, the executive order was overturned by the Texas Legislature.
That was back in 2007. Yet all of a sudden, he now feels that he made a mistake, a very opportunistic approach to sweeping one of his most controversial (and self-proclaimed) mistakes under the rug.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Knowing that democratic insiders would much rather face Perry than Romney tells me a lot. I don’t see the democrats attacking Perry like they have Romney. Heck, they haven’t started yet.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Perry’s Foreign Policy will be…”I can see Guadalajara from Texas”
August 28th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
154..I agree. Perry is going to likely get a pass from many. Not all, but many.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
The Gardasil story is going to become a big deal. My tea party cohorts outside of Texas have never heard of it, and when I tell them about, they just can’t believe that it is true.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Obviously, the democrats feel like they can take down Perry muc more easily. They’ll save all of their ammunition for the general election, however. It’s exactly what they did with McCain.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
He forced Gardasil, but can’t figure out how to effectively use his SCHIP monies for kid’s healthcare generally. Texas has last in the nation health care coverage for their kids. Pathetic.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
SCHIP monies don’t net Perry anything personally. That’s the difference.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
But…but…he’s such a savvy and sophisticated politician, you’d think he’d figure out a way to get some of his cronies some of that federal SCHIP/Medicaid pie!
August 28th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Guys, maybe Perry has changed since then. Did you ever consider that? 2007 is a long time ago. He wasn’t doing prayer rallies back then, so maybe he found Jesus since then and had a real change fo heart and character. So, what happened in the past doesn’t matter. All that matters is where his heart is now. Let’s stop talking about this Gardasil thing and talk about what perry is doing now.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Shame on you guys for trying to destroy a guy who just held a huge prayer rally earlier this month. It took a lot of courage to get up on the stage and pray in front of thousands.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Shorty after Perry issued the order on Feb. 2, 2007, the AP reported that “Perry’s chief of staff had met with key aides about the vaccine on October 16, the same day Merck’s political action committee” donated to the governor. Still, Perry dismissed all charges of impropriety. “When a company comes to me and says we have a cure for cancer, for me not to say, ‘Please come into my office and let’s hear your story for the people of the state of Texas, for young ladies who are dying of cancer,’ would be the height of irresponsibility,” the Republican governor said.
What made matters worse, however, was that Merck had “made headlines in 2004 for failing to disclose that its painkiller Vioxx raised the risk of cardiac arrest and stroke in patients” and so critics worried that the company’s new HPV vaccination was yet untested and could suffer from defect.
THE DRUG WAS UNTESTED, AND PERRY MANDATED IT FOR ALL 6TH GRADE GIRLS!!!
August 28th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
lol Morgana, come by more often. I love your sarcasm. It’s so poignant, I could have mistaken it for reality.
August 28th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Speaking of cancer, did you guys know they found a cure for cancer. Fox News reported this ONCE, on Megyn Kelly’s show. And that is all. Not sure why…
Anyway, it was the University of Pennsylvania that found it. It is an immunotherapy technique that involves training the patient’s white blood cells to attack cancer cells.
Read up on it, and spread the word. This is our first real cure for cancer, and it doesn’t kill ANYTHING except cancer cells.
The reason I want you to spread the word is so this cure is never forgotten. This has the potential to save millions of lives. The clinical trials are being funded only by private donations, not the drug companies. I guess they don’t want a cure for cancer to hit the “shelves.”
Anyway, here’s the UPENN link…
THIS IS HUGE!!!!!!
http://www.penncancer.org/cart-19
August 28th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
As far as I’m concerned, the jury’s still out on Perry. I want to hear more about what’s really going on in TX and what role he actually played. But so far, there might be one thing I don’t like about him–and it’s the same thing I don’t like about Obama:
A mean, sarcastic, name-calling finger-in-your-chest attitude toward the opposition. It’s fine in a fight, but when the candidate becomes president, he/she is the president of ALL the citizens. The POTUS should stand up, be the leader of their party and fight like heck for the policies in which he/she believes, but snide, nasty personal remarks toward the citizens you are elected to serve diminish the office.
Now, maybe Perry isn’t really like that; we’ll have to see. But Obama’s calling people “teabaggers” and “bitter clingers” are disguting in a POTUS. Don’t want to repeat that mistake again.
August 29th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Mass Con – I’m going to assume you don’t know a lot about medicine/oncology. Do you know how many types of cancer there are? That they replicate differently, metastasize differently, manifest themselves differently? Osteosarcoma, lymphosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, epithelioma, etc. These are all cancers, but they are all treated differently. That the reason there are multi-modal treatments for cancer is because of these thousands of differences? There is no cure-all for “cancer” because there is not just one type of cancer, different cancers respond differently to different treatments.
So I don’t know how huge this type of therapy is going to be. Cool, but they have been using thousands of similar treatments for decades. Look at tyrosine receptor blockers, etc.
August 29th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Furthermore, the treatment is only for blood-borne cancer: Lymphosarcoma – which the medical community has a number of relatively successful treatment protocols for already. Not saying we don’t need more research, more effective treatment modalities, etc. Just not sure how huge this is. Using gene therapy to treat cancer has been around for at least the last decade.
August 29th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Has anybody ever read this speech by Perry? I’m surprised an American governor would advocate for many of these ideas. He is seemingly more interested in the welfare of those on the southern side of the Rio Grande than on his own side.
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/
August 29th, 2011 at 5:16 am
164:
The vaccine was not untested.
166:
Conspiracy theorists have been telling me that the medical industry has been hiding a cure for cancer since the 80s. It was probably happening before that, but I wasn’t around much in the 60s and 70s.
It is, and always has been, paranoid bunk.
August 29th, 2011 at 6:49 am
LOL
Just had a chance to read Rick Perry’s October 2008 letter to Nancy Pelosi asking for a speedy passage of TARP. Probably comes as a big surprise to a lot of his Tea party supporters. What a colossal fraud this guy is. The Wizard of Sleaze without a curtain.
CraigS
August 29th, 2011 at 6:59 am
105. I stand corrected.
August 29th, 2011 at 9:21 am
jaaron
Actually, I know a LOT about medicine and oncology.
You obviously didn’t explore much on the Universtity of Pennsylvania cancer site. That link I gave you was just ONE of their several pages regarding the new immunotherapy treatment.
WATCH THIS VIDEO and READ THE ARTICLE:
http://www.penncancer.org/penn_news.cfm?ID=1610
The cure has been tested on JUST 3 people so far, and in 2 of them, it totally eradicated their leukemia in a couple of weeks. In the third, most of his/her leukemia is gone, and he/she is getting better every day.
But here’s the IMPORTANT POINT:
If you read the article and watch the video, you will learn that this immunotherapy technique can be used on ANY type of cancer, by genetically modifying the T-cells to fit whatever particular kind of cancer the patient has.
The way it works:
They take blood from the patient, introduce it to a genetically modified, harmless HIV virus that has been encoded to appear like a cancer cell.
They modify the T-cells from the patient genetically to attack the “cancer” – but the genetic modification they make becomes hereditary to all additional T-cells created. The T-cells are then re-introduced into the patient, where they attack the cancer cells. The patient will NEVER GET that type of cancer they previously had AGAIN, since the T-cells had been “trained” to attack that type of cancer.
It has worked on 3 patients, and 2 of them are CANCER-FREE after a while since the immunotherapy.
And MOST IMPORTANTLY, it can work on ALL types of cancer.
Do you understand what a breakthrough this is?!?!?! Cancer can be cured in a matter of 2-3 weeks, and it will never recur!!!! And it works on ANY type of cancer!
August 29th, 2011 at 9:23 am
171
I hope it is “bunk.” They get to prove it on this new breakthrough. If this treatment never hits the “shelves” we know why. Because it is as promising as everything I’ve ever seen, in all my years of donating to medical researchers.
August 29th, 2011 at 10:16 am
172,
Romney was an avid supporter of TARP bailouts lest you forget.
August 29th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I seriously doubt Perry’s shelf life in the West will be long. He is exactly the kind of candidate that makes us want to throw up out here. We are tired of blow hard politicians like Perry. Perry solved any problems he did in Texas with big government bailout solutions. How is that smaller government?
I even doubt that Perry can beat Obama in the West, his style is so offensive. Bush won here, sort of, because his father was a truly polished, nice guy. Bush never could have won without his father. I don’t know Perry’s father, but my guess is he is a crass salesman.
I grew to appreciate Bush 2, but I still don’t want his personality type in the Whitehouse.
August 29th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
163 Courage to use God as a stepping stone to the Whitehouse? This is exactly why he is not going to last long. He is the worst of dishonest politicians, that prayer meeting was a farce of fake religion.
August 29th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
176 – Which you bashed him incessantly for. Its one of those things that makes a candidate “unacceptable” until a guy does the same thing while wearing a cowboy hat.