► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Rick Perry’

Rick Perry hints at dropping out

by Phantom Ace ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under Headlines at January 4th, 2012 - 12:37 am

After a 5th place finish, Rick Perry is planning on reconsidering his campaign. Perry states that he will go back to Texas and “reassess” whether to continue the race.

After a disappointing fifth-place finish in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses, Texas Governor Rick Perry said he is going home to Texas to assess “whether there is a path forward for myself in this race.”

With the voters’ decision tonight in Iowa, I’ve decided to return to Texas, assess the results of tonight’s caucus, determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race,” Perry told supporters at the end of the night.

It’s a wrap.

 

We are closing in on the anyone but Obama nominee

by Mojambo ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Election 2008, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney at December 16th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

The Knish analyzes the Republican candidates and thinks that Romney is more electable but that he (the Knish) would be more comfortable with Gingrich  in the Oval Office (particularly regarding Foreign Affairs). He also says that for all their faults, Romney, Gingrich,  and Perry would be far superior to Obama. That should be obvious.

by Daniel Greenfield

A year ago today few of us probably thought that the primaries would come down to debating whether Romney or Gingrich are more conservative. It’s a rather thankless and pointless debate currently being settled by cherry picking statements on single issues. The bottom line is that neither man is particularly conservative, certainly neither man is a small government conservative. But the odds of anyone like that getting to the finish line were never very good.

[…..]
Over the last several weeks we have gotten a thorough grounding in each man’s negatives. But we have also gotten a reminder of how each man got here. And we have gotten heavy doses of hysteria.

Gingrich and Romney are both widely hated. Gingrich is hated by the insiders, Romney is hated by the outsiders. As Speaker, Gingrich was a convenient way to make Clinton look better. Now he’s being used for the same purpose again, to make Romney look better. And Republican voters are being asked to choose which of the men they hate less. This is not a particularly good process for choosing a nominee. But it’s also how we have consistently ended up with poor nominees.

The game isn’t over yet. People still have a chance to unite around an alternative candidate. Perry is still hanging around looking for support. He’s marginally more conservative than Romney and Gingrich, but with a much lower profile on the national stage, it’s hard to say how much. Bachmann and Santorum are also still in the race and they may surprise everyone.

This is still an open process, which is why threatening third party runs or demanding that a candidate drop out of the race is unconscionable. If your candidate can’t win Republican primaries, then how is he going to win the general election? Particularly a three-way election.
[……]

Yes we are rapidly closing in on the “Anyone but Obama Nominee”. Whoever it will be will have major minuses. That’s life. If we can elect a right of center congress, then even a marginal Republican will do. If we can’t, then anyone is still better than Obama.

Back in 2008 the argument was that rather than voting for McCain, we should let Obama run the country into the ground for four years and radicalize the base. Mission accomplished. Obama has done more damage to America in four years than Fat Man did to Nagasaki in an hour. The base has been radicalized. And we’re still back at the table with the old McCain dilemma.

The people who told us to wait four years may now tell us to wait another four years. And then maybe another four, until a proper candidate stands for office and makes it to the nomination. Doing it that way is like trying to win a war by losing battle after battle until the right general comes along. The Union won the Civil War that way, but it doesn’t seem like the best strategy for the rebels.

Despite all his flaws, I think four years of McCain would have been much better for this country. I think four years of Gingrich or Romney or Perry will be better for the country than another four years of Obama. Anyone who wants to test that thesis can look back at the last four years and then imagine what they would have been like if Obama was a lame duck fowl.

Anyone who is unhappy with that choice, there’s no one stopping a Bachmann or Santorum surge. No one but the same conservative media that got us where we are now. And if that doesn’t happen, then we’ve still got the same calculations to make.

Romney is probably more electable. Gingrich is better on the issues. Gingrich currently seems better under fire but everyone keeps saying that he’s bound to implode. We’ll see. Romney hasn’t melted down either, though he has made some mistakes during the debates and in interviews.

On foreign policy Gingrich wins by a landslide. On domestic policy, Gingrich will go with his own ideas, which will have shades of Teddy Roosevelt to them. Romney will have his experts in the room to develop a centrist policy. The difference here is that Gingrich will go his own way, Romney will follow a practical variation of the liberal consensus.

Neither candidate is very conservative by Tea Party standards, both men are fairly conservative by the standards of the alternative. Anyone claiming that there is no difference between Gingrich and Romney and Obama except race is engaging in hyperbole. There’s no doubt that either man will do his own brand of damage and that the country will shift X degrees in the wrong direction, but it’s better than shifting Y degrees in the wrong direction.

Personally I like Gingrich well enough. I have no idea if he can get elected, he’s not the ideal man for the job, but he also bounced back from a trouncing by his own party, and won the debates without playing the ankle biter. He can speak intelligently about an issue and appears to think about them, instead of shoveling out a safe position. He isn’t afraid to take controversial stands or confront the invisible hand of the media.

Romney is probably a surer bet for winning the election, but, and this is not an endorsement, I would be more comfortable with Gingrich in the Oval Office, because when the 3 AM call comes in, I don’t think he’ll work out a consensus and then bring the least controversial response to the table.

[……]
We have seen Gingrich turned out for all the world to see and we know some of what drives him. Romney’s guts are still a mystery. When McCain tried to transform himself into a non-threatening smiling mannequin to win the election, he fumbled the ball badly. And yet I think the angry McCain, the direct to the point man would have done better. Romney doesn’t have those negatives, but he lacks positives. His only real appeal is a projected sincerity and a prospective electability. Is that enough? Who knows.

This is not going to be an ordinary election, but it has been a depressingly ordinary enough primary. We aren’t going to walk away from it with a man or woman that everyone believes in, but maybe we’ll walk away with a winner. It’s not much of a consolation prize, but there’s a joke about rather being right than being president. I would rather that the right man was president, but I will settle for any man other than the one already filling the office.

Read the rest – Anyone but Obama

Is School Prayer really that important?

by Phantom Ace ( 90 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Elections 2012, Politics, Religion, Republican Party, The Political Right at December 13th, 2011 - 11:30 am

The 90’s was a great decade for me. I was in my late teens and early 20’s making good money as a DJ, bartender and then Tech Support. I have nothing but fond memories from that decade. There are some things however that should have stayed in that decade. One is the issue of school prayer.

In 91/92 Papa Bush was in trouble politically. The economy was stagnant and his poll ratings were dropping. Instead of trying to improve the economy through Conservative economic policies, he governed as a Rockefeller Republican. To cover up his Liberal policies, Papa Bush began to use social issues to trick Conservatives into supporting him. He made the issue of School Prayer part of  his re-election campaign. The result was that it gave the GOP an image of a bunch of grouchy theocrats and the party lost support in the suburbs as a result. It was a failure as a issue. In fact in high school we made fun of Papa Bush over the School Prayer issue. We were like, “we all pray when we are about to take a test”. Comedians roasted the issue and turned it into a joke.

The other day I saw a Rick Perry commercial that gave me bad memories. He was pushing school prayer. I was like, come on, this is back now? Then I read that Rick Perry supports a Constitutional Amendment to require school prayer. I was stunned. We have real unemployment at about 15%, declining wages, increasing poverty and Europe on the verge of a meltdown. Is school prayer really such a dire issue that we need a Constitution Amendment?

Look, I support the right for students to be able to pray. But these are local issues, not one requiring a Constitutional Amendment. I have seen no polling data showing school prayer as a major issue for voters. Why is this being pushed again? The GOP should focus on the Economy and Fiscal issues, which is what America’s concerns are. Papa Bush cynically ran in 92 on family values,  culture wars, school prayer and attacking Murphy Brown. The result was he lost, since Economic Conservatives went to Ross Perot and the GOP lost many suburban districts they never gained back. It created the image of Republicans as a bunch of grouchy cranks. This is an image they still have not shaken off.

I would like to know why school prayer is such an important issue? With America’s declining living standard, why does school prayer take precedence over economic concerns? I am really curious and want a civil discussion about school prayer. I just haven’t seen any polling data or heard people demanding School Prayer.

Let’s discuss this civilly please.

Friday with the ‘hammer – It’s Mittens v. Newtie aka The Undesirable v. The Unelectable

by Mojambo ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections, Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Republican Party at December 2nd, 2011 - 11:30 am

Now pass the booze because it is which form of poison do you prefer?  How did it come to this?  Two unbelievably flawed candidates, this is extremely depressing. What we are seeing are the itter fruits of the 2006 and 2008 debacles.  One of my many problems with Newtie is his lack of discipline and tendency to run off at the mouth and say some incredibly insensitive and stupid things. Dr. K. (a trained psychiatrist) says it is his massive sense of self importance that propels him to do things like that (i.e. the Global Warming/ Pelosi ad on the couch).  Dr.K’s question at the end of the column  is the key.

by Charles Krauthammer

It’s Iowa minus 32 days, and barring yet another resurrection (or event of similar improbability), it’s Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich. In a match race, here’s the scorecard:

Romney has managed to weather the debates unscathed. However, the brittleness he showed when confronted with the kind of informed follow-up questions that Bret Baier tossed his way Tuesday on Fox’s “Special Report” — the kind of scrutiny one doesn’t get in multiplayer debates — suggests that Romney may become increasingly vulnerable as the field narrows.

[…]

Enter Gingrich, the current vessel for anti-Romney forces — and likely the final one. Gingrich’s obvious weakness is a history of flip-flops, zigzags and mind changes even more extensive than Romney’s — on climate change, the health-care mandate, cap-and-trade, Libya, the Ryan Medicare plan, etc.

The list is long. But what distinguishes Gingrich from Romney — and mitigates these heresies in the eyes of conservatives — is that he authored a historic conservative triumph: the 1994 Republican takeover of the House after 40 years of Democratic control.

Which means that Gingrich’s apostasies are seen as deviations from his conservative core — while Romney’s flip-flops are seen as deviations from . . . nothing.

[…]

So what is he? A center-right, classic Northeastern Republican who, over time, has adopted a specific, quite bold, thoroughly conservative platform. His entitlement reform, for example, is more courageous than that of any candidate, including Barack Obama. Nevertheless, the party base, ostentatiously pursuing serial suitors-of-the-month, considers him ideologically unreliable. Hence the current ardor for Gingrich.

Gingrich has his own vulnerabilities. The first is often overlooked because it is characterological rather than ideological: his own unreliability. Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s — but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline.

Take that ad Gingrich did with Nancy Pelosi on global warming, advocating urgent government action. He laughs it off today with “that is probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years. It is inexplicable.”

This will not do. He was obviously thinking something. What was it? Thinking of himself as a grand world-historical figure, attuned to the latest intellectual trend (preferably one with a tinge of futurism and science, like global warming), demonstrating his own incomparable depth and farsightedness. Made even more profound and fundamental — his favorite adjectives — if done in collaboration with a Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Kennedy or even Al Sharpton, offering yet more evidence of transcendent, trans-partisan uniqueness.

Two ideologically problematic finalists: One is a man of center-right temperament who has of late adopted a conservative agenda. The other is a man more conservative by nature but possessed of an unbounded need for grand display that has already led him to unconservative places even he is at a loss to explain, and that as president would leave him in constant search of the out-of-box experience — the confoundedly brilliant Nixon-to-China flipperoo regarding his fancy of the day, be it health care, taxes, energy, foreign policy, whatever.

The second, more obvious, Gingrich vulnerability is electability. Given his considerable service to the movement, many conservatives seem quite prepared to overlook his baggage, ideological and otherwise. This is understandable. But the independents and disaffected Democrats upon whom the general election will hinge will not be so forgiving.

They will find it harder to overlook the fact that the man who denounces Freddie Mac to the point of suggesting that those in Congress who aided and abetted it be imprisoned, took $30,000 a month from that very same parasitic federal creation. Nor will independents be so willing to believe that more than $1.5 million was paid for Gingrich’s advice as “a historian” rather than for services as an influence peddler.

Obama’s approval rating among independents is a catastrophically low 30 percent. This is a constituency disappointed in Obama but also deeply offended by the corrupt culture of the Washington insider — a distaste in no way attenuated by fond memories of the 1994 Contract with America

My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term).

Every conservative has thus to ask himself two questions: Who is more likely to prevent that second term? And who, if elected, is less likely to unpleasantly surprise?

Read the rest: It’s Mitt v. Newt