"I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it--was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he's for ObamaCare, and now he's against it. I mean, we'll wait until tomorrow and--and--and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight."Yeah, when I heard that I said: "Perry has a long 'he was for it before he was against it' routine to recite about Romney, but his delivery is slow and halting, like he's getting tired."
ADDED: William Kristol says: "Yikes... no front-runner in a presidential field has ever, we imagine, had as weak a showing as Rick Perry. It was close to a disqualifying two hours for him. "
पोस्ट्स
८४ टिप्पण्या:
The moment is getting ripe and ever riper for SARAH!
It is opening the field to other people...Sarah being one. Christie potentially another.
I'm glad I decided to read a Larry McMurtry novel insted.
Yes, because these TV game shows are so much more important in telling us about the candidate rather than the actual record and/or about their fundamental political philosophy.
No one disputes that Romney is slick and smooth-talking.
Please, we've been down this elitist road before, bitching and moaning about how someone can't put two sentences together. And look where it got us.
That's what got us Obama.
You can't build yourself up, Mitt, by tearing other people down, especially when you are attacking them from the left.
That there may be openings for other candidates, I don't doubt.
Bill Kristol, though, would prefer Mitt Romney over Rick Perry pretty much no matter what.
Perry does not debate well. Getting up and delivering the talking point in a minute is not his thing.
He seems to be better at one on one or with people generally, and the problem is doing him in because it makes him look like he can't handle criticism.
And, no, I don't think Miss Sarah or Christie will get in. Neither has the resume.
And just how many "debates" is a president in when in office?
Where in the Constitution is getting off zingers and five-second soundbites a qualification for the presidency?
And what qualifies William Kristol for anything, beyond being Irving's and Gertrude's boy?
@edbutcher: You may argue the shortness of the resumes mean they *shouldn't* get in, but that alone hardly means they *won't* get in.
Didn't keep Obama from running, Didn't keep Palin from being offered, and accepting, her spot in '08.
But I'm happy to see Perry implode a bit. Romney is preferable.
I couldn't care less how adept Rick Perry is at debating. I'm more concerned about how he governs. And he may not be perfect, but he's far better than some seem to give him credit for. And after seeing him on Hannity, I can understand his position on the Texas DREAM Act a lot better. His successes in Texas are magnified by the amount of vitriol he is absorbing from both the left and the right.
Whoosh, under the bus!
Lucius said...
@edbutcher: You may argue the shortness of the resumes mean they *shouldn't* get in, but that alone hardly means they *won't* get in.
Didn't keep Obama from running, Didn't keep Palin from being offered, and accepting, her spot in '08.
But I'm happy to see Perry implode a bit. Romney is preferable.
Sure he is.
And I never said they won't.
Only that it's a bad idea.
Which I have been saying all along.
But, if Christie wants to put an end to his career, that's his business.
I am at the Oval Room with K-street. One superb blonde had a button: Perry for GOP. She was a WH operative. You get the picture: WH wants Perry. The media wants Perry. Perry is to be buried next Nov. so that POTUS Obama can have the 2nd term.
Hey they released a video of Kristol watching the debates.
The whole thing was awful!
These people are canceling themselves out after spending a lot of money!
It is made worse because it is hurting the GOP label!
Karl Rove? He figures Jeb's gonna get the slot. Jeb won't win. But there'll be the money in running his advertisements. Call it "placement profits."
Michele Bachmann is getting NOWHERE! Boehner is not going to be putting her on any "interesting" committees.
The real POWER in DC is getting onto committees, like "appropriations."
Okay. Boehner will give her a pretty office. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL.
You know whose benefiting from this circus? OBAMA! Man doesn't have to do anything. He can go and play golf. And, let the time of day pass. These "shows" put him ahead.
So, basically, it's all just helping the dems.
When's the next debate?
Do you need a clue that there's something wrong with the format? Will there be 8? Why podiums?
Why don't they just serve dinner, so we can watch them eat?
The neocons have bet on Romney, Clinton and possibly Palin.
Sarah is NOT jumping into this pool!
And, forevermore, after Donald Trump called Rick Perry "JIM" ... I could see it. The guy is racing to nowhere.
Ann, I gotta tell ya ... Your texting the show was WONDERFUL!
And, I loved the bit where there was a commercial break ... so you checked in with your son, John. Who was also texting the debates from his blog.
Thanks for making it entertaining.
And, for doing the follow up with these posts.
From the Taranto article:
The 20-year-old daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had just fallen from a mechanical bull while filming her reality show for the BIO Network when she was heckled by a 47-year-old man.
"Did you ride Levi like that? Your mother is a whore! Your mother is a f***ing devil!" he shouts. . . .
"You're f***ing white trash from Wasila!" he screams as she leaves with her production crew. "F*** you, you f***ing b***h!"
The misogyny on the left astounds me. And going after the children of people you despise? Who does that?
Now, perhaps, do you understand why the pre-vetted candidates don't need to start early? It would just be punching down. Let the johnny-come-lately walk-ons have their day in the sun. The starters will soon be joining the training camp.
Kristol is one of the so-called experts who brought us Sara Palin.
Perry needs to go. Last night was enough of a disqualification. Almost a Thomas Eagleton moment.
And for you Palin people, this is exactly why Palin needs to get in now. If she is as great as you say, she should have no problem shining in these debates and being vetted like Perry has been the past month.
Romney can win. He's apologized for his biggest offense in Romneycare. See if Rubio would go on the ticket and you've got a highly competitive duo in almost every state in the country save for California.
Kristol's been wrong about everything for 15 years. He's very good at convincing rich Media moguls to employ him, otherwise he's a fool.
I agree Romney -Rubio is a ticket we may have to settle for and they could win big.
I'm a Perry voter, I like Rick Perry. Please don't nominate Rick Perry.
He'll do fine here as Governor For Life, but a Texas governorship is not exactly a real hard test of leadership ability.
Perry is a "conservative" for political purposes only, and he will become an embarrassment for the GOP.
Keeping with the training camp analogy...
There's one candidate, who's been coasting on his talents for a long time. And he thinks that he owns the position, it belongs to him. But he knows he's been coasting, so he came to training camp early to work out with the walk-ons, to show the coaches and owners he's serious and still got it.
And there's another candidate, younger, hungry, enthusiastic, with raw skills. Was erratic last season. Who's been working out hard in the off-season. In the gym, out at the track with the locals, getting into pickup games, hiring some personal coaches to polish those skills. This candidate is planning to make a big splash at training camp. You gotta wow the coaches to get picked over the veteran. But, gotta make sure not to over-train and get injured early. Maybe the agent is even advising to hold out another week, to get people hungry for something new.
C'mon, Sport is Life. What did Wellington say: "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton".
Give it up. Romney is the only one who has been serious about this. He's been building an organization and raising money for four years. He's got cogent positions and opinions. The only thing I can see to explain Tea Party hostility is that he's a Mormon and they have a lot of Evangelicals.
wv: lightb - Wake up and see the light.
Prediction: the incredible weirdness of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints is going to seem suddenly fascinating to all manner of mainstream media publications.
All religions have weirdness, of course.
Elect a guy who hasn't held a real job in years, has been living off his stash, because he's had an all-consuming lust after the Presidency? For 10 freaking years?
All the while, from being so cautious, that he is unable to clearly communicate who he is and what he is for?
I'm sorry, the Presidency is not a job for a pragmatic cautious administrator. Romney is the converse of Barry. Neither is suitable for the job.
I'm fine with Romney, though I'd certainly like to see more candidates in the fray: Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, even Palin.
There's no coronation here. But it does seem like everybody is piling on the only candidate in the race who is possible material besides Romney.
I don't watch debates myself.
Romney may have to dump most of his wives.
Headline:
PERRY EXPOSES HIMSELF BEFORE NATIONAL TELEVISION AUDIENCE.
That ought to get the message across.
Given that Sarah Palin has already said 2012 will produce an "unconventional election result" ...
Is it possible in the future ... say 2016 ... people will look at this spectacular failure to catch on ... as such a waste of time. And, so detrimental to the party's label ... It's like seeing the roll out to the NEW COKE ... being such an utter failure ... NO COMPANY WILL EVER DO THAT AGAIN TO THEIR TOP BRAND?
Sure. The media sends its camera crews out. But really.
Why aren't we seeing debates that are "paired off" in some way?
(Yeah. I remember Ronald Reagan lambasting the elder Bush, when he tried to limit a 1980 debate. With his "I PAID FOR THESE MICROPHONES."
But this isn't a rule set in cement.
Back in 1980, even with Jimmy Carter plunging down the rabbit hole ... it was a close enough race ... That if it wasn't Reagan running ... we could'a gotten Carter re-elected!
Nobody wants to look at what happens when you let the social conservatives set the agenda!
The topics are wrong!
You need to hear canned and prepared speeches ... when you're watching the EURO disappear?
You can't make your arguments for republicans, now, based on FISCAL CONSERVATISM, shown by both example ... and finger pointing at the British? (Pick a big target. Don't just settle for the Greeks. Or the Irish.)
Talk about what it means to lose your sovereignty, nation by nation. PREDICT what you think may happen, ahead.
But, nope.
We get Michelle Bachmann promising to shut off the lights at the Department of Education. What does she care? So many people are NOT going to vote for her ... that all she drags out is anger from Federal job holders! VOTERS.
Reagan never upset VOTERS!
And, Bachmann's "being there" lets Sarah Palin take a pass.
If Romney even gets close to the flame, I'm sure someone will ask him that if he's president, he'll pardon that Jeff's guy. (Or whatever the name of the Mormon is who got jailed for polygamy with underage women.)
Wow. THEN wait for the questions about the women's underwear!
Wait and see if they ask him if his wife wears that silly underwear. And, if she'll wear it, too, if she's first lady.
The fun hasn't even begun.
The only thing I can see to explain Tea Party hostility is that he's a Mormon and they have a lot of Evangelicals.
Ever hear of a little thing called "Romneycare"?
I would be fine with Mitt or Perry, but I have been so disappointed by both of the Bushes doing that soft conservative shit that expands government with a Republican label. I don't want, nor can we afford that again. Both Romney and Perry have a little of that in different areas, Mitt is more likely to go down that road. If only Republican could actually do what they say they believe in, even if it only got them one term.
I was for Rick Perry before last night. His in-state tuition for illegals was the final straw. He's really a Democrat. He thinks with his heart instead of his brain.
But I think Romney is uninteresting.
What about Gary Johnson? We've never had a president named Gary before. We almost had one with Gary Hart, but he thought with his penis instead of his heart. He should have used his brain.
It must be said by someone. The Federal budget is about to be downsized. Drastically. It has to be done. To 60% of current.
Federal employees, the ones still left, will be taking pay cuts.
Millions of recipients of promised Federal funds are about to be shortchanged. We're out of other people's money.
Dang near everybody can get by, with a 20% pay cut.
Either that, or we find our Octavian, and the American Republic will fall. And Octavian will still cut your pay, and take your wealth.
Perry did not hurt Romney with the criticism of flip flopping.
Romney seemed over-confident to the point of sneering down at Perry's polite southerner schtick. He said that Perry's argument why Texas decided to let immigrant's kids pay tuition at in State student rates made no sense to him.
That was a smooth move to play on the prejudices of the Hispanic haters. But That should alert folks to Romney's lack of principles.
To declare the race over now is a propaganda ploy.
The Six Million Dollar Man said:
"And for you Palin people, this is exactly why Palin needs to get in now. If she is as great as you say, she should have no problem shining in these debates and being vetted like Perry has been the past month.
I don't know what planet you are from, Steve, but the Democrat operatives and the Drive-By Media (Sarah prefers "Lamestream") have been virtually living in Wasilla (ala Mr. McGinness) looking without success for dirt and chewing gum or duct tape -- anything, something that will destroy Palin's reputation.
Sarah Palin has been vetted and exonerated of all accusations. Perry has not stood up well with far fewer tests -- maybe that is all we can expect of a "C" average A&M yell leader. I will say, however, that I wondered whether Governor Perry might be suffering from some disease that impaired him last night.
The last thing that Palin or any other thinking candidate needs is to participate in these stupid exploitations of Republican candidates by the media. The Palin campaign is introducing (before your very eyes) a new paradigm to presidential politics.
After seeing Mitt Romney, who is unlikely to have any strong personal convictions on the matter, go after Rick Perry on immigration, I'm 100% convinced that Romney is a weasel.
Suppose Romney gets the nomination. He then beats Obama in November 2012. Obama pulls several Senate Democrats down with him and does nothing, on his way down the toilet, to help Dems get anything back in the House.
The House passes a repeal of ObamaReidPelosiCare, and the Senate throws reconciliation back at Pelosi and Reid—if it was good enough for passing everything in ObamaReidPelosiCare, it's good enough for repealing all of it.
The bill goes to Romney for his signature.
Is he a big enough weasel to veto it?
One clip I've seen from last night's debate shows Ron Paul ranting against "birthright citizenship."
Without calling for repealing part of the 14th Amendment (which, for all I know, Paul this is null and void for one reason or another).
The guy's been a minority of one for so long on so many issues—and he feels a need to pander to the Mexican-haters.
Sad.
*which, for all I know, Paul thinks is null and void*
Bag -- Think it through. If the president only gets one term with a bunch of cuts, how likely are those cuts to last past the end of that term?
Unpopular presidents create unpopular policy, which gets changed.
I think we both agree what needs to be done, but we're not going to get all we want. Not for any length of time.
Bender, he did work for Dan Quayle.
Friday night is closing down fast.
We did a German cultural night at ASO starting with Wagner's Valkyries riding, Siegfried's funeral and Brunnhilde's immolation. The Fat Lady (Christine Brewer)sang a long time.
Then Ludwig B's greatest music ever composed was done by the Orchestra with Tenors and the 200 strong Chorus ending Bethoven's Chorale (9th) with the Ode to Joy.
That must be what heaven sounds like.
It's time to have a Mosel River Reisling and go to bed.
And for the first time they started with the Star Spangled Banner and everyone sang it. Spano must have Wisconsin contacts.
Wait and see if they ask him if his wife wears that silly underwear.
What do you mean my underwear is silly?
What do you mean, you mean the way it's made? The way it's sown?
Silly how? What's silly about it?
You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little too religious maybe, but my underwear is silly how, I mean silly like it's spanx, it amuses you? It makes you laugh, Mormons wear underwear to flippin amuse you? What do you mean silly, silly how? How is it silly?
Given that Sarah Palin has already said 2012 will produce an "unconventional election result"
Carol, I know this will shock people, but you got the quote wrong.
What she told Sean Hannity was this.
"This is going to be such an unconventional election cycle. Mark my word, it is going to be an unconventional type of election process."
Here's my prediction. Sarah Palin will be running for office. But she will not be fundraising in the typical fashion. She has her website, and you can contribute if you want. But she will not be meeting with the bundlers and the billionaires. She's going to skip all that.
And all the party bigwigs are going to flip out and say you can't run a campaign that way. And they're going to say she's not a "serious" candidate. And all the insiders will shake their heads at her.
With no formal Palin organization in any state, political insiders have for months doubted that Palin could quickly assemble a top-tier campaign.
I heard Dick Morris on Hannity the other day, and he said, "when Palin announces she is not running." He was certain she's not running. And I'm sorry but he sounds so sleazy. I can hear the sleaze over the radio waves. And it make me happy to say that he is wrong, wrong, wrong.
She's running.
She's just not going to campaign like everybody else.
She's already organized in all 50 states.
She is going to run a populist campaign. And the establishment is going to freak out and say you can't do it that way.
Palin made clear on Tuesday that she does not believe she needs an old-style campaign based on county chairmen, finance committees, endorsements, and months of hand-shaking.
Meaning, she doesn't need the insiders. I think Palin will do lots of hand-shaking! What she will skip is the whole insider apparatus. She is going to upend the Republican party and lead a populist revolt.
She gave the Republicans fits in Alaska, and she's going to do the same thing to the national party.
The Tea Party loves her. But the Republican party? Not so much.
And then she will lose in the general election.
And the Cult off Palin continues. Why do people love or hate an obscure governor who John McCain plucked out of obscurity so much? It's crazy.
Anybody who hates Palin, like the douchebag who yelled at her daughter, I would say: Get a life. The woman was merely a governor and vice presidential candidate.
Anybody who loves Palin, I would say: she's not ready; she's the Democratic Obama of 2008; and you are going to be sorely disillusioned if she wins. Look at those poor, sad Obama voters who pinned their hopes and dreams on a guy because he gave an ostensibly rousing speech. That's you in 2015.
Given the field, I hope Palin does run.
Right now, its going to be Romney. A week ago I thought Perry was going to walk away with it, but he's even stupider than I first thought.
Palin's problems are quite simple. First, how do you get Bachmann, Paul, and the other midgets who are geting combined almost 30% of the votes out of the race. Once they're gone, most of those votes will got to Palin.
Second, how do win with Perry and Palin splitting the conservative vote? It looks like 2008 again, with 2 "conservatives" splitting the the mainstream Republican vote, while the establishment candidate picks up all the moderates, independents and blue state votes.
In any case, she can delay her entry even longer than Fred Thompson did. As stated, she doesn't need to fund raise.
Perry is the only Republican who seems to understand the crucial importance of hispanic voters to the future of the Republican party, and therefore to conservatism.
Illegal immigration is a bad thing for America, but the solution is not fences and deportation. The solution is to embrace people who want to come here to work, prosper and be more free than they were. Make them legal and require them to live on the grid--paying taxes, providing labor, forming businesses and moving up in the society.
We are so hung up on not allowing "amnesty" that we miss the bigger point. An influx of people who want to work is a good thing, economically, demographically and socially.
Yes there are downsides to increased hispanic immigration from the south. The list of downsides is not short and the issues are not trivial.
But these problems are far outweighed by the benefits of the immigration (and the fact that eventually the immigration will make Mexico much stronger economically too,)
Perry has lots of flaws, but only he seems to have a big vision on this crucial issue.
Seven, I not in anyone's camp yet, but if one of these guys wins and tries to play both sides to stay popular, this nation will miss it's last opportunity to save itself from permanent decline. Weak measures will continue the decay, conservative ideas will get the blame and no real reform will be made. Changes made in a single term do usually survive, even unpopular ones. Much of Obamacare will survive, even if Obama doesn't.
I just think the worst possible outcome is for a Republican to win and govern as a "compassionate conservative". I think the kind of reform needed may require someone to sacrifice their popularity until after they are out of office. I'm not expecting either of the two front runners to be willing to do that.
I think Romney has the better chance of winning, and that matters a lot, but Romneycare was exactly the kind of leadership we do not need. I hope he has learned something, because I think he will be the next President.
Seven Machos repeats the CW that Palin is the anti-Obama.
This has been flogged to death, and no one is going to let their minds be changed now. Yet, I will put out there a challenge, and see if anyone's got the bravura to run with it.
I will list a set of Palin competence progression indicators. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to provide a comparable set for ... whoever.
----------
1. Captain of the championship basketball team, with the wining bucket. Lessons for a lifetime.
2. Hardscrabble college education, worked her way through.
3. Raise a large family through tight times, the old-fashioned way: hard work.
4. Outsider mayor, twice-elected.
5. Effective mayor. Did so well, appointed to Statewide Commission Executive of the most important (money!) commission in the State.
6. Resigned in protest over corruption.
7. Beat the Establishment, won Governor.
8. Popular
governor, in two years pushed thru major statewide bipartisan real accomplishments.
9. National attention - came away bloodied but unbowed.
10. Chose her family and state over personal ambition.
11. Got rich the old-fashioned way: honestly. Opportunity seizer.
12: Squeaky-clean, no skeletons, and her history is fully known.
13. Writes her own material.
------------.
Tag, you're it. Bring it. Convince me. Go big or go home.
Even before the last debate, Mitt matched up against Obama poll-wise far better than either Perry or Palin. Mitt has been a virtuoso in the debates. He stood down Pawlenty over “Obmaney Care”. He's let Michelle and Santorum go the most negative against Perry. Bachmann was like a suicide bomber. She ripped Perry apart and destroyed herself on the HPV vaccine. Huntsman attacked Romney in the previous debate similar to how Paul attacked Perry. While Perry snaps back at Paul, Romney grins and ignores Huntsman as inconsequential. Romney almost never gets nasty. He gently chides and points out policy differences with a smile. "Nice try," he says to a tongue-tied Perry with echos of "you're likable enough, Hillary."
There was a lot of cheering for Perry in those debates while Romney was calmly getting the job done. Romney is a guarantee of no deer-in-the-headlights moments when Obama is standing behind the other podium.
Forget about defending Texas. Get ready to defend Mormons.
...how do win with Perry and Palin splitting the conservative vote?
Ah, but that's not the split.
If Sarah comes in, she is going to sweep the Tea Party Republicans, right?
So now the question is, how many Republcians identify with the Tea Party? That's the $1,000,000 question.
If it's a majority, then Sarah Palin will be our nominee.
What's tricky is that Perry is a very strong regional candidate in the South. And Romney (or Christie if he comes in) is the blue state Republican.
So those two have fairly strong constituencies. While Palin is going to be competitive in all 50 states. But which states will she win?
She's really a wild card.
Blue state Republicans do not compete well in the red states. And right now Perry's appeal seems limited to the South.
Basically we don't have an obvious winner right now.
I see two possibilities. We have a Tea Party sweep in the primaries, and Palin runs away with this thing.
Or we have a very divided primary. Palin takes Iowa. Romney takes New Hampshire. Perry takes South Carolina. Like that.
I could see us being divided all the way to the convention. And if it goes to the convention, I predict that Palin will not be our nominee, as party insiders do not like her.
I think she has a pretty good chance of winning the nomination before then, however.
"He's been building an organization and raising money for four years. He's got cogent positions and opinions. The only thing I can see to explain Tea Party hostility is that he's a Mormon and they have a lot of Evangelicals. "
So you think Romney having no job for the last five (not four) years is a good thing?
You rank that over those who actually succeeded as governor and were reelected instead of so popular they didn't even try?
Youthink the Taxed Enough Already movement's problem with a guy who raised taxed as governor is that he's mormon? Is their problem with Obamacare about Obama's race, too?
Do you have any clue that Romney increased spending and taxes, banned some guns, and mandated health insurance on folks who didn't want to buy it? You really have no idea what conservatives don't like him? Must be some bigotry?
Perry's the better leader. He's actually got principles to defend, too, which is inconvenient from a sheer politics POV, but oh well.
I like and respect Palin as a woman who has lived an impressive life, and I've spent a lot of time defending her, but I doubt she would capture a single state. Of course the left hates her, but independents are not behind her and that's where the action is. She has a loyal, but insufficient following, and people like me who want to win will not take that chance.
gadfly,
The Palin campaign is introducing (before your very eyes) a new paradigm to presidential politics.
I hope to God you're right.
William Kristol is a good at optics and has trouble seeing further. I like Perry but he should definitely either stay away from Churchillian lines or practice. I was imaging Perry saying something like, 'We will fight them on the beaches, fight them on the streets even K Street,the forests, you get the picture, and go back to the bitches to watch the marriage of Cain and Newt.'
Seven Machos,
Anybody who loves Palin, I would say: she's not ready; she's the Democratic Obama of 2008; and you are going to be sorely disillusioned if she wins.
And to you I say: you're mistaken in all particulars.
The lady is both smarter and more knowledgeable than you're willing to give her credit for, and has far better character to boot.
"Blue state Republicans do not compete well in the red states. And right now Perry's appeal seems limited to the South."
Perry will win the south, Romney will take the northeast.
The questions is who will take the midwest and the far western states. That's who will win the nomination.
I think Perry has a better chance unless he keeps blowing the debates.
Maybe Christie will get in, but I kinda think if he was going to get in, he would have done so before now.
@David: I can't disagree more, I'm afraid. You seem basically to say, 'yes, illegal immigration has its problems, but only because it's illegal.'
There seems to be a curious statistical agreement that a number of American citizens in the present day are in sore want of employment. So what is the glorious payoff of herds of illegals coming here in search of jobs that don't exist?
Or is it the devaluation of wages that appeals to you?
I think Hispanics, whatever their Catholic mores, will do absolutely no favors for the GOP. First, because Identity Politics will trump other concerns that take them to the polls; and Democrats have rather a lock on IP, you'll note. And second: that's insofar as they get to the polls at all, because Hispanic-American citizens tend overall to be rather apathetic at voting.
Perry's immigration "what me, worry about my state's borders?" crud is outrageous. Either he's an idiot or a tool of the WSJ editorial board, or both.
People are awfully quick on the bandwagon to dq Perry. Most people aren't even watching these things yet! And most of the other options suck.
The republicans should not even run a candidate for POTUS next year. Any money they spend in that direction will be a total waste. Obama's re-election is a 100% certainty.
They should concentrate all their efforts on holding the House and staying above the magic 40 Senate seats.
Romney seems like a guy who has gotten very good a running for President. Uh oh. We got that now. He thought that having his state run health care was a good idea. Tell me what is conservative about that?
Perry seems like a guy who can't make a cogent argument. He can't make THE slam dunk argument against Romney. Oy. We just had one of those too. I have problems with Christie, and want him to stay here in NJ, but you'll never hear him blathering around like Perry. He looks opponents in the eye and gives them both barrels.
We're gonna end up with another choice between two Zeros.
On Palin and independents..
even though polls are for strippers and cross-country skiers.
In the Marist poll, independents:
Sarah Palin - 47%
Barack Obama -43%
undecided - 10%
PollInsider
McClatchy-Marist Poll
Gadfly above noted that Palin has been "vetted". Not withstanding the Glenn Rice thing last week, Palin has not been vetted in the way we just did to Rick Perry the last month.
We NEED to see Palin out there in unscripted debate moments. See her doing interviews with David Gregory on Meet the Press as Michelle Bachman does. We need to see her think on her feet in hostile interviews and interchanges like all the other candidates subject themselves to.
The fact of the matter is, she has cocooned herself up and only speaks to designated friendlies on Fox News. When she actually replies to an unscripted question, we get Paul Revere moments. A reasonable percentage of GOP and independent voters know she has no clothes here.
If Sarah does run, the reason she is delaying is because she knows she will be extremely vulnerable once she has to face the other candidates and the press unscripted.
"Kirby Olson said...
We've never had a president named Gary before. We almost had one with Gary Hart."
And I almost won the Powerball. I matched two numbers.
@AST:
Give it up. Romney is the only one who has been serious about this. ... He's got cogent positions and opinions:
By far the most troubling proposal is Mr. Romney's call for "confronting China" on trade. This is usually a Democratic theme, but Mr. Romney does Mr. Obama one worse by pledging to have his Treasury brand China a "currency manipulator" if it doesn't "move quickly to bring its currency to full value." He'd then hit Beijing with countervailing duties. (WSJ 9-7)
I don't want to vote for a man who I hope is a liar here building a position to win Ohio.
I like Romney at least addressing the China situation.
Up until now we have allowed one billion Chinese to enter our labor force unfettered. It has taken ten years to fully show the results but the results are arriving. And the results are terrible.
Did you see that news story the other day about the Wisconsin family income since 1999 being down 14 percent after being adjusted for inflation? This is despite us lavishing ever higher incomes on our State workers during that time. Thus the results are worse than thought.
The reason is that tens of thousands of good paying Wisconsin manufacturing jobs are now done by Chinese.
I understand all the principles of free trade and comparative advantage, but toss those out the window when trying to compete against sweatshop labor countries.
Smoot-Hawley "addressed" the American jobs issue in the 30's. If economic 'science' has a consensus, it is that this, which led to countervailing foreign measures, collapsed world trade and worsened the global economic crisis. Out of this, we had the rise of Nazi Germany.
sorepaw said...
"One clip I've seen from last night's debate shows Ron Paul ranting against "birthright citizenship."
Without calling for repealing part of the 14th Amendment (which, for all I know, Paul this is null and void for one reason or another).
The guy's been a minority of one for so long on so many issues—and he feels a need to pander to the Mexican-haters.
Sad."
There is no such thing as "birthright citizenship". Anyone born in this country becomes a US Citizen when he/she is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. A child born of 1 alien and 1 US Citizen may become subject to the jurisdiction at the age of majority by election of residence. A child born of 2 aliens becomes a US Citizen by naturalization oath at the age of majority or, if his parents naturalize during his/her minority.
The acceptance of dual citizenship is against the US Constitution, and has not been upheld formally by the SCOTUS, only assumed by treasonous Congress. Any law that violates the US Constitution is NULL and VOID--- Marbury v. Madison.
The acceptance of dual citizenship has made the Citizenship Oath moot (since it pledges allegiance to the US and no other foreign power), and is against the jurisdiction clause of the 14 Amendment, which was defined thus by Elk v. Wilkins:
"The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
Barack Obama was not born w/ sole allegiance to the US. He was born British to a British subject father-- thus is not an eligible natural born Citizen.
Perry had a Dan Quayle "a mind is a terrible thing to lose" moment.
Palin speaks to undesignated CNN, among others, in Iowa
CNN, YouTube
"If my tape recorder is telling the truth, Palin answered questions from the press for over an hour."
Scott Conroy
Unscripted, no notes, no teleprompter. Who else talked to the press uninterrupted for more than an hour taking any question?
Twitter
Tank wrote:
Romney seems like a guy who has gotten very good a running for President. Uh oh. We got that now. He thought that having his
state run health care was a good idea. Tell me what is conservative about that?
uh, that it wasn't run by the federal govt, but rather enacted by the state? Look, he's outlined that he isn't totally happy with all aspects of the program, since he did have to compromise with dems who were the majority in the state at the time.
But it's not a federal program. States will come up with solutions that fit the needs of their state. Which is in fact a conservative position.
>>When she actually replies to an unscripted question, we get Paul Revere moments<<
What did she say about Paul Revere that was incorrect?
Monomaniacal Mick,
There is no such thing as "birthright citizenship". Anyone born in this country becomes a US Citizen when he/she is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
Well, when is that?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...
So persons born in the United States, and not naturalized, may, in what cases, not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
And therefore, not citizens?
And what, in turn, would that imply?
That they can be killed, or imprisoned, or their property can be confiscated, without due process of law?
Ron Paul pretends that part of the 14th Amendment is null and void. So do you.
He also pretends that other parts of the 14th Amendment are null and void; for instance, he apparently thinks that the US Congress can't abridge freedom of speech, but any state legislature can if it wants to.
I haven't noticed you going that far.
sorepaw said...
"Monomaniacal Mick,
There is no such thing as "birthright citizenship". Anyone born in this country becomes a US Citizen when he/she is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
Well, when is that?"
Obviously you're not paying attention. A child is fully subject to the US and no other nation (as the Citizenship oath, and the jurisdictional clause demand) when his/her parents are US Citizens. If that duality exists until the age of majority, then that child is naturalized passively by election of residence in the US. If the parents naturaize in the child's miniority, then the child is also naturalized.
SCOTUS said what jurisdiction is by the precedent of Elk v. Wilkins, as I posted above.
If jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws" then the clause would not be needed. It would just say "those born or naturalized in the US are citizens".
Sorepaw said:
"So persons born in the United States, and not naturalized, may, in what cases, not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
And therefore, not citizens?
And what, in turn, would that imply?"
Those born of 2 aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the parent's home country. If they are here illegally, then they should be deported (all of them). Pretty simple and logical.
Smoot-Hawley "addressed" the American jobs issue in the 30's. If economic 'science' has a consensus, it is that this, which led to countervailing foreign measures, collapsed world trade and worsened the global economic crisis. Out of this, we had the rise of Nazi Germany.
Total Bullshit. Foreign trade was a small part of the USA economy in 1930, and our trade with Germany was even very small. Look up the numbers.
SH may not have helped but it had no significant impact on the Great Depression. Its an urban myth.
Googling 'Smoot Hawley' at the Economist:
Hoover’s signature cost rather more—even though the direct effect on American trade was limited. The average rate on dutiable goods rose from 40% to 48%, implying a price increase of only 6%. And most trade, Mr Irwin points out, was free of duty (partly because high tariffs discouraged imports). He estimates that the new tariff reduced dutiable imports by 17-20% and the total by 4-6%. Yet the volume of American imports had already dropped by 15% in the year before the act was passed. It would fall by a further 40% in a little more than two years (due largely to deflation and declining GDP). Exports collapsed even more dramatically, by 49%. This was at least partly the result of a whole host of measures taken by other countries after Smoot-Hawley that were designed to divert trade away from America
I'm yet to understand what are debates for, except serving the media with something to talk about. I find the debates a pretty shallow medium for choosing an executive.
Reagan's first primary debate in 1980 was TERRIBLE. He was confused, groggy and incoherent at times. He had spent the day campaigning instead of resting, and it showed. Another debate like that one would have finished him, as it brought the age issue up front and center.
Thankfully, his next debate was infinitely better, and the Nashua debate closed the door on the issue.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा