Slippery slope for ‘slick’ Rick

[formerlurker]

Slippery slope for ‘slick’ Rick

By Howie Carr
Sunday, September 25, 2011 - Updated 2 hours ago
   
I never thought Rick Perry was going to be the next Ronald Reagan. But who knew he’d turn out to be the next Mumbles Menino?

At least the governor of Texas picked the right place to turn into a pumpkin — Orlando, home of Disney World.

That GOP debate Thursday night was a political NASCAR race. All the fans got what they came for — a massive crack-up on the far turn. Remember two weeks ago when everyone said Rick Perry was ready for prime time. It turned out to be a “monstrous lie,” to coin a phrase.

http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2011_0925slippery_slope_for_slick_rick/


I totally agree. Stick a fork in Perry.   

Cain's time to rise to the top.  If he doesn't soon (and by soon I mean within weeks) then Christie is entering the arena.

Cain or Christie?  I like them both a great deal , but I'll take Christie.    He is a powerhouse combatant in one of the bluest states in the union.    Could be totally kick ass as POTUS.

[formerlurker]

Note however that I am not counting Romney out.    He has clearly spent a great deal of time working on his message and delivery.   He is good on his feet also.

This is FAR from over.

[DumbAss Tanker]

There's a huge difference between what it takes to win the primaries and what it takes to win the general, Perry actually improved his position for the general election at the expense of his standing in the primaries.  The fact he still nosed out Romney for #2 does give some credence to his camp's claim that it really shows Romney is the loser, I think, though it does overlook the fact that Perry's people dumped a great deal of money into trying to win that straw poll.  Romney and Perry are both hurting each other more than they're helping themselves with the mutual snotty attacks.  I'm also pretty sure Perry's extremely-simplistic attacks on Social Security as a Ponzi scheme don't help him much in a state with such a high percentage of elderly voters, it's a problem that's going to require a sophisticated, phased, and complex solution rather than just some dumbshit "I'm gonna put a stop to that shit" kind of sound bite. 

[formerlurker]

If we are gaging who will win the general election between the two?   Romney wins hands down.   He has a far better shot of securing independents than Perry does.  The base may care about Romney changing positions, but the general public has a very short attention span on  that stuff.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2012_new_hampshire_republican_primary

People can laugh off the "RINO" states, but they are a real consideration.  

as for getting out of the primary intact?  Perry has some real communication problems, and it only takes one major slip up to go down in flames (see Howard Dean).  

We'll see.


ETA:  has google take hold of the site?   I didn't hyperlink "in flames" the site seems to have done that.

[DixieBelle]

Unfortunately, the American public wants an American Idol style competition to decide who should win. Straw polls, debates, town halls, etc...the Average American voter has the attention span of a housefly. So far, I am not really impressed with anyone. The lamestream media is going to continue to do a piss-poor job reporting on the contenders so it's really up to the voters to do their own homework. In a word? UGH....

[formerlurker]

The fact he still nosed out Romney for #2 does give some credence to his camp's claim that it really shows Romney is the loser, I think, though it does overlook the fact that Perry's people dumped a great deal of money into trying to win that straw poll. 

I just read a few articles on the straw poll and see that Romney is not spending any money on them (although there are rumors his people pushed for for Cain to embarrass Perry), and that Florida will proportionately divide electoral college votes in their primary, which makes for a very interesting run on that state.  

[formerlurker]

Unfortunately, the American public wants an American Idol style competition to decide who should win. Straw polls, debates, town halls, etc...the Average American voter has the attention span of a housefly. So far, I am not really impressed with anyone. The lamestream media is going to continue to do a piss-poor job reporting on the contenders so it's really up to the voters to do their own homework. In a word? UGH....

Which is one of the reasons I would like to see Christie jump in the race.    I agree I am less than excited over what we have seen to date.

[DixieBelle]

In typical GOP fashion, we swing at pitches in the dirt. For once I would like to see the GOP act like it had a spine and realize what is really at stake. I can't wait until the beauty pageant is over so we can get down to beating Obama.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I just read a few articles on the straw poll and see that Romney is not spending any money on them (although there are rumors his people pushed for for Cain to embarrass Perry), and that Florida will proportionately divide electoral college votes in their primary, which makes for a very interesting run on that state.  

I think your support for Romney is coloring your perception.  One thing Perry's guys were right about is that Mitt has been campaigning in Florida for five years, all his technical non-participation in the straw poll does is give him plausible deniability for a poor showing, since he was obviously hoping for an 'I won it and didn't even campaign, I am The Man ' result based on the legacy of all his name recognition and past campaigning, but that wasn't what he got.

[formerlurker]

I think your support for Romney is coloring your perception.  One thing Perry's guys were right about is that Mitt has been campaigning in Florida for five years, all his technical non-participation in the straw poll does is give him plausible deniability for a poor showing, since he was obviously hoping for an 'I won it and didn't even campaign, I am The Man ' result based on the legacy of all his name recognition and past campaigning, but that wasn't what he got.

I don't support Romney - just calling it as I see it.    Not buying the campaigning for 5 years nonsense.   They are all politicians (save for Cain), and all live their lives in campaign mode.

That all said, Florida has moved away from the winner take all delegate votes, so Romney is playing his cards just about right there.    He is not spending any money on straw polls (which are foolish for the most part anyway), neither is Bachmann for that matter.   Wise choice by both.  

Romney has emerged this campaign season as extremely polished.   Like it or not, that is going to turn heads because he looks very confident in his abilities right now.   Perry has had three shots to look like a competent leader and has failed miserably at all three.    I don't see him weathering the campaign primaries intact.  

[sybilll]

I think whoever is the eventual candidate, Newt should coach them on debating.  No one does it better than Newt. He is the only one that brings the debates back to the fact that the number one goal is to defeat Obama.  I wish Newt didn't have as much baggage as Samsonite so he could do it himself, but, he could be great behind the scenes. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Romney has emerged this campaign season as extremely polished.   Like it or not, that is going to turn heads because he looks very confident in his abilities right now.   Perry has had three shots to look like a competent leader and has failed miserably at all three.    I don't see him weathering the campaign primaries intact.  

Mitt certainly is that, he has been exceptionally well prepared, and Perry has failed to show much of an A game so far.  Unfortunately aside from a certain core of fiscal conservatism, Mitt seems to project the colorfastness of a chameleon on every issue of interest to social conservatives and libertarian conservatives. 

[FreeBorn]

They way I see it is that Perry fell on his sword when he espoused his personal support for illegal aliens with tuition assistance to the tune of $22,000 per year per illegal alien student and went on at some length defending his stance on it.

$22,000 worth of tuition discounts per illegal alien per year adds up to $88,000 less over four years than legally naturalized or natural born American citizens will pay in tuition.

If anyone is looking for the reason why the price of Perry's stock just hit the floor there's your smoking sombrero right there.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0925/Rick-Perry-s-heart-comment-shows-GOP-s-immigration-problem

[Eupher]

I don't support Romney - just calling it as I see it.    Not buying the campaigning for 5 years nonsense.   They are all politicians (save for Cain), and all live their lives in campaign mode.

That all said, Florida has moved away from the winner take all delegate votes, so Romney is playing his cards just about right there.    He is not spending any money on straw polls (which are foolish for the most part anyway), neither is Bachmann for that matter.   Wise choice by both.  

Romney has emerged this campaign season as extremely polished.   Like it or not, that is going to turn heads because he looks very confident in his abilities right now.   Perry has had three shots to look like a competent leader and has failed miserably at all three.    I don't see him weathering the campaign primaries intact.  

Lurker, I've been reading your posts with interest for awhile now and I generally find you to be well-informed. I would say, however, that despite your claim that you don't support Romney, the tone of your posts leads one to believe that you do.

When it's time to pull the handle, I'll bet you a hot fudge sundae that you will, in fact, vote for Romney. Short of pulling up all sorts of previous posts, you've presented information and claimed that RomneyCare -- as it turned out to be -- was a far cry from what he initially proposed. All well and good, but the fact that he proposed it and the fact that he claims to be a Republican in an overwhelmingly blue state shifts his entire political spectrum more toward the left than I personally care for -- but he was your governor for awhile, not mine. All Romney was for me was a slick, "savior" of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics when, in fact, he did nothing of the sort.

I saw Romney -- before his political days -- as being a liar, a self-promoter, and untrustworthy as hell. Simply because he moved to Mass. after the Olympics were over to don the cloak of politician doesn't alter the fact he's a liar and a self-promoter.

Just calling like like I see it - you will no doubt counter with an objection and that's fine.

Romney isn't polished, in my view. He's as oily as that Gulf of Mexico slick we saw last year. My fervent hope is that the voters see him for that quality as well.

The straw polls and the debates ultimately don't mean squat, despite Fox News' breathless fascination with them. On the other hand, it's an opportunity to see how these guys think on their feet and I'd agree generally that Perry has floundered, especially in the last two.

That doesn't mean that Romney is yet another "savior", though, if he winds up with the nomination, I'll have really no other choice but to hold my nose and pull the handle for yet another liar and self-promoter.

[NHSparky]

Sorry, but Romney will NOT be the GOP nominee.  He might win NH, but only because of the Masshole influx.  After that, he won't win jack.  People already see him as a slicked up version of a big-government establishment candidate.

Same with Christie--people don't know him yet.  But his stands on the Second Amendment alone are enough to churn my stomach.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Same with Christie--people don't know him yet.  But his stands on the Second Amendment alone are enough to churn my stomach.

Yeah, his take-charge, run roughshod over the enemy approach is fine for the fiscal conservative issues of interest to his biggest supporters, but it'd be a Chernobyl-style disaster for civil liberties issues like Second Amendment. 

[formerlurker]

Lurker, I've been reading your posts with interest for awhile now and I generally find you to be well-informed. I would say, however, that despite your claim that you don't support Romney, the tone of your posts leads one to believe that you do.

When it's time to pull the handle, I'll bet you a hot fudge sundae that you will, in fact, vote for Romney. Short of pulling up all sorts of previous posts, you've presented information and claimed that RomneyCare -- as it turned out to be -- was a far cry from what he initially proposed. All well and good, but the fact that he proposed it and the fact that he claims to be a Republican in an overwhelmingly blue state shifts his entire political spectrum more toward the left than I personally care for -- but he was your governor for awhile, not mine. All Romney was for me was a slick, "savior" of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics when, in fact, he did nothing of the sort.

I saw Romney -- before his political days -- as being a liar, a self-promoter, and untrustworthy as hell. Simply because he moved to Mass. after the Olympics were over to don the cloak of politician doesn't alter the fact he's a liar and a self-promoter.

Just calling like like I see it - you will no doubt counter with an objection and that's fine.

Romney isn't polished, in my view. He's as oily as that Gulf of Mexico slick we saw last year. My fervent hope is that the voters see him for that quality as well.

The straw polls and the debates ultimately don't mean squat, despite Fox News' breathless fascination with them. On the other hand, it's an opportunity to see how these guys think on their feet and I'd agree generally that Perry has floundered, especially in the last two.

That doesn't mean that Romney is yet another "savior", though, if he winds up with the nomination, I'll have really no other choice but to hold my nose and pull the handle for yet another liar and self-promoter.

If I supported Romney for the GOP nomination  I would have absolutely no problem saying so here.    I am hardly a coward and can take it as well as I give it.   Baaaaaa is not in my vocabulary.  I did support him last time around, mostly because I thought he could pull off the win.

I will absolutely point out errors in arguments if I see them (as people do for me, which I welcome).   I know what the plan was for healthcare reform in MA, and watched it all go to hell in the liberal statehouse, and then pissed on by a liberal governor when he took office.    I can tear apart EVERY SINGLE argument made against Romney by the MA resistence freakshows, partly because they make it so easy to do so.    You can not support, or even like the guy but kindly do so based on facts.   That is all I ask, and if I see a post that is fact challenged (or the equivalent of hysterics as some who post here do consistently) then I will comment.     Equating that to support is a stretch.   It's funny that there are some here who hate him with a pathological obsessive level, yet they can't seem to put a thoughtful fact based list of reasons for why they do so.   Political immaturity which I equate to sheep/group like think.     They are completely incapable of forming independent thought.

My wish list is simple -- fiscal conservative who is strong on national defense, foreign policy.    The rest I don't even consider or care about.     That makes me a RINO by the hysterical-nancy crowd, which I admit is delicious to witness so I poke the nest on occasion.

 

[formerlurker]

Sorry, but Romney will NOT be the GOP nominee.  He might win NH, but only because of the Masshole influx.  After that, he won't win jack.  People already see him as a slicked up version of a big-government establishment candidate.

Same with Christie--people don't know him yet.  But his stands on the Second Amendment alone are enough to churn my stomach.

Keep disregarding the blue moderate states and you will keep wondering why we are losing elections.   

Christie on New Jersey’s Gun Laws
February 24, 2011 11:11 A.M.
By Robert VerBruggen
About a month ago, I wrote a piece about New Jersey’s absurd gun laws — laws that have resulted in the arrests of at least three innocent people. All of them faced years in prison until the executive branch chose to let them off the hook. In the case of Brian Aitken, it took a commutation from Gov. Chris Christie himself to cut short a seven-year prison sentence.

The reason is an early-2008 change to a law called the Graves Act. The new policy mandated a three-year sentence for anyone caught with an illegal gun — no matter how obscure the technicality or how innocent the mistake that made it illegal. I spoke with several members of the New Jersey legislature — Republicans and Democrats — who were interested in reforming the law, but they were divided as to whether their liberal colleagues would cooperate.

I was unable to get a comment from the governor’s office for the story, so when John Derbyshire brought up the Second Amendment during Christie’s meeting at NR World Headquarters yesterday, I asked the governor whether he thought Graves Act reform was on the table, given the liberal-Democratic legislature.

His response was not encouraging: “No. Not at all. In fact, I think that Democrats — if they had a Democratic governor, there would be even more of these put on the books. They tried to in [former governor Jon] Corzine’s last year [in office], and they got caught up in the legislature trying to do even more.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260583/christie-new-jersey-s-gun-laws-robert-verbruggen

I see a guy in the bluest of states walking the walk.

[Erasmus]

I totally agree. Stick a fork in Perry.

I kind of agree here, though I won't rule him out completely.  He did a lot of damage to himself in the last debate.

Cain's time to rise to the top.  If he doesn't soon (and by soon I mean within weeks) then Christie is entering the arena.
Cain or Christie?  I like them both a great deal , but I'll take Christie.    He is a powerhouse combatant in one of the bluest states in the union.    Could be totally kick ass as POTUS.

I like them both, too.  I would vote for Romney over Obama obviously, but I despise Romney, and I don't think he would actually help the country as much as some of the other meat on display.

[TVDOC]

Well.....my opinion, for what it's worth is, it is far too early to start digging trenches and manning them on any of the candidates.......at this point in the last campaign, Rudy Guliani, and Fred Thompson were the leaders and they both flamed out shortly after.

I will agree with several of you in this thread that Romney is a flake......regardless of how "polished" he comes off, he just isn't trustworthy on key conservative issues.  I knew his father when he was governor of Michigan and he was a union-loving RINO as well, and never met a tax he didn't like.  He defined the "Rockefeller Republicans".  As we can see with Ron Paul and his son, typically "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree".  Were he the nominee, I'd vote for him of course, but that isn't where we are at present.

Sort of like Dixie, I'm not very impressed with any in the field so far.......there are several that I find I am ideologically aligned, however for the most part I can't see them winning the nomination, or beating Obama.

As far as Perry's debate performance so far, I'd remind you of GWB's abysmal debating skills throughout the 2000 election cycle.  Followed by his even worse performance during speeches as the newly elected POTUS......it was embarrassing, but he overcame it.  Perry's position on immigration may be either a.) a Texas thing, or b.)  a very nuanced approach to preserving a chunk of the Latino vote, which will be vital to winning in 2012, particularly in states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico.

I'd also like to look closer to the Texas law on instate tuition for children of illegals.  I don't know how the law actually reads.  In Kansas there is a similar law, however it is restricted to the legal children of illegal immigrants (the children are US citizens)..........I have a hard time developing a constitutional basis for an objection to that type of law.

For those of you who are clamoring for  Christie.......I'd agree that he's a hardass, however like most obnoxious northeasterners, their politics are a mixed bag.......I'd be scared to death of  him on social issues as well as 2nd Amendment ones.  In a way he suffers from the same stigma as Romney.......there is no such thing as a "conservative" politician from the northeast.


doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

I see a guy in the bluest of states walking the walk.

I lived there for ten years, and it isn't actually the bluest of blue states by any means, it's pretty close to a 50-50 thing really, but what NJ calls a 'Republican' is not what anyone else outside the NE corridor does.  The GOP's conservatism there is purely limited to fiscal issues, which may play well with the NE corridor press, but it still won't actually fetch a NJ GOP candidate a win anywhere there outside the home-state vote against Obama.

And if that is 'Walking the walk' on gun rights, your hope is seriously trumping your reason, he didn't put out his own position or even criticize the Graves Act, everything he said boiled down to 'Well, it could be worse,' which is a big bag of nothing.   

[NHSparky]

there is no such thing as a "conservative" politician from the northeast.


doc

For the most part, that's correct, considering how moderate a Republican one has to be up here to have any hope in hell of winning any statewide office.  Even Guinta doesn't strike me as much more than a "mushy middle" kind of guy.  About the only person I'd consider conservative by any stretch since I got here would have been John "Baby Doc" Sununu, and we see how well he did in 2008.

To borrow from the song, "Where have you gone, Meldrim Thomson, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, woo woo woo..."

[formerlurker]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/09/chris_christie_for_amnesty.html

Yeah so this is more than disturbing on Christie -- Coakley has nothing on him. Her comments:

"Technically it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts...."

I can't see him reconciling this at all with the base. 

[formerlurker]

Well.....my opinion, for what it's worth is, it is far too early to start digging trenches and manning them on any of the candidates.......at this point in the last campaign, Rudy Guliani, and Fred Thompson were the leaders and they both flamed out shortly after.

I will agree with several of you in this thread that Romney is a flake......regardless of how "polished" he comes off, he just isn't trustworthy on key conservative issues.  I knew his father when he was governor of Michigan and he was a union-loving RINO as well, and never met a tax he didn't like.  He defined the "Rockefeller Republicans".  As we can see with Ron Paul and his son, typically "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree".  Were he the nominee, I'd vote for him of course, but that isn't where we are at present.

Sort of like Dixie, I'm not very impressed with any in the field so far.......there are several that I find I am ideologically aligned, however for the most part I can't see them winning the nomination, or beating Obama.

As far as Perry's debate performance so far, I'd remind you of GWB's abysmal debating skills throughout the 2000 election cycle.  Followed by his even worse performance during speeches as the newly elected POTUS......it was embarrassing, but he overcame it.  Perry's position on immigration may be either a.) a Texas thing, or b.)  a very nuanced approach to preserving a chunk of the Latino vote, which will be vital to winning in 2012, particularly in states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico.

I'd also like to look closer to the Texas law on instate tuition for children of illegals.  I don't know how the law actually reads.  In Kansas there is a similar law, however it is restricted to the legal children of illegal immigrants (the children are US citizens)..........I have a hard time developing a constitutional basis for an objection to that type of law.

GWB debating the dull-as-a-butter-knife Al Gore is just no comparison to debating Obama.    The man is a great speaker, and it makes no difference if he needs TOTUS to do it or not, debating is where he shines in the charisma department.    Perry stumbling over his words, and/or otherwise being incoherent is not going to work, or gain any support from independents when the two are directly facing each other.   

For those of you who are clamoring for  Christie.......I'd agree that he's a hardass, however like most obnoxious northeasterners, their politics are a mixed bag.......I'd be scared to death of  him on social issues as well as 2nd Amendment ones.  In a way he suffers from the same stigma as Romney.......there is no such thing as a "conservative" politician from the northeast.


doc

I think the immigration issue will doom Christie alone.    The NRA stuff - meh, he was running in a blue state, there are limitations to what you say when campaigning.  That is just reality.

A far right conservative would never get elected in the Northeast, or pretty much any blue state.   That again is reality.   

[formerlurker]

I lived there for ten years, and it isn't actually the bluest of blue states by any means, it's pretty close to a 50-50 thing really, but what NJ calls a 'Republican' is not what anyone else outside the NE corridor does.  The GOP's conservatism there is purely limited to fiscal issues, which may play well with the NE corridor press, but it still won't actually fetch a NJ GOP candidate a win anywhere there outside the home-state vote against Obama.

And if that is 'Walking the walk' on gun rights, your hope is seriously trumping your reason, he didn't put out his own position or even criticize the Graves Act, everything he said boiled down to 'Well, it could be worse,' which is a big bag of nothing.   

NJ went blue in 1992 and hasn't looked back:

http://www.270towin.com/states/New_Jersey

I honestly can't find anything from him on gun control.