The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Skeptical of Perry

By on 8.18.11 @ 6:09AM

Won't Mitt Romney be more electable?

After being in the race for three days, Texas Governor Rick Perry is polling ahead of former front-runner Mitt Romney and trading ahead of him as well on InTrade.com.

On Tuesday, Rasmussen reported that Perry had a 29% to 18% lead over Romney among likely Republican voters they polled. Michele Bachmann was third at 13%, which is behind the undecided at 16%.

And over at InTrade.com, following his entry into the race Rick Perry initially traded around 38% to be the GOP nominee while Mitt Romney traded about 30%.

It's exciting, for those who want Barack Obama to lose his next election, to think that there's an appealing, principled, intelligent, electable Republican candidate. Clearly, many people think that's what Rick Perry is, leading to this immediate bump in opinion and betting odds.

And he may well be, but Perry has some convincing to do.

As Tony Blankley said on my Sunday evening radio show, Fred Thompson never looked better than the day before he officially entered the presidential race. After that, his rapid flameout was almost hard to watch. To refresh your memory: In June 2007, just before officially entering the race, Fred Thompson held a four-point lead over then-frontrunner Rudy Giuliani in a Rasmussen poll. Two weeks earlier they had been tied, and according to Rasmussen, "prior to that time, Giuliani had been on top in every weekly Rasmussen Reports poll for five months." By December 2007, however, Thompson was polled as losing to Obama by seven points with Giuliani only trailing Obama by two. Just a month later, in January 2008, Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. As the Associated Press described it, Thompson's departure "capped a turbulent 10 months that saw him go from hot to not in short order."

Perry stands a real chance of following a similar trajectory, if for different reasons.

Let's compare Perry and Romney for a second. (Sorry, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul fans, they just don't have the horsepower, and I wouldn't support Ron Paul under any circumstance because of his dangerous foreign policy views.)

Perry is, to the Republican base, at least initially appealing. He seems principled on many issues, particularly the 10th Amendment, but also has some important vulnerabilities including on the issue of immigration. As far as intelligence, it's too early to tell, but I have to say I don't come away from hearing him lately thinking "that guy has a big brain." And then comes electable, and this is where I think Perry may be extremely vulnerable. He may be the worst mix of Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin.

(At least two studies, here and here, suggest that Sarah Palin, despite initially injecting some life into a moribund McCain campaign, ended up costing the presidential candidate votes by election time. The issue of Palin being the vice-presidential candidate versus Rick Perry running for president seems less important than the two each being governors, each representing a very religious social conservative viewpoint, and each offering answers that the media spun into an unfair but sticky story of a lack of intellect.)

Romney is less appealing to the Republican base than Perry is. He seems less principled on certain issues, both because he's known to have changed his views and because of his role in passing Romneycare. There is no doubt as to his intelligence; he is clearly smarter than Perry (even if not as smart as Newt Gingrich). And then comes electable, and this is where I think Romney has an advantage over Rick Perry. Romney doesn't generate great enthusiasm among the GOP base and the Tea Party -- yet. But if it becomes clear to voters, whether Republican or independent, who want Obama out that Romney can beat him but Perry can't, how will GOP primary voters fall?

A recent Gallup poll shows Republicans care more about electability than full agreement on policy. Furthermore, that view was more common among conservatives than among moderates, and conservatives are the vast majority of primary and caucus participants. While Gallup is not the last word on such things, these poll results stand to reason in a country with so many people who are disappointed, if not disgusted, with the performance of Barack Obama. So, the primary election Romney vs. Perry calculus will go like this: Is Mitt Romney so much more electable than Rick Perry that we're willing to go with a guy in whom we have somewhat less confidence that he'll uphold our conservative principles just to make sure we beat Obama?

During last Thursday's debates in Iowa, Romney didn't stick his foot in his mouth. And other than one recent comment about corporations being people -- a view the Supreme Court agreed with in its Citizens United decision -- he's giving the left-wing media very little to work with to beat him up, though they're just getting started.

Perry, on the other hand, began his campaign by calling Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke "almost treasonous," or more precisely that Bernanke would be so if he "printed more money." Perry speaks like someone whose knowledge of the Fed is limited to talking points -- and someone gunning to get the support of Ron Paul voters when the time comes. When asked again, Perry stood by his comment, adding that he is "passionate about the issue." Really? Even people who are passionate about Federal Reserve Bank issues aren't passionate about them, again with the exception of Ron Paul and a few of his fawning disciples. Is Perry's style going to be "passionate" about everything? Is he aiming to out-passion Mitt Romney (not that that's an incredibly difficult task) to the nomination?

Perry also has made most of his news in the weeks prior to his official entry into the race by praying. This is simply no way to win over the must-have independent voters. To be sure, some experienced political analysts believe that Perry's strategy here is smart: the overt religiosity, particularly it being non-Mormon, may make him more likely to get the GOP nomination, but it's far enough away from the general election that nobody will remember it by then.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He blogs at Rossputin.com and is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver's NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (524) | Leave a comment

Robbins Mitchell| 8.18.11 @ 6:18AM

Anyone who wets his 'magic' panties over a hoax cooked up by anAL GOREtentive is not nominatable by the GOP....and ultimately unelectable

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 7:50AM

Fretting over Perry's support of Al Gore almost 20 years ago is absurd.

In the first place, Perry used to be a Democrat! So his open support of a fellow Democrat's candidacy is not exactly shocking. But Perry was never a left-liberal Democrat, he was a Texas Democrat, and a few years ago Texas Democrats were more reliable Conservatives than many Republicans, including some of the jackasses that the GOP was nominating for President. Good grief, Reagan started out as a Democrat!

Secondly, Al Gore first came to Congress as Conservative, Pro-Life Democrat, and he ran far to the right of the Democrat nominee, Michael Dukakis, when he (Gore) was campaigning for the nomination in 1988. Gore's hard-left lurch, including his abandonment of pro-life voters, didn't happen until he signed on as Clinton's VP in '92, and went into permanent overdrive in 2000, AFTER Perry had become a Republican.

Third, "global warming" was NOT the radical, put-of-control, Stalinist job-killer in the 1980's that it has become since 2000. It was an academic theory that concerned many intelligent people, and was worth examining to determine the extent to which it was affecting the earth's climate. The scandal with "global warming" is NOT that the theory existed, or that it was examined, but that AFTER the data was in, and it was clear that the theory was deeply flawed if not wholly inaccurate, it was still pursued as policy! And Rick Perry has NOT enacted policies as Governor of Texas that enhance these phony policies. Far from it, his stated positions on oil and gas exploration are in direct opposition to the radical environmentalists who pursue "global warming" as fact.

Finally, I'll take Perry's past support of a fellow Democrat over RomneyCare any damn day of the week!

The Spectator's preference for real RINO candidates becomes more obvious each and every day.

The Tea Party Rebellion...oh, whatever...

olainfree| 8.18.11 @ 8:06AM

Bravo!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 8:39AM

Ronald Reagan supported the proto-Obama FDR and Harry Truman before he wised up and became a Republican.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 4:37PM

I think (hope) you are underestimating the depth of contempt people have developed for Republicans who refuse to stand up to the lib bullies and a media bent on destroying America. I am sick to death of cowards and appeasers who refuse to name these liberal fleas and locusts for what they are and respond appropriately to them.

The media just "edited" one of Perry's statement's in order to slander his character and when caught in the lie, those responsible continue to go about their business as if nothing happened. If it came from our side, well you know the answer.

I for one am sick in my heart of these liar's and lovers of lies. If the republican leadership selects another McCain/Romney type candidate I will sit out my first election in 32 years.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 4:41PM

Sorry Doctor Right, I posted this in the wrong place by accident and did not mean to detract from your worthy and eloquent posting.

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 6:16PM

Boar Hunter,

If another lesser-of-evils, moderate Republican pussy gets nominated, I believe Palin will jump in with a third party or an independent bid.

She has the Republican Party in the palm of her hand because, by becoming a third-party candidate, she can instantly kill their chances, just like Ross Perot did.

She's said several times that she's waiting to see how the field shapes up. The implication is that if no one worthy floats to the top, she may jump.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 8:19PM

I wish I disagreed with you. I have actually heard that same third party scenario spoken of by Republican strategists. If it occurs, they have only themselves to blame, but we will all be the ones to pay the price.

Sunnyr| 8.20.11 @ 12:44AM

If Sarah Palin or Donald Trump run as a third party candidate, they will be the most hated people in America. It will assure a second term for Comrade obozo.

Jocon307| 9.3.11 @ 2:58PM

"I think (hope) you are underestimating the depth of contempt people have developed for Republicans who refuse to stand up to the lib bullies and a media bent on destroying America."

Amen brother!

We want not-Romney because we have NO FAITH that Romney will be able to counter and withstand the mud that the left will sling at him.

And, I'm sorry to say this, but it IS true that Romney looks like the guy who just laid you off.

And that isn't going to change.

Perry may or may not be "the guy", but Romney sure as heck isn't him.

Joe Hyde| 8.18.11 @ 9:02PM

For those interested in the Rick Perry legacy, this is an excellent resource that attempts to examine all angles of Rick Perry's record. the good, bad and ugly:

http://peskytruth.wordpress.co.....negatives/

As for me, here's why I am supporting Rick Perry:

http://www.sanangelolive.com/n.....rick-perry

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 12:55AM

That was an excellent post by pesky truth.

Sunnyr| 8.20.11 @ 12:42AM

I, too, am a Recovered Democrat so I see Perry's conversion as a sign of INTELLIGENCE. He'd have to be completely bonkers to be a Democrat now that the Progressive/Commie/Socialists have taken over the party.

Go Perry!

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 7:50AM

Fretting over Perry's support of Al Gore almost 20 years ago is absurd.

In the first place, Perry used to be a Democrat! So his open support of a fellow Democrat's candidacy is not exactly shocking. But Perry was never a left-liberal Democrat, he was a Texas Democrat, and a few years ago Texas Democrats were more reliable Conservatives than many Republicans, including some of the jackasses that the GOP was nominating for President. Good grief, Reagan started out as a Democrat!

Secondly, Al Gore first came to Congress as Conservative, Pro-Life Democrat, and he ran far to the right of the Democrat nominee, Michael Dukakis, when he (Gore) was campaigning for the nomination in 1988. Gore's hard-left lurch, including his abandonment of pro-life voters, didn't happen until he signed on as Clinton's VP in '92, and went into permanent overdrive in 2000, AFTER Perry had become a Republican.

Third, "global warming" was NOT the radical, put-of-control, Stalinist job-killer in the 1980's that it has become since 2000. It was an academic theory that concerned many intelligent people, and was worth examining to determine the extent to which it was affecting the earth's climate. The scandal with "global warming" is NOT that the theory existed, or that it was examined, but that AFTER the data was in, and it was clear that the theory was deeply flawed if not wholly inaccurate, it was still pursued as policy! And Rick Perry has NOT enacted policies as Governor of Texas that enhance these phony policies. Far from it, his stated positions on oil and gas exploration are in direct opposition to the radical environmentalists who pursue "global warming" as fact.

Finally, I'll take Perry's past support of a fellow Democrat over RomneyCare any damn day of the week!

The Spectator's preference for real RINO candidates becomes more obvious each and every day.

The Tea Party Rebellion...oh, whatever...

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 8:57AM

Dr. Right,

Do you stutter when you are excited?

Click once, then wait. Sheesh.

Shill Watch| 8.18.11 @ 9:04AM

It will happen to you sooner or later. Sheesh.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:20AM

No, Dan. Do you wake up when you wt the bed?

Now...Do you have anything substantive to say in refutation of what I wrote, or do you merely want people to know that you're not up to the task?

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 4:45PM

OH! OH! I know the answer to that one.

Quartermaster| 8.18.11 @ 6:51PM

He wasn't criticizing what you said, just needling you for the double post. Don't get your panties in a wad about it.

Double posting happens to everyone eventually. Some software is more prone to it than others. Wordpress is a good example of that.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 8:23PM

Having read both of their postings, I believe they are both intelligent enough to see that and Im sure they will shake hands (please God no kissing) and make up. Hope that was taken with the humor it was intended.

Amy| 8.18.11 @ 3:49PM

Rick Perry is off-putting to independents and moderate Republicans. He will motivate Democrats to be 100 percet with Obama. Without question Perry would lose. The best candidates are Pawlenty and Romney.

irish19| 8.18.11 @ 3:57PM

Just like McCain was the best candidate. I'd rather go down swinging with a conservative than groveling and simpering with another RINO.

florin| 8.18.11 @ 4:59PM

McCain was never a conservative...he was the most lackluster, uninspiring candidate in a long time. I honor the fact that he is a hero, was incredibly courageous - but that does not make one presidential material. It seemed to me that McCain almost wanted to lose the election...he often looked confused and he was never inspiring - his record of heroism is inspiring but he was not and is not and he often sat on both sides of the fence...never was a real conservative.

Sunnyr| 8.20.11 @ 12:49AM

Amen!!

Drunken Sailor| 8.18.11 @ 4:05PM

Not keeping up are we. Pawlenty dropped out days ago.

Mister Grady| 8.18.11 @ 5:36PM

And Obama is off-putting to the rest of us.

beebop| 8.18.11 @ 7:20PM

I think we'll pick our own candidate, thank you. Did you notice that Pawlenty had dropped out or did huffpoop not report that in their haste to scream at Bachman? Romney? So that he can stand at the podium with no answer to Obamnycare? Grow up Amy and get lost.

Cerberus| 8.18.11 @ 7:52PM

Amy,
1) Democrats are already 100 percent for Obama. No Republican will get their vote.
2) Pawlenty is no longer a candidate. Why? Conservatives want a figher who will fight as hard for conservative policies as hard as Obama fights for liberal policies.
3) John McCain was supposed to appeal to the moderates and independents.
Moderates and independents then voted for Obama.

DVG93| 8.18.11 @ 11:38PM

Go back to the dailey kooks amy

amy| 8.18.11 @ 3:56PM

Rick Perry is off-putting to independents and moderate Republicans. There is strong Texas fatigue from George W. Bush; we are not going to elect his lieutenant governor. It would be a huge mistake to nominate him for president.

Drunken Sailor| 8.18.11 @ 4:07PM

It doesn't appear to be to strong of a Texas fatigue at this point.

Perry 29%
Romney 18%
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....achmann_13

Peter McGrath| 8.18.11 @ 4:32PM

Amy (nice name for a Troll) is making a go of it but the one sure way to determine the best nominee is to gauge the Left's reactions which - in Perry's case - are ranging somewhere between a conniption fit and an epileptic fugue. Perry scares the panties off the Left, not because he's a potential winner in the general (just about anyone could beat The Evil Nincompoop), but because he's a committed conservative who, if elected, is fully capable of rallying support for the dismantling of institutions which undergird the power of the Left (and Ruling Class in general).

The villains in Perry's cross-hairs: enviro-socialists, government employee unions, academia, subsidized single moms (and their feral, similarly dependent offspring), and the Leviathan Federal Government which is strangling the private economy.

Perry is ready, and fully capable, of doing what needs to be done. The Left sees, in Perry, its own demise and, for this reason, he is deeply feared and hated.

My kind of Guy.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 4:48PM

So beautifully said you made my heart flutter a little.

Quartermaster| 8.18.11 @ 6:54PM

Sorry. Perry is just another Republicrat that will talk the talk, but then he will break your heart. His conservatism is in question for good reason.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 8:38PM

Quartermaster;
I haven't made up my mind yet, but I have to admit I like Perry so far. He's not my perfect candidate, but seems the best of those who have declared so far. Sorry for being skeptical, but most of those I have heard talking down Perry's conservative credentials seem to be left wing trolls of the most insidious nature. Based on your name I suspect you would not be included that group. If you have any information to support your critical assessment of him I would love to hear it, cause I am too old to have my heart broken again. Who do you support?

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:59AM

He won't break my heart, QM. Ya know why?

Because I don't put my trust in mankind. I know no one is perfect, (least of all me).

I prefer Herman Cain myself, I just love him. I also love Sarah Palin~ she's the ultimate conservative to me, but they aren't perfect either and somewhere along the line they'll do something I don't like or agree with.

Thankfully, it's why we have elections.
And may the best man (or woman) win!

beebop| 8.18.11 @ 7:22PM

Let me say this just once for you, Amy:

You have us confused with people who think you are INTERESTING ... or RELEVANT.

You pick you damn candidates and we will pick ours.

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 8:40PM

I believe the worst mistake we ever made was giving women the right to vote.

Cosmo| 8.19.11 @ 4:42AM

Yes, let's nominate someone who will appeal to moderates like John McCain did....no, wait...

Jack in Wi.| 8.22.11 @ 1:14AM

No prowar Republican will win. Romney and Perry are stumble bums who couldn' t beat a wet noodle nationally.Perry a dimwitted Bush clone excites no one. Romny exites himself. Mrs Palin excites a lot of people, but I don't think she is running. She is a fine lady but I don't think she is electable. She is not quick on her feet and she has been demonized too much. Mrs Bachman is a loose cannon and while a nice lady I don't think she has a prayer.

That leaves the only person with a huge personal following, and plenty of campaign cash, my man Dr. Ron Paul. He has been right on the issues for decades. He is by far the best and most thoughtful debater, and he has the most potential of attracting independents and Democrats without which no Republican can win. Head to head with he Obama he polls as well as anyone and better then most. In internal polling he gets by far the best numbers among Democrats and Independents. By next year foreign aid and foreign wars will be as popular as terminal cancer. The only man who can return this country to fiscal and foreign policy sanity is the real Dr. Of Democracy Ron Paul

Jack in Wi.| 8.22.11 @ 1:24AM

Perry comes over as Gomer Pyle with a suit on. That may have worked for G. W. Bush, but at least he had the family name to live off of. I don't think we are ready for a guy who wants to sound like Ron Paul when we have the real thing we can vote for, not a very bad immitation. Mr Perry will be anthelma to Independents. While Obama is an albatross around the Democrat's
neck. I don't think Perry, even if he won, would be any improvement. I don't think they can make this sows ear into a good purse. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Perry. How much incompetence and stupity can one country take?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.18.11 @ 6:29AM

You may have a point but your reference to intelligence is quite amusing on some levels:

Romney is less appealing to the Republican base than Perry is. He seems less principled on certain issues, both because he's known to have changed his views and because of his role in passing Romneycare. There is no doubt as to his intelligence; he is clearly smarter than Perry (even if not as smart as Newt Gingrich).

If Newt Gingrich was the smarter of the three would he have sat on the bench with the Queen of Dysphasia and proclaimed his love for climate change? Would he have embraced amnesty and then tried to disguise it as "fairness?"

If Romney were intelligent would he embrace man made climate change with no scientific evidence behind it? Would he have started a state run health care clinic belying his claim that he believes in free market forces?

Would Perry have required HPV shots for each and every female in the state under the age of 16 when there is little evidence to support such a move or expense?

In reality, what you're describing is political cunning, not intelligence.

Could Romney run the country better than Obama? They are similar in many ways in terms of government run health care Romney protests about the similarities notwithstanding.

Gingrich can't run a campaign much less the country and Chris Wallace was right in asking him about that. His response was churlish and not specific.

As far as Perry he's a conundrum like all the rest. He protests big government at the same time he runs with in terms of TARP money. I don't blame him for taking that money because his citizens will help pay for it in the long run.

Their ability to win will not be based on their track records as their ability to communicate.

For instance, Perry's comment about printing money being almost treasonous is not that far off base. The debasing of the currency is a cause of concern for national security. In that sense, Perry is correct.

However, you should never confuse intelligence with political cunning. The two are quite separate by definition and practice.

Mike D.| 8.18.11 @ 7:27AM

Agree on Gingrich. Intelligent? sure. Smart? No! Never say a guy shoot himself in the @ss more times than this guy. He seems to have the problem of running his mouth before his brain catches up. As for RINO Rove, sick of this guy and the right wing media worship. The only thing Bush accomplished on his last 4 years was getting the Muslomarxist elected.

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 9:05AM

Ask your self this question: Is Fox News really any more right wing than George W. Bush? Other than Hannity, are there any real conservatives over there? O'Reilly is a triangulating nightmare, they have Karl Rove and Dana Perino endlessly redeeming their old "Compassionate (which means "statist") boss.

I say no. National Review has hollowed out over the last ten years into a RINO-operation. (Sorry, Wm F. but Ms. Lopez doesn't get it.) I wonder about AS sometimes, too.

History has shown that every organization gets pulled to the left over time. Fox News and National Review are no exceptions...

Don't tread on me.

Mriordon| 8.18.11 @ 10:45AM

This is an excellent comment that I completely agree with. Ross whatever is a moron with whom I completely disagree. Romney is just as bad as his father who was also a moron. I am being as respectful as I can under the circumstances.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:41AM

Ross is a nasty Libertarian who wants to legalize dope.
He blames those of us who want to keep them legal for the deaths of the addicts who die.
Don't believe me?
Do a search here.
AmSpec is basically Libertarian now, with the exception of a few.
And Libertarianism isn't conservatism.
I don't care HOW into "fiscal responsibility" they claim to be.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 11:49AM

Margie,

I don't think I'm nasty, and I'm libertarian (with a small "l") not Libertarian (capital "L", representing the Libertarian Party.)

Yes, I want to legalize drugs, and I have never used an illegal drug and would not use any of the currently illegal drugs if they were legal.

How you can defend a policy that is causing the murder of thousands, including thousands of innocents, is beyond me. I wonder how the God you believe in would feel about that.

You got one thing right: libertarianism is not conservatism. I say it proudly: I am libertarian, not conservative, at least on most issues.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 12:04PM

You're certifiable, darlin'.
And that's all I've got to say.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 12:14PM

Ross Kaminsky, 5/16/11:

"..But the murders that are committed over drugs are committed because the prices are high, which is the case because they are illegal.

People who support keeping drugs illegal -- especially marijuana -- have blood on their hands at this point."

Dave| 8.18.11 @ 12:52PM

Can't speak for Margie of course, but the God I believe in would forgive me, I am sure, for thinking that criminalizing drugs might help prevent the devastation wrought by drug addiction and all the bad consequences flowing therefrom.

Having said that, as a criminal defense lawyer, and although it would make it tougher for me to beef up my kids' college funds, I share your position concerning the so-called War on Drugs.

But let's be clear, that's all I share with you. Your patronizing, elitist snark directed at Margie's comment simply confirms what one gathers from reading your pathetic pro-Romney screed.

You're an elitist punk just like Frum, and Brooks, and Parker.

I cannot believe that Mr. Tyrell has given you such a (once) prominent platform.

Quartermaster| 8.18.11 @ 7:01PM

So when are you going to hold out for making booze illegal? Let's be consistent.

We saw the same trash during prohibition as we have seen in the "war on drugs." Alcohol is just as devastating as narcotics which is killing far more. Not to mention the near Police state we have gotten because of what the DEA, FBI and other alphabets pull in the name of shutting down the narcotics trade. The same nonsense happened in prohibition and didn't end until we ended the incentives.

Personally, I don't like any drugs, alcohol included. I also find the anti-druggies to be disgustingly inconsistent and to be apologists for the legal murderers the police have become.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:49AM

"Alcohol is just as devastating as narcotics which is killing far more."

So then why do you want to legalize them? (narcotics).

If you can say this, then your reasoning makes no sense.

"I also find the anti-druggies to be disgustingly inconsistent and to be apologists for the legal murderers the police have become."

~Do you realize how loopy you sound?

W| 8.18.11 @ 9:06PM

Why not de-criminalize marijuana. In Pa your first marijuana arrest, small amount less that 30 grams, gets you 30 days probation and a minor fine. Keeps lawyers, judges, probation officers, and police all employed. And it makes the arrest and conviction rates of the police and DA look good. It is a complete waste of time and resources. It is no different from alcohol.

JimP| 8.18.11 @ 4:47PM

I'm not challenging or arguing, just curious. When did libertarian become different from conservative? Was it always this way? I'm old enough that people used to say I was a liberal. Then without changing any beliefs I was a conservative radical bomb thrower according to the definers. I just believe what the Founders believed: 'Never trust a politician. Small government is better government. Guard your freedoms from centralized government.' Is that incorrect or was it a regional interpretation that I was taught growing up? Some enlightenment would be interesting and appreciated.

Quartermaster| 8.18.11 @ 7:04PM

The founders would seen as loopy Libertarians if they tried to run for office today. Today's "conservative" isn't conservative. Scratch the surface and the overwhelming majority of so called conservatives are statists. They're all for smaller government until what they like is gored.

When they start supporting the closure of national parks and national forests, then I'll believe they are going to take the constitution seriously.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:54AM

So if I'm for the closing of National parks and forests, and for legalizing drugs that makes me a conservative?
Okeedokee schmokee.

Quartermaster| 8.18.11 @ 7:04PM

The founders would seen as loopy Libertarians if they tried to run for office today. Today's "conservative" isn't conservative. Scratch the surface and the overwhelming majority of so called conservatives are statists. They're all for smaller government until what they like is gored.

When they start supporting the closure of national parks and national forests, then I'll believe they are going to take the constitution seriously.

W| 8.18.11 @ 9:13PM

Real libertarians believe in a small efficient government with low tax rates, preferably a flat tax or a national sales tax which would reduce the power of the IRS and the power of lobbyists who lobby for tax breaks, and would reduce the power of Congress which gets lobbied for tax breaks. On this issue libertarians and true conservatives believe the same.
The current issues were caused by the foreign policy views of Ron Paul in excusing terrorrism, appeasing Iran, and abandoning Israel. Those are his views and some others but most libertarians do not believe this, although they do believe we are over extended all over the world.
This is the Reader's Digest version. There are much more detailed analysis out there.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:42AM

W,

Hi. I'm aware of what you say. I understand how there's small "l" libertarians, which you spelled out in your 1st paragraph.

The Libertarian party though, is another thing~ and therein lies the Paul-bot flock.
It's really, really the truth.
As a matter of fact, Ron Paul was a Libertarian but couldn't get elected so he registered Republican. He is the true definition of a RINO.

And I've been posting this stuff for a couple of years here.
Clint used to post as Tim* and harass me constantly as a "slandering liar", et al.
Glad to see some others are seeing what I have known for awhile now.

Ron Paul I think put the final nail in his own coffin at the debate with what he said about Iran.
But the scary thing is, after Ron Paul's gone~ there are more of the bots to follow!
LOL.
The Pod-bots from Invasion of the Body snatchers!

Conserdude| 8.18.11 @ 2:32PM

Sean Hannity conservative? He was the biggest shill for George W. Bush, and Dana Perino and Margaret Hoover are nothing but establishment GOP mouthpieces. Ugh. Hey, Dana and Karl, your not employed by Bush anymore, so quit behaving like it on tv.

DVG93| 8.18.11 @ 11:44PM

Sean has laid into W a few times. He and Rush were making lemonade out of lemons. Particularly Rush. Sean was one of the very few that raised the specter of Zero in the early days of 08.

Periwinkel| 8.18.11 @ 10:10AM

Personally, I don't care about "smart"...I want intelligent and endowed with good common sense. Gingrich has no common sense as evidenced a cruise right after announcing his candidacy. We'll see what Perry's got.

So far, most of the people knocking Rick Perry are notheasterners who can't stand Texans. Bulletin for Massachusetts: I am not enamored with your state either. Look at the mess it's in as contrasted by the economic state of Texas.

Periwinkel

florin| 8.18.11 @ 5:00PM

A great ticket, I believe, would be Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan...

JimP| 8.18.11 @ 6:29AM

Just a brief comment before heading to work. The meme about Perry calling Bernanke treasonous etc is nonsense. Perry was using hyperbole. Look it up for the definition. Basically it means he was exaggerating to make a point and everyone knows it was not intended to be taken literally. So, when I read or hear criticism of the remark based, in part, on this statement, my reaction is the speaker favors some other candidate and is misrepresenting the remark(s) to make political hay against an opponent. If people prefer Mitt, or Michelle or whomever, make the case for them. Please knock off the making a mountain out of a molehill nonsense.

BTW, I am not a Perry supporter/hack. But, I am not against him either.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 6:44AM

Jim P,
Well spoken. Let's just watch it play out over time.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 6:39AM

Ross,
I've kept this blog in my docs file. It is pretty obvious that your atheism slants your world view.

Fortunately you are in a minority.

More Thoughts on Rick Perry
As with most men with convictions and passion…and a long public record, Rick Perry is going to be hammered from every direction.
He is going to be hammered by arch conservatives for being too ‘reasonable’ and practicing the politics of the possible. (Ronald Reagan’s phrase)
The communists, (pardon the shorthand), are lining up a whole host of lies and half truths. Many of their arrows can already be seen and heard on youtube.
The Libertarians and fellow anarchists are going to hammer him for offering to help our little girls avoid ovarian cancer, or because he encourages free trade, or because he thought it would be a good idea to build a freeway for ‘thru’ traffic for our trade with our southern neighbors. Trade in both directions I might add.
Mexico is probably Texas’ largest trading partner. Combine that with a large (legal), Hispanic population, it would be absolutely insane for a Texas Governor to posture and brag about immigration reform. Have no doubts though; the Texas Rangers and Texas Guard troops are staying quite busy. Long term, until the US Congress outlaws “anchor babies”, any immigration debate is worthless.

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 7:45AM

Thanks for your thoughts Ken. Ross is sounding like all the idiots who claimed that Reagan was unelectable. "Go for the moderate, the independent vote is what you need". BS!!! I'm with Rush on this one, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama! Romney is another warmed over Northeast liberal disguised as a Republican. I'll take a former Democrat from the South. Note: Reagan was a Democrat, and Zell Miller, former governor and Senator from Ga, is still a Democrat, and as conservative as they come. Don't confuse old-time Southern Democrats with present day liberals! And most American would gladly trade the Muslim-socialist for a Christian conservative!

PCC| 8.18.11 @ 9:05AM

Okay, fine, but if your argument is that electability is not an issue, then I'd prefer Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin over Rick Perry. They are the real deal.

A number of the demerit points Ross offers about Rick Perry mesh with my feelings of uneasy about Perry.

I'm trying to like the guy, trying to see his positive qualities, but so far he seems more than a little creepy to me, a bit like a snake oil salesman.

Would you buy a used car from him? Not me.

LMajito| 8.18.11 @ 9:39AM

"Would you buy a used car from him?"

Hell yeah...that's why you have platinum extended warranties dude plus carfax reports...

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 1:15PM

I'm actually for Herman Cain, who is very good on the issues, but lately has this nasty habit of getting sidetracked. My point was that Perry is much preferable to Romney, not that he is the best, most conservative candidate.

ReConUSMC| 8.18.11 @ 2:34PM

I would rather walk to work than vote for Obama !

Boar Hunter| 8.18.11 @ 4:54PM

Obama can't even sell a new car.

JimP| 8.18.11 @ 1:57PM

Thanks again for your on the ground perspective, Ken and again please keep giving it, and you other Texans too.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 6:42AM

"Gov. Rick Perry sent the media into a feeding frenzy this week when he went hammer and tong after the U.S. Federal Reserve, but supporters of another Texan running for the White House heard something familiar: the message of Ron Paul.

“We agree with him, but let’s point out that he’s parroting what Ron Paul has been saying for years,” said Debra Medina, a Ron Paul acolyte who ran an unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign against Perry in 2010. “He’s reading the economy and the monetary policy concerns and he’s mimicking Ron Paul.”

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 9:09AM

So maybe Lil' Debbie ought to recognize the difference between 'parroting' and agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is the Ron Paul problem...they don't play well with others on the playground.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:13AM

Debra Medina is a KOOK!

Michael Bergsma| 8.18.11 @ 1:13PM

Oh yes. She is a 911 truther for starters and caused the Republican Party of Texas some heartburn with frivolous lawsuits against it. She was trying to poach delegate to the National Republican convention for Ron Paul that he did not earn in the primary. Ron Paul was hosed in the primary but she and her ilk are unconcerned about the rule of law or the will of the voters.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 1:21PM

Good post and another revelation of the deceptive nature of Ron Paul and his followers.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:49PM

Seconded!
Also read David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin. They've written much exposing the Paul-bots and their mindset~ which is, in reality~ in agreement with the Left.

irish19| 8.18.11 @ 4:00PM

Michelle does not like Perry in the least, though.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 10:35PM

Well, Michelle Malkin's an honest person. As I said, I can see her points, and she does present the truth and I greatly admire her for it.

I'm on board for Perry though~ but nothing's set in stone yet as it's so early. We don't even know who else will throw their hat into the ring, but I'm psyched about the fantastic people we've got on our side so far!

Clint| 8.22.11 @ 11:45AM

"Well, Michelle Malkin's an honest person. As I said, I can see her points, and she does present the truth and I greatly admire her for it."

Michelle Malkin is Catholic Margie!

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 10:53PM

You're A RINO-CINO AgendaBoy, Little Micky

irish19| 8.19.11 @ 1:04AM

Proving Dan's point.

Charles| 8.18.11 @ 6:47AM

It's nice to see someone using the same logic to put forward Romney as was used to push McCain into the nomination in 2008. McCain was every Dem's favorite republican, until he became the nominee, when he became insane, unbalanced, and to the right of W. So let's nominate a milquetoast candidate like Romney, because surely the MSM will treat him like a moderate. Right?

Then again, since intellect is Mr. Kaminsky's go-to criterion for judging a candidate (as if you can tell a man's intellect by listening to him read a speech), why not let's trust the MSM again? They tell us that Mr Obama is the greatest intellect ever to hold office, and with intellectual titans like Paul Krugman behind him, well, wouldn't it be stupid to elect ANYONE else?

Ah, but then Perry has the disadvantage of being plainly and seriously Christian. Here's a winning strategy: let's nominate a candidate with only a nominal faith who lives in a way and has policies that alienate conservative Christian voters. Someone pro-abortion like Giuliani, for example. After all, we wouldn't want to nominate someone who takes his faith seriously. Maybe we could find a conservative Catholic like Ms Pelosi?

elmo| 8.18.11 @ 11:23AM

Charles, reading your comments about "winning strategy", it seems like Mr Kaminsky supports Obama for President.

Sandy| 8.18.11 @ 6:50AM

I love when some have an ulterior motive, they throw out the Fred Thompson BS. Fred never wanted to run, he was recruited against his better wishes. In the months leading up to the FT run, he never lifted a finger to try to put together a campaign or campaign staff. He jumped in, and tried to play it as it went along, and that wasn't for any length of time. OTOH, since Perry started thinking about running, he's done his homework, and has been working with staff behind the scenes to gauge the race, and to put things into place. He never lost his staff from his 2010 race, and picked up Gingrich's staff, before he even announced. Perry has run for office 6 times. He knows what he is getting into with the time and mileage it takes to reach as many people as possible. He is a hard, and dedicated campaigner. He is a prodigious fundraiser. Nice try at a hit piece though.

jppc| 8.18.11 @ 6:51AM

Perry and Palin actually believe in God and go to church on occasion. Shocking@!! Why we can't have that in our state apparachiks! They must be atheists or at least secular, with a slight lean towards welcoming Islam to our shores.

TrueBlue| 8.18.11 @ 3:27PM

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

People, especially Liberals, have this habit for forgetting that this nation's founders were quite religious people, and religious people worked quite well for this country until the "Progressive Era" started in the early 1900's... wait, isn't that when we started having economic problems?

Groad| 8.18.11 @ 6:57AM

The term 'electable' is stupid and should be dropped from discussion. McCain was 'electable", he was '..the only one who could beat..; the Hildebeast, Obama wasn't electable. (J. Rubin used to gush over McCain ad nausem) Dole was 'electable' , and a few others also qualify. I remember Reagan being 'unelectable'. For the RINO establishment it means, "we don't like you, you are 'too conservatve' and thus not worthy of RINO jelly spined support. If Perry is 'not electable', why is he Governor of Texas?? It is the decision of the electorate as to who is 'electable', not pundits.

Old Soldier| 8.18.11 @ 7:52AM

Correct -

The Rinos can take the "Electable" nonsense and shove it. That'show we got a long string of losers.

The last unelectable radical we nominated was Ronald Reagan. 2012 is an opprotunity to beat a very weak leftist with a real conservative.

Moe Blotz| 8.18.11 @ 8:04AM

"Electable" Romney:one term Machusetts governer. "Unelectable" Perry: three term Texas governor.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 8:20AM

Mr. Kaminsky: Your employing the 'electability' argument tells us more about you than it does any of the candidates.

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 8:48AM

Because Texas would elect a talking monkey if it said Evolution wasn't true.

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 9:13AM

"king.."

You'll be waiting a long, long time for that monkey to say anything.

Has anybody found the missing link lately?

Anybody found sasquatch? The yeti?

Evolution, what can you call it other than
"settled science?"

Don't tread on me.

Moe Blotz| 8.18.11 @ 9:33AM

Texas never elected anybody,Texans did.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 7:02AM

"Rick Perry supported Lance Armstrong’s 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s like ObamaCare. That’s not free market.

Rick Perry, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to. That’s corporate welfare, a recipe for corruption, and as bad as the TARP bailouts that caused the Tea Parties to explode all across America. In fact, Perry gave 20 million dollars to Countrywide Financial which later went bankrupt.
He supported a new state business tax. He set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways. The Austin Tea Party and the Austin Toll Party booed him on the steps of the state Capitol for that.

Rick Perry, signed an executive order mandating young Texas schoolgirls get the HPV vaccine , while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision,"

Just sayin'

irish19| 8.18.11 @ 11:21AM

When people complained about the HPV vaccinations, however, he had the good sense to back off. Valid points about the toll roads, though. It was said on another blog that Perry never met a toll road he didn't like.

elmo| 8.18.11 @ 11:27AM

I think Clint may be a Ron Paul supporter.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:46AM

Ya think?

Oldefarte| 8.18.11 @ 1:39PM

Me also thinks he's an idiot who's incapable of expressing his own personal thoughts, and instead resorts to copy/pasting PAULOLOGYISMS!!!!!!!!

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:55PM

And here we have another new word to add to the poster 9th Id's (Neo-Socialist), below. That is, if it hasn't been coined yet.

Yours, which is "Paulologyisms."

Paulologyisms: Words and phrases used repeatedly, usually by cutting and pasting from Lew Rockwell's or Amcon.com's websites to the effect that America is an Aggressor, all who believe Israel is an ally are "Israel-Firsters", all who believe in a strong military defense are "War-mongers", all who want to keep drugs illegal have "blood on their hands", (have I left anything out here?).

To be added to dictionary forthwith.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 1:58PM

Great post!

Dan Mathewson| 8.18.11 @ 7:07PM

Modern day Birchers? I agree good post.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 10:36PM

Thanks you guys!

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 10:59PM

You're Modern Day Tories, Flunkie Fops For The Ruling Elite.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 10:55PM

Stinky The Fart Man Resorts To His RINOBloviations.

Get Bent Smelly.

George S| 8.18.11 @ 7:03AM

I'm curious to know why anyone would conduct a study to conclude that Sarah Palin turned off voters and therefore assign McCain's loss to her. And why anyone would embrace it as scholarly. My opinion is that those studies -- and every other negative proffered -- is to paint her as a loser. Yet, no other political figure attracts crowds the way Palin does. Loser, yet a standing-room sellout wherever she goes.

What is critical about the 2012 election is -- aside from the presidency -- to seat a filibuster proof Republican senate to accompany the House majority. Does Mitt Romney have that kind of pull? Are people waiting in line to get a glimpse of him or hope to shake his hand? Nope. Only Palin has that kind of following and only Palin, again in my opinion, is the only Republican that has the coat tails to bring in that kind of a majority. In fact, I think Romney would fall behind both Bachmann and Perry in that department.

Palin attracts crowds but not voters is the same kind of observation that colder temperatures equals global warming. Or raising taxes creates deficits instead of increasing revenue. Or believing that government run health care will reduce costs while ignoring the track record of government run schools costing more. In other words, only a liberal sees the complete opposite of what is really out there.

I am not convinced that Palin, Bachmann, Perry or Romney is unelectable. What I am convinced about is that moderates and independents are overrated as far as tilting elections. The ideal Republican candidates -- Pawlenty and Daniels -- got nowhere fast. These are different times; no longer are elections going to be decided by those who make up their minds at the last minute. People want to see Obama go. There are very few people (maybe 25% of voters) who are still mulling about reelecting Obama as of today. Your article may have made sense four years ago, but not now.

You will vote for the Republican candidate, no matter who she is. What's the alternative... pull the lever for Obama? Sit it out?

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.18.11 @ 7:48AM

George, great points! did you see the "huge" crowds O' blah blah drew on his bus tour?

Mike D.| 8.18.11 @ 9:18AM

How could Obysmal do a bus tour? His bus has been in the ditch on its side since he's been elected and the Republicans who had to ride in the back got out the emergency door in the rear, LOL. Bus in the ditch tour.

BackToBasics| 8.18.11 @ 4:46PM

from George S. Post - "I am not convinced that Palin, Bachmann, Perry or Romney is unelectable."

I agree and I would add that of those officially in the primaries, it has already been written many times here and elsewhere that Bachman and Cain are "unelectable."

What makes them so, their Christianity? Does not Perry also claim to be an evengelical? Is it that Bachman is a woman? Regarding Cain, is it lack of name recognition? Did not Obam have the same lack of recognition in 2007?

And as for the regional issues that affect primaries even more than the presidential election, they are all from the south or near south, Iowa, originally. Cain is an Alabaman, Bachman was originally from Iowa and Perry is from Texas. So, what's with this quick judgement of "unelectibility" of very arguably the most conservative candidates, Bachman and Cain, in the race?

No doubt, Romney will win New Hampshire, but he will fall off in the South, but why should Bachman and Cain be dismissed, they are not Northeast candidates. They should do well in the Southern primaries if people thought things through more carefully.

I think Bachman and Cain are both more conservative than Perry is. Is that the real problem with those, including those who call themselves conservatives, who dismiss them so quickly?

The other side of the coin to being more conservative is that they are less a palatable to the Republican Establishment than Perry is. I think that already, many people sense this and have knee-jerk reactions about electibility and so just go with the flow. In my opinion this is a mistake.

oldfart| 8.18.11 @ 7:08AM

There is a serious underestimation of the 'frustration' in fly-over land where Romney is looked upon as another McCain, where Trump (if he runs as an independent) is looked upon as another Perot. Successful people, parents, workers, managers and political types, have finally come to the point where thy realize a good dose of 'salts' is necessary to clear the way.
The attacks on Romney have been almost non-existent. In contrast, the attacks on Bachmann, Perry, Paul and others has been mean spirited and full of creative falsehoods.
The lame stream media and liberal types seem to be totally incapable of looking at individuals, as individuals - everyone must be put in the box of identity politics. For example, recent comments by Rep. Waters in Detroit on Tuesday that the CBC does not demand action from the President because he is black. Results are nothing, only how you look, the color of your skin, the style of your hair, the superficial stuff is what is important???? Black youth unemployment is over 50% in Washington, DC. Rep. Waters admits that the black community, nationwide is suffering, but the CBC is incapable of demanding results instead of a 'plan'. Ms. Waters – an attack on the President is NOT an attack on all African Americans!!! If President Obama were a brain surgeon would you allow him to operate on you – just because he is black? I actually feel sorry for Rep. Waters who seems to be incapable of moving beyond race.

I want to see results - not piles of bovine excrement.
Romney - first thing to mind - failed health care.
Christie - getting his fiscal house in order.
Perry - keeping his state on the right path of job creation with no burdensome debt
Obama - running his ship of state onto the rocks and blaming everyone else.

Jeff| 8.18.11 @ 7:13AM

Mr. Kaminsky's definition a electable seems to be "like previous winners of the nomination". John McCain gained a lot of support because of his electability. So did Bob Dole. John Kerry was easy to beat and Bush/Gore could have gone either way. Let's nominate the most conservative canidate for a change and give the people a choice. Not a RINO. Not a member of the religious left. Not a compassionate conservative aka liberal republican like G. W. Bush. CONSERVATIVE. All the independents will support a true conservative.

Mr. Kaminsky sounds like an establishment hack in this article. The establishment, democrat and republican, is scared to death of Sarah Palin because they know she would win by a landslide against Obama. They attack her with panic in their eyes and everyone can see it; unelectable my foot. She has a record of taking on the establishment, cutting spending, and reform. Look at the way she is mobbed by the grassroots everywhere she goes. Any tea party candidate would do almost as good.

If your candidate, like Romney, is not a solid conservative I will not support him and he is not electable. Right now Romney is a McCain candidate in my eyes.

The tea party is checking voting records and planning to fire liberal republicans.

Appleby| 8.18.11 @ 7:17AM

The hippie scum liberals hate anyone with a Southern accent. And by the way, why are we no longer hearing anything about Mitt being a dangerous lunatic because he is a Mormon? Are they saving that for the General Election?

Letting the liberal hippies choose your nominee is like letting your father choose your wife. Sooner or later, as I explained to a suitor once, if you let your father choose your wife, your father will run off with her.

Moe Blotz| 8.18.11 @ 8:08AM

Did the hippies overlook Bill Clinton's southern speech inflection before they voted for him?

Mike Hawk| 8.18.11 @ 8:14AM

...dangerous lunatic because he is a Mormon.... HMMM, Dingy Harry Reid comes to mind.

conservative academic| 8.18.11 @ 12:22PM

Janis Joplin and the guy who wrote the Freak Brothers comics were from Texas, and a lot of other great hippies were from the south.

JimH| 8.18.11 @ 1:43PM

Maybe we can persuade Kinky Friedman to run.

irish19| 8.19.11 @ 1:09AM

I can just see the Texas Jewboys providing the entertainment for a state dinner.

olainfree| 8.18.11 @ 7:20AM

Good grief, Obama is already making hay over Mittcare as the model for Obamacare. Romney's rebuttal is too tepid to be taken seriously.

Also, MA's unemployment numbers during Mitt's governorship are hardly worth crowing about.

My jury is still out regarding Perry, but like Palin, he pulls no punches in identifying Obama's glass jaw of vulnerabilities. And both do so with a twinkle in the eye.

Chuck| 8.18.11 @ 7:28AM

Quick analysis, Perry wins Iowa and SC, Romney takes NH. Florida becomes the pivot state, Perry wins he is the nominee, Romney-a fight all the way to CA in June.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 8:07AM

Good analysis Chuck. Gene Simmons of KISS just called it for Rick Perry too.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 11:04PM

Gene Simmons Is a Liberal,Who Voted For Obama.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 7:37AM

A few quick thoughts to commenters so far:

You may recall that I have written two articles for these pages about Romney: One saying I'd rather have Mitch Daniels and one saying that Tim Pawlenty appeared more solid than Romney.

As for "establishment", all I can say there is that I did not support John McCain in 2008, even knowing what that would get us, because to me if McCain represented winning than we've already lost.

I think Romney is better than McCain but probably not much better. The point is that beating Obama is tremendously important in this election.

Those who claim that electability is irrelevant or "stupid" I think are simply wrong.

I knew this article would generate plenty of criticism of me. People, including me, have a tendency to believe what they want to believe and react badly to anything critical of it. Same of the person they want to believe in, so Palin supporters or Perry supporters or Ron Paul supporters or even Romney supporters can find something to dislike in my note.

Nevertheless, after reading the mostly critical comments so far, I see nothing that changes my analysis that (1) Perry would have a harder time beating Obama than Romney would, and (2) Perry's betting odds, at 8 points over Romney out of the gate, were too high. (I had bought Perry earlier but then when I read my own article I sold it, which was good because he tanked right afterwards...but before publication of this article.)

I'd note that Perry came out with a slightly softer tone yesterday, which was an interesting change-up, but he still didn't give me much of a sense that he's very intelligent.

And finally, I would note that I recognize the sensitivity of the religion issues, and than some commenters here have decided that everything I right is wrong because I don't share their belief in Jesus. I don't care what people think of my (non-)religious views. And I absolutely stand by my assertion that a candidate who wants "intelligent design" taught in schools is a loser on a national level.

For one example of how moderates react to far-right candidates, see the result of the 2010 Senate race here in Colorado where an extremely weak Democrat incumbent (he had been appointed, not elected, and was famous for being pretty much worthless as a Senator) lost to a Republican candidate who seemed fairly strong. At least he seemed strong until he started talking about homosexuality (said it was a choice) and abortion (no exception for rape and incest) and then lost the election.

If Perry does not get away from being so religious, then if he wins the nomination we're in for four more years of Obama.

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 7:54AM

I disagree on the importance of the social issues, gay marriage, abortion, evolution. If times were good, I would agree, but with the state of the economy, these are back burner issues, which granted the media will play to the fullest. I think a large majority of people are so concerned about where this country is going, that they will elect almost anyone who is qualified. Perry, having served since 2001 as governor of Texas, is more than qualified.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 8:07AM

Your stated position that Perry would have a harder time beating Obama is based on nothing but hot air.

Less than 2 days after formally announcing his candidacy, Perry surged to an 11-point lead over Romney in the polls. That doesn't happen to a putative "front-runner" like Romney by accident; it happens to a candidate whose tenuous "lead" is a fragile construct built by the media and panicked GOP establishment types who fear the knock-down, drag-out fight it will take to beat Obama and want yet another "safe" nominee like Romney.

Will Perry be the nominee? Maybe, maybe not. But neither will Romney.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 8:43AM

Rick Perry has never lost an election in a major state (unlike Mass.).

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 8:12AM

You don't think Perry is "intelligent", and you don't think much of I.D.

Ladies and gentleman, I introduce the smug face of the GOP establishment!

(FYI, Darwinian evolution requires far more blind faith than I.D...and is less scientific)

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 8:37AM

I agree with you, Doctor Right. I suggest Mr. Kaminsky take a look at law professor Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and then take a month off of work and read the collected writings of our Founders, especially those of John Adams and George Washington.

The Founding generation would NOT have considered the teaching of ID as a fringe, far-right endeavor. No, that kind of fear of the possibility of an actual Creator is the purview of modern, godless, sophisticated, and enlightened man.

And we wonder why the country is coming unglued?

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 8:39AM

Additionally, I recommend reading every last one of the original 13 states' constitutions, taking special note of their preambles.

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 8:55AM

I would ask you to read the the judges opinion in Dover vs Board of Education, here it is go to conclusions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq......html#p294

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 9:33AM

God's opinion is higher than the court's opinion.

You cannot be so naive as to think the court itself has no agenda in this decision. And it is not a decision that comports with the Declaration of Independence. Read it -- "We are endowed by our Creator . . . "

No matter what the court says about evolution/Darwinism being compatible with faith in God, they are wrong. Belief in evolution leads to nihilism -- since we're all animals, let's just all be our own gods as well. Will to power, Nietzsche, and all that rot. Go for it, if you like. But 'America' wouldn't have happened if its founders had been nihilists.

Darwin on Trial. Read it.

Oh yes, the court's opinion. Hmm. Like the one where they found a right to privacy that included state sanctioned murder of unborn children? That's what your 'evolution' did for us.

irish19| 8.18.11 @ 4:05PM

"Belief in evolution leads to nihilism"
Disagree. I take the view of the Sisters of Mercy I had in grade school on the subject.
"As long as you believe that at some point God put a soul in mankind, there is no problem with believing in evolution." Probably not an exact quote from Sr. Mary Gertrude (IIRC) at dear old St. Kate's (as we called), but close enough.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 5:37PM

I'll take Moses' account over Mary Gertrude's any day.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 10:45PM

Touche ole!

To add: God says He created. Darwin claims we evolved. Who do you believe?

The Bible (God's own Words) say that He created "each according to its kind," in Genesis.
That means, amazingly, that He arranged it so that everything that exists, He made. It didn't evolve at all!
Reading Genesis and believing God instead of Man is a wonderful thing.

"Agree with God, and be at peace; thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.

Oh, and the God of the Old Testament is the same God as the New Testament (Covenant).
He never changes.
Yaye!

Tom| 8.20.11 @ 2:51PM

You have to be kidding. You believe God created woman from Adam's rib, that Adam took a nap, then woke up with Eve there.

W| 8.18.11 @ 10:08PM

King, believe me, you do not want judges making decisions on science and religion. Federal judges are political appointees by the President. They get appointed because of their political connections. Most are good, but they are making decisions on the evidence presented subject to the rules of evidence, it is not a debate over which theory or belief has more merit.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:22AM

Reading Philip Johnson's GREAT book would require a great deal of careful introspection...

'Nuff said.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 9:47AM

I realize you guys/gals believe strongly in creationism, but if you think it's not a huge loser in a national election (for someone who emphasizes it, not someone who simply believes it) you're fooling yourselves.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 10:29AM

They don't have to emphasize it; just believing it makes them fruitcakes in the eyes of MSM, and the media will crucify them for it, so far down the road of atheistic secular humanism the enlightened ones among us have trod.

John Navratil| 8.18.11 @ 10:58AM

Ross Kaminsky,

I have to agree with you, not because social issues are right or wrong on the face of it, but much less important than economic issues in the candidate for PRESIDENT. Where you may be wrong is in your assumption that an economic conservative will not support a social conservative or evangelical Christian. I hope they would and hope they would get better than Jimmy Carter in this regard.

The action over the next four years is in the House. The President has a bully pulpit but has no direct control over legislation. His pen is all he brings to the process. I, personally, would rather Rick Santorum than a Mitch Daniels, but will be pleased to take either in this race. By all means, pick your law writers according to your social principles, but remember the President leads the Executive and not the Legislative branch.

These are the primaries where one would hope the debate would be vigorous and the best emerges. Unfortunately, the early states seem to be the selectors giving an urgency which ideally should not be there (by the time of the '08 Texas primaries, there was no one to vote for - McCain was already selected.) The electibility issue is thrust upon us too soon and the disappointment comes later. In my opinion, electibility in this cycle hinges on debt reduction and opposition to Obamacare (there goes Romney, say I). I would like to see more from ALL the candidates on their plans to reduce the size, not cost, of government. But principly...

If you want a spiritual leader, go to church. If you want a country, defeat Obama.

irish19| 8.18.11 @ 4:07PM

"If you want a spiritual leader, go to church. If you want a country, defeat Obama."
Like that one.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 12:25PM

First, you don't know WHAT I believe, or why I believe it.

Secondly, to echo what darcy said, WHO is "emphasizing" it?

I haven't heard one single GOP candidate mention it yet.

The folks who are concerned with a candidate's religious beliefs are the Left and the GOP-establishment media (which you claim not to belong to).

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 12:48PM

Bingo.

Drunken Sailor| 8.18.11 @ 4:16PM

Dr.
Just my opinion but it appears Ross is thinking of Perry's Prayer rally in Texas. Perhaps Ross should look at how Perry answered the question about evolution vs creationism and maybe he will re-think his view on Perry's chances.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat.....te-change/

9th ID| 8.18.11 @ 11:02PM

They said the same thing about being pro-life just a few years ago. So much for caving in to moral relativism...

W| 8.18.11 @ 9:58PM

Darcy, Johnson is good. For a handy summary, look at "The politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.;

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 11:46PM

Roger that, W. And thank you for the reference.

W| 8.19.11 @ 3:38PM

Darcy, you are welcome, hope you don't mind the suggestions, book lovers can't help it.

Old Soldier| 8.18.11 @ 9:38AM

Ross,

Sorry about the beating you are getting. We have heard the “electability” thing too many times with too many losers. It's become a very sore point among conservatives.

Periwinkel| 8.18.11 @ 10:21AM

Dear Ross: Wrong headed analysis. Only a conservative, American loving candidate will win this time. Your lukewarm MODERATES just won't cut it. They didn't make it past the Iowa straw poll.

Are you from the northeastern US?

Periwinkel

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 7:55AM

FIXED:

Ross Kaminsky is a neocon warmonger who believes that we should borrow money from China to bomb people in the middle-east, expect no consequences even if we can't afford it. He also believes that the people there should comply with whatever we tell them and any resistance will be deemed terrorism against the US and inspire further bombing and killings.

Ross also believes that if we cannot borrow from China and create more debt, we should just print more money, and create more inflation leading to more invisible taxes on the unsophisticated voter.

He believes that it is the United States obligation to change regimes overseas and our occupations and killings are justified because the US is the greatest country in the world. Ross also believes that the U should dictate what ISrael can and cannot do despite their own interest. Ross also believes that despite the CIA stating that Iran is nowhere near having a nuke, we should prepare to go in and bomb them, because we are the BEST!!

That the foregoing attitude is superior and anyone who gets killed or hurt by said policies should just shut up and abide by our commands. He blogs at Rossputin.com and is the host of Backbone Radio on Sunday evenings.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 8:01AM

Wow, that's a pretty incredible laundry list of charges, not one with a shred of evidence. In fact, pretty much everything you say is proven wrong by years of my own writings at my web site.

I can only assume, with such a moronic and baseless comment, that you are a Ron Paul supporter.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 8:07AM

" Harris Poll: If Ron Paul Won GOP Nomination, He Would Split Vote With Obama


Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), an official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has performed well in several polls throughout his campaign. In may, Paul took second place in a CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters. In June, Paul won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. At the beginning of July, Paul came in first in a Texas GOP poll, conducted by the Azimuth Research Group.

Perhaps the best indication of Paul’s candidacy so far is a Harris poll released today by Harris Interactive. According to the Harris poll, Obama and Paul would split the vote right down the middle if they were to run against each other in 2012."

The Tea Party Says "Hi Ross Baby".

Deal With It.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:05AM

Ron Paul is addicted to government pork and his pro-jihadist foreign policy makes Obama look like Reagan/Bush.

A Paul candidacy would lead to a crushing defeat of the GOP that would make Barry Goldwater's (a true conservative) defeat look like a victory.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:14AM

No, no, no, you got it all wrong. Paul wants the US to give all out nukes to Iran so they can bomb Israel while he continues to take all the pork he can get at home.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:34AM

Brain thanks for putting me straight brother.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:37AM

You are welcome, sister...

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:29AM

Sorry Brian didn't realize you were a member of the Paulist cult and had an inferiority complex.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:36AM

The cult you are referring to only has $20 annual membership and we get to dance naked in the forest and sacrifice small puppy dogs... Its a bargain. You should come and see for yourself.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 11:07AM

No thanks I once thought Paul seemed genuine then I dug deep and found something very unattractive an anti-Semite who lied about his record opposing wasteful government spending and was an apologist for Muslim despots and terrorists.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 11:17AM

GREAT!.. Can you hep me dig deep too so I can find what you found.... let's start with the anti-semite. Give me a link or some other evidence. Then show me where he apologized for terrorists... Cant wait!!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:30PM

Ask Paul for some of the back issues of his newsletter. Of course, he used the old excuse he didn't know what was being written under his moniker. Proving either he was a liar or an incompetent for blithely hiring anti-Semites to put out a newsletter in his name and not checking the contents.

I know you find it hard to actually do the research for yourself, but I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 6:37PM

I knew you were going to come up with some lame ass excuse. Of course you can;t find it, because it doesn't exist, which makes you a LIAR. But I dont expect much more form a NEOCON war monger.

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 1:13AM

Brian, you remind me of Brain in the Igor movie. Just not as smart, who cares about Paul he's a nut who will pass into history with the other failed nuts like Tiny Tim who run for president over and over again. Pick another hero, try one who is not a nut next time and maybe it wont be as hard on you emotionally. That whole stomping your feet and yelling LIAR is sooo not helping your blood pressure.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:24PM

You're A Slandering Liar Micky The Little RINO-CINO Propaganda Boy.

Dr. Ron Paul​,
"But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Micky RINO's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:31PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts."

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:20PM

Do Your Homework RINO-CINO Propaganda Boy.

Dr. Ron Paul​,
"But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Steps On Micky's Face

Wipe your Feet

Tom| 8.20.11 @ 2:53PM

Barry Goldwater would not be sending the Amerian army to war all over the Middle East for no apparant reason.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 8:20AM

I didn't name call. I don't think my comments are baseless. You said Ron Paul has a "dangerous" foreign policy. I can only infer that you have the opposite foreign policy, i.e. the policy NOW being enforced. If I am wrong, please tell me and I will apologize. And then I would add you are a ONE ISSUE voter, which is rather frightening.

marco| 8.18.11 @ 8:52AM

Ron Pau has a foreign policy, you say? I heard a civil defense policy last Thursday: we put on our tinfoil hats and emerge unscathed from the fallout of the Islamic bomb. But what if we're so jacked up on Crazy Ron's H that we can't find our hats?

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 8:58AM

No, you are right. My bad. Let's drop a few nukes over the middle east once and for all. It will save us all the money occupying them. I think that is a sound and reasonable foreign policy. Don't you think?

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 9:23AM

It'd be much more effective if we radically increased our oil output and drove the price of oil back into the $20's. Then the Middle East would be of little consequence to the world, Islam would fade back into its one way, dead end of a cul-de-sac, and boy, would we be busy....

And the best part, the Islamic terrorists would never figure out what happened - unlike dropping a 'few nukes.'

There is nothing those folks love more than a good, ol' feud. Do not give it to them.

Drill, baby, drill.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:35AM

Another good point for Perry. Not only is he for drilling, but he understand the importance of natural gas making us energy independent.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:37AM

So is Ron Paul, but the difference is Paul means what he says....

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:29AM

I'm sure he does so long as he bilk the taxpayer for government pork to buy votes.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:38AM

God are you ignorant, or just a stubborn lazy ideologue. Or maybe both. Provide EVIDENCE for your arguments.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 11:11AM

Ron Paul’s apologists like to claim he’s a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is correct as far as it goes, but it is very deceptive.

What Paul does is make sure that earmarks he wants are put into a spending bill that will pass, and then he votes against the bill. It’s the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis. It is this blatantly crass political sleight of hand hypocrisy that disgusts the majority of conservatives and Tea Party voters.

“Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul like Forrest Gump’s Bubba has an unsettling affection for shrimp. Shrimp he is willing to spend your money on. In 2007 he got millions of American’s tax dollars for his favorite crustacean -- $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research. Richard Viguerie noted in 2007, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function." Ron Paul’s fanatical insatiability for your tax dollars ($400 million in 2007) is disturbing in light of his words about fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is a prime example of why America’s fiscal house is in disorder.

In 2009 fraud Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives ($73 million was specifically for him).

For 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork despite the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks. Paul was one of only 4 House Republicans in 2011 to break ranks with the Republican Conference’s earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 11:19AM

You are the typical NEOCON LIAR. Miststate everything paul has said and believes in. Despite that I have now 3 times pointed out why you are WRON. Truth isn't something you care much for.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:39PM

Sorry, Ron Paul's record speaks for itself. It isn't my problem you prefer a fabricated excuse to his actual record.

As a liberalterian you may have smoked a little too much of the "herb" and it has made you vunerable to Ron "Svengali" Paul's mesmerism.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 12:53PM

The little Liberalterriers keep biting at the ankles. They're a troublesome lot, but at least you know they're coming.
Unlike cats~ they take swift swipes and you didn't even know they were there.
Micheal, I so appreciate your posts here.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 1:25PM

Margie I just can't stand by and let the Paulistas get away with promoting their "theology" as conservative or Republican.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 11:17PM

Uh Oh !
American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Bigots Dr.Reich & Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Are Now Perryites.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:16AM

Uh oh Spaghettios!
AmSpec's Resident Psycho Ceramic Otherwise Known As A Crack-Pot Attempts To Try And Define Conservatives Again!

Do Your Homework Anti-Christian Bigot And All Around Evil Guy:

We True Conservatives Ain't Kissin' NoBody's Rear End And Certainly Not Ron Paul's.

We Vote For The Constitution, A Strong Military Defense, And Stand Up For Our Friends And Allies.

Real Conservatives Are Gearing Up To Hound Obama Out Of Office.

Get On Board Or We'll Throw You Under The Bus.

Carpe Flee 'Em Baby.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 6:35PM

No you are a FREAKIN LIAR who refuses to deal with the facts.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 11:14PM

Asked & Answered RINO-CINO PropagandaBoy Little Micky RINO.

"Dr. Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark. His Principled Stand is about The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.

"REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS:

But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Micky RINO's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:33PM

You're A RINO-CINO Slandering Liar Little Micky

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Micky RINO's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 10:33AM

I hear Texas is on its own grid, too. Makes for interesting speculation about its long-term plans.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 2:32PM

Texas tried that once before and it didn't turn out well, nor would it this time.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 3:20PM

How did it not "turn out well"???

Texas was an independent nation for 9 years.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 4:00PM

Civil War, Dr. R.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:26AM

Yes, Ron Paul hold DANGEROUS foreign policy views.

Anyone who doesn't think that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon has been living under a rock for 20 years.

And anyone who doesn't think that if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon that it wouldn't be a threat to the USA is either willfully stupid or a complete moron.

The REAL reason that you Paulies want people to believe that Irana is NOT building a nuke is because Iran's # 1 target with such a weapon would be Israel. And since most of you are closeted anti-semites who think that a secret cabal of Jews control the banks AND US foreign policy, the idea that Iran might want to obliterate Israel doesn't really bother you all that much.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:38PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor, Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
"On Iran, The President should:
3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 8:26AM

Ross:

Although I disagree with you -vehemently -about the positions you take in this article (and others), on this issue, I'll stand by you.

The only people on this board who use the term "neocon" in the pejorative sense are the Paulies like Clint and Jack.

And I've learned from careful observation that when they say it, what they really mean to say is "Jew"...and they mean it as an insult.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 8:30AM

Ah right, it was just a matter of time before someone pulled out the "anti-semite card." Works every single time. The truth is that neocons are generally also the POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, ZIONISTS, which has nothing to do with being Jewish, but Zionist use judaism to shield their political motivations to raise wars against Islam.

And NO, I don't mean it as an insult against any religion. I mean it as an insult for KILLING people. perhaps you can't get that through your head.

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 8:36AM

Judging from your reaction, Doctor Right is right on the money!

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:00AM

My reaction means he is right? WHy don't you refute what I said. But I forget. Its easier to throw out race or anti-semite cards to stifle the conversation. It all makes sense to me now... Please let me join the war monger movement... I need I need...!

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:27AM

"The truth is that neocons are generally also the POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, ZIONISTS, which has nothing to do with being Jewish, but Zionist use judaism to shield their political motivations to raise wars against Islam."

Uh-huh...Sure you're not anti-semitic.

You're a hero to the Israeli people.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:40AM

You are not seriously trying to convince me that zionism is the same a judaism? I know you can't argue the facts and substance, so you resort to tween arguments.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:52AM

If you DON'T understand the historical significance and association of the word "Zionism" with Judaism, and how it has been used to persecute Jews for centuries, then you REALLY shouldn't be commenting on it in a public forum, lest you appear to be ignorant.

...Oops! Too late...

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:58AM

No, the ASSOCIATION has been made by people like yourself. The criticism, by Iran, US ISlam and others are usually geared towards A POLITICAL movement, which ZIonism is. Zionists clothes themselves in Judaism exactly the way you are doing it, so that any criticism of Zionism is stifled immediately simply by bringing up the anti-semitic remark. if you don't think that is true, you REALLY need to wake up. That's not even coming from me, but a large number of Jews.

Personally I could not give a crap about what your religion is. I'm not even religious. However, I do care about being able to have discussions without being labeled anti-semite, which you so easily do. That is rather repugnant to me. The same way anyone criticizes Obama they are labeled a racist, because that is the fastest and easiest way to stifle opposition to IDEAS!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:27AM

Iran and the other Muslims who want to destroy Israel want to eradicate the Jews based on their interpretation of the Quran. If you had any understanding of Iran and its theocracy you'd know that.

Now that I realize you're a member of the Paulist cult (the GOP version of Lyndon Larouche) I see why you choose to ignore the reality of what Arab and Muslim governments have said for generations. One need only go back and look at the Palestinian National Charter to see what they want for Israel and the Jews.

It wold be helpful if you had an understanding of Islam before promoting your Paulist anti-Israel (i.e., anti-Semitism based on Paul's past newsletters). Oh, that's right he disavowed them like he doesn't support earmarks (proof of his dishonesty).

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:34AM

"Iran and the other Muslims who want to destroy Israel want to eradicate the Jews based on their interpretation of the Quran" WRONG. Show me that or at least give me some evidence. They don't like ZIONISM! Unless you are buying what the media MISQUOTED and FLASLY Stated from Iran. Im no fan of Iran. However, I am a fan of the truth.

Please, can we stop with the anti0semitic nonsense. It gets real tiring quickly.

Have you even paid any attention to what Paul believes regarding earmarks? he thinks its corrupt and he is AGAINST it, HOWEVER, because the Executive branch would get the money Paul doesn't take to his district he is between a rock and hard place, and has no choice but to take the earmarks. What is so hard for you to understand that? I think you are staying willfully ignorant so you can promote your neoconservatism.

But do show me some evidence to EDUCATE me on what Iran has said against Israel. I dare you to find any that isn't just about zionism. But perhaps since you have been brainwashed to believe judaism and zionism are the same, maybe there isn't much hope for you.

However, I do think you are just ill informed and/or lazy and have just accepted the talking points from the neocons.

Your turn...

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:01PM

It would probably be a waste of time trying to show you evidence, because you would just deny it -- that is the problem with someone who is obtuse or if you will "brainwashed." It is like denial of the Holocaust you just can’t convince such people that the Nazis were really that bad.

The denial of Ron Paul's anti-Semitism is what is tiresome. His so-called repudiation of the anti-Semitism in his newsletters is as believable as that he doesn't support earmarks. As for Paul's pretext that he’s compelled to take earmarks to stop the executive branch from getting the money is lame or a revelation that he doesn’t understand the Constitution and where the power of the purse reside in our system of divided powers (see Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution).

The Iranian allied Hamas satellite station Al-Aqsa used a Mickey Mouse (Farfur) clone to teach genocide of the Jews to Muslim children in Gaza and Europe.

Here is an excerpt that was aired nationally: "Sanabel, what do you want to do to help the Al-Aqsa Mosque?" Farfur asks on the children's program of Hamas's Al-Aqsa television station. "We want to fight." "And what else?" "Wipe out the Jews." Now Farfur, the cartoon character on Hamas's children's television program, is satisfied. Farfur is a carbon copy of Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, but the Hamas version does something that Mickey would never do: He entertains Muslim children while propagating the murder of Jews.

Hostility toward Jews has existed since Islam came into being. In its charter, Iranian backed Hamas quotes the Prophet Muhammad as saying: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." Through the use of such language, the hatred of Jews and genocide is given a religious justification. This is the passage of the Quran used by Muslims to justify the killing, murder, extermination and genocide of Jews.

It really isn't hard to find Muslim references to wiping out or killing the Jews. But if you choose to ignore it as you do Ron Paul's hypocrisy and deceit then those who call you an anti-Semite may be right.

Hiding behind the false construction that Zionism doesn’t mean Jews isn’t that clever. Zionism is the creation of Jews and while there are minorities in the Jewish community who reject Zionism intelligent people understand that when Muslims couch their attacks on the Zionist state, Zionists, etc. they’re talking about Jews. Just as when they call us Franks (what we translate as Crusaders) they’re talking about the US and Western Europe. You realize the Frankish Crusader states of the Levant no longer exist so callings us Franks/Crusaders is the same as calling Jews Zionists. You can deny it, but you’re still wrong.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 12:32PM

You want "facts", Brian?

How about the documented statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim [of the holocaust], if we suppose it is true... If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

"For 60 years they allowed no one to question and cast doubt on the logic of the Holocaust and its very essence - because if the truth were to be exposed, nothing would remain of their logic of liberal democracy. It is the very advocates of liberal democracy who defend the Holocaust, who have sanctified it to the point where none may enter. Breaking the padlock of the Holocaust and reexamining it will be tantamount to cutting the vital arteries of the Zionist regime."

Did you catch that, Brian...the use of the word "Zionist" in a statement denying the Holocaust?

OK...Let's see your brilliant reply.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 6:48PM

If you are going to quote something or summarize something, how about it be accurate???

When did Ahmadinejad DENY the Holocaust? See, that is where you just begin to MAKE UP Stuff. Even your own quotes don't say it. Asking to REEXAMINE what happened during the Holocaust isn't DENYING what happened there....Oy.

Regime has ZERO to do with Israel, the country. It has to do with WHO is running the country. The same way Bush was criticized here and/or the neocons are criticized, rightfully so, and some call for their removal. That doesn't mena people say they want US to be wiped off the planet. Get real.

There is no logic or honestly to your statements, except you use judaism as a religion to hide behind your political agenda.

And YES he used ZIONIST in his statements. EVen in your own quotes its all over the place and nowhere did he say Israel. You really are doing yourself a disservice.

Let's wait for your HONEST reply...

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:45AM

Why don't you do some homework, instead of spewing the lies that you have been fed. Here is a good start:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....a&aid=4527

Ahmadinejad was talking about the Zionist regime. But I have a feeling you are not interested in the truth. You just want to war monger and promote more propaganda.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:03PM

Ok you're an apologist for Iran and think wiping out Israel or the Zionist state (i.e., genocide) is Ok. I get it.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 6:40PM

Of course you again, ignored the facts, but instead misstate what I believe.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:57PM

Brian why don't you provide a site that isn't a conspiratorial web page from an Iranian. Something scholarly and respected and not an apologist for the despotic Iranian theocracy.

You would accept a posting from an Israeli newspaper would you? So why do you think we're as gullible as you to accept the propaganda of an Iranian?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 1:19PM

"Kill the Jews wherever you find them — this serves God." Haj Amin al-Husseini Mufti of Jerusalem

73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees. Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East.

The Israel Project is trying to reach out to the Arab world to promote “people-to-people peace.” The poll appears to indicate that the organization has a difficult task ahead.

"Muhammad said in his Hadith: "The Hour [Day of Resurrection] will not arrive until you fight the Jews, [until a Jew will hide behind a rock or tree] and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" said Hassan Khader, founder of the Al Quds Encyclopedia.

Khader spoke during a lecture, broadcast Sunday, on what he describes as the war of the Jews against Palestinian "trees."

The program was monitored by Palestinian Media Watch, or PMW, an Israel-based group. PMW director Itamar Marcus says Khader's statement was one of many instances in recent years of Palestinian religious leaders teaching publicly that this Hadith – part of Islamic traditions attributed to Muhammad – is a current obligation of Islam.

Marcus says these teachings challenge the common belief that the premise for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is over borders.

"Palestinian religious and academic leaders publicly teach that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is part of Islam's irreconcilable religious war against the Jews," he says.

"To justify this view," he adds, "Palestinians repeatedly cite Islamic sources to demand as religious doctrine, that Jews be hated, even demanding the killing of Jews as the will of Allah."

Marcus says "the continued expression of this PA worldview is most ominous. For by depicting redemption as dependent on Muslims' murder of Jews, the murder of Jews is being presented as mandatory religious obligation," he says.

Something that supports jihadist Muslim’s using euphemisms to cover their hatred for Jews and Americans. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/p.....-fatwa.htm

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 6:54PM

"Kill the Jews wherever you find them — this serves God." Haj Amin al-Husseini Mufti of Jerusalem"

WTF does this have to do with IRAN?? Let's get real here. Jews have been killing Palestinians and vice versa for YEARS. That isn;t gonna stop any time soon, and this has nothing to do with Iran.

Palestinians have been occupied for 50 some years now, so maybe you can understand why they are a little pissed off. I guess you don't because you have your OWN agenda you are woking on, which is killing Palestinians and Muslims.

Its amazing how we can be discussing US bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Parkistan etc, and then you try to draw a line to Palestine. One is over oil and the other over territory.

Jack in Wi.| 8.22.11 @ 1:54AM

That is a total lie: Iran has no nuclear weapons. According to our CIA it is building no nuclear weapons. According to the international atomic energy commission is building none and is under constant inspection. It has the right to nuclear power under the non proliferation treaties. Iran also has the largest Jewish comunity in the Muslim world. They can leave at any time and go anywhere they like, but choose to stay right where they are.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 12:12PM

You're not fooling anyone.

Zionist is political, and Judaism is religious? REALY???

And "Zionism" is not immediately associated with anti-semitism??

No s***, Sherlock.

But when you Paulies throw out the word "Zionist", "Judaism", and "neocon" in the same pejorative post, your thinly veiled attempt is quite clear.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:42PM

Doctor,
I'm not a big fan of Rush, but he nailed it when he said the neocon insult was a mask for anit-Semitism. I know that's going to set Brian off again, but he needs to acknowledge who and what he is to find peace with himself.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 7:01PM

And that is your ONLY weapon, but it doesn't work anymore... its running tired the same way the race card is running tired when people criticize Obama and called racist.. The anti-semitic card is an old zionist trick.... don't believe me? Maybe you will believe the forme Israeli Minister admitting it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqJH1KXlPs

I don't make it up as you do. I provide evidence and make sure I quote it correctly and not take things out of context to fit my war mongering propaganda.. ;)

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 6:57PM

And "Zionism" is not immediately associated with anti-semitism?? NO!!! Only dimwitted people like yourself draw the connection for the reasons I have already stated ad nauseum. I know you have to shut this conversation down FAST so you throw out the anti-semitic nonsense right away.

We all know if I criticize Obama I am a racist. If I criticize neocons I am a anti-semite. Makes a lot of sense. Kinda reminds me of George Orwell.....

BTW.. you necons are LOSING the battle over ideas... accept it...

Jack in Wi.| 8.22.11 @ 1:58AM

Good for you, Brian keep giving them hell. I know plenty of Jews who dispise what the neocons are doing. Most Jews are sane people who don't want endless war for Israel or anyone else.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 12:56PM

Heh, the cry of the Paul-bots (Liberalterriers):

The Neo-cons! Oh, no! They're coming to take us away, ha-ha hee-hee ho-ho!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:58PM

I'm beginning to wonder if Brian and Clint are actually Iranian apologist Arash Norouzi. Of course, that still doesn't explain the lunacy of Ron Paul's pro-jihadist foreign policy.

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 1:22PM

Thanks for the laugh, Margie, reminds me of the Ross Perot song Rush used to play. Perot and his volunteers, are now Paul and the Paulistas.
Loony tunes!

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:06AM

:^).

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 2:34PM

You hit the nail right on the head, Dr R, and Brian's response confirmed it. ("Zionism has nothing to do with being Jewish"????)

Brian| 8.19.11 @ 12:53AM

What? Judaism is a religious belief. Zionism is a political. Are you that thick? But thanks for laughing, because you are the one that is going to be foolish.

Brian| 8.19.11 @ 12:53AM

What? Judaism is a religious belief. Zionism is a political. Are you that thick? But thanks for laughing, because you are the one that is going to be foolish.

Brian| 8.19.11 @ 12:53AM

What? Judaism is a religious belief. Zionism is a political. Are you that thick? But thanks for laughing, because you are the one that is going to be foolish.

Jack in Wi.| 8.22.11 @ 1:44AM

Ross I can define Atheism in 3 sentences. We come from nothing. We are here for no reason. We are going nowhere. I think you have to be pretty dim to think that all this came from nothing. now as too ron Paul. He is setting the agenda for the whole election. the vast majority of people are fed up with the wars, foreign aid, and criminal banksters. Either Ron Paul or someone who sounds like him will be the nominee or the Republican party can close up it's doors.Bush Clinton, Bush, Obama and now a Perry or Romney. No country can stand such incompetent leadership.

emo| 8.18.11 @ 8:40AM

""Ross also believes that despite the CIA stating that Iran is nowhere near having a nuke""

That CIA analysis has all but been discredited. It was put out by leftists in the CIA who wanted to stop Bush from attacking Iran.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:01AM

So what do you suggest we do about it? Bomb them? Give me YOUR solution instead of this beating around the bush. That is assuming you are right about the facts, which I find extremely suspect.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:31AM

"So what do you suggest we do about it? Bomb them?"

Hey, Einstein...In 1981, the Israeli wiped-out Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program with one (1) surgical and powerful air-strike.

We had an opportunity to foment unrest in Iran in 2009, but Obama refused to help the democracy movement. Your boy Ron Paul would be no different.

The problem with idiotic policies like Paul's that think inaction is a virtue is that they ultimately push us into a dangerous situation where we have no choice BUT to bomb.

Ron Paul is the 21st century equivalent of Neville Chamberlain.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:49AM

Okay, spider, you are double posting. Is your heart pumping that hard? Take it easy. You just proved Ron Paul's point, which is that IS-RA-EL can take of itself, as they did in 1981. What makes you think that we need to take money from the American Public and use it on behalf of IS-RA-EL? What is so special about IS-RA-EL?

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:53AM

Why do you write "Israel" as "IS-RA-El"?

Your hatred of Israel is palpable.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:02AM

You are a riot. You see anti-semite in everything. Remind sof the scene in ANnie Hall when Woody Allen is walking down the street with Tony Roberts and sees anti-semitism in everything.

Get a grip. IS-RA-EL is just the name. From ISIS-RA and EL, the Gods that Jews worship. Nothing wrong with that. You also remind me of that skit Jon Stewart did last night about Ed Schultz who sees race in everything.

But I knew you weren;'t going to answer any of my questions, because you CANNOT. Instead you throw out the cheap shots in an effort to silence me. Not gonna work, my friend.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 12:15PM

Your questions have already been answered, dim-wit.

Are you unable to read?

You Paulies clowns. EVERY post a Paulie writes says something angry about Israel, and then you get your panties in a twist if people notice.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 2:36PM

"The God that Jews worship? Is that something different than the God that most Americans worship? You know, the God of Abraham?

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 3:25PM

Jews worship the one TRUE God, Bri-boy.

I don't know any Jew (and I know quite a few) who worships two (2) entities named "Isis-Ra" and "El".

Is that some nonsense you picked-up from Lew Rockwell?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:39AM

Doctor Right,
Ron Paul is Vidkun Quisling to extremist Islam.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 12:34PM

Yup.

And he'd be Neville Chamberlain to Chinese aggression in Asia.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:59PM

YES!

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:31AM

"So what do you suggest we do about it? Bomb them?"

Hey, Einstein...In 1981, the Israeli wiped-out Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program with one (1) surgical and powerful air-strike.

We had an opportunity to foment unrest in Iran in 2009, but Obama refused to help the democracy movement. Your boy Ron Paul would be no different.

The problem with idiotic policies like Paul's that think inaction is a virtue is that they ultimately push us into a dangerous situation where we have no choice BUT to bomb.

Ron Paul is the 21st century equivalent of Neville Chamberlain.

emo| 8.19.11 @ 12:00AM

We're preventing Iran's nuclear program along with the Israelis. Bombing is soooo 1981.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 7:57AM

Has anyone else noticed that those who are opposed to Rick Perry are the following?

1. Liberal left moonbats
2. The RINO GOP establishment
3. Ron Paul's moronic, hardcore supporters
4. Pseudo-Conservative journalists

Anyone who wants to lock arms with this illustrious crowd, please raise your hand!

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 8:07AM

For the record, I'm not any of those. Obviously not 1 and 3.

People accuse me of 2, but that doesn't explain why I haven't voted for a Republican for president since the first Bush's first election, nor why I publicly opposed John McCain as too weak on first principles.

And for me to be #4, that would imply that I hold myself out as a conservative, which I don't. I hold myself out as a conservative-leaning libertarian.

Perhaps you only want to read stuff written by religious conservatives, in which case you won't like my writing. That's fine, of course, as my goal is not to please everybody. Nevertheless, I think I've been proven right more often than wrong in politics, and I think I offer a perspective that many readers might not otherwise get much exposure to. For that reason, I do hope that readers find my work thought-provoking even if they end up disagreeing.

As for those who say that my work is inherently not worth reading because I'm not a religious Christian, well that's obviously something I disagree with but beyond that it's not something that further debate can possibly help.

Finally, I'm not really "opposed to Rick Perry". I'm opposed to losing to Barack Obama and fear that that's where Perry would take us if his approach doesn't change.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 8:18AM

The Odd Couple: Nazi Bigot Dr.Reich & Kaminsky,

" Rasmussen is reporting that Obama is in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney; the former Massachusetts governor is polling 1 point ahead of the president. In polling of Romney versus Obama, the president received 42% compared with Romney's 43%, a tossup considering the margin of error.

But when Obama is placed next to Paul, the president receives only 41% support the lowest number he would have against a Republican. Paul got just 37% support against Obama, but the longtime congressman's libertarian beliefs are still unknown to many American voters."

We Tea Party Patriots Support Our Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:08AM

Once the public heard more from Paul he'd be slaughtered in the general election. Independents would be rushing into Obama's arms for fear of Paul.

Ron Paul is our Lyndon Larouche.

Mike D.| 8.18.11 @ 9:48AM

A 75 year old man is not going to get elected President no matter what he believes. His age factor would kill him in the general election.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:15AM

I didn't write that.

That's one today, Tool-Job Israel-Firster Boyfriend Of Dr. Reich.

Keep It Up, Bibi's Boy.

The Tea Party Steps On Your Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 1:22PM

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 9:15AM

I didn't write that.

That's one today, Tool-Job Israel-Firster Boyfriend Of Dr. Reich.

Keep It Up, Bibi's Boy.

The Tea Party Steps On Your Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 11:15AM

Clint, you're anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views are not representative of the Tea Party. However, many independent voters don't recognize that so I respectfully request that you sit down and shut the &@%* up before you give us all a bad name.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:59AM

Too late. You've got it already, Ross.
Your blaming the deaths of the drug addicts on those of us who don't want them legalized puts you in that camp.
And so does your trashing of Rick Perry and promoting the Romney-bot.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 1:19PM

Hey Kaminsky That's Either Allen Brooks The ObamaBoyIsrael Firster Poseur Poster or His Girlfriend Dr. Reich.

You've Been Punked By Israel Firster Agenda Fanatics,Sport.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 1:33PM

Second Kaminsky, Why don' you just try & make me shut up Finance Boy & see what happens to you, Pussy ?
Aaand, Asshat, I'm more representative of We Tea Party Patriots then You are You Little Bloviatin' Punk Ass Wall Street Asshole.

Get Bent Cupcake.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 3:28PM

Hey Kaminsky I Didnt Write That One, Either. That's Either Allen Brooks The ObamaBoyIsrael Firster Poseur Poster or His Girlfriend Dr. Reich.

You've Been Punked By Israel Firster Agenda Fanatics,Sport.

And If Any Israel Firster Bibi-Buttboy Calls Me An Anti-Semite Again, They'll Get What's Coming To Them.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 3:34PM

Aaand One More Thing Kaminsky You Israel-Firster Poseur Neo-Chickenhawk Cupcakes RINO-CINO.

Come To The Next Meeting Of Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots And Then Try And Tell Me To Shut Up, Punk.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Allen Brooks| 8.18.11 @ 7:39PM

I'm the ObamaBoy Israel Firster Poseur Poster.

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 7:54PM

I didn't write that idiotic comment, that's Clint spreading misinformation by using my name.

Hey, Clint...Here's a clue: if you're going to try and imitate me, then do it right.

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 1:25PM

Wow Ross, something you wrote today that I think we ALL can agrre with!

Well done!

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 1:22PM

That's Two phoney Poseur Posts by Allen Brooks or Dr. Reich of possibly another Israel Firster Fanatic.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 8:22AM

Conservative libertarian? What kind is that? The kind that George Bush was? The kind that Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly is? You have to explain that one. I'm all ears.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 9:27AM

Brian,

The market's about to open so I don't have time for a long answer, but the examples you give are all anything but libertarian. None of them has libertarian instincts worth mentioning.

Bush is a big-government conservative.
Kristol is a neo-con.
Hannity is a mainstream conservative.
O'Reilly is a populist.

I don't like any of them very much, though they're all better than leftists.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:46AM

Well sorry to hear you are dealing with the markets, because they suck right now. In any event:

"Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries." Wiki

Now you can try to distinguish each of those people I mention but they are ALL for United States doing EXACTLY what the Neoconservatives promote. i.e. advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in OTHER countries.

Since Ron Paul is against that, and you think that is dangerous, I can only assume you are a neoconservative. Correct me if I am wrong, which you haven't done thus far. But I'll be the first to issue a heartfelt apology if I am wrong. And I mean that.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 9:58AM

One does not have to be a neo-con, and I'm not one, to say that it's insane to think that we should be ambivalent about Iran getting a nuclear weapon or that we should have told Pakistan before getting Osama bin Laden.

I think the US should be extremely cautious about the use of its forces overseas. I think we should close many or most of our overseas bases. I think we should tell the Europeans that they're going to have to take responsibility for their own defense. And I don't think we should be in the nation-building business.

By the way, neo-con has (or at least originally had) a specific meaning in that it's someone who used to be a liberal and became a conservative. I have, for as long as I can remember, been essentially libertarian, though I part company with the Libertarian Party over their support of a weak national defense and open borders.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:09AM

I think you are missing the point. NEoconservative is very SPECIFIC. Its ALL about foreign policy and US INTERVENTION overseas, militarily and economically. if you support that, you are a neoconservative. You may be other things, but that's the definition of a neocon. Why wouldn't you want to own it? I am a libertarian and I have no problem telling anyone that.

So I don't really fully understand your position, and frankly, that is okay, because I am more than open to hearing another viewpoint, so please forgive me if I have misstated your positions.

It almost sounds like you are much closer to Ron Paul's position than anything. Withdrawing troops is a big Paul issue. Cautious using force overseas is also another Paul position.

Now, with respect to Paul wanting Iran to have a nuclear bomb, well he has NEVER said he wanted that. In fact he has said he doesn't want ANYONE to have a nuclear bomb. However, he says he does UNDERSTAND why iran would want one, since they are surrounded by countries with nuclear bombs. And who are we to tell them what they can and cannot have?

Finally, libertarian and foreign intervention is kind of oxymoronic.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 10:39AM

Mr. Kaminsky: I agree with your opinion as stated in your second paragraph, especially so the last sentence.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:57AM

But don't forget that while he's trying to claim sanity~ he's for legalizing drugs, and has also blamed the deaths of drug addicts on those of us who want to keep them illegal, darcy.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 4:33PM

Quite so, Margie. My agreement with Mr. Kaminsky's points in one paragraph is not an endorsement of his overall political viewpoint, hardly. I am a traditional conservative; but like a venn diagram there are some areas in which his opinion and mine overlap, apparently.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:39AM

Libertarians/lieralterians are not conservatives. Some lean to the right, but they're not conservatives.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:50AM

Are you referring to Goldwater conservative or Sean Hannity conservative? Goldwater is a libertarian as they come IMO and they call him Mr. Conservative.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:44AM

I'm talking about the Barry Goldwater of the 1960's not the Goldwater of the 1990's. They were definitely two different men.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:05PM

Yupper. That is~ yes indeedee that is the truth.
I found that out by reading here at AmSpec several months ago.
His views became that of a full blown LiberalTerrier.
It's like he lost his mind, and what a pity.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 10:00AM

Exactly right, which is why criticism of me as a "pseudo-conservative" are off-target. I never claimed to be a conservative, though clearly I am conservative on many issues. My views are fairly predictable: You will consistently find me on the side of liberty, and of the federal government being restricted to the functions permitted it by the constitution.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:11AM

Why not just call yourself an independent. That is a much broader term. I am libertarian, because I believe we should all be free to make choices without hurting others, and to protect the same, Government is instituted. Really that simple.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 10:43AM

Unhappily, Brian, the laissez-faire social liberty you libertarians promote actually leads to more government, not less, due to the breakdown of social order it produces and the need for government to come in and 'fix' things.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:50AM

What the hell are you talking about? There are a ton of communities around the world without Government that don't have what you speak of. You are just war mongering to create more tyranny and despotism.

You obviously assume the worst in people. You need to get out of the ghetto. Not all people get high and rob people.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:43PM

Could you please provide the evidence for the "ton of communities around the world" you refer to? You need to start actually providing the evidence instead of spewing invectives.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:11PM

That's the thing, isn't it? Libertarianism turns out to be more like-minded with the Left than anything. It wants "freedom" but it isn't really freedom. It's license. It's the old hippie freak anything goes philosophy.
That's why I've always said, since discovering the truth about Libertarianism, that they are like the old hippies from the 60's who were anti-war, pro drugs, etc.
It's like there's a missing link in the way that they think. But sadly the Libertarians of today also seem to share another trait~ which is anti-semitism.

calvin| 8.18.11 @ 1:39PM

Ross;
You usually make sense, but betray an elitist bent when you say Romney is smarter than Gov. Perry.
One of my dogs years ago taught me that there is all different kinds of smart. The dog, who was not a Phi Beta Kappa Dartmouth magna, had a finer and more suitable intelligence than his owner. I think Perry stands on the side of the truth. Americans will sense that.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 2:44PM

Ron Paul libertarianism is much closer to traditional anarchism than to conservatism. And I don't use the term anarchism in a perjorative sense. Naom Chomsky is a far left anarchist who also believes in no central government (he favors, as did the Spanish left anarchists, small elf-governing collectives modeled on university academic governing bodies). Paul and Paulbots have essentially the same anti-central government, non-interventionist, anti-Zionist as the far left non-interventionists. And that's why Paul polls as well as he does against Obama -- he does attract the far left of the Democratic Party, to whom Obama is a pro-war internationalist who believes in a strong central government.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 2:45PM

That obviously should be "self-governing", although I actually like the term "elf-governing" just as much!

W| 8.18.11 @ 10:26PM

Interesting comment, RCV. Had a college course on the Spanish Civil War, our prof fought in it as a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The Spanish anarchists were mostly trade union members, and they were all massacred by the Communists, supported by the Soviet Union, because they did not go along with the central planning, collectivist mentality. The anarchists thought they could govern themselves through their labor unions for their employment, and wanted to be left alone. Not that relevant here, but this is the first time I saw a reference to Spanish anarchists.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 11:27PM

If you want to read a great book, W, pick up George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". He also went to Spain to fight with the anarchist Republicans and saw first-hand their betrayal by the Stalinist elements in the Spanish Communist party.

W| 8.19.11 @ 3:44PM

Thanks for reminding me about that, RCV. We used the book in the course,and it has been on my shelf for years, I will read it.
Incidentally, the Spanish Civil War was one of the most brutal ever. The commies had a special vendetta against the catholics, and massacred priests, nuns, and destroyed churches. Franco was supported by Hitler and Mussolini, and allowed the bombing of civilians, the famous "Guernica" by Picasso. Stalin supported the commies/socialists. It was a preview of WW II.

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 8:40AM

I could not care less about your (non)-religious views, as you described them yourself. You mentioned I.D. in the context of an article that was highly critical of Rick Perry, so I replied in context to both points.

As far as your stated claim that you've been "proven right more often than wrong" in politics, that's also a baseless claim and a straw-man, since no one on this forum gas the time or the inclination to examine your record of political opinions and predictions. In that regard, I could make the exact same claim and you would be utterly unable to refute it.

However, your preference for Romney (and Mitch Daniels) tells us all we need to know about your political opinions and judgment.

You claim to have been against McCain's candidacy in 2008? Big deal. So was I. So were a lot of people. Stating your opposition to a loser 4 years after the fact is not exactly courageous.

Sorry, Ross...But

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 9:03AM

Why do you have such a hard on for Rick Perry? Give me a list of 5 things you love about him.

I know, you are going to say "Im not gonna waste my time with you or give you anything.." ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 9:46AM

First off, the ones on this forum who idolize their candidate are the idiotic and irrational Paulies (like you), who overlook Paul's DANGEROUS opinions on foreign policy while you cuddle with his picture under your pillow.

Having said that, I'll give you a BIGGER list than 5 items as to why I support Perry.

1. He's a Texan. Texas is the most reliably Conservative state in the USA, and has been for years, "W" notwithstanding. More people in the armed-forces are from Texas than from any other state, if that tells you anything (it probably doesn't).
2. Perry is a law-and-order Governor. He's presided over 200 executions as Governor, and recently stood-up to Obama to prevent the Feds from interfering in the execution of a Mexican national.
3. Perry is economically smart, and pro-capitalist. Texas has the best state economy in the union, and the lowest unemployment levels. Perry has been at the forefront of convincing businesses in liberal states to pick up their states and relocate to a state that has a business-friendly environment.
4. Perry scares the liberals AND the GOP-establishment; that alone automatically qualifies him to be President.
5. Despite the recent nonsense about Perry being "soft om illegal immigration", he's challenged the Feds with a tough state law (similar to Arizona's) to confront the issue, and has removed protection of "sanctuary cities" in Texas that harbor and protect illegals.
6. Perry says the things that Conservatives want to hear in a nominee. His recent comments about Ben Bernanke only offended the liberal media and the GOP establishment. The rest of us out here in fly-over country knew EXACTLY what he meant, and he deserves praise for shining a light on the BAD mo0netary policy of Bernanke's Fed.
7. Perry is NOT afraid of the media, and he's NOT afraid of the liberals or Obama.
8. Perry is the longest serving Governor in the USA, and the longest in the history of Texas. He has the executive-level experience to do the job.
9. Perry joined other Governors to challenge the legality of ObamaCare (unlike Chris Christie, who refuses to do so).
10. Perry understands energy policy because he comes from a state that produces a lot of oil and natural gas. He would support oil exploration in the Gulf, Alaska, and the Rockies.
11. Perry would win Texas, and probably help the GOP to run-the-table in the South, and probably the Southwest as well.

...I could go on, but you're probably too busy thinking of a "Clint-esque" reply along the lines of "Perry is a stupid neocon" to really understand it all.

Your turn.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:22AM

I see we have a collectivist in the making to point number 1. A State sponsored executor. Nice (point 2)

Point 3. With respect to unemployment and Texas' economy, its slowly coming out that Perry really isn't responsible for a lot of that, but I digress.

Point 4, NO, he doesn't scare the GOP. They are touted him as frontrunner. How do you think he became frontrunner? Not because of the coverage they have been giving to Paul. Maybe he scares the liberals, but who cares. They don't like anyone else besides Obama. Don't know much about point 5.

Point 6. Really? You bash the King of the Fed criticism, but you are now praising Perry, notwithstanding Paul's 30 years of criticism, BEFORE Perry tries to steal his platform.

Point 7. Maybe that's good. I also enjoy someone who speaks their mind, like Trump, even though I wouldn't vote for them.

Point 8. I don't know if that is a good thing. Medina took him on and received 20% of the vote without a freaking dime! That should tell you how well PErry is perceived in Texas, plus he is polling less than Paul in recent polls in Texas. Don't put your head too far up his behind, just yet.

Point 9. So did Paul and many others. That's almost a no brainer for any Republican.

10. Well, from what I am hearing he has been getting a lot of money from companies in return for favors. I'm sure that will all come out real soon.

11. I do predict Perry would win, but not without a fight from me and others supporting the most principle man in politics. ;)

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:48AM

Ron Paul sure didn't do anything to help Texas (that doesn't include his buying votes with our money). Ron Paul uses our money for his favorite pet project.

“Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul like Forrest Gump’s Bubba has an unsettling affection for shrimp. Shrimp he is willing to spend your money on. In 2007 he got millions of American’s tax dollars for his favorite crustacean -- $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research. Richard Viguerie noted in 2007, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function." Ron Paul’s fanatical insatiability for your tax dollars ($400 million in 2007) is disturbing in light of his words about fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is a prime example of why America’s fiscal house is in disorder.

In 2009 fraud Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives ($73 million was specifically for him).

For 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork despite the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks. Paul was one of only 4 House Republicans in 2011 to break ranks with the Republican Conference’s earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Brian| 8.18.11 @ 10:56AM

I don't like to name call, because it minimizes the debate, but you really are an idiot. How many times do I have to tell you the earmark position of Paul? You can't be THAT thick, can you? maybe you are.

Paul thinks the whole earmarks are corrupt and he is AGAINST them, HOWEVER, because the Executive branch would get the money if Paul didn't appropriate them to his district he is between a rock and hard place, and has no choice but to take the earmarks. What is so hard for you to understand that? I think you are staying willfully ignorant so you can promote your neoconservatism.

If you don't believe this, go look up his explanations on earmarks and then maybe, just maybe, ONCE AND FOR ALL you will stop spewing LIES!! If you disagree with Paul, that's fine, but do NOT misstate his positions to advance your own agenda.

Your turn...

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:10PM

You really are gullible to swallow Ron Paul's manufactured excuse for his addiction to earmarks.

There are no lies these are the earmarks Ron Paul has supported. Like the Obama disciples and Lyndon Larouche's devotees Ron Paul's followers cannot except the truth.

Why don't you go to the Congressional Record and look up Ron Paul's support for these earmarks and quit being a blind follower. Think for yourself and quit swallowing the lies and distortions of Ron Paul.

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 1:27AM

Brain (Igor movie) is wound a little tight. He demands proof gives none himself. Paul is a nut. Brian worships the nut please for the love of god quit trying to convince the nut that his hero is another nut. Paul will not be president, he's a nut. pick a new hero.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:00PM

.."but that doesn't explain why I haven't voted for a Republican for president since the first Bush's first election, nor why I publicly opposed John McCain as too weak on first principles."

The Democrats thank you, and Obama thanks you!

And if you sit out 2012, Obama just may invite you over for a few beers!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 8:13AM

Don't forget Michelle Malkin who is attacking Rick Perry for a bad decision on Gardasil while ignoring Perry's (unlike Romney and Romneycare or Ron Paul and earmarks) admission he was wrong and the legislature was right to reverse his decision.

The Rush, Hannity, Coulter (who wants moderate Christie), Malkin, etc.. talkers had a hand in creating the 2006 Democrat Congress and Obama.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:28PM

Michael,

To be fair, Michelle isn't ignoring the apology at all~ she just doesn't think it's all that sincere, and she does explain why. I just got done reading her blog:

http://michellemalkin.com/

Michelle's a very honest individual and I see her points.
As to the "vaccine" it is horrible, and I think and hope and pray it gets pulled from the market. I've done my research. And the fact that it ought to be given to little girls as "protection" against Cancer is disgusting and despicable.

Having send that, I am not blaming Rick Perry for the vaccine, but I do hold him accountable as to his promoting it at all and not doing his homework.

I'm glad he realizes his boo-boo there. And I'll be watching, like all of us are watching, ALL of the potential candidates for President.
The vaccine debacle, in my eyes isn't enough to "disqualify" him, and I bet it'll cause him to be prepared to investigate more seriously anything that a drug company and its lobbyists will try and put forth in the future, and that's a GOOD thing.

I like his fire (in the belly), and his outlook on how things work. I like that he understands what makes the country work: he gets that business needs to prosper, that we need lower taxes, and a strong military.

Just please~ stay away from the drug companies when they come to you with a "vaccine for little girls!!"

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 2:03PM

Thanks for the clarification. I heard her on FOX and should have gone to Townhall and read her article.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:16PM

You're very welcome.

W| 8.18.11 @ 10:29PM

Michael.
How did Rush, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin have a hand in creating the 2006 Democrat Congress and Obama?

Conserdude| 8.18.11 @ 2:34PM

well said!!!

JohnC| 8.18.11 @ 7:58AM

Perry calling out helicopter Ben printing monopoly money is the only thing I really like about him. But both Perry and Romney are liberals at heart and one-world globalists. You should always judge a politician by his voting record and previous positions since they all talk conservative in GOP presidential primaries.

I think Trump will run as an Independent and even though he may be a mixed bag for conservatives at least he is pro-American and not a globalist. If Donald runs at least we-the-people-will have a real choice.

Europe’s banking system is collapsing today and our too-big-to-fail banks are feeling the contagion – looks like another crash in the making. For starters, we need a president who will terminate our multi-national global banks and reinstate the Glass-Segal wall to separate the corner banks from these gambling institutions posing as banks. Globalists Romney or Perry will not, maybe the Donald will.

emo| 8.18.11 @ 8:43AM

Trump wont run. He will have to reveal is net worth on a financial disclosure report. We'd then find out The Donald is worth far far less than he claims

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 9:01AM

That's an interesting perspective, JohnC. I'd like to see Glass Steagall restored as well, and frankly, dump the Dodd Frank Bill while we're at it.

One thing is for sure: As long as the debates remain shallow -- designed as they are to capture nice little sound bytes for the unthinking classes -- the public will be corralled in a pen of the MSM's making and be the poorer for it. Let's have real debates, or ignore them altogether; give us some meat or shut up.

TennesseeVolunteer| 8.18.11 @ 8:02AM

Ross, my question concerns the Fed....You seemed to imply that Perry shouldn't use such words. From where I sit in flyover country trying to keep a business open that feeds five other families, the Fed is deserving of intense scrutiny. They buy Treasuries with money they print? I don't get it!
You really thinnk the "Masters of the Universe" at the Fed have this all figured out? That things are going just great with money/inflation/ lending?
I am not a ron Paul supporter but even we, the Great Unwashed, know something smells to high heaven!
You are sacrificing principle for reality. Pardon me while we in flyover country examine every candidate for their Conservative principles, one of which is the belief in a higher power. One of which is one who is generous with their own money for charitable intents, one of which is someone who will stand up to members of either party for principle, doing the right thing.
Mitt may yet receive the nomination and if so, I will vote for him. But the power of the primaries is for us to register with the candidates what is important, what cannot stand and what we as a people will not compromise on.
You only look for someone who is electable. We are using the primaries to be the fire and heat that forges the steel. Thanks for your opinion and putting it out there but let the process work and don't be so quick to compromise on the standards of your Champion who leads this country. We have great challenges coming to this country and it will take a leader of great integrity, courage and Faith. Look for the leader who fits those descriptions and you will have your Man or Woman to lead this country back from the precipice! All Things are Possible.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 8:12AM

Vol,

I am not a defender of the Fed. I think what the Fed is doing is a huge disservice to the country and enabling our fiscal problems while destroying the dollar.

I am not ONLY looking for electable. If a candidate were electable and simply unacceptable (to me; we each have our own standards) based on principle, I would not support him.

That is why I did not support John McCain, even early on when he seemed electable, and even after his choice of Palin put him very briefly in the lead in polls.

My point is simply that some of Perry's current key characteristics are one that I think would very likely cost him the general election and give us four more years of Obama. It's one thing to be religious, it's another thing to spend time preaching and calling for "intelligent design" to be taught as science.

I appreciate your passion and commitment to the cause of our nation and our liberty, and I share it completely.

Romney does not inspire me, but beating Obama does. If I think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama, I might be able to support him, though I have to say that if he says even once that the federal government should set a standard for public schools that includes teaching intelligent design, I will not support him and might even work overtly against him.

Stormzeye| 8.18.11 @ 9:05AM

Ross,
Though I admire you for getting involved on this message board you really confuse me when you say you'd allow Obama to get re-elected in the event that Perry supports the teaching of ID alongside evolution. You seem terribly confused about the need for this country to rid itself of the alien in the White House. How can you possibly justify four more years of Obama under any circumstances? I would vote for anyone and I mean ANYONE instead of that jug-eared Marxist now posing as the Leader of the Free World. It's too late to look for the ideal candidate.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 9:28AM

I hear ya, and maybe I was exaggerating on that point, but only maybe. I think the idea of teach ID in school is so incredibly crazy that it would make me very hard to trust anything about the candidate, even while recognizing that Obama is the worst president in modern American history.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 4:35PM

Ross,
as an atheist, of course you think crooked. Our founders were men of faith. You think they were loony tunes as well?
Well woopy doo!
Question:
What do you do that would have Christians and Jews despise you?
Hey,
we love you in spite of your stupidity and un-cleaness.
I would be facinated to learn about your secret filthyness.
Then we could understand you....and maybe even forgive you.
I personally always look forward to your columns since you "came out" as an atheist.

Never fear though. God believes in you.

Intelligent Design| 8.18.11 @ 8:02AM

RomneyCare in MA is the parent of ObamaCare. Romney says the MA plan is fine (since he created it), but he opposes ObamaCare. Romney speaks with forked tongue. He would make a good running mate, for Obama.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 8:04AM

Here is why Rick Perry is a superior candidate to Mitt Romney (moderate), Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie (moderate) and Ron Paul (RINO).

As a US Air Force veteran Perry will not tear down the US military and he’d obtain Congressional support before going to war. He also will not appease or encourage radical Muslims in Iran or the fundamentalist Middle East Barack Obama is creating. As for Israel Perry can be counted on to support our democratic ally.

Under Perry’s stewardship Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the US. During Obama’s first year in office, more than half (119,000) of all the new jobs in the United States were created in Rick Perry’s business-friendly Texas, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Between January 2001 and June 2010, the BLS calculates, Texas’ non-farm employment grew from 9,542,400 in January 2001, when Perry took office, to 10,395,800 in June 2010 — an increase of 853,400 or 8.9 percent. Big-government California simultaneously lost 827,800 jobs. As a right-to-work state that taxes neither personal income nor capital gains over the same decade Texas added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. And since the recovery began, Texas has created 37 percent of America’s net new jobs. Again employment in Texas grew more than in the other 49 states combined. Since June 2009, when the recession officially ended, Texas has produced 265,300 net jobs, equal to 36.7 percent of the 722,200 positions created nationwide. Texas isn't just the fastest growing... it's growing over twice as fast as the second fastest state and three times as fast as the third. Given that Texas is huge, this growth is incredible.

As America’s No. 1 exporting state, Perry’s Texas shipped $206.6 billion in goods abroad last year, composing 16 percent of America’s $1.28 trillion in exports. California’s $14.4 billion in exports ranked it second, with 11.2 percent of U.S. outflow.

Texas with Republican governors (1996-2009 or Bush and Perry) who refused to raise taxes and restrained spending saw per capita income jump by more than 42%. Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation. Employment was up 10.5% in Texas.

Perry signed significant tort reform that has losers paying court costs blocking the ALCU, labor unions, environmental extremists and other Democrat special interest groups from killing jobs. Perry signed into law eminent domain legislation to protect property owners from state and local governments. Perry signed voter ID legislation that requires Texans to show photo identification to vote. Perry signed into law pro-life legislation that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram. Under Perry Texas has balanced the books each biennium and slashed spending to reconcile the numbers. The libertarian leaning CATO Institute over his years in Austin give him an average of 60 and he has an A+ NRA rating.

Supposed examples of Perry’s extremism evaporate in sunlight. One is that he intimated support for Texas’s secession from the Union. After people shouted “Secede!” at a rally, he said that he understood their frustration but added: “We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it.” As for treating Ben Bernanke “ugly” that’s not a threat of violence like Obama Democrats wanting to “kill” Mitt Romney it is saying, “we ain’t going to be too friendly when we talk to him about his wrongheaded policies that are destroying the dollar and creating inflation.” The rest was hyperbole and passion. Something lacking in all, but Michelle Bachmann (whose thin resume hurts her).

Here is a quote from the Governor that shows the kind of steel he’s made of: "Abolishing sanctuary cities in Texas, using the federal Secure Communities program and ensuring that only individuals who are here legally can obtain a valid Texas driver's license sends a clear message that Texas will not turn a blind eye to those breaking our laws." It may not be as monumental as “Tear down this wall Mr. Gorbachev,” but it is pretty damn good.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 8:14AM

Michael, how about answering my primary question:

If come primary time you believe that Romney has a better chance of beating Obama than Perry has, whom will you support in the primary?

Doctor Right| 8.18.11 @ 8:43AM

The question makes no sense. WHY would he think that Romney is the better candidate by Primary time?

Perry is already ahead if Romney in the polls. Clearly, a lot of people already think that Perry is "the better candidate".

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 9:37AM

Doc,

Rick Perry has jumped ahead of the others because he has some obvious credibility and nobody really knows much about him. We are bored to tears with Romney and his big government approach; Michelle Bachman sounds really good, but dammit, she does not have much practical experience; Tim Pawlenty looked and sounded too much like Gomer Pyleand clearly is not a closer; Gingrich is not serious; Cain is interesting but rather 'gaffy.' Ron Paul is unrealistically isolationist;
Santorum seems conservative, but couldn't win in his home state...

So Rick Perry's big numbers will fall in his polling as more people come to know more about him, unless he does or says something significant.

It's still early and we do not yet have all the players named...

Don't tread on me...

Art| 8.18.11 @ 8:45AM

What does "better chance of beating Obama" mean? Like McCain had a better chance of beating Obama that Romney or Guliani? Are you thinking about the polls to tell you who has a better chance? You don't think this country is eager for a Christian after four years of a Jeremiah Wright America hating guy? I do.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:15AM

Romney was the better candidate in 2008 that's why I supported him in my primary despite McCain having the nomination. I didn’t care if my vote was thrown away I was making a statement. But once McCain was the nominee I supported him 100%. I’ll do that next year too unless it is Ron Paul.

Now is the time for the GOP to break the losing idea that we have to give the nomination to the "heir apparent” (Romney or Palin).

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:37PM

Hi again Micheal,

I like reading your thoughts here, and find them interesting. What I did was, when Thompson dropped out of the race, I voted for McCain in the primary because I knew he was going to win the primary (ours was in June in NJ).

I wanted to help to make sure that we'd get a Republican in the W.H.~ even if it had to be McCain. I hold my nose and vote, even though Sarah being on the ticket gladdened it somewhat~ as I always have, for the Republican who can win.

To me, it's far better than allowing my vote to go to the Democrats.
I've said that if R. Paul happens to become the nominee, that I'd vote for him, because at least we'd have a Republican administration~ but what KIND of Repub admin would we have?? I shudder to think of it!!

Imagine a non-interventionist, anti-Israel, For drug legalization and every other type of legalization immoral bunch we'd have in there?

May as well vote for a Democrat!

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:36PM

Margie, every day I admit people with positive drug screens for THC.I'll vote for a Texan if it is Paul on the Republican ballot---it will be for Old Texican. There are limits. Hell, if Ken RAN i'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:21PM

Excellent points, and well taken. ;^0.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 8:51AM

Ross,
Michael went to some trouble to answer you already.
He will vote for Elmer Fudd in the general, and he will watch the primaries play out as will we all.

In the immortal words of Forest Gump; "Stupid is as stupid does."
From a failed Governorship, Romney is smarter?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 8:55AM

Rick Perry, because he has a far better chance of defeating and crushing Barack Obama than Romney. His Reaganesque personal charm and people centric campaign style will make the woody New Englander fall flat.

America wants real leadership after 4 years of incompetence. Perry with his proven record of successful leadership of the Texas economic powerhouse puts him head and shoulders above the rest of the current crop of GOP candidates and potential candidates (Paul Ryan and Chris Christie).

Romney's resume and clear pandering makes him look Obamaesque and that will not play well in the primaries or general election. Until Perry entered the race Republicans were willing to accept Romney, because they thought of those running he was the only one who could beat Obama, but now we know we have a leader who cannot only beat Obama, but will govern as a conservative who works with our new Republican Congressional majority.

Perry-Rubio (my guess, because he'll give us Florida and a bridge to Hispanic votes) will do to Obama-Biden what Reagan did to Carter-Mondale.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:38PM

Dear Michael:

I have my reservations about Perry, but I'd vote for him. By the time it comes to me it will be too late for my vote to matter---I'm in MN.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:43PM

That's the primary. For the main election, I line up with Ross precisely---Paul will get us killed.

Larry| 8.18.11 @ 8:10AM

I like Rick Perry. If he's the nominee, we'll be hearing nothing but "Look what happened last time a governor from Texas became the president."

POST American| 8.18.11 @ 8:11AM

"Rick Perry's strategy is now to
pretend he's Ron Paul--"
-ALEX JONES
(yesterday)

With all those defections from the soon to be
'warmly' examined Rock--F-L-O op---guess
the FAKE OUTS aren't working as seamlessly
as they once did.

MEANWHILE, the RED China TREASON OP
races against the clock of the pubic's spreading revelation by sowing dragon's teeth in the form of that 'first of several' RC sovereignty zones
(south of Boise) ---and that mammoth tunnel project connecting Pidgeon Lake B.C. with Asia.

Consider that moment in 2015-20 when your
kid looks up at you and asks:

--"Daddy, WHY are all the police suddenly CHINESE?"

WHY daddy? -----------WHY?

Think about it, as the free traitors of 'Free Trade'
pay not a farthing for what is, unquestionably,
the highest and gravest and most sordid of
CAP--IT--ALL crimes.

Dan Mathewson| 8.18.11 @ 7:23PM

Are you sure that it's from Aisa to a lake in British Columbia? It's at least 3139.4miles from the lake in B.C. Kamchatskiy, Russia (Stream, Kamchatskaya Oblast'). Lord knows how deep the Pacific is in that region. Here's the lat. For B.C. lake 53° 0' 0" and here's the lat. for Kamchatskiy stream 56° 1' 19". How is it posssible to build a tunnel between the two lacation? Where the hell does the dirt go????

Clint| 8.18.11 @ 8:23AM

The GOP Ruling Elite & their Media Flunkies are setting us up for their "Annointed One", Mittens Romney.

Start now to stop them.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

emo| 8.18.11 @ 8:27AM

Ross:

Youre missing the Morman issue. Even if Romney "appears" more electable in Jan 2012, he wont be by Nov 2012. Up until 1978, the Morman church preached the inferiority of blacks. IN 1978!!! Romney was a member of this church as an adult in 1978. This is 15 years AFTER MLKs march on Washington and more than a decade after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The media wont attack Romney on LDS in the primaries but certainly will in the general election. It is a myth that Mitt is more electable

Lawrence of Lutz| 8.18.11 @ 8:28AM

Electing Romney would not stop Obamacare, the country would continue sliding into Socialism. The states would no longer be independent as they were before the creation of the Federal government. Every thing would continue to be dictitated from Washington, D.C.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 8:29AM

HERE WE GO
(oVER AT nro)
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rich-lowry

JohnC| 8.18.11 @ 8:31AM

What about those of us who want Intelligent Design taught and are sick of paying our whole life for atheistic, liberal and anti-American government schools? School vouchers are the answer that give we-the-people a choice. Not sure I heard any GOP presidential candidate talk about this issue.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 9:41AM

John C,
Well spoken.
Have you noted that Perry hasn't said one word about gay folks.
Instead he simply speaks as a Christian: "forgive the sin..........love the sinner."

Personally, I have come to believe that folks are either "born gay" or "bent gay"....sad in any event.

Heck, it is their bedroom and their lives. I think Governor Perry feels pretty much the same way.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 10:51AM

I hope Gov. Perry does a little less feeling and a lot more thinking on this issue.

I invite, you, Ken, to link over to amnation.com/vfr, use its search field (scroll down a bit), and read the discussion regarding Perry's lamentable remarks related to NY state's recent vote to legalize homosexual marriage. There is definitely some food for thought among the comments.

Dan Hirsch| 8.18.11 @ 9:47AM

The Federal Government should not have ANYTHING to say about teaching in local schools. End the Department of Education now!

That would save $106.944 billion dollars in 2010...

Why does every politician say we have to gut social security and medicare when you could save all of that money by ending a non-Constitutional Cabinet department?

Don't tread on me...

PS For the numbers look here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar.....department

Art| 8.18.11 @ 8:36AM

I don't know who this writer is, and that is too much to know about him. This story is filled with so many hypotheticals I couldn't follow what he was writing as fact and what was brainfarts.

He's bought into the media and establishment Republican misdirection; I would bet that when Reagan came on the scene to challenge Ford and then Carter Kaminsky said the same: not very intelligent and too many negatives. To make the statment that Perry is not as intelligent as Romney, I say: In your next expose tell us what in your background qualifies you to assert this.

I will, on the other hand, say that Perry is smarter than Obama. Does that make him electible? Yes. Obama has made so many stupid statements and assertions I'm convinced it's one of the reasons the guy won't release his transcripts.

So, Kiminsky, stick to whatever you know best, and let us know just what that is. This article sure doesn't tell us.

Petronius| 8.18.11 @ 8:36AM

Way to go Ross. You finally admitted that moderates are liberals who won't admit it. And the fact that real conservatives want most vestiges of the "old" America back has you scared stiff about what your friends would think and say about you if you voted for one of "Us". We do want some of the "old" limits on public behavior we enjoyed 50 years ago when we didn't have to put up with the pot heads, perverts, parasites, and all other varieties of ambulatory flea colonies demanding we accept them on their terms without any reciprocity. And keep bringing up secession too. That is already happening over cultural issues anyway. Most of us "Real Americans" have had all we can stand. If wanton living is that important to you and yours, move to Amsterdam and waste away with the rest of the pond life. A President who has some Oliver Cromwell in him is what we need before we degenerate into what we saw happen in the UK last week. The total cost of such mayhem and behavior is paid by the rest of us who get robbed, beaten, and burned out of Our businesses and homes. So Ross, you have a decision to make. Be a civilized person, or take your anything goes attitude else where.
And a tip of the cap to you Appleby. Cheers.

DON| 8.18.11 @ 9:13AM

well said.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 9:39AM

Some moderates are liberals won't admit it. Some, and I know many, are Republicans who lean only slightly conservative.

Part of the issue here, and it's completely understandable, is that political junkies like all of us on these pages sometimes forget that the majority of Americans don't think about the election until very close to election time.

Like it or not, appearance matters a lot and the media has a lot to say about what the appearance will be. I guarantee that the media's treatment of Perry will make Palin look like a moderate.

I don't want "wanton living", though I do want liberty, and when you get into telling people how to live -- especially from the federal level -- then the solution is worse than the problem.

I don't want a "squish" president. I want a president who is extremely strong in doing the things that the federal government is supposed to do, and not other things.

On that score, I like Perry a lot in that he seems to be one of the strongest supporters of federalism I've seen in a long time. He even talks about abortion as a states' rights issue, which I agree with and which many religious conservatives probably don't love.

For what it's worth, I have lived in Amsterdam. It's a wonderful city with no flash mobs. Furthermore, most of the "wanton behavior" there is by tourists, not by locals. But I digress...

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 8:41AM

As a Democrat, I agree with this analysis, the only Republican candidate (right now) who can possibly beat Obama is Romney. My hope is of course Palin,Bachmann, or Perry (In that order) get the nomination, of course a Nice Ron Paul third party run couldn't hurt either....

emo| 8.18.11 @ 8:46AM

Bet you thought the same thing of McCain in 2008

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 8:57AM

No, I thought the SAME in 2008, Romney might have won.

emo| 8.19.11 @ 12:02AM

Romney would not have won in 2008, but at least he wouldnt be a candidate in 2012.

chuck| 8.18.11 @ 7:41PM

I really don't give much credence to what you say. As a Democrat, you really can't be too damned intelligent.

JP| 8.18.11 @ 8:56AM

The thing to keep in the back of ones mind when thinking of electability is whether the GOP candidate will:

a)Maintain the course of the person he defeated (in this case President Obama)
b)or radically work to not only repeal much of the damage of the previous President, but also set a totally new trajectory.

Mitt gives the MSM and the RNC warm fuzzies. Obviously the people in the Oval Office believe he is a shoe-in (if you believe Politco). Let's just assume he does win. My biggest fear is that he only slows the new trajectory our President has set.

Personally, I don't think there is much difference between Mitt and Perry other than style. Both are slick, professional politicians who love to play the game. Niether appear willing to huge risks concerning policy in the way Reagan did in the 1960s and 1970s.

PJ| 8.18.11 @ 11:20AM

"My biggest fear is that he(any Republican president from the current potential) only slows the new trajectory our President has set."

Just spoke to someone from a health insurance company. They are setting up shop with the idea that Obamacare will never completely go away.

Your last paragraph hit it right on the head, as of now. I'm still reading & watching.

Von Mises Jr.| 8.18.11 @ 8:59AM

With all due respect, the lesson from Thompson is that he had no enthusiasm. Romney is playing defense while his commitment to the conservative and libertarian movement is suspect at best.

Reagan had enthusiasm and took it right to Carter. The right and independents loved it. So he may scare the writer, but Perry seems to be tapping into the same patriotism and conviction that made Reagan the best president in modern times.

Kelly Staples| 8.18.11 @ 9:03AM

Perry's cornball tough-guy Texas schtick is already wearing thin. And haven't the Islamo-Nazis shown that superstition and politics aren't a healthy mix? I'm less than thrilled with Mittens, but we cannot take another four years of B.O.

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 9:09AM

Well the 'Cornball' tough guy image+ wearing his Dominionism on his sleeve= The Great Cornholio

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:23AM

To compare Christianity to Islam is not only stupid it is disgusting. You might want to pull your head out of your derriere. If you must compare Islam with any group it should be atheists since both groups historically used mass murder, terror and intimidation to advance their causes based on dominating the world.

How do you think Mormonism will play with those who are as narrow-minded as you? I can see why you're turned off by a real man like Perry.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:40PM

And sadly, there are some who call themselves Christian and compare those of us who preach the gospel here with Mullahs and Islamists as well!

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:34PM

Well, Margie, I think you're sweet.

emo| 8.19.11 @ 12:04AM

Mitt will have to spend lots and lots of time explaining the LDS position on race. A position of segregation and black inferority as last as 1978. Mitt was an adult in 1978. Did he subscribe to the LDS position on race 15 years after MLK marched on Washington?

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 12:51AM

The thing is, I really don't think they care, if you're talking about the media, and I think it's because Mitt is their man.
They want him to be the nominee, don't they? Because he'll be easily beaten by Obama.

DON| 8.18.11 @ 9:07AM

Romney is the architect of Obamacare.And he refuese to even acknowledge anything about it at all.
That far,far overshadows Perry's stance on Immigration. Perry will tell you, to our face, why he does what he does or doesn;t do.
That is not even close and I am no fan of illegal "anything".
I am a Perry fan, bigtime. He has grown his economy, he believes in States rights and limited Govt..
There is a lot to like.. a lot... No one will be the perfect candidate and best I can tell..he was elected several times and has not quit in mid term.

JerseyJones| 8.18.11 @ 9:35AM

The thrust of your article could have been made (And was) against Ronald Reagan in 1980. What pundits and our own elite have failed to recognize is that they view independents as morons. Yes, they're so easily manipulated that though they have no job, have a house upside down, can't figure out how to pay for kid's college and they're turned off in the extreme by Obama et al...they're still more horrified by a Texas twang. And though a majority pray (And pray for jobs?) they're frightened by prayer in public.

Rick Perry is not Christine O'Donnell. Mitt Romney is George H.W. Bush, and Obamneycare is his tax pledge, already broken.

Rick Perry is Johnny Cash. He has the belly for a fight. He is not Sarah Palin, who quit her first term early. He is not W who could not form a simple sentence without fear of tripping up. He is not McCain, who was once Chris Mathews' most frequent guest. Perry's conversion from D to R is not evidence of a flip flop any more than Reagan's. The party left him. Al gore left him. Politically his switch is proof he is not a hyper partisan and will appeal to independents. He is not ivy league educated, like Tim Geithner. His military service speaks much for him, compared to Mitt Romney, another silver spooner.

He has fight in him. This is going to be the most important ingredient in the campaign because it is believed by all that Chicago likes to "get ugly" no less than Texas. One quality that Perry seems to have...that does not appear as strongly in anyone else is leadership. Perry at first blush seems to be a leader. I do not feel that from Romney. I do not feel that from Bachman. Leadership is something you have, or do not. Obama does not. He was escorted to the Oval Office by his court and jesters. Perry will have to lead his way to power, and so will Romney. Romney's bland absence during the debt ceiling raise does not indicate leadership is spontaneous in Mitt.

Romney must defeat Perry to win. Minimally, this struggle will be a fine sparring partner for Obama. If he cannot do so, why should we expect different results than we got with the decent, fine and listless McCain campaign of '08?

Is there risk in Perry? Of course. Is there no less risk in Romney? Romney care is the architectural sketches for Obamacare. I bet Romney prays (Privately) that this idiotic decision (Despite his fine education!) does not derail his brave leadership as he marches for the White House.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 9:41AM

As a wise man once said, you may be right.

My opinion is nothing more than that.

I agree with you that the debate between Romney and Perry will be interesting and important.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:56AM

JerseyJones you have hit on an important point Team Obama is going to dive into the gutter and throw sh*t not mud. There is only one Republican running now who can fight that and stay cool and personable -- Rick Perry.

I know some want Paul Ryan, but he's a Tim Pawlenty and one trick pony. His Medicare plan is toxic and he didn't seem to have the stomach for a Senate fight (the excuse he wasn't running, because he wanted to write a DOA budget rings hollow and fearful).

Chris Christie, a moderate, will not go down well with the bulk of the nation. I like how he handles unions, but he sometimes comes off a little high handed (shutup, none of your business and the helicopter ride). The Tony Soprano school of politics may work in NJ, but I'm not sure how it will play in the Midwest or South.

Of course, any real Republican (not RINO Paul) would make a better President than Barack Obama.

JerseyJones| 8.18.11 @ 10:26AM

Paul Ryan has a knack for political combat that I did not see in Pawlenty. I do not know much about him but I did see him school Obama in public meetings during Obamacare show trials. But a governor generally trumps a congressman. We need an executive. Ryan could not beat Perry. Christie is not running. If he did, he leaves too much unfinished business in NJ and Perry is in his 11th year. I like Christie but his dalliance with various dubious Muslim groups in NJ is well, dubious.

Perry is new but so was Huntsman. Perry evokes reaction because there's more to him than Huntsman. Perry is a hunter. To defeat Axelrod and the people who hobnob with Bill Ayers and Louis Farrakhan, we need someone good to go. Perhaps Perry can prep Romney for combat. I do not like Romney's odds when going against Rahm-bo working in tandem with the overall media. And one point I agree with made above somewhere: Romney's religion will become an issue if nominated. He will be asked about its racist or allegedly racist precepts while he was an adult. No less than Perry, he will be smeared as a racist motivated by hatred of Dear Leader's skin color and not his Noam Chomsky thinking patterns.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:59AM

JerseyJones I like Ryan, but even when he "schooled" Obama it was respectful. That's not what we'll need in this dirty Democrat electoral year. We need a rough and tumble politician who can give as good as he gets that's Perry.

I didn't want to bring up Christie's naiveté about Islam. Thought it might make him look too much like Ron Paul.

I agree on the Governor point. Republicans should always run a successful Governor for the Presidency. Reagan and Bush showed how that benefits while Dole and McCain showed the weakness of Senators or members of Congress.

I would have supported Mike Pence if he’d have run despite my preference for Governors. I think that’s why he’s going home to be Governor of Indiana (probably a little premature, but I think he’s got it in the bag) a desire to get executive experience.

JGwen| 8.18.11 @ 9:35AM

In re Romney: When a candidate assures me he can get along with Democrats, I am not comfortable. The current Democratic party is heavily represented by hard left progressives, who’s views are being promulgated as the party’s action plans. I do not want capitulations and/or accommodations with Socialist programs. When a candidate opines Global Warming/Climate Change exists, humans are contributing to the problem and the problem needs to be addressed ... I envision Cap and Trade; EPA drilling, mining and fracking bans ... in other words further leaching of tax moneys, rate payer moneys and all the other energy scams the current Administration perpetuates are likely to be continuing. When I hear Massachusetts care is successful and a good step in the right direction, coupled with staff supporting Health Insurance Exchanges, I see a possibility of renewed federal undesirable interventions into the health care issues, even if a repeal of Obamacare is accomplished. I can not favor any candidate that appears to follow the old line rino inclinations.

[Re Perry’s Intellect - PULL QUOTE from “Perry’s Red-Hot Bernanke Slam”, A Commentary By Lawrence Kudlow: “So it turns out that Governor Perry -- even with his overly strong language -- is a pretty sharp economic and monetary analyst.”]

I would suggest a closer look at Governor/Candidate Perry’s accomplishments and exercised principles. I would note that whether all the Texas’ stellar records are fully and directly attributable to Governor Perry or not, he has been there, has seen and knows what it takes to foster success!

As for religion, I - as an agnostic join other agnostics, in a conclusion that the Governor’s beliefs will not negatively effect his governance of my nation. If anything I would expect them to contribute beneficially to his views of governance. I am not concerned with Perry’s or Romney’s religious beliefs. Neither has called on me to join in their religious belief systems or surrender to said systems Rules of Order. Over all I believe such values (most religious values) strengthen the believers, increase their morality and their desires to make our country/the world a better place for all of us. (That is providing they aren’t bent on smiting unbelievers.)

At this point I continue to be very positive about the Perry candidacy.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 9:55AM

JGwen,
well spoken.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 9:59AM

JGwen I agree w/ Ken.

One of the thing that turned me off on Sarah Palin (beyond quitting) was her statement she could and would support Demcorats for elective office. I understand compromise is sometimes necessary in politics, but the eagerness to embrace national Democrats should make Republicans and conservatives hesitant to support a candidate in the primaries.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:41PM

Michael,

Yes she said that, but didn't she mean she'd vote for them IF they agreed with us?
LOL~ I know Sarah would not vote for a Leftist.

fmm| 8.18.11 @ 1:00PM

Your parenthetical comment, (That is providing they aren’t bent on smiting unbelievers.), speaks to liberal truth as they are committed to smiting anyone who does not believe in their religion

talkradio55| 8.18.11 @ 9:45AM

"Electable" means "squishy moderate". The only reason people say Romney is electable is because his conservatism is easily called into question. Romney is a shifty character and being pushed by the same people who told us we all had to run to John McCain in 2008.

We don't know all that much about Perry, just yet. I will withhold commentary on Perry's conservatism until more facts about him come out.

Notice that candidates whose conservatism is not in question: Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, are being written off and we're being told they don't have a prayer. I am tired of putting up with candidates whose conservatism is in question. We have to push real conservative candidates who do not have a history of rolling over and accepting the premises of the Left. Romney has rolled over on global warming and Obamneycare. His candidacy should be over because of his healthcare bill. As Santorum pointed out in the debate, just because the 10th Amendment allows the states to do something, doesn't make it a good idea.

I would take Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum as my top three picks for President. Perry is 4th at the moment, and the rest are further down. Romney is right above Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Time for conservatives to take the party back from the moderates and win a landslide victory in 2012.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 9:59AM

Talkradio,
Well parsed.
We know Rick pretty well down here in Texas. He has had a couple of oopsies.....and knows he screwed up and has said so.
On the important stuff...he has been a solid leader.
Check this article over at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rich-lowry

JerseyJones| 8.18.11 @ 9:58AM

I heard that Perry won 39 percent of Hispanic vote in last election. If this is true, then he is not only more electable than Romney, he is a mortal threat to the larger narrative of the liberals going forward.

Perry should reach out to black evangelicals, and go over the heads of the Cornell Wests and Tavis Smileys to speak directly to African American voters on why his vision is worth considering and that he is fighting for their votes. If I was on his campaign, I would visit the south side of Chicago in the next few weeks and view Obama's "organizing" successes. Perry may not win a lot of votes, but he will earn respect and neuter Chris Mathews' drooling stupidity.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 10:01AM

Jersey another valid point. If he picks Rubio as his Veep that will not only help us in Florida, but blow the Hispanic voting bloc wide open.

DON| 8.18.11 @ 12:12PM

that is the ticket.. and find room for Herman Cain and Bachman and it's all over for O

tj| 8.18.11 @ 12:06PM

Jersey Jones I like that! Did you send this comment to RP's headquarters! Makes perfect sense!

Conserdude| 8.18.11 @ 10:01AM

This article is such BS, with a tinge of anti-religion mixed in. Romney is more vulnerable because of Romneycare and flip-flopping, but could still beat Obama, while Perry is a stronger candidate because of a ten-year governorship with a great jobs record - nuff said. This obsession with turning off "moderates" is absurd, as evidenced by "moderate" John McCain's 2008 loss. The election is about Obama, who won in 2008 with more vulnerabilities than most of the current GOP field becuase that election was about the record of Bush and Republicans.

michael| 8.18.11 @ 10:09AM

Kaminsky makes too much of "brains". In choosing presidents, look what "brains" has gotten us.

Carter had been touted as "brilliant", Clinton was "the smartest President since Thomas Jefferson" and Obama has been described as "the smartest President EVER".

Nobody ever called TR or FDR or Truman or Nixon "brilliant". GWB was characterized as a dummy. Reagan was described, while he was President, as "an amiable dunce". Palin is a written off as a supposed dummy. Now it's apparently Perry's turn in the barrel.

Romney, in Kaminsky's view, must not be a dummy. We are to ignore the fact that he is not decisive enough or principled enough to stick to a coherent policy and we are to ignore his sponsorship of Romneycare.

Actually, we already have a president with these very attributes. His name is Barack Obama.

Good thinking, Kaminsky.

Conserdude| 8.18.11 @ 2:38PM

the four smartest presidents in that last 100 years in terms of intellect were the 20th century's biggest failures, 2 Dems and 2 Republicans: Wilson, Hoover, Nixon and Carter. Obama doesn't qualify for this category since he's a huge failure, but not at all smart.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:31PM

Truman was smarter than Wilson, Hoover, Nixon, and Carter. He was BLINDINGLY bright.

RCV| 8.18.11 @ 11:32PM

He was one of a kind - one of the greats.

emo| 8.19.11 @ 12:07AM

Youre correct the smartest, book smart anyways, were Nixon, Carter, Hoover and Wilson.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:32PM

"Brains" can sometimes be good.

Lincoln comes to mind, as does Truman and Polk. But these guys didn't wave it in people's faces. But Lincoln was the finest writer among the Presidents.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:33PM

Yeah, and I am including Jefferson and Madison.

martin j smith| 8.18.11 @ 10:12AM

Both men are farrrrrrrrrrr from perfect-but if I had to choose one it would be Perry. I think he has more cajones than Romney and that is a plus. But then again lets see how they play the game and besides there is Bachman and who knows who else --right ?

JerseyJones| 8.18.11 @ 10:14AM

I think also of the day Obama landed at an airport in Texas and there was the Governor to shake his hand...and hand him a letter personally that had been sent more conventionally to President Obama, but alas, unanswered. Perry handed it to him with that mofo smile. Obama wasn't smiling. That was my first impression of Perry and I sensed someone who has fire in the belly. I don't think Romney would have done that. Maybe I'm wrong.

9thID| 8.18.11 @ 10:31AM

Even after the rise of the Tea Party and the November “shellacking” it seems the GOP establishment is hell bent on setting up a McCain redux! While the GOP may be stupid enough to put forth the likes of Mitt Romney as their candidate, a large portion of the GOP, and Independents like me, will NOT vote for the lesser of two evils again. Romney is a RINO (northeast-establishment left-of-center Republican if you prefer), one of the neo-Socialists, a flip flopper on the 2nd Amendment, Abortion, and gay activism. Romney is Obama lite and just like his disciple Scott Brown, once elected will flip back to liberalism. Obama is entirely beatable, but if the GOP puts out another RINO, many of us will stay home (again), or promote a 3rd party candidate. It may be time to replace the GOP as they replaced the Whigs. They appear to be stubbornly irredeemable...

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 10:54AM

You are an independent? When was the last Democrat you voted for? Usually an independent is someone without HARD views one way or another.You sound fringe right.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:30PM

I voted for Don Seigelman as Alabama Governor in 1996, I think? He was a Dem, and later convicted, but I still liked him as a Governor of 'Bama.

In NJ he would have been much farther to the right than Christie.

emo| 8.19.11 @ 12:09AM

Youre confusing moderate with independent. Independent means not associated with either party. A disgusted conservative is an independent.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:45PM

Hey, "Neo-Socialists" ~ I like that. It truly IS what some seem to dabble in on or side.
What with Romney-Care and mandatory vaccines.
Though we know they have both repented of these things.
Keep a firm grip on reality my Republican candidates~ we do NOT want more Socialism!!!

TURK| 8.18.11 @ 10:56AM

rOSS

tRADER--hEARTLAND--rASPUTIN--BACKBOne.

Lose the beard! And in the Title of the inimitable Herman Cain's book-They Think You're Stupid, I thought you had to leave us to go "trade". We're not stupid Ross; we have heard from a symphony of guys like you(in 08) that pee their pants when the other party looks like it might nominate a guy or gal who will rub the marxist nose in it. Unprecedented in your limp follow on comments you are like the lunatics on cnbc when they end up looking crazy. They get crazier.

It will not work this time! There will not be a jerk off like Huckabee to screen for the RINO. AND---we aren't buying the---the independents just love candy a---d repub candidates line!!!

Stick to whatever you do on backbone-rasputin-or whatever. How DID you get past RET???

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 11:30AM

Putting aside your moronic tone for a moment, I would point out that I never said independents want a wimp (paraphrasing you.)

I said they didn't want a religious zealot and loudmouth. At least they usually don't. In times this bad, it's possible, though unlikely, that someone like that might have a chance.

It will be interesting to see in the betting odds how the odds of Obama winning correlate with the odds of Romney vs Perry being the nominee.

emo| 8.19.11 @ 12:11AM

Ross:

Youre really missing the point about Romney.

LDS will be an issue as will the LDS position on race while Mitt was an adult member of the church.

Secondly, Mitt wont fight back against Obama the way Perry will. A candidate who doesnt fight back loses.

Also your Ken Buck lost because of the dysfunctional Colorado GOP Gov race plus Tancredo running as an independent. had there been a good GOP candidate for Gov, Buck would have won his Senate race.

michael| 8.18.11 @ 10:59AM

Having read all the comments, I would like to offer a thought: we conservatives lose elections because we divide our forces by fighting among ourselves. We try to use the political process to impose what are essentially religious values. A lot of voters don't like that.

We try to sell conservative economic policies (which many people of both parties would support). If we stuck to that, we could win more than we do.

We undermine our objective of winning elections when we impose on our candidates an entire set of other standards by which we judge their "fitness". Democrats do not do this to their candidates, ever. Specifically, we demand of our candidates that they pass a litmus test of religious purity--how do they feel about abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, ID versus evolution, etc.

This not only skews the selection process, but also opens the door to mischaracterizations by the media--especially by characterizing our candidates as Stone Age minds. There is too much disagreement about these social issues to accomplish anything but division.

Why don't we quit playinmg into our enemies' hands and quit evaluating candidates by their views on abortion, etc? It is not the President's job to try to force his personal views on the electorate, and to that extent his or her personal views are irrelevant..

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 11:11AM

Bravo!, the problem is there is NO definition of 'Conservative' some are Financial, some are Social, some are Libertarian. Conservatives are all about LIMITING choice, Progressives welcome choice. I could care less if a Democrat personally hated abortion, as long as he didn't restrict it for everyone, he/she could have any PERSONAL opinion.

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 4:55PM

Kingofthenet:
Given your comment, "Progressives welcome choice," it's highly unlikely that you're acquainted with the following test:

"Which side of the fence? 
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
 If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. 
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. 
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
 A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
 Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. 
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
 A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
 A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended.”'

The choice inhibitors are the progressives/statists -- and done solely to achieve power over others and to lubricate, or does 'grease' sound better (?), the palms of their donor base.

The choices implied by your comment, Kotn, are all choices related to "Thou shalt not." Your real beef is against God whom you have dethroned and erected in His place a god of your own making: yourself.

skip| 8.18.11 @ 7:11PM

Kingoftheusefulidiots must have made the choice to no longer participate.

In fairness, Kingoftheusefulidiots does have a "Thou shall", however:

"I like a Basic Govt. Safety Net, makes me feel I will always have someone who cares." (Kingoftheusefulidiots 7.28.11 @ 5:34PM)

When Kingoftheusefulidiots makes a choice to misplace his faith, Kingoftheusefulidiots makes the choice a doozy.

As usual, great post darcy; I will continue to make the choice to greatly enjoy them.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:29PM

Ah yes, and so will I, skip. She's a fine one is she not?

darcy| 8.19.11 @ 12:06AM

Blimey, Skip and Margie; flutter, flutter, pitter patter.

It's very nice to have friends.

Roy| 8.18.11 @ 7:08PM

Yeah, sure.

Why don't we stop trying to impose tax cuts for billionaires, when plenty of people in both parties support ending the arbitrary slaughter of unborn infants for the sexual convenience of their "parents"?

Two can play that game.

Son of Liberty| 8.18.11 @ 11:17AM

You may have a point. But, at the same time, you're telling the conservatives that we are left with the prospect of electing another big government Bush-type. Because, deep down inside, I believe Romney is a big government guy just like his dad was. Romneycare is an example of this and his stint as governor in Massachussetts had other examples. His global warming stance is another example.

It might be easier to vote for him if we could be guaranteed that we would have a strongly conservative House and Senate to control him and that he would only serve one term as a bridge from Obama to a true conservative President. At the same by, by November 2012 I might be able to stake my bet that Obama and his crew will have screwed things up so bad that the electorate will be looking to elect anyone but Obama.

The bigger problem is that the Republicans keep serving up less than desirable choices for candidates. We need the Rubio/Ryan/Christie types who will not only stand on principle but who also can articulate conservative values and principles and their benefits to the average person and go toe-to-toe with the purveyors of the deception of liberalism. To date we have not seen that candidate.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 11:31AM

I agree with you. I think I've been clear that Romney is not my idea of a good time. I like all the guys you mention better, but they're still not ready.

My motto: Paul Ryan for President in 2020! (And I've told him that myself.)

simon templar| 8.18.11 @ 8:04PM

Scott Walker agrees with you. Shudder!

fmm| 8.18.11 @ 12:48PM

You need to review Bachmann's record. She is exactly that type, standing on principle is her driving force and she does not back down.

Earl Bohn| 8.18.11 @ 11:21AM

Come on, Ross. "... a slightly drunk love child of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ... "? That sounds like personal bitterness, not political analysis. And how much do you truly know about independents? I'm one, and I'm not atypical: born and raised in a staunchly Democratic family in a blue-collar city; voted that way through Bill Clinton’s first term, and fell away from the church for much of my youth, to my regret in late middle age. I vote for conservatives now and have no love for the RNC or other ruling-class Republicans. Do you suggest we vote for a president because he speaks like a Harvard Law Review editor by way of Hyde Park and Hawaii? They all have feet of clay. I prefer the brand of frail humans who are willing to acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the author of our unalienable rights and who brandish the Tenth Amendment as the Founders indented against the relentless urge of central governments to usurp power. In analyzing the sentiments of independent voters, you should practice dynamic scoring: this large demographic bulge called the Baby Boom generation -- which is overrepresented among independents and the TEA Party -- is a work in progress, and perhaps, who knows, the bulk of those 60 million clocks may be about to chime together.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 11:34AM

Earl,

I thought that line was pretty funny.

There's no personal bitterness. I don't know Perry and have no reason to be bitter.

Also, I'm not saying someone has to be an Ivy Leaguer to be president. I'm saying that someone has to appeal to the nation and not just to Texas.

There are dozens of factors in whether someone will go for a candidate. An accent or a single policy position or whatever is not likely to be determinative in itself. But if Perry puts himself in a position to be caricatured as a far-right deep-south evangelical nut, then the press will caricature him that way to great effect, regardless of any truth.

And it is that which causes me to raise the question of electability.

Wayne | 8.18.11 @ 11:32AM

Romney can't get beyond a third of the GOP support. Seems to me that is saying Romney is NOT electable, and that is why we keep looking for anew candidate. Now its Ryan and Christie's turn. Give up on Romney. He is stuck with his support of Cap and Trade and his own version of ObamaCare. Its an albatross over his head.

sjccoach| 8.18.11 @ 11:34AM

I can only speak for myself. If Mitt Romney is the nominee I will vote third party. If there is no third party choice then I will not vote in the presidential election. Mr. Romney is Obama light. Why elect a RINO that will continue Obama's policies? The country needs a real choice.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.18.11 @ 11:42AM

Although I wouldn't end up with the same decision as you, I can't fault your view. This is how I felt (and what I did) following the McCain nomination in 2008.

I don't think Romney is Obama light, but I repeat what I said before: you could be right.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:21PM

It is unfair to describe Romney as Obama lite. He is a Republican who believes in the free market and capitalism that cannot be truthfully said about Obama. He is definitely a moderate Republican and gives the appearance of being oppportunistic (I believe his positions running for Governor of MA were manufactured and generally what he says now reflect his personal beliefs).

Obama revealed in his slavish statements about China that he believes in a government directed economy and truly wants to destroy America's dominance in the world. That is why he's so screwed up our economy and is so truly dangerous.

9th ID| 8.18.11 @ 11:20PM

Yeah, like RomneyCare is "free market captialism". LOL!

tj| 8.18.11 @ 12:14PM

because the house and senate will both be filled with tea. BET ON IT!! So stop whine and get out and vote abeyme OUT OF OFFICE!! VOTE EM ALL OUT 2012 NO MATTER WHAT- my new motto

fmm| 8.18.11 @ 12:44PM

Voting third party is the best way to re-elect Obama. Can you say Perot? Do we never learn?

John| 8.18.11 @ 11:46AM

Look pal, to hell with electability. Most fear that should Romney be elected he would embrace the moderate or elitist repubs and their policies and strategies of "compromise and enable". I hear the bush types tell us that the hurdles to a good economy are the Depts. of Energy and the EPA, and yet what substantial reforms did they make when they controlled the house and senate? I do remember Bush of allowing Kennedy to write the Education Bill. That was a great improvement ie. "Atlanta cheating scandal". The irony is that the bill worked exactly as Big Ted intended.

PJ| 8.18.11 @ 11:47AM

Ross,
You're completely right. I'll vote for anyone who will decisively beat Obama. (I don't want another repeat of 2000 that plagued Bush 2 for his entire 8 yrs.)

Still to early to tell who will get the Republican nod. They all need to remind me of their record.

If we are going on past performance I like what Perry overall did for Texas because I remember it: tort reform, right-to-work. On the other hand, Mitt has Romneycare & he vacations in NH.

Quite frankly I would rather have a sincerely God-fearing, prayerful person as president or a world leader than anyone less. Recent history has shown what the alternative produces.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 12:22PM

I will vote for any Republican (not the RINO Paul) who can barely beat Obama so long as Obama is beaten.

PJ| 8.18.11 @ 12:52PM

Wrong! It has to be an outright win. You forgot the electoral college can reverse the popular vote & the Democrats' propensity to file lawsuits.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.18.11 @ 1:30PM

PJ I recognize the importance of the electoral college. If we win by one small state that is ok with me. Just so long as Obama is gone and we have sizable majorities in both houses of Congress.

Ken Waxman| 8.19.11 @ 11:06AM

What's wrong with Obama? He has done great... probably the greatest President ever in this country.

OBAMA 2012

William Wallace| 8.18.11 @ 12:14PM

I have a real problem with the statement that Romney is clearly more intelligent than Perry. The US Air Force doesn't hand the key to a C130 to idiots. And argue all you want, Texas is growing, and RomneyCare is a disaster. This sounds a bit... elitist. I expect better commentary.

George S| 8.18.11 @ 12:17PM

Let's pretend we are all Democrats and the year is 2007. We are engaged in an argument over who is electable: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

In this corner, wearing the tan pants-trunks is Hillary. Democrat fundraising power house, wife of Bill the Beloved. Gravitas with a capital G; a proven winner (NY Senator) and one with extensive political ties. In this corner, wearing the red hammer and sickle trunks is Barack Obama. Community organizer extraordinaire, stranger to meaningful employment, affirmative action Harvard Law Review editor, 140 days of federal legislative experience without a single piece of legislation.

Who wins?

We know who won... but why? Let's go back to the Roberts confirmation hearings. Almost every Democrat held Robert's qualifications without reproach, praising his legal pedigree. Yet that skinny Senator from Illinois announced very early, in what appeared to be political tone deafness, that he was opposing Roberts no matter what. That stance -- driven solely by ideology -- struck a chord with the Left Base. They saw in him a leader, one who stands for their core principle. During the campaign, he made it clear that his opposition to Iraq was second to none. And of course his comment to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth around was music to the Left's ears (arse).

Who won? The eminently electable Hillary or the Long Shot from Illinois? The one who stuck to his principles is who. Reagan did it the same way on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeating tiresome cliches.

Earl Bohn| 8.18.11 @ 12:26PM

Ross,

And a worthy question it is. But what a contest it would be: a God-fearing, pistol-packin' Air Force pilot son of cotton farmers who cites the Tenth Amendment, favors sound money and shoots coyotes versus a Bill Ayers pal community-organizing ACORN attorney whose parents were footloose neo-Marxists. When worlds collide....

fmm| 8.18.11 @ 12:38PM

You are a perfect example of what is wrong with the establishment repubs, demeaning a perfectly successful, thoughtful, and honorable individual because he is not a mealy mouthed RINO. People like you have already lost the battle and the war.

Dave| 8.18.11 @ 12:38PM

Who is this Kaminsky fellow anyway? I could have read this garbage at Daily Kos, but I didn't because I like conservative views like those usually expressed at The American Spectator.

I should have quit reading at the point this idiot breezily commented that Romney is clearly smarter than Rick Perry.

Really? And how did the author arrive at that conclusion? He heard a Texas accent no doubt.

Rick Perry is going to be your next president whether you and David Frum like it or not Mr. Kaminsky.

TURK| 8.18.11 @ 12:49PM

He Confessed! He Confessed! He Confessed! Loved Clinton and he dropped out on God! No wonder he doesn't like Perry.

This bearded dude is like some of the fakes who call Rushbo and start with "I've been a life long Republican--I'm a Conservative--but but but but. Ross: are you unemployed?? The heavyweights who do pieces on Am Spec usually don't hang around all day trying to justify their product! But I unnerstan. Its just that there isn't unuf space for you to cram your bilge down our throats. WE AREN"T STUPID! (sorry Mr Cain)

e cowan| 8.18.11 @ 1:04PM

I'm not sure about Perry yet, but if the arrogant, elitist RINO's who run the Republican establishment, manage to foist Romney (aka the reincarnated Nelson Rockefeller) on the rank-and-file and get him the nomination - then hello Obama - enjoy your second term!

Casey Abell| 8.18.11 @ 1:10PM

Right now Gallup pegs Barry "Martha's Vineyard" Obama's job approval on the economy at 71%.

Oops, that's DISAPPROVAL. Silly me.

Okay, I really didn't make a mistake. Everybody knows that the country has completely lost it with Obama on the economy. If we get a double-dip recession, that disapproval rating will bump up around 80-90%. And that's not fantasy, just a reasonable projection of current trends.

Even if the economy somehow labors through the next fourteen months without an "official" recession, Obama looks horrendous on The Issue which will decide the election. You know, that thing Carville talked about.

Which means total irrelevance for Kaminsky's hilarious hemming and hawing about intelligent design and other goofball non-issues.

At this point I'm starting to think that almost anybody looks electable against Barry. I agree that Romney might have the best shot but Perry looks way more than plausible against such a pitifully weak incumbent.

And nobody's gonna care about Perry's praying or his accent. Except the clueless Kaminsky, maybe.

conservative Bob| 8.18.11 @ 1:13PM

Perry has been in the race for 6 days. Whether he is electable will be driven by his performance in the campaign going forward.

Romney has Romney care around his neck and in my view is the candidate (other than Huntsman) that the media/left/Dem/RINOs most want to see as the nominee, much as they were hoping to get McCain the last time we went to this dance.

A conservative that can articulate well and connect with the voters will can and will win. Anyone we run is going to be painted as a radical right wing extremist. Look at every past election in particular look at what happened to media darling John McCain the instant he was nominated. He went from the lovable maverick (becaused he attacked conservatives) to a bitter hatefulll extremist in litterally the blink of an eye.

What people are looking for is leadership and vision.

This cry for moderation has risen every in every election since the 60s. (The same people make the same claims every time.) How exactly has that worked out for us in the past? It has brought us to this very point. We are at the tipping point and on the brink of loosing forever the republic we have inherited.

At the end of the day do we want someone who will guide us the rest of the way toward European socialism only better managed and maybe a bit less expensively or are we going to try to elect someone who can begin to turn us back toward our founding?

Let the candidates duke it out and let us make our own decisions based on what we hear and decide and ignore those who constantly tell us who is too extreme to be elected.

If the GOP nominates Romney or Huntsman or any other moderate I will vote for them, as giving Obama anymore time to destroy us is unthinkable. Setting this one out is not an option.

However if we get Romney or Huntsman or some other GOP establishment candidate I will leave the GOP and look to join others in forming a conservative limited government alternative. This is the GOPs last chance to be the true conservative alternative to the Dems.

fwb| 8.18.11 @ 1:38PM

Sad. Sad. Sad.

The Founding Fathers HAD and answer for the crap appearing herein. They kept the election of the President out of the hands of the people because the people are too stupid to elect a proper candidate. Then along came parties, corrupted the system, used smoke and mirrors to fool the stupid people into thinking the people have any say over the President, and voila.

All this is nothing but a waste of time and energy and money.

Return to the Constitutional system of selecting a President. Let the Electoral College choose. When the fake system is employed we wind up with bullshite demagogues because none of us knows ANY of these people well enough to make a wise choice.

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 1:42PM

Please explain to me why it's always the Republicans who end up forced to choose between the lesser of evils?

Listen carefully - screw cowtowing to the independents! We need a candidate who will call Obama, the press and RINOs on every single anti-American move they make and then keep responding in kind to their rants. Do that and plenty of independents will follow.

Let me see a show of hands. Who's sick and tired of calls for Republican civility when the Left runs roughshod over our American way of life? As I said in another post, Perry seems willing to bring a gun to a gun fight. That's huge.

Romney is just another button-down, establishment placeholder. When you see him on stage, does he really look like a fighter? Isn't a fighter what we need?

Kingofthenet| 8.18.11 @ 2:07PM

You mean 'kowtowing' or is 'cowtowing' something they just do down in Texas, and why are you bowing to cows anyway?

simon templar| 8.18.11 @ 2:19PM

We prefer our own cows rather than bowing to foreign Kings and dictators. Just a little thing but important to us.

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 2:46PM

No wonder I couldn't find it in my dictionary. Thanks. Learn something every day.

Trinacria| 8.18.11 @ 2:07PM

Amen, brother! (Oops, upon reflection, it occurs to me that the utterence of the word "amen" might be interpreted by Mr. Kaminsky as extreme religiousity. Accordingly, permit me to amend my statement to the less offensive, "I concur with your statement, comrade.")

Trinacria| 8.18.11 @ 2:02PM

Mr. K-

Let me get this straight - voters will be uncomfortable with Perry's religiousity and his professed belief in Intelligent Design, yet they will be perfectly willing to embrace a candidate who believes that Jesus Christ showed up in a barn in rural Utah and, in his best Columbo impersonation, informed the owner that there was a thing or two he forgot to mention in the first edition of his book? Really? You are aware that these are the same voters who enthusiastically embraced a candidate with muslim roots who was educated in radical madrassas and bore the name of a radical muslim dictator, but then "saw the light" and coverted to the "Christianity" of Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

And you question Mr. Perry's intellectual bona fides? Really, sport, I know there's a fine line between political analysis and talking out of one's ass, but I rather fear you've crossed that line.

don| 8.18.11 @ 2:02PM

disagreed, Romney is little more that McCain all over and will get beat by the young communist Muslim president. Perry will get out the vote and retire the passive/agressive sociopath kenyan to the crack houses of south chicago

simon templar| 8.18.11 @ 2:16PM

Well, I am sure Ross after a few months and a few more columns you will have destoyed another Tea party candidate and paved the way for your establishment candidate, Romney. Then you can keep geting those DC party invitations. Who knows maybe you will get lucky and get some hot liberal chick tail!

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 2:55PM

Simon,

Luckily, the press can't destroy anyone who isn't afraid of them. Case in point... Sarah Palin. I mean, really, crawl through her trash?

All Perry has to do is what he's already doing. Immediately respond to their BS and ridicule them. In other words, as I said earlier, simply take a gun to a gun fight and never, never, never reach across that #2%6!&8* aisle.

Campaigning against Democrats and the press is so simple it makes one wonder why most Republicans can't pull it off. That they can't or won't naturally speaks to their motivation.

ReConUSMC| 8.18.11 @ 2:31PM

It is sad to see Rockfellow and Bush Republicans and well as Centrist go after Perry .
Perry is more like Reagan than any other so called Republican in 50 years .
Romney McCain and Bob Dole are twins .
I believe the Tea party can get behind Perry .

Iowa| 8.18.11 @ 2:38PM

No sale. The Dems fear Perry for a good reason. And they should. He already has generated enthusiasm among a moribund base.

He isn't perfect and may yet not be the one to get the nomination. But I'd hardly call praying in public, trying to establish conservative bona fides and calling out a Fed chairman run amok "radical".

I recall 30 years ago we had a clear choice very much like this: an unapologetic, America-first, pro-life, pro-God conservative vs. a craven incompetent. The conservative won that vote not only in a landslide, but he also beat the third-party alternative -- and "moderate" Republican, John Anderson -- in the bargain.

This election sets up the last, best possible scenario for conservatives to take back this country. So-called independents already are fleeing the Shyster in Chief in droves. What sane mind would think they'd go running back to him in 2012 for more of the same failed radical-left tripe?

As for "electability", that's the proven strategy for losers. There's a vast difference between running on principle no matter what and trotting out a candidate you think fits some perceived -- and highly subjective -- attitude of the electorate. That's how you end up with Jerry Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain and, yes -- either George Bush -- as your standard-bearer. What do you get? Nice guys who are easy targets for enemies who will stop at nothing to destroy you. And, nice guys who think that you can get cozy with enemies by placating them (remember Bush II basically settting educational policy with the blessing of Teddy Kennedy? Remember Bush's prescription-drug spending explosion?). Frankly, I want a clear choice of Conservative vs. Liberal, not Liberal Lite vs. Liberal.

The next election is probably the most important in 30 years precisely because it will present the best hope we're likely tog et between taking our country back and losing it, perhaps, forever.

Rick Perry certainly has issues he has to resolve in my mind before he gets my support, but those issues center more on whether he's conservative ENOUGH, not the other way around.

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 3:01PM

Iowa,

You said, "So-called independents already are fleeing the Shyster in Chief in droves. What sane mind would think they'd go running back to him in 2012 for more of the same failed radical-left tripe?" Exactly!

I'm worn out with advice to walk on eggshells around independents. All one has to do is talk conservative common sense and enough of them will follow. Those who don't are hopeless and unreachable anyway.

As you said, a huge number of '08 Obama voters are shaking their heads and walking away. They'll either vote Republican or they won't vote at all.

COPY GIRL| 8.18.11 @ 3:03PM

Allow me to put this to you - anti-Perry Naysayer.
Mitt Romney lost the nomination to John Mc Cain. Rick Perry has never lost an election. That is not to say he could not, but he hasn't.

Here is a hypothetical for you: Mitt Romney is standing at a crowded bar. Obama walks in and tries to elbow Mitt aside. Does Mitt stand his ground or step aside as a polite gesture to a black man - - even though he was there first and has a right to where he is standing? I say Mitt meekly moves.

Put Rick Perry in the same spot as Mitt above. I don't think Obama even tries it.

I am not an Evangelical but you seem to use Evangelical as a pejorative. And further, you appear to believe that Independents are atheists who are wary of people who pray..

Here are some additional off-the-wall factors for you to figure into your prognostications. I will not vote for Mitt Romney because he looks uncomfortable in casual clothes and dyes his hair black as a crow's wing except at the grey temples. And he is prissy.

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 3:16PM

Right! As a friend of mine said a few minutes ago, "Finally, we have a real man to vote for!" How do we know? Because he went straight after one of the establishment's sacred cows and announced that global warming is a pile of BS. Romney? He's signed onto it. He's a useless girly-man.

Oldefarte| 8.18.11 @ 3:05PM

It's simply amazing to me continuously how many of the bloggers here at TAS have the time that they obviously expend in arguing, explaining, describing etc their personal viewpoints concerning political issues. I know exactly why I do so have such time [which is simply because I'm retired after working constantly a major corporation for 35 years before retirement]. How in the world can most of the rest of you do so IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED, since any job/employment either as an employee or as a business owner requires mostly 24-7 devotion of time? That said, I'm going to partially agree with Ross's overall POINT [think] of his article [and not get sidetracked into a subliminal discussion of neocons, Paulisms etc] in that the most important POINT of these upcoming elections is to DEFEAT OBAMA [AND CORRESPONDINGLY THE DEMOCRATS]! Some of you, even Ross, apparently were not focused upon that agenda in November of 2008 [and therefore IMO are part of the reason as to WHY this current radical/socialist/extremist etc disguised as a moderate, intellectual African-American was elected as POTUS]. Three years later, you're all p**sing, moaning and groaning as to what he and these Democrats have done to this country and to its economy. Duh! Did you not see it pre 11/4/08? Did you not understand his connection to Ayers, Wright, Doern, Resco, etc? Again, I think Ross' POINT should be extremely comtemplated, and his conclusion is 150% accurate that the goal should be to DEFEAT OBAMA [and I might partisanly add ALL DEMOCRATS also]. Many of you hopefully are younger in age than I and what's available in the futuristic world/country will more benefit you and your families, children etc than it will me [so your stake in this this outcome is greater than mine]. The Democratic Party [and liberals within same], as Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs' intelligent editorial of several days ago decsribed, have been at this radical march to political domination for decades [at least since Kennedy-Johnson], and the culmination [crowning glory achievement] was their election of liberal Obama as POTUS. There are only TWO CHOICES, liberal and conservative, and if Ross' theory proves true and Obama is re-elected due to some of your's purisms concerning conservatism, then Obama/Democrats win, and we all lose. It's as simple as that. I am redundently posting Ann Coulter's great edotorial of yesterday that should be contemplated in relations to again Ross' point:

'....LIBERALS AREN'T FUNNY, THEY'RE A RIOT! August 17, 2011

Like you, I've been horrified by the eruptions of mob violence around the globe this summer. But having spent the last two years researching and writing a book about mobs, I'm also grateful to the ruffians for taking to the streets so soon after my book was released. Thanks, you dirty animals. I knew you wouldn't let me down. When I decided to write about mobs, it was a relatively peaceful period. But as long as there is evil in the world, mobs will never be finally defeated. And as long as there are liberals, there will be some people stoking the mobs. It was only a matter of time, although even I didn't expect it quite this soon.
Mobs are always the same -- destructive, left-wing and without any clear cause. Why were young people in Britain tearing apart their cities, burning down businesses and stealing electronics and designer clothes? Because the cops shot someone? Please. What has gotten on the last nerve of rioters in Greece, Paris and Vancouver? They're jobless? Their government benefits have been cut? Their hockey team lost? They might as well destroy police cars because they're upset about rainy days. (That's not a suggestion, by the way -- more of a rhetorical flourish.) Why were public sector union workers in Wisconsin busting up the capitol and physically attacking Republican legislators? MSNBC's Ed Schultz says it was because Republicans were trying to take away the people's "civil rights." (Evidently, research showed the last seven people actually watching MSNBC were Wisconsin public school teachers.) You have to do some digging to find out the public sector employees were upset that Republicans wanted government unions to engage in collective bargaining only over salary, but not work conditions or benefits -- all funded by the taxpayers. Why were black and Hispanic gang members looting after the Rodney King verdict? As if you needed to know, a Los Angeles policeman recently told me that the gang members he arrested in the riots said they didn't know or care about Rodney King. Why were masked hoodlums smashing Starbucks windows in Seattle a decade ago when some bankers came to town? They're against the "global economy"? What does that even mean? Like Satan, mobs are good only for destruction and chaos. The putative "cause" is always incidental. As Jesus said, "They hated me without a cause."
The French Revolution is the template for all mob uprisings, and the signal event of that lunacy was an attack on a prison housing only half a dozen prisoners. As best anyone can tell, the storming of the Bastille was instigated by a rumor that the laughably impotent King Louis XVI was about to stage an attack on the National Assembly. Or perhaps they were upset that the inept finance minister, Jacques Necker, had been fired. Or they thought the Bastille was an eyesore.
(The only other possible cause was recently ruled out when it was conclusively determined that France had no teachers unions in the late 18th century.) No one is sure -- but a good time was had by all! Except the prison administrators murdered in the attack. Liberals love mobs because rioting and anarchy is their path to power. Making sound proposals based on facts and logic is not their metier. Issuing impossible promises to the easily fooled is their specialty. For more on this, see "The 2012 Democratic Platform." The entire Democratic Party is currently promising to "save" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in their present form. According to Obama's own Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, in less than 10 years, spending on those three entitlement programs, plus servicing the national debt, will consume 92 cents of every dollar in the federal budget. The Democrats are openly lying to voters. It is a mathematical impossibility for these programs to continue without major reform now, or complete bankruptcy later -- and not very much later.
But Democrats' real achievement has been in destroying the family, and thereby creating an endless supply of potential rioters. When blacks were only four generations out of slavery, their illegitimacy rate was about 23 percent (lower than the white illegitimacy rate is now). Then Democrats decided to help them! Barely two generations since LBJ's Great Society programs began, the black illegitimacy rate has tripled to 72 percent. Meanwhile, the white illegitimacy rate has septupled, from 4 percent to 29 percent.
Instead of a "War on Poverty," it should have been called a "War on the Family."
The vast and permanent underclass created by the welfare state is a great success story for the Democratic Party, which now has a loyal constituency of deadbeats who automatically vote for the Democrats to keep their Trojan horse "benefits" flowing. It's the Democrats' "heroin dealer" model of government. Apparently, it takes a lot of government workers to minister to the poor, inasmuch as government employment has skyrocketed in tandem with the family's disintegration. As long as Democrats are serving their principal constituency -- recipients of taxpayer money -- they don't care what happens to the rest of society. They champion any mob that will increase their political power. Liberals promote welfare dependency, class warfare, endless government programs staffed with public sector workers, street protests, coddling criminals and physical attacks on their ideological opponents. This is how they create reliable Democratic voters. True, government employees are doing jobs we don't want done, can never be fired, are bankrupting the country and periodically break out in mob violence. True, also, that the children of broken families sometimes burn city blocks to the ground or kill their great-grandmothers with swords. But what a voting bloc! ......'

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 5:03PM

OLDE FART!!!!!
BREAK UP YOUR PARAGRAPHS. You write some good stuff, but paragraphs are not to be broken ONLY when you have to pee.

Good Lord, man! Get a clue.

Oldefarte| 8.18.11 @ 5:14PM

Ken, I do so PURPOSEFULLY in order to save space. My copied/pasted editorials are PARAGRAPHED grammatically correct by their writers [and I simply condense same]. Don't be so nit-picky. I'm related to writer-types and I know about you obcession with grammatical details, but get a grip,okay????????

darcy| 8.18.11 @ 5:56PM

Let me echo Ken's advice, OldeF. If you want -- and I assume you do because you post them -- your comments to be read, formatting your paragraphs with white space between them invites the reader in; it provides a bit of eye rest and is easier for the eye to follow without losing where you left off after you blink.

You don't have to be a grammarian to understand that proper paragraph formatting helps a writer to get his message across by not placing obstacles along the path of reading. No white space creates obstacles and hurts the eyes.

It may require the writer to take a bit of extra thought and effort; but it's worth it to have your work actually read by others rather than skimmed over, or worse, ignored.

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:52PM

I think it'd be good if ya broke it u a little bit, too, Oldefarte.

Never mind about saving that space. Your posts are worth losing some of it, believe me. :^).

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 12:27AM

p.s. Oldefarte, as to your post~ another great one.
It is true, I spend too much time here reading and posting, but my ebay sales are actually picking up a bit, and while my husband and I are not over at the new house working our rears off getting it up to par and moveinable, we're relaxing at a restaurant afterwards on way back home or reading the news and posting. We're ebayers and I thank God for it.

I actually suggest to anyone who may be out of work to start your own ebay selling. You don't have to become a business to do so. (Though the Feds want to tax us now for selling now, and are about to impose that soon so I hear).

You can set up a buyer I.D. and a seller I.D. on ebay. Find something you love, study it, but cheap and sell high. Anything vintage and or antique sells very well. You can remain anonymous as a buyer, and no one sees what you are buying but you.

Imagine purchasing a Steiff stuffed animal from the 1950's for 30.00 and being able to re sell it for 150.00.
Or a vintage doll for for same. Or some old Limoges teacup and saucer for same.
OK~ now I've taken up too much white space, Oldefarte! But since you asked, I answered. I hope I gave somebody out there a good idea who may be in dire straits too.

As to voting~ you already know. I vote straight Republican every time. Ever since my first vote, and don't intend on changing.
And I'm not worried an iota as to Ron Paul becoming the nominee. It just ain't gonna happen.

Bob Grant| 8.19.11 @ 12:30AM

Marge the American Picker.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 11:31AM

Margie, Darcy, Ken & All: Thanks for all of your advice. Once again/finally, I post [copy/paste] various news articles/editorials FYI and enlightenment only. Also AGAIN, I compress same for spacial/condencing purposes, and if in my so doing I cause visual tramas etc, then I do apologize profusely. AGAIN, my total intent is to educate/inform [and to relieve you of the necessity of finding/searching for said articles/material, and thus to save you time/effort accordingly]. Since I am causing such apparent heart attacks due to my posts' longetivity, I'll simply indicate/reference the title/news source of said material in the future for your combined convenience if interested okay? Regards to all [most, that is!]!!!!!

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 2:38PM

PS: I'll make an additional POINT before retiring from this inconsequential subject line, and that is that the essential/orimary purpose of all posts here should be to RESPOND TO THE RESPECTIVE AUTHOR'S EDITORIAL, and not to continuously tet-a-te banter with each other over mindless/stupid back&forths; [ie Ron Paul said this, Perry said that, etc, blah, blah, blah]. Let's all remember what that philosopher Forrest Gump stated concerning STUPIDITY, okay?????

Bob Grant| 8.18.11 @ 10:17PM

Ancient Flatulence,

You right good stuff and I have no problem with with the lack of white space.

It's the boring stuff that needs the white space - around 100% in my opinion.

9th ID| 8.18.11 @ 11:25PM

Don't they have a verbosity or bloviating limit to posts here?

Bob Grant| 8.19.11 @ 12:27AM

You can bloviate as long as it's properly spaced, per Tex.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 11:35AM

At least it's INTELLIGENT BLOVIATING, and not some of the mindless dumbasaboxofnails verbal excrement sometimes seen here [possibly resembling that witnessed between several kindergarden children during recess]!!!!!!

Bob Grant| 8.19.11 @ 12:21AM

I guess I meant Write. How embarrassing. Well, that's public shoolin' for ya.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:26PM

We criticize ya 'cause we love ya, OF.

Tim Pennell had the same problem when he started.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 11:37AM

Believe me, OT, the sentiment is appreciated and returned in droves. ROOOOLLLLL TIDE!!!!

Trinacria| 8.18.11 @ 3:28PM

If the government taxed your posts by the word, we'd be well on the way to solving the national debt (not that I advocate new taxes...)

Oldefarte| 8.18.11 @ 5:07PM

And if the government taxes your POINT, their taxable revenues would increase by "0" no doubt!!!!

Trinacria| 8.18.11 @ 5:40PM

The POINT, old boy, is this: When making one, do try to get to it.

See how that works? One doesn't need a manifesto to convey one's point...

Bob Grant| 8.19.11 @ 12:35AM

He hit his point early. The other stuff was bonus...

We'll, actually it was like that apple desert you get on a Banquet dinner that no one eats but I'm feeling generous tonight.

Bob Grant| 8.19.11 @ 12:37AM

cough, that would be dessert.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 11:17AM

You just made my POINT. With many blogging member here, a 'manifesto' is needed to possibly penetrate the mental concrete between the ears of some [but thanks for the ignorant advice anyway]!!!!

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 11:53PM

Classic Oldefarte. Love it.

Paul from SA| 8.18.11 @ 3:31PM

Romney will be easily destroyed, if necessary, by the Democrat media. When Romney's flip-flopping and lying become public knowledge, people will be repulsed and probably decide to not vote.

I will not vote for Romney over Obama. I would rather not vote. Romney just hurts the Republican party and the conservtive movement. It's RINOs and liberals like Romney and Bush that helped create the Tea Party. It wasn't Obama.

We conservatives are unrepresented in gov't.

Brian B.| 8.18.11 @ 3:37PM

Remember also that McCain was considered more electable than Bush in 2000, and Dole was considered more electable than Gramm or Forbes in 1996, and Ford was considered more electable than Reagan in 1976. So much for electability.

COPY GIRL| 8.18.11 @ 3:47PM

Come down off your intellectual high horse, Kaminsky. If you think an election turns on whether a candidate believe in "intelligent design" - ask the next ten people you see on the street to define intelligent design. Depending on the street, the answer may be anything from "Feng Shui" to LazyBoy furniture.

When I think of electability, 75 year old Ron Paul doesn't leap to mind. 76 by 2012, 80 by end of one term. You denigrate the Texas twang of Southern drawl. How about the disturbed uncle you brought home from the nursing home for the weekend but forgot his sack of meds? When Paul becomes agitated his voice squeaks, He needs a Nurse Ratchittt comin' at him with a syringe.

Mike Rogers| 8.18.11 @ 3:59PM

There are a number of reasons why Perry isn't the perfect conservative, but he may be a good enough conservative. I don't believe that an overt attempt to appeal to the middle wins elections.
Instead remember the dictum of the real leader on the right: "Conservatism wins every time it's tried!"
Perry may be imperfect, but Romney is more so - he won't renounce government healthcare or global warming - big mistakes.
Aside from radical Paulistas, the better choice for many is Herman Cain: Businessman, CEO, turnaround artist, conservative, low tax, low regulation, and ultimately FairTax

Jason| 8.18.11 @ 4:17PM

"A recent Gallup poll shows Republicans care more about electability than full agreement on policy. Furthermore, that view was more common among conservatives than among moderates, and conservatives are the vast majority of primary and caucus participants." Since this is the main thrust of your argument, then I suggest you think about your exclusion of Ron Paul. In most polls where a conservative candidate is compared to Obama, Ron Paul consistently shows the highest levels in defeating Obama because he is financially conservative, opposed to the Federal Reserve, and garners support from many moderates and liberals because of his foreign policy. Therefore is not only is electable, but more likely to beat Obama than anyone else (not to mention adhere to his oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution).

Solo| 8.18.11 @ 7:08PM

I keep hearing about this magical poll which states that Ron Paul matches up against Obama.
Does anyone have a reference to this "evidence" which might show the demographic of those polled and the number polled?

This sounds like Alex Jones took the poll.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.11 @ 5:09PM

I wish there were some way Rick and Sarah could team up now...with a personal vow to flip a coin on who "leads" the ticket in the general.

Wouldn't that be cool?

Bob Grant| 8.18.11 @ 10:25PM

That would be an apocalyptically bad idea.

Mara| 8.18.11 @ 5:09PM

Do not underestimate Gov. Perry. He is a smart guy. He is a three-term governor of Texas, and has done a great job. Romney is a social moderate..and I don't like that...If we are going
to get back to our basic American values...it is Rick Perry for me..He is no George Bush...He is a hard worker, dedicated, and will turn this country around. I am sorry, I still see Romney as a RINO...plain and simple. We were told about how intelligent Obama was when he was running for the presidency....His high IQ....Well, what happened to all this intelligence and high IQ?
I haven't seen any evidence of it, unless he is smart like a Socialist progressive fox...and that fox is in our capitalist hen house...I am for Rick Perry..because the last thing we need is another fox in the hen house...

Paul from SA| 8.18.11 @ 5:30PM

Romney has been running for prez since the last election. Every suit, speech and appearance was for show.

And only 19% to show for it. He will not be the nominee. If he is, expect a third party conservative candidate.

Paul from SA| 8.18.11 @ 5:56PM

Perry/Allen West
Perry/Marco Rubio

Gary B| 8.18.11 @ 6:08PM

Yes, because you must win Florida to win the election. Rubio carries a bonus with his appeal to Hispanics.

Ocean Boy| 8.18.11 @ 6:09PM

How anyone could support Romney as a libertarian is beyond me. Personally I prefer Paul to all of them, but if he is not running in the 2012 general I have to vote for somebody other than Obama.

I think Tony Blankley is incorrect in equating Perry to Fred Thompson. Perry is a much stronger campaigner and capable of generating much greater political support across the country than Thompson was.

Perry has many flaws, but also much to admire. There seems to be an excess of concern among analysts of the right that Perry is going to be a problem w/independents in the general, and somehow Romney won't be.

Ideally, religious orientation shouldn't matter, but amongst the electorate I don't see evangelism as a handicap in a predominantly Christian country, if anything it's more mainstream than Mormonism. As a Northeasterner I for one am not going to hold Perry's drawl against him. Perry is a well-known adversary of Bush & Rove; he is not just another Texan.

DaveS| 8.18.11 @ 6:16PM

Trying to be provocative?

somnolence| 8.18.11 @ 6:28PM

Simply put, Romney doesn't have the wherewithal to be very SAVAGE in a debate with Obama. Perry does, and won't hesitate to be, as the previews against Bernanke and Obama have already surfaced in the last 3 days. Obama will be bruised and bloodied long before November of next year. Do any of us in our right mind want a repeat of McCain nice guy lite? Didn't think so.

rowley| 8.18.11 @ 6:45PM

Independents want straight talk.
Sick of Politically Correct
Disgusted with Duplicitous Diplomatic Double talk.

somnolence| 8.18.11 @ 7:13PM

If Perry remains "cool and personable" as someone said above, let us make haste and find someone else----------QUICKLY!! We can't use "nice" like McCain in the contest over the next year and 3 months.

Kyle| 8.18.11 @ 7:18PM

"By December 2007, however, Thompson was polled as losing to Obama by seven points with Giuliani only trailing Obama by two. Just a month later, in January 2008, Fred Thompson dropped out of the race. "

Didn't everyone drop out of the race in January, 2008, except for Romney, McCain, and Huckabee? I'm pretty sure they all did; after all, this same Tony Blankley said back then that we just had to hurry up and nominate a candidate because we couldn't extend the primary season into the Spring; also McCain was the guy who was poll tested to beat Hillary.

However, as we all know, the only person who had a chance to beat Hillary was Obama, and he did in late Spring 2008, while McCain sat around bored, waiting for a Democrat to run against. Obama wasn't the Hillary McCain was waiting for, and Obama beat the pants off of him. Yet, we still listen to these same pundits who get it wrong time and time again?

Solo| 8.18.11 @ 7:20PM

Update!

A Ron Paul supporter has taken out a full page ad trolling for a scandal involving Rick Perry.

Nice touch, huh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 12:00AM

Probably because Perry's not a wimpy Blame America-Firster type.

I take it he's not weak on terrorism, and not a terrorist sympathizer.

Oh, and he's a Christian.

Rut-ro.

Oldefarte| 8.21.11 @ 2:17PM

Marg, by "... wimpy Blame America-Firster type..." do you mean he's not a LIBERAL....DEMOCRAT???????

Roy| 8.18.11 @ 7:21PM

Kaminsky has a point, up to a point. The problem is I think a country where a majority of the voters think that praying is a negative deserves Obama, or worse.

It's beliefs like that on the part of a majority of Americans that makes me think of that majority as "they". There's no "we" including both of us, except the purely geographical.

Occam's Tool| 8.18.11 @ 7:24PM

Ross, I completely agree with you. Anybody except Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson, who practically doesn't exist) among the current field. I'm happy with Romney/Perry/Bachmann/Cain/Santorum against Obama.

Paul from SA| 8.18.11 @ 7:47PM

I think Perry has a daily plan to drive liberals nuts.

OMG, he doesn't believe in AGW! He doesn't believe in science!

Long Ben| 8.18.11 @ 8:15PM

Pardon the French , but Romney is going to play hell getting the nomination .

PCP Smoker| 8.18.11 @ 8:35PM

WHAT A FUCKING ASSHOLE YOU ARE KABITCHSKY.
"As far as intelligence, it's too early to tell, but I have to say I don't come away from hearing him lately thinking "that guy has a big brain."

After reading this piece of shit column, I conclude you come off as a GOP establishment little bitch. Get off Karl Rover's dick and recognize it is us, the Tea Party, who control the GOP. Your lame ass days are over.
Finally, fuck you and fuck your children. Get off this website you creep.

darcy| 8.19.11 @ 12:17AM

I guess you're not kidding about that pcp smoking stuff.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 12:31AM

Yikes, really.

Oldefarte| 8.21.11 @ 2:20PM

Nah, he just too STUPID to properly express himself verbally. With these morons, it's usually all FUCK, SHIT, PISS etc [which is the extent of their vocabulary that they obtained after exiting public school in the fifth grade]!!!!!!!!

RCV| 8.19.11 @ 5:17PM

Paul-bot, no doubt.

p-squared| 8.18.11 @ 9:43PM

More Romneyite blather. Why are you convinced that it's Romney or Obama? I would rather not vote than pull the lever for another RINO. I did it for W once and have regretted it since.

Sobe Conservative| 8.18.11 @ 9:57PM

I cannot vote for ONE MORE RHINO. I don't care if this country goes to hell in a handbucket under the obamination of desolation. If Romney thinks global warming is legitiment he IS NOT. If he thinks government AT ANY LEVEL should provide obama care he is not getting my vote. I agree that Perry has a suspicious past. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat once too....
I don't know yet.

POST American| 8.18.11 @ 10:20PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

Riki Tiki Tricky Tavistock ---PAIR--HEEE.

-----------------ALL you need to know-------------------

Bob Grant| 8.18.11 @ 10:22PM

We need a fresh crop of "late comers" to duke it out. Namely, Ryan and Christie. I'd pick either over the current field.

If only John Kasich were interested.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 12:06AM

John Kasich is a great guy. He knows how to et things done. In Ohio he took on the Unions. I heard a couple of his speeches there, and he really knows how to talk to people. I do believe he quieted even the angry Lefty Union peeps that were in the crowd.

He's genuine. Would love to see him run but I think Ohio needs him.

Bob Grant| 8.19.11 @ 12:19AM

The country needs him. He's electable unlike others I will not mention.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 12:34AM

Mr. Grant,

We have many electable candidates, and not all have even entered the fray yet.

Nite| 8.18.11 @ 11:17PM

TX is a fairly conservative state. Perry was elected 3 times as Governor with good margins. Perry is a conservative, is direct and detests Obama. Obama sent the EPA to try and destroy the energy industry in TX and Perry is madder than a hornet. He can and will beat Obama and his teleprompter. Perry is direct and you can't intimidate him. This is the kind of candidate that we need. He also believes in a strong national defense and is a friend of Israel. (not like Obama trying to destroy Israel.) I voted for Perry 3 times previously, and will gain.

David| 8.18.11 @ 11:29PM

Kaminsky, I think you are deliberately misrepresenting Perry's position on the teaching of intelligent design.

Like me ,he probably wants more than anytlhing, for evolution to be taught as a theory and not as a scientific fact that it occurred and can be proved to have occurred. It is not repeatable or testable and therefore cannot be proven. He wants the evidence against evolution to be taught. Isn't that reasonable in a school setting when TEACHING children to think critically? I am sure he wants intelligent deisgn to be taught as theory, too.

The fact is, that if the THEORY of evolution can be looked at scientifically, then so can intelligent design. For example, evolutionists believe the earth is OLD. Many of us question how reliable their evidence is when some say the earth is hundreds of thousands of years old and other evolutionary scientists claim the earth is millions of years old. Big disparity there, don't you think?
Conversely people who believe in intelligent design believe the earth is fairly YOUNG. Why can't they martial their evidence that points to a young earth? There is plenty of it.

Have you considered the science of probability? It is a science. Those folks says the hundreds of evolutionary theories out there simply could not have happened by accident.

Both should be taught as theories, but the left has won on the issue and millions of children are taught that evolution is a provable fact. It is a lie. I applaud Perry for addressing the issue.

darcy| 8.19.11 @ 12:20AM

Kudos, David, you clear-thinking one, you!

Tom near Boston| 8.18.11 @ 11:37PM

Romney is "smarter" than Perry? Two questions: what is your data? and what is your definition of intelligence? Intelligence means problem-solving, not just pure calculating power. Romney isn't a bad guy, and obviously isn't a dumb guy, but Perry get my vote purely for his catch phrase that he wants to make Washington DC as inconsequential as possible in your life. You don't have to be "smart" to be right, Russ. Don't the Piled Higher and Deeper crowd around Obama all prove that you can be very "smart" and wrong practically all the time?

MacAdams| 8.18.11 @ 11:46PM

Ross Kaminsky,

My comments are directly to you, not the people you are writing about. You have definitely shown your true colors in your article.

1st: You have personally disrespected God in your article. You addressed Him with a little "g" to say He is no more than a piece of wooden or stone image, not alive and is powerless.
2nd. Is your head stuck so deep in the sand that you would even ask how many Americans want a President who believes? (in God and that He created everything)
3rd. Your question to Americans, "What's more important to you, beating Barack Obama or having a commander-in-chief who believes in God?", shows that you aren't listening to the American people.

Evidently you don't believe in God, but I guess you think you are young, don't need God and you will live forever. My self educated friend, if you had any sense at all, you'd see that God is America's only hope. And since He works through people, then we need a President who actually does believe in God and will be an example to the American people to publicly submit to God for direction, strength and wisdom to get America back to the Country we are all proud of.

Are you so dumb and blind that you can't see what it has done to America to remove God out of everything we do and think (like you do). Do you really believe that a mere "man" on his own intellect, strength and wisdom can be a better President without God.

You, Mr. Kaminsky, embarrass me and your article should embarrass the American Spectator. Your words don't fit in with the theme that the Spectator has developed over the years. You should be writing for Time Mag., not here.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel| 8.19.11 @ 12:13AM

MacAdams,

Spot on about your comments about this commentary's author!

I dare say that this author is a closet RINO. [Especially, since he is so supportive of Romney] The way he attempts to marginalize Gov. Perry for desiring that the theory of evolution should be challenged, is very telling. Perhaps, the author should educate himself and visit some creationist sites like, icr.org so that he can distinguish what is genuine science as opposed to pseudo "science."

William| 8.21.11 @ 5:47PM

It is sad to read posts such as the last two. As I note in a post below, I hope to vote for someone other than Obama in the next election but am not impressed with the current group of Republican candidates. While not traditionally religious myself, I am constantly defending religion and religious people and their beliefs from my liberal friends, and I have great respect for religion as providing a model for the betterment of mankind. But anyone who is so narrowmindedly blinded by religion that they believe "ID" is actually a science is someone I would be scared to death to have as president.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.21.11 @ 9:55AM

Mr. Adams:

While I certainly don't like the idea of teaching creationism (aka Intelligent Design) as science, my article was NOT about my views of Perry's religious views.

It was about how the media would treat Perry if he continues such public religiosity and how the public would then react.

Furthermore, you attribute to me something I did not say, when you write: "Your question to Americans, What's more important to you, beating Barack Obama or having a commander-in-chief who believes in God?'..."

I asked "What's more important to you, beating Barack Obama or having an evangelical commander-in-chief?"

There's a very big difference. I did not suggest and never have suggested that voters should look for an atheist candidate (not least because there isn't one). I asked whether electing a candidate with a particular viewpoint, and one which encourages more public religiosity than other viewpoints, is going to be easy if he keeps emphasizing that aspect of himself. It's a totally fair question and is not an attack on Perry's beliefs (though I admit I'm not partial to the ideas of "intelligent design".)

Finally, I would note that in my writings and on the radio I have often noted the important values that our Judeo-Christian heritage has brought to our nation. Just because I am not religious doesn't mean I hate religion.

In short, your criticism of me is based primarily on attributing to me things I did not say and have never said.

And if your problem is about whether I used a capital or lower-cased "g" in god/God, then it's unlikely you're interested in a real discussion.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel| 8.18.11 @ 11:56PM

Ross,

How about "putting it this (other) way" - utilizing your own poised question:

"What's more important to you, beating Barack Obama or having an Mormon commander-in-chief?" If Independents knew what Mormons [really] believe, they would be turning away from Romney, in droves. Is Romney the one you and patriotic Americans want running against Obama?

I find that you are attempting to marginalize Gov. Perry with seeding the subtle false accusation that he is a religious nut. Voters who want to unshackle this nation from the tyranny of the present unconstitutional bogus "president" and felony birth certificate forger, will grant Perry his religion just as they granted Obama his religion under the extremist Rev. Wright.

On another score - it won't matter to some patriotic American voters who the GOP nominee will be. If that nominee does not throw out a legitimate bone to "birthers" and Constitutionalist Conservatives, many of them may very well stay away from the presidential 2012 polls. It won't matter then, which GOP candidate is supposed to have more eligibility against Obama:

"Why some Conservatives will not vote for the 2012 GOP nominee:"

........A housewife who has a kitchen full of rotten potatoes, onions and eggs, is a fool for daily complaining about that foul odor. Yet, (in like manner), Republicans, Conservatives and Independents daily complain about the foul odor politics of an Obama occupying the White House, dismantling our Constitutional Republic and destroying traditional America. It never seems to occur to them that the best way to rid America’s kitchen of the foul odor stench of Obama’s rotten political policies and agenda, is to throw him out, as the housewife would (eventually come to the conclusion) to throw out the rotten stench filled produce.

If Obama's illegitimate and illegal occupation to the US presidency is not a priority with "Conservatives," - then, voting in the 2012 elections for a "Conservative" [against, Obama] isn't a priority with me and other "birther" conservative / patriotic, Americans!

If the United States Constitution isn't worth, upholding and fighting (for), - then, the defeat of the United State's Constitution, usurper, isn't worth it, either.......

http://freedomtorch.com/blogs/.....s-will-not

Paul S.| 8.19.11 @ 12:28AM

"Americans realize..."

This piece has too much of a self-appointed-spokesperson/seer tone for this American, who speaks for himself. Rick Perry and his Texas colleagues provide incentives to create private sector employment, the engine of a healthy economy. And they don't pile up a mountain of debt that somebody's kids will be stuck with. I WANT someone passionate about doing that, dammit; I live in the big government dependency mess called California. Whatever the governor's religious beliefs are matters a whole lot less to me than that; I'm not voting for a new pastor.

Mike| 8.19.11 @ 12:34AM

I posted this in the wrong place by accident and did not mean to detract from your worthy and eloquent posting.
http://www.summer.products.com
http://www.ainibag.com

Mike| 8.19.11 @ 12:34AM

I posted this in the wrong place by accident and did not mean to detract from your worthy and eloquent posting.
http://www.summer.products.com
http://www.ainibag.com

Mike| 8.19.11 @ 12:36AM

We have many electable candidates, and not all have even entered the fray yet.
http://www.jerseys-hats-store.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com

Ken Waxman| 8.19.11 @ 1:07AM

I agree. Perry is another right-wing nut. We really should do all we can to reelect Obama.

OBAMA 2012!! For change the can believe in and trust..

emo| 8.19.11 @ 8:37AM

What has Obama done since 2009, youd like to see continue to expand through 2016? Also is there such as thing as a left wing nut?

Ken Waxman| 8.19.11 @ 11:03AM

He has done a lot of great things like the free healthcare for everyone..

Osamas Pajamas| 8.19.11 @ 2:00AM

Well, if it's beating OhBummer that has to be done --- and which rational person disputes that? --- then electability is the primary issue for Republicans. I'm a libertarian and I like everything about Ron Paul except his foreign policy views --- altho' surely we can be a leeeetle more judicious with our interventionist adventures, no? I don't give a hang about anyone's religion but I can see where Perry might annoy independents with overemphasis on religion. Romney gives me a headache with flipflops and his surrender to state-run medicine in Massachusetts. Christie, Ryan, Rubio, who else? I like Christie but I worry for his health. Ryan and Rubio would be great --- both are very sharp and they can think on their feet --- Rubio just needs to spend more time in the gym.

Dai Alanye| 8.19.11 @ 8:25AM

I don't think much of Perry, but this rambling inconsequential "analysis" by Kaminski is nothing but conventional thinking expressed in far too many words. Considering this on top of his previous columns, it's clear that weak and wordy is Kaminski's favorite style.

jgo| 8.19.11 @ 10:15AM

Neither Perry nor Romney is acceptable.

Paul maybe, Cain or Bachmann probably, but we still need to hear/see more of them.

JFGalt| 8.19.11 @ 12:58PM

Photogenic or Telegenic candidates are all the media are interested in. Romney is an idiot who has a trail of failed policies. Perry's big thing is that he shoots coyotes from his porch. Nobody can tell me what he's actually done for Texas. When he could have led on the anti-TSA legislation, he mostly hid. Most people here think he's just an empty suit. He won his election because his opponent was an even bigger idiot. People only listen to Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin because of their looks. Doesn't anybody actually listen to the nonsense that comes out of their mouths? Wake up - it's all BS. Only one candidate has a track record of being consistently right. Only one candidate puts his money where his mouth is. Only one candidate has stepped forward with solutions that have a real chance of working. Why won't anyone listen? Because they say he looks funny. So they won't vote for him. It's no wonder that we are in the mess we are in today.

Tex Expatriate| 8.19.11 @ 5:41PM

The author has lived too long back east. Americans will elect, in order, Perry, Bachmann, and Palin in a landslide because they say what Americans know to be true.

Ross Kaminsky| 8.21.11 @ 9:45AM

Tex,

I live in Colorado and haven't lived on the East Coast since the 1980s.

But just as you think I live in a bubble, I also think that expecting Americans to elect any of those three is somewhat projecting your views on a more diverse population. I'm not saying I hope you're wrong; I just think you're overly optimistic about most Americans knowing "what's true."

John Lahart| 8.22.11 @ 2:27PM

Ross,
The problem is the predictive nature in electability. It is a search for the perfect candidate before any election (primaries) is held.

No true left wing candidate has been elected in recent memory. They have all disguised themselves in the cloak of moderation. So many (especially in the press) defined Hilary Clinton as "moderate" (even though she actually cites Alinsky as an influence and admitted she prefers to be called Progressive vs liberal).

Voters are bound to be tiring of this. Obama may be the last straw. Polls indicate the country is more conservative than liberal. Perhaps a true conservative who has strong principles both fiscally and socially is more attractive than a self defined "moderate" who has few principles.

Larry| 8.19.11 @ 6:28PM

For me, a resident Texan, Perry's appeal stems from several things: (1) he is the polar opposite of Romney on the health care and climate change issues; (2) he stands for constitutional government and a better definition of the relationship between the states and the Federal government; (3) he is a more colorful personality than Romney; (4) he has experience governing, moreso than even Romney; (5) he has good conservative principles and instincts most of the time; and, finally (and most importantly) (6) he knows how to win stinking elections!!

Pay attention, folks. Perry will be a man to be reckoned with, no matter what you think of his politics. It needs to be Anybody but Obama. Politically eviscerate the Democrats.

Sam| 8.20.11 @ 9:15AM

I agree with Kaminski's views on the election, it's important that Obama be defeated in 2012. I like Perry but have reservations about his electability. I will certainly support whom ever the conservative electorate nominates, the only conservative candidate I fear is Ron Paul, his foreign policy stance is frightening.

William| 8.21.11 @ 5:34PM

Mr Kaminisky speaks the truth. I'm a long time independent who would dearly like to vote for someone other than Obama in 2012. But those who believe Perry -- or Bachmann, Palin, Paul or Santorum -- have any chance of beating Obama are living in dream land. Their view how the right, left and middle populate the political landscape is about as skewed as Nancy Pelosi's. I'm not enthusiastic about Romney, but I can see myself voting for him. I may not vote for Obama, but even so, I will not vote for any of the Republican candidates mentioned above.

John Lahart| 8.22.11 @ 2:11PM

This piece reveals more about Kaminsky than it does about Perry or anyone else.

First, he links Perry to two candidates from another election in another time. Fred Thompson didn't have the fire in the belly and pretty much withdrew soon after he entered the campaign (see Giuliani). Sarah Palin either helped gain voted for the ticket or she did not. Kaminsky cites two rather obscure studies, one of which concludes she helped and she hindered the McCain campaign. Both references are at best, weak and really do not support his case.

The problem when folks like Kaminsky mention "electability" is the word is code. What it usually means is this guy (or gal) candidate is one of those "social conservatives."

You see, Kaminsky and his fellow travelers refer to themselves as "fiscally conservative and (there's always that "and") socially liberal or worse socially moderate." Kaminsky's problem with Perry is rooted in that "religion thing."

The problem is those "electable" types tend to be candidates like McCain, Bush (41), Dole, Ford, (dare I mention Romney?). Candidates who are squishy on religion and social issues tend to be squishy on other important issues. Be pro life or pro abortion and defend your position. (funny how the most successful Republicans were strong on this (Bush 43 won two national elections).

So, of course, it was not McCain but Palin who was the problem in 08. McCain was one of those deemed "electable" by the press. A sure kiss of death for Republicans.

Romney is ok mandating government "theft" for healthcare as long as it is the state government. He has been as chameleon like on abortion as Clinton. Depending on where he happens to be running at the moment. He has all the marks of a real "reach across the aisle" kinda guy! The kind of politician who is easily rolled by the Kennedy's and the press.
I would love to see what concessions McCain got from Kennedy on that immigration bill atrocity!

Without the Tea Party Repubs in the House, where would we be today?

It is time Republicans nominate someone with strong principles. Not someone who will have some broad appeal that squishy pundits who rely on polls and vague studies to predict the most "electable" candidate! These are the folks who cautioned that Reagan was too "radical" for the electorate.

John Lahart| 8.22.11 @ 8:54PM

"Electability" is something the candidate him or her self must establish. This is done via our system of primaries and the campaign itself.
The problem is pundits who are prioritizing candidates based upon polls most of dubious value this early as well as personal views.
The Republican establishment views Romney as a "safe" bet. Safer than Perry and certainly safer than Bachman or Palin.
"Safe" meaning perceived appeal to those "moderates and independents" pollsters love to identify and quantify. The problem is, these "safe" candidates often lack strong conviction and principles and more often than not lose natiuonal elections.

Arimathean| 8.29.11 @ 4:46PM

No one who voted for the spendthrift G.W. Bush in 2004 has any business calling anyone a RINO! McCain was more conservative than Bush and so is Romney. (I realize that's not saying much.)

I do not entirely trust Romney and was not planning to vote for him. But Perry's corruption and cronyism could discredit the GOP for a decade, if not a generation. If Romney looks like the only candidate who can beat Perry, I'll vote for him. If Perry gets the nomination, I'll vote third party in the general election, just as I did in 2004.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Another Perspective

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

May 25, 2012 | William Tucker

Take Nothing for Granted

May 23, 2012 | Hal G.P. Colebatch

Why I Won't Sign Up for Facebook

May 22, 2012 | Aaron Goldstein

The Battle of the Sexes (All Four of Them)

May 16, 2012 | William Tucker

Will Democrats Move the Charlotte Convention?

May 10, 2012 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/18/skeptical-of-perry

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker|51 comments

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer|70 comments

In a Class of His Own

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi|110 comments

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch|36 comments

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley|142 comments

Terrorism à la Carte

George H. Wittman|25 comments

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick|108 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day

Aaron Goldstein | 5.26.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

Regarding America's 21st-Century Population Edge

Reid Smith | 5.25.12

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang | 5.25.12

WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference

Jeffrey Lord | 5.25.12

Bradley Prize Winner Meese's Originalism Should Figure in 2012 Race

Kevin Mooney | 5.25.12

My op-ed on Ravi/Clementi

Ross Kaminsky | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

Rep. Paul Ryan

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

The Millennial Perspective

David N. Bass

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2012, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.