The American Spectator

Clint| 9.12.11 @ 9:50PM

Perry is gettin' his ass handed to him.

Now, it's time to go after MittensCare Romney & Romney's ," tell the suckers what they wanna hear" multiple positions over time on multiple issues.

Jack in Wi.| 9.13.11 @ 1:35AM

Ron Paul won the debate as usual. All the other candidates were trying to sound like him, at least on some issues. He is pulling the whole party in his direction. Wolf Blitzer tried to set him up on healthcare and Paul handed him his head. All the candidates on stage are intellectual lightweights who can't explain their positions. The only one who made any sense and can defend what he says is Ron Paul. I don't worry about a little booing by the Cheneyite dead enders. These wars are as popular as terminal Syphillis.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.13.11 @ 2:26AM

Ron Paul did not win the debate and the polls prove it (scientific polls, not online polls rigged by paulbotsvoted multiple times). Paul is at a dismal 12%, in fourth place, trailing a candidate who isn't even running and will not run by 3 pp and the frontrunner by 18 pp. Dream on, paulbot.

Clint| 9.13.11 @ 6:05AM

Oh Really, Tehran Ziggy Neo-Chickenhawk.

Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:05AM

Yeah, 'most favorable' by his minute band of moronic-lemming RINOS/CINOS worshippers!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:02AM

Yeah, and so is the 9/11 memorial that is a reminder of 3000+ slaughtered innocents by radical Muslims [that El Tin Man defends repeatedly and STUPIDLY]!!!!!!!!!!

Bob| 9.12.11 @ 9:50PM

Bye Bye Bye Governor Cowpuke, another GOP candidate bites the political dust. I couldn't see the Republicans nominating another Texan so soon after the last two (immigrants to Texas) named Bush were disaster areas.

Nite| 9.12.11 @ 11:21PM

You wish. Can't figure out who you actually support. But you are sure one of the trash Perry group on conservative web sites.

Simon Templar| 9.12.11 @ 10:17PM

The cheap shots that Bachmann and Santorum threw at Perry to remain relevant will guarantee the reelection of Obama. The bait was thrown and predictably they went for it because both lack the common sense to not fall for it and have the ego ambitions of typical politicians not to resist. They will not move up the polls significantly and now have damaged a leading candidate. They will take the next bait when Romney pulls ahead. When these jackasses are done, the DNC will send a thank you note and we will suffer another four years. Expect to see DNC TV commercials with Bachmann starring in them.

If you have any doubts about what I am saying ask Bob, the Liberal troll above, who is enjoying every second of this.

Maybe we really are the stupid party.

You Quin, are enjoying this way too much. Do you want these candidates all destroyed?
My god, will you people ever learn.
It is not about these candidates GD personal ambitions for power nor whether my guy survives these idiotic debate contests. It is about beating the opposition and putting forward our conservative agendas and righting the wrongs done to this nation.

Well, do not listen to me and go ahead and you will be scratching your heads and assess another four years from now. Bob, the troll, will be laughing his ass off on his way to the bank to cash in his guvmint check and get his new federal healthcare insurance card.

Grzmlyk| 9.12.11 @ 11:35PM

I don't think they're cheap shots - these are legitimate issues, and what are the others supposed to do in a debate? Hold up "Perry in 2012" signs? That's not a rhetorical question - what would you have them do at this juncture? Bow out of the race? And you think Perry has no ego involved in this, it's just those others? Come on!

I think everyone up there except for Huntsman and Paul acquitted themselves quite well at times (as always, Paul makes eminent sense on domestic fiscal issues and is half out to lunch on the military/foreign policy issues). Frankly, I think Bachmann MORE than held her own - I think that, ironically, she's improved a great deal, displayed a lot more gravitas, since she peaked in the polls. I liked Santorum a lot, I liked Cain a lot and Newt was Newt - very clever. Romney was slick, as always, and Perry, well, it was a rough night, but he was still standing when the dust settled. Any of these folks would be an improvement over Obama - the question is, how much of an improvement? I'm not sure Perry's the man; he hasn't closed the deal with me.

And I'm not sure the GOP jockeying ensures Obama's reelection. His polls are tanking, he's lost independents, he's lost many on his left flank (which the GOP will never garner) and there is an open loss of confidence in him. I believe that will accelerate.

Also, I believe his poll numbers are inflated; far more people are disenchanted with him than want to admit it (he's black, after all). If he were white, I'm guessing his approval rating would be in the low-to-mid thirties. That spells GOP landslide any way you slice it.

Here's the deal: If we have to elect a RINO because that's the only way to grab idiotic independents, it doesn't matter that there's an "R" after his or her name - if we're going to accept the metastasizing of government, we might as well re-elect Obama, and the one thing that disturbed me tonight was the too-common acceptance of the Nanny State vis a vis Social Security (except for Bachmann's excellent addressing of this very issue). And where Social Security goes, the rest of the entitlement programs follow.

Social security IS a ponzi scheme, and I was sorry Perry backed off of that. It may make everyone feel warm and fuzzy and, as voters it looks like we're going to insist that the free lunches keep coming, but there's one big problem: government is all out of free lunch chits.

The worst points for me tonight were when the candidates trotted out the old "waste, fraud and abuse" chestnut - yeah, there's a lot of that, but that's what government does. You are NEVER going to take waste, fraud and abuse out of government. You might as well say you want to take the wetness out of water. The only way you get less wetness is to have less water, and the only way you cut down waste, fraud and abuse is to cut down the opportunities for it to thrive by cutting the size of government DRASTICALLY.

We are in very deep shit in this country, and it's going to take a real conservative to get us out - not a slick politician who focus-groups every policy position and steers a middle ground in order to get elected and buy off voters. That puts us right back where we began - a broke country kicking the can down the road.

That means telling the people that there is no Santa Claus and then taking away a lot of government goodies. Throwing a lot of do-nothing government employees out of work. Eliminating Energy, Education, and other cabinet-level departments (as Paul rightly suggested). Busting government unions. Reversing Dodd-Frank AND Sarbanes Oxley AND bringing Fannie and Freddie to heel. Killing Obamacare in its crib. Rolling back the clock on regulations. Telling the EPA, the environmentalists and the global warming marxists to peddle their bullshit in another country. Who is going to have the cajones to do all of this?

Frankly, I don't believe anybody on that platform tonight will be able to do what needs to be done, either because the bureaucracy has become far bigger than the presidency or because whomever is elected will learn that the name of the game in Washington is doling out Other People's Money as fast as you can and praying the music stops after you have found a seat.

And as much as I liked Perry on the Social Security question last time around, this time around he stayed tamely in the corral and tried to play nice - the classic GOP flaw: We can give you big government, we just have to do it more intelligently.

That ain't gonna fly. The truth is, America can't handle the truth - whomever is elected is going to have to act drastically to stave off collapse - or, more likely, manage that collapse as the entire edifice comes crashing down.

NbyNW| 9.13.11 @ 12:22AM

So what would you have Perry or any of them say about social security? I see you didn't mention getting rid of it yourself - would you just get rid of it, like the department of education? What does "act drastically to stave off collapse" mean concerning Social Security? Obviously, it's not going to be ended anytime soon. Too many of us have paid too long to get nothing out of it. But I sure would like to see it transition away from the Ponzi scheme business model to personal accounts, like Bush wanted to do and some of the candidates are proposing.

Grzmlyk| 9.13.11 @ 12:40AM

Yes, I agree, transitioning it to personal accounts would be essential, but it's too late.

I'm not young, but I'm over a decade away from lining up for my piece of the Social Security pie - and I have no doubt there will be no slice left for me.

We borrow $188 million an hour in this country. Every hour of every day. And Obama's government is growing that number. Unless we collapse before 2012, whomever is elected after Obama - Republican or Democrat - is going to grow that number barring a miracle. Because we are PAST the point of no return.

So it doesn't matter how I'd like to see seniors provided for. And it doesn't matter what we've all paid into the system. It's over.

We are just a couple of years away from every aspect of life as we knew it being a thing of the past. That is the reality, as I see it.

It's like my sister said when she visited me and commented that my house was too hot this summer. I told her I didn't have the money to pay the extra electricity. She said that, if it were her, she wouldn't live in that kind of heat.

I told her that the electric company would want money if I ran my air conditioner, and since I have none, what the hell was I going to tell them? She didn't get it because she doesn't understand money. Someone else always bails her out.

If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. That's where we will be in five years. Broke. Collapsed. Belly up.

When the bills come due and we cannot borrow from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia anymore, and inflation has made our dollars worthless, exactly what are we going to pay our senior citizens with? Or the poor? Or health care recipients? Or food stamp recipients? Or the thousands and thousands of other people that have learned that money comes only from the government?

Broke is broke. We are broke. In 10 years we will be living in another country altogether. A very ugly country where dreams of a social safety net are simply fairy tales told by the surviving elders.

Kingofthenet| 9.13.11 @ 1:26AM

It's a GAME, stop looking at it like an Accountant or like you look at your personal(Apparently dire) Financial Situation. Large Countries like America NEVER go 'Broke', just like important Countries like Japan and Germany never pay for their Global aggression, Who paid for WWII? It certainly weren't Japan and Germany or Italy. Actually it wasn't even really the USA, everyone had an interest in forgiving and forgetting, no point in charging people living in rubble and nuclear wastelands, a bill they could never pay. If the 'Greenback' ever fails it will be replaced by the Blue-back or some other color currency, books will be zeroed, and we will start over with the best credit rating of ANY Country. No sense in trying to fix something and causing extreme worldwide pain, when it can all be just 'forgotten' about.

Kingofthenet| 9.13.11 @ 1:51AM

P.S. You wouldn't by chance be one of those 'Bulb Choice' Clingers are you? Because if you replaced ALL your bulbs with Govt. subsided CFL's you most likely would save enough energy to run your air conditioner to keep yourself comfortable with NO net increase in your bill.

Grzmlyk| 9.13.11 @ 8:52AM

Uh, countries do go broke (Argentina and Zimbabwe just to name two recent ones). The reason everyone "forgave and forgot" WWII was because Germany went broke due to the Versailles treaty - which stoked hyperinflation and despair, which paved the way for Hitler and WWII.

The fact is, the bill always comes due. You are operating under the misapprehension that there's such a thing as a free lunch and that deficits don't matter. That's Keynesian hogwash.

Who paid for WWII? The USA and the people of Europe and the people of Japan. Remember The Marshall Plan? The destruction of life and of property is a real cost. You're not supporting the "broken windows" fallacy, are you? That was debunked 300 years ago. Had WWII not occurred, Western Civilization would have had far, far more wealth going into the 1950s than it did; an unfathomable amount of wealth was destroyed.

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand that money represents value that's held in the real world, it's not an abstraction unconnected to reality.

Tell Greece to shut up and then tell the EU to simply print more Euros. See if that improves their situation.

You aren't one of those people who looks at your bank account and says, "I can't be overdrawn - I still have checks!" are you?

Kingofthenet| 9.13.11 @ 9:57AM

I don't mean National deficits aren't important at all and Countries can act recklessly with no consequence.First off the USA isn't Zimbabwe or other small Country, their options are more limited due to their small GNP.As an analogy, imagine going to a bar, you order drinks, at what point do they 'cut you off'? Is it based on the amount of drinks you ordered or your general behavior. I would say MOST bars would serve you a 100 drinks assuming you can drink them down and act responsible. Start slurring your voice or swaying or acting like a jerk and it's quitting time. The world wants the USA to get it's Fiscal House in Order, but it doesn't have to happen tomorrow. As long as we are heading in the right direction it can take 50 yrs to reach a stable place and the world would be fine with that. Doing any more than that, risks MASSIVE pain for the USA and can destabilize the world economy. It would also be a self inflicted wound that is unnecessary and too extreme.

Grzmlyk| 9.13.11 @ 10:03AM

What are you talking about?

Countries do go broke - Germany went Broke. Japan is broke. America is broke. We borrow $188 million an hour, every hour of every day. That in and of itself is unsustainable. China has pulled back its lending and, in any case, China itself has severe problems with its own real estate bubble and inflation, much of which it imported from us.

The Fed has pumped $3 trillion in cash into the US economy since 2008. If you think that's not devaluing our dollars you are crazy.

We are already destabilizing the world economy - it's a fait accompli. Large countries with the kind of debt overhang we have ALWAYS default, and they ALWAYS default the same way: by debauching the currency.

That is what we are doing. It's already a done deal, which is why this pretending that we can continue to grow the nanny state like a perpetual motion machine is risible on its face.

We are the Titanic and we have already hit the iceberg. Just because the folks in the first class compartments have yet to feel more than an unpleasant bump doesn't mean they aren't doomed.

Keynes was WRONG.

Kingofthenet| 9.13.11 @ 10:43AM

You Republicans act like you handed Obama a wonderful Economy that he messed up, not a Financial System that was on the verge of collapse. I think we stabilized fine in the following two years. As far as a 'Nanny State' goes people SHOULD get what they want, you and most Republicans seem to think Nirvana is when the Govt. provides people with no services but lets you keep most of what you make. Us Liberals are are pragmatic, we KNOW many of you will screw up, and don't want to have to trip over you in the gutter or see your sorry ass eating out of a garbage can when your 90, we are acting like the grown ups. I've been to those 'Socialist' European Hellholes and all I've noticed is that the streets are clean, the people fit and happy, and the trains run on time. If that is Hell on Earth sign me up.
BTW: You are so sure this gutting of the Societal Safety net will be a great stimulus for America, what country can you point to that has done that and prospered? If none why are you so sure?

Grzmlyk| 9.13.11 @ 11:50AM

I love this: In one sentence you say "people should get what they want" and one sentence later you call yourself a pragmatist. Hey, I want a government-paid Mercedes Benz. Where the hell is it?

I don't know if your problem is that you are ignorant, immature or just stupid, but your sense of logic wouldn't pass muster in the fifth grade - well, a fifth grade before you liberals got hold of education and turned it into a Marxist indoctrination program.

Guess that makes you the perfect liberal - a fool who thinks reality is whatever you want it to be. As long, of course, as YOU aren't the one paying for it. My, but you ARE generous with other people's money, aren't you?

And you still think money is just a meaningless concept. Run your economic theory by me again, please. I love a good fairy tale.

You are a fool, unworthy of serious debate. Just so you know, I blame every administration, from FDR on - and in particular LBJ - for the mess we are in. But you liberals think that Bush's $500 billion deficit was bad - but Obama's $1.4 trillion deficit is just swell!

You don't get the concept that THERE IS NO MONEY left. Contrary to your suggestion that we all just use Monopoly money to pay for stuff, money represents real stuff.

It'd be nice if we all had wings so we could fly everywhere, but you can't legislate that (although I'm sure you'd try).

Must be nice to live in fantasy land. Until, of course, reality intrudes.

So what branch of government do you work for, or are you just on the dole? Or maybe you're a perpetual college student. Whatever you are, you are, first and foremost, a greedy moron.

Kingofthenet| 9.13.11 @ 1:32PM

YOU are the one with the shaky grasp on reality, these programs weren't created as FDR's wet dream for creating a socialist country. FDR had to face REAL Reality, like the FACT that more and more 'Old Timers' were becoming destitute. These were people who didn't complain and were FAR more independent than you or me, but were living under ATROCIOUS circumstances. IT could not continue like that. I don't want to live like India with 'Throwaway' people. The New Deal wasn't something he thought up to get reelected, it was because MILLIONS of Americans were in Soup Lines without any hope.Do you actually believe we are Stronger, and more independent, and more Responsible that those people in the 1930's? I would say we are far less, Do you want to return to the desperate times like than?

Grzmlyk| 9.13.11 @ 10:05AM

BTW, there is no bar on this planet that will serve you 100 drinks regardless of how you act.

There is always a cutoff due to liability issues.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:12AM

ST: You are 99% correct and I agree, except for your typical hit job on Hillyer [which is undeserved; try aiming your verbal arrows at the Paul Krugmann's of this asinine/unliterary world instead, please]. As to your astute point of the inability of most here to focus upon the true target [as Newt constantly agrees and points out the need for], see the following as an example that IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS:
'.....[From the DC]....Debbie Downer derps it up again -- It wouldn't be a GOP debate without an utterly stupid rebuttal by a promiment Dem, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is always ready to step up to the plate and strike out. TheDC's Matthew Boyle reports: "Appearing on CNN with host Anderson Cooper minutes after Monday's Republican primary debate, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the candidates were appeasing tea partiers.'Anyone watching the debate tonight, Anderson, watched the Republican candidates, as expected, worship at the altar with the Tea Party,' Wasserman Schultz said. 'As a Floridian, I know my constituents were looking for them to talk about what they would do to create jobs, what they would do to get the economy turned around, how would they help the middle class, how would they help small business owners. None of that.'" All of those problems would be greatly alleviated by the simple expedient of replacing Obama, of course, but Derpy Debbie can't allow herself to think about that. The important thing is that now we know the GOP candidates are "worshipping at the altar with the Tea Party." And as we all know, the act of worship is bad, unless it's directed at a handsome fellow named Barry.....' !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aruges| 9.12.11 @ 10:22PM

I won't believe that immigration issues will trip up a candidate until I actually see it happen. Lest you all forget that our last nominee was John McCain AFTER his massive push for amnesty. Republican primary voters have a great history of SAYING they care about immigration issues, but not actally VOTING those convictions.

Chuck| 9.12.11 @ 10:34PM

Ah, the Tea Party (which didn't exist in '08) does care and does vote their convictions including against politicians who condone illegal immigration. Perry's record as governor was exposed tonight and found wanting. The current front runner won't be soon so that leaves Romney. The GOP needs a late entry, a dark horse, a true conservative. I don't know who that is yet but if none appears the Tea Party (Bull Moose from 1912) will nominate a national candidate.

Kingofthenet| 9.12.11 @ 10:45PM

Another Pretender bites the Tea Party dust...

Clint| 9.12.11 @ 10:49PM

That trumps what you bite, Kindofanut.

Clint| 9.12.11 @ 10:48PM

Mark Meckler, a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, singled out Romney's Massachusetts health care plan as a primary reason why the national front-runner for the Republican nomination "clearly has difficulties" with members of the movement.

"He's attached to RomneyCare and has done a poor job of distancing himself from that," Meckler told reporters at a breakfast in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I think he probably squandered an incredible opportunity and was probably the best guy to say, ‘I tried this and it failed,' and he has not done a good job of that. So he has taken positions that are contrary to what the average Tea Partier would take -- positions on man-made global warming, positions on energy efficiency. So I think he's in real trouble with the Tea Party base."

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:16AM

And this is what your fellow Paulista has to say on the subject of the tea party movement:

'....[from the DC]....Debbie Downer derps it up again -- It wouldn't be a GOP debate without an utterly stupid rebuttal by a promiment Dem, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is always ready to step up to the plate and strike out. TheDC's Matthew Boyle reports: "Appearing on CNN with host Anderson Cooper minutes after Monday's Republican primary debate, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the candidates were appeasing tea partiers.'Anyone watching the debate tonight, Anderson, watched the Republican candidates, as expected, worship at the altar with the Tea Party,' Wasserman Schultz said. 'As a Floridian, I know my constituents were looking for them to talk about what they would do to create jobs, what they would do to get the economy turned around, how would they help the middle class, how would they help small business owners. None of that.'" All of those problems would be greatly alleviated by the simple expedient of replacing Obama, of course, but Derpy Debbie can't allow herself to think about that. The important thing is that now we know the GOP candidates are "worshipping at the altar with the Tea Party." .....'

Aloysius| 9.12.11 @ 11:14PM

"Ron Paul is Ron Paul. He's good at explaining his positions, some of which are great, some of which, well.... aren't."

On the bright side, at least we don't have to guess what his convictions are, and whether he really means them.

Nite| 9.12.11 @ 11:19PM

Mr. Hillyer, you did not investigate Perry's actions very well on those two issues. I am from TX and know them very well. The HPV vaccine is recommended by the CDC. You start a number of years prior to an individual becoming sexual active in order to develop protective levels. By the time an individual shows symptoms for cervical cancer, it is too late. Perry said he should have gone to the Legislature instead of using an Executive Order. There was an opt out as there is FOR ALL TX GIVEN IMMUNIZATIONS! The Legislature didn't pass it and the parents didn't like it so it was dropped a long time ago. Perry has been very active in the State on different types of Cancer. The so called Dream Act for TX. Both Houses of the TX Legislature passed it with only 4 no votes. Now Perry could do the will of the Legislature and sign the bill or follow his own will instead of the Legislature and veto the bill. Governor Perry typically follows the Law passed by the Legislature. The Texas Border along with Mexico is 1800 miles. There is not enough money in TX to bill a border fence to cover this distance. Perry has Obama several times for boots on the ground, drones etc. to patrol and was denied several times. This is a Federal mandate, not a state. Heck Obama won't even remove criminals from this country. What can Perry do? Perry should have put all this out in detail. Bachman and Santitorum were shrill on the vaccine issue and thought it would help their flagging campaigns. It won't and it turned me off.

galloglass| 9.13.11 @ 12:12AM

Quin doesn't care, just like Santorum and Bachmann because it's a caused by an STD. That's the long and short of it. As a conservative and public health professional, I check my personal feelings about premarital sex at the door and recommend vaccinations and medically sound treatment regardless of the patient's behavior, which I would stress puts them at risk for certain diseases.

WL| 9.13.11 @ 9:29AM

This is a meaningless comment. Congratulations on being a Public Health Professional. That's all you really want.

As a public Health professional, you are contributing to the growing debt.

So get off the dole and work somewhere else.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:18AM

The POINT, moron, is that it was governmentally forced upon human-citizens under force of law!!!!!!!!!!

ER| 9.13.11 @ 12:00AM

Great night for the Tea Party! Throw out Huntsman, and you have a group of thoughtful Republicans that have moved noticeably to the Right. Governor Perry is under concerted assault by the Left because they fear him; and from the Right, because in ONE month he has become the "man to beat". No surprise there, and frankly, the Primary Process is in place to make it tough to become Commander in Chief. Texans are a tough lot; you do not Govern them for 12 years if you are not also as tough. I have four kids in the Army, and believe me, Texans are a huge chunk of the enlisted and officer Corp. and always have been. Nearly everyone I have ever met in Texas, has family in the Military. Governor Perry served in the Military. In the quiet of the voting booth, and after a long, grueling campaign, the boots-on-the-ground American will elect Governor Perry as the Next Commander In Chief. Leaders in China, Iran, Venenzuela, Russia, Syria, Al Queda, the Taliban, Cuba, and North Korea are very much opposed to the candidacy of Governor Perry, as is the New York Times.

RJ| 9.13.11 @ 1:15AM

Quin saw the debate very differently than I did. I thought Perry was earnest and strong. He gave believable answers regarding the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition illegal aliens. While his positions on these two issues may upset some conservatives, I think he came across as a caring thoughtful man who is not radical or doctrinaire. Unlike Romney, he seems to speak his convictions regardless of what the audience wants to hear. Bachmann and Santorum came across as whiners.

The speaker with the most bang for the word was Newt. I love listening to him. There are many more debates to go, but I came away more impressed with Perry tonight.

trampoline| 9.13.11 @ 5:46AM

Things are looking up - I didn't hear Michele mention that she "raised 23 foster children" tonight. Raising, in my lexicon, means from cradle to college. She did, however manage to ignore Perry's reference to opting out of the vaccine and continue her wailing about the innocent 12 year old girls. Are they no longer innocent? Where was the vaccination? Did they somehow lose their virginity in the process?

I still don't get the long, Dolly Parton fake fingernails - an incongruous artifice for a woman aspiring to the Oval Office.

I did find it an interesting touch that Romney seems to have added a few silver streaks to his coif - which look as phony as his inky black hair. Must have thought Huntsman looked more presidential.

I watch for these things. Last time around, He actually admonished a reporter not to touch the hair. Any man who refers to his hair as "the hair" as though it were some kind of accessory, isn't giving his full attention to governance. John Kerry had a flying fit when his traveling hair comber guy lost his hair brush . Evan Thomas saw fit to include that bit of insight into Kerry's personality in his book. If nit-picking grooming foibles is good enough for Evan Thomas, it is good enough for me.

It is Mitt's misfortune that no matter how exercised he gets and starts yelling, he still looks mealy-mouthed.

How does mealy mouthed stand up against Liver Lips? Only time will tell,if he is the candidate.

We have reached this desperation point - that you've got to look like you could wipe up the floor with Obama if you want to get elected. And be willing to do so.

Wouldn't it be neat if we could just dispense with the cosmetics of the whole thing and get straight to the election?

New rules: No makeup. No hairstylist. No mousse or gel. No expensive suits to show up the rumpled suited one. In fact, no suits. Men wear Speedos and Michelle wears a maillot - - that would be an unforgiving one piece with no underwiring to "elevate the discussion". Imagine Newt and Ron Paul, standing side by side, ready to dive into the debate.

I suggested something like this when Kerry was sporting about on his windsurfer in his knee length Beach Boy drawers attempting to out-macho George Bush. Just have them both shower down, no hair dryer - - don those Speedos and get out there and debate. No one bought it.

Obama without the GQ tonsorial splendor would not exactly make the earth move under our feet. I read he wears a size 14 collar.

aware| 9.13.11 @ 6:28AM

"Perry getting creamed"

That won't stop a lot of people from trying to put conservative lipstick on a Statist pig.

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:23AM

ITS THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS:
'....[From the DC] ....Debbie Downer derps it up again -- It wouldn't be a GOP debate without an utterly stupid rebuttal by a promiment Dem, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is always ready to step up to the plate and strike out. TheDC's Matthew Boyle reports: "Appearing on CNN with host Anderson Cooper minutes after Monday's Republican primary debate, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the candidates were appeasing tea partiers.'Anyone watching the debate tonight, Anderson, watched the Republican candidates, as expected, worship at the altar with the Tea Party,' Wasserman Schultz said. 'As a Floridian, I know my constituents were looking for them to talk about what they would do to create jobs, what they would do to get the economy turned around, how would they help the middle class, how would they help small business owners. None of that.'" All of those problems would be greatly alleviated by the simple expedient of replacing Obama, of course, but Derpy Debbie can't allow herself to think about that. The important thing is that now we know the GOP candidates are "worshipping at the altar with the Tea Party." And as we all know, the act of worship is bad, unless it's directed at a handsome fellow named Barry......'

WL| 9.13.11 @ 9:25AM

I like Perry, and I am voting for him in our primary. Call him a statist Pig all you want...because that is the way you feel...but I seem to remember the day or so before April 15 (when the tea party began) Perry was all about it.

You have to be honest on the illegal immigration front...yes, Perry is not very good...but look at where he has governed. Republicans in Texas have to be carefull with the issue. I know, I know, yeah, yeah, yeah...I can imagine the responses to this...but I could also smash Romney on Health care blah blah...

For all of you Bachmann supporters...I LIKE HER TOO...but I truly feel she is not savvy enough to take on Obama...sorry, but she isn't...maybe next time.

Shouldn't it tell all of you something when the Democrats AND half of the Republicans are targeting Perry and Perry alone???????????

But that doesn't matter....let's all sit back and pontificate about how Perry didn't win the debate...and how Romney looked better WHEN THE WHOLE STAGE was like a bunch of Rabid dogs going after him (no, airbrain, I'm not whining, it's just what happened)...

It's starting to smell like Democrats in here.

Silver Bullet| 9.13.11 @ 10:36AM

It is a good thing for Republicans to "vet" our candidates. Here's my "two cents":

Ron Paul: Lots of enthused supporters; but he's too old and has just enough views out in "left field" to make the generally uninformed electorate scared to death by him. Cannot beat Obama.

Huntsman: Is this guy running to be the John Anderson of 2012?

Bachmann: Great lady, needs to earn her stripes a few more years before qualifying as the "next Margaret Thatcher," who worked her way up through the ranks the hard way.

Romney: As fake as they get. No jobs in MA. Billionaire banker -- most people have little respect for "earning" money the way he did. Bankers aren't exactly the faves of the general public.

Gingrich: Brilliant guy; too much personal baggage. Wears thin very quickly.

Cain: Great guy, a patriot. Most voters won't "suspend disbelief" to believe that a businessman with zero political experience could move into the White House.

Perry: Stumbling over HPV and the border fence. I just don't get why we can't build a fence, as well as all the other things Perry proposes -- the answer to illegal immigration is "all of the above." Some questions about his past support for Al Gore. Not another twangy Texan, please -- not yet -- give it another 20 years!

Santorum: My own personal favorite -- have given him $$$. Experienced, has had actual legislative accomplishments. Unqualified, unapologetic supporter of traditional marriage -- if his enemies are lined up, we get a good idea of how good he is. Lost in PA, a very Dem State, in a very bad years for Repubs overall. Supported Specter, yes -- but only for a pledge (kept) that Specter would let conservative judicial nominees through his committee unscathed; and believed it better to hold the Senate with Specter than to lose it with Toomey going down (which he would have way back then).

Oldefarte| 9.13.11 @ 11:37AM

I still am neutral, but Perry is slightly appearing to have problems on the Texas illegals and the semi-related Muslim issues IMO. Although I disagree with a state government forcing vaccines upon any resident, that to me is a Texas-state isolated issue and as such is irrelevant. Idon't agree with Perry's statement defending the state of Texas giving in-state college tuition privileges to illegals aka the Dream Act, since the Texas taxpayers [and all] are paying for same. Thats the problem with illegals beyond the illegal part, in that the taxpayers have to pay for the governmental services that they receive free [hospitals, schools, etc]. I think possibly that that is tied somewhat to his association with Muslim organizations, in that his ultra-religiosity with its inherent generosity/kindness element clouds the illegality/immorality of these issues in his mindset possibly. Lastly, its early and I don't want to overly critisize any Republicans, since as I've said numerous times that ITS THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS!!!!!!!!