Google/Fox Republican debate at 9pm.

[NoCalMike]

The Palin dynamic would be interesting as you know there is a built in % that would automatically vote for her regardless if she comes off like a dolt in the debates.

Palin would probably constantly just throw out a bunch of cute anecdotes, one-liners, and zingers, hoping that delivering big applause lines ae more effective than actually outlining any type of policy or plan.

The question is whether she could broaden her appeal with that approach beyond the Palin-ites.

[Wrong Direction]

Perry hasn't just been slow afoot, he's come out with terrible answers on HPV, SS and immigration. Right now there's a poll on NationalReview.com showing that 32% thought Perry was atrocious last night and 46% thought he was adequate. Only 17% said he was good and 5% said he was excellent.

Polls are lagging indicators. We've known for a while that Obama's popularity was tanking, but the polls are really just now catching up. I think Perry has disappointed on many levels and the polls will catch up to this reality.

There are thousands of guys and gals like Art who could, with 15 minutes time, come up with answers that blow anything Perry has said out of the water. Why can't he? Perry is not inspiring any confidence in people who want to believe in him. I think his popularity will be a flash in the pan.

---------- Post added September-23rd-2011 at 10:18 AM ----------

Question: what happens if Palin enters?

...

And Tulane, im not sure if Perry is dumb or if he just doesn't have the type of mind/way of thinking that works well in a debate setting. Can you imagine him trying to debate Obama?

Romney is the GOP's best shot. He's got this.

1. A friend sent me an article yesterday that said Todd Palin is going to divorce Sarah. No idea if it was credible, but it was written like it was credible.

2. I honestly think Obama will be terrible in the debates next year. He's entirely over rated in this format, IMO. He won in 2008 with platitudes, not specifics. Now that he has to defend specifics and theoretically provide a vision for his next four years, I don't think he'll be nearly as difficult to debate this time around.

3. I agree. Right now Romney has the best shot. The only other person I personally would be confident in is Newt, unless of course Christie comes riding in on a white horse (incredibly unlikely).

[NoCalMike]

Perry comes off like a guy who had the #1 spot handed to him before he even got in the race due to media hype. You want to claim the media created Obama, well how about Rick Perry? After the first debate, the media was falling all over themselves to anoint Rick Perry the winner based on how weak everyone else came off. It reminds me of the first day of class in high school when the teacher says "Ok, everyone starts with an A+ but it is up to you to keep it" Rick Perry was handed an A+ the second he jumped into the race, but he sure hasn't done much to keep it.

I don't think any of these candidates right now sound like they could hold up in a debate against Obama. A lot of the stuff they are allowed to get away with saying would actually be challenged. Also considering their economic policies are mainly a return to what it was like leading up to the collapse in 2007/8 it isn't going to be very tough for Obama to piece together a case that what they are proposing would be leading us back into a 2008 collapse rather then any type of recovery.

Considering Obama's "balanced approach" to the economy is polling extremely high, he isn't going to have a tough time painting any one of these candidates outside of the mainstream, especially for their ludicrous hand-raising at the choice of taking in 10 dollars for taxing ever 1 dollar, or whatever the ratio was.

The thing about Obama's polls are that I think people are more upset, angry, disappointed that he hasn't been an effective leader, moreso than they dislike his policies. The minute he gets into a debate with one of these candidates he is probably going to shred them to pieces on the olive branch issues and them being a member of the "Party of No" He is going to bring up that while the American people were hurting, their answer to everything....EVERYTHING was "NO" besides extending the Bush tax cuts, which he went along with, and look at all those jobs raining down on us?

I'm not saying you have to agree with Obama's policies, however for the purpose of the debates themselves, I think these candidates are bumbling and stumbling enough that it is going to make it a rather pedestrian affair for Obama to school them.

[Art]

Perry has an advantage. It's that Romney will hand this to him on Social Security.

Perry needs to attack the attack. He needs to act incredulous that Romney doesn't get it. He needs to paint Romney as a typical, "Can't touch SS," third rail politician. He needs to speak plainly and forcefully on that issue. Romney has handed him the election. When Romney says, "What if a state raids their trust fund," as a problem with Perry saying states should have rights in this, Perry needs to hop up and down and say, "Mitt, perhaps when you were playing architect for the Health Program Obama would later copy you missed the fact the federal government has already raided the trust fund." Perry has Romney on the ropes. I just don't think he knows it.

Now, Perry put himself there too last night. The immigration answer will KILL him. When asked about it, rather than answering the question conservatives have as to why people who are illegal to this country are receiving tuition discounts to Texas schools that American's are ineligible to receive, you can NOT answer, that it's heartless not to provide education to illegals. No one said that. It's an absolutely crushing answer. That alone will cost him dearly.

[NoCalMike]

The 100k tax break on higher education actually sounds like a great idea to a liberal, however my question would be why don't Americans get it? Hello most wouldn't even need 100k for their career path.

If you started with community college and transferred for just the final 2 years to a 4-year college, most paths would cost way under 100k.

[twa]

The 100k tax break on higher education actually sounds like a great idea to a liberal, however my question would be why don't Americans get it?

Because ya are not Texans

The feds require us to feed, educate and provide health care these children of illegals and treat them as our own for decades....and then ya wanna ***** about Texas not allowing the select ones to be treated like some carpetbagger? :finger:

Take care of your own mess ya heartless bums

Art ya need to let Romney take the hook deep before ya set it

[AsburySkinsFan]

:ciao: cya Rick

mguDdsmCylU

[Art]

:ciao: cya Rick

11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote pictures, large blocks of text or embedded YouTube videos.

It wastes space in databases and unnecessarily extends and clutters threads.

If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not necessarily the entire post. When you use the quote feature there will be a blue arrow that looks like this-- --simply click on it and it will take you to the original, full version of the post you just quoted. Or if you're referencing a picture, for example, just refer to the post number and a brief description (i.e. "Post #324's wild! What kind of animal is that?")

His answer was interesting for sure.

He'd have SCORED points saying, "Look. I believe in God. I believe in right from wrong. I've done a lot wrong in my life. I've done some right. We are all sinners, myself included. I do not condone homosexual behavior as acceptable or appropriate or equal to that of a relationship between a man and a woman. I believe our children should understand the family ideal of one man for one woman. I believe our society should uplift the core family as the model to follow. Homosexuality will exist and it is not my place to tell other people how to live their lives. It's not my place as a man, believer in Christ or President to dictate my social beliefs on others. And the converse is true. Those who do not share my convictions should not tell those like me what I must accept as acceptable or normal. Personally, no, I do not believe homsexuals should serve in the military openly as it may be found disquieting by others. But, those people may elect not to serve in the military if that is the case for them. People need to be free to decide how to live their lives, independent of the individualized beliefs of their leadership. I could not impose my view of appropriate, socially normal behavior on one segment of society over another. It's not about equality. It's about knowing my role as President. I have no role in this area. The individuals who wish to serve our nation must decide what is appropriate for themselves."

Now, if he was really brave, he skips the "libertarian" part of what I wrote and simply says his belief is homosexuality is wrong and should not be adopted by public institutions like the military as acceptable. I'm a libertarian so I'd go with above, but, a socially conservative person could get away with that answer. He can't argue Don't Ask, Don't Tell applies to homosexuality and heterosexuality. That's just dumb.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

His answer was interesting for sure.

He'd have SCORED points saying, "Look. I believe in God. I believe in right from wrong. I've done a lot wrong in my life. I've done some right. We are all sinners, myself included. I do not condone homosexual behavior as acceptable or appropriate or equal to that of a relationship between a man and a woman. I believe our children should understand the family ideal of one man for one woman. I believe our society should uplift the core family as the model to follow. Homosexuality will exist and it is not my place to tell other people how to live their lives. It's not my place as a man, believer in Christ or President to dictate my social beliefs on others. And the converse is true. Those who do not share my convictions should not tell those like me what I must accept as acceptable or normal. Personally, no, I do not believe homsexuals should serve in the military openly as it may be found disquieting by others. But, those people may elect not to serve in the military if that is the case for them. People need to be free to decide how to live their lives, independent of the individualized beliefs of their leadership. I could not impose my view of appropriate, socially normal behavior on one segment of society over another. It's not about equality. It's about knowing my role as President. I have no role in this area. The individuals who wish to serve our nation must decide what is appropriate for themselves."

Now, if he was really brave, he skips the "libertarian" part of what I wrote and simply says his belief is homosexuality is wrong and should not be adopted by public institutions like the military as acceptable. I'm a libertarian so I'd go with above, but, a socially conservative person could get away with that answer. He can't argue Don't Ask, Don't Tell applies to homosexuality and heterosexuality. That's just dumb.

Yea, that is really dumb. So, he is saying that if a heterosexual talks about his wife he should be kicked out of the military.

I don't think he gets that the point of getting rid of it wasn't so that gay people could have sex with each other in the military. The point was that they weren't even allowed to discuss who they were with people without getting kicked out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yea, that is really dumb. So, he is saying that if a heterosexual talks about his wife he should be kicked out of the military.

That's exactly where his logic ends up, that putting them on par means that heteros should be treated like the homosexuals, which we obviously know he won't agree to, so what he's done is effectively argue against equal protection under the law.

I don't think he gets that the point of getting rid of it wasn't so that gay people could have sex with each other in the military. The point was that they weren't even allowed to discuss who they were with people without getting kicked out.

Exactly, and when he goes on to say that they are receiving special privilege he simply goes off the rails because was is so special about them being able to be open about their relationships like heterosexual couples are free to do? That's not special that's equal.

If he thought he had any chance at the brass ring before he can kiss it good bye now, because his answer may appeal to a minority on the Right but in the general election it will fall flat on its face.

[Hooper]

Perry... wow. Just doesn't seem ready for primetime.

If this is the field, Romney wins easy. I could definitely see him being president.

[Predicto]

He can't argue Don't Ask, Don't Tell applies to homosexuality and heterosexuality. That's just dumb.

Yea, that is really dumb. So, he is saying that if a heterosexual talks about his wife he should be kicked out of the military.

I don't think he gets that the point of getting rid of it wasn't so that gay people could have sex with each other in the military. The point was that they weren't even allowed to discuss who they were with people without getting kicked out.

Cmon. The answer wasn't dumb. Santorum knows exactly how DADT worked and what the issues really are.

The answer was dishonest. He is trying to keep with the long running social conservative theme that gays are "demanding special privileges" rather than demanding equality.

[Wrong Direction]

Cmon. The answer wasn't dumb. Santorum knows exactly how DADT worked and what the issues really are.

The answer was dishonest. He is trying to keep with the long running social conservative theme that gays are "demanding special privileges" rather than demanding equality.

Exactly. Just once I'd like to see a Republican stand up and say the following (trying to pull an Art here):

As Commander in Chief, my primary objective will be to ensure that our military is ready and armed to fight and win wars. We ask our young men and women to put themselves into situations most people can't imagine. They're the best in the world at what they do because they can excel when the going gets tough.

The military is not one large homogenous group of people. We have blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, heterosexuals and, yes, homosexuals. Do you mean to tell me that our brave men and women can handle guerilla warfare tactics and street to street fighting, but they can't handle a working relationship with people who are different from them? That's absurd.

As CiC, I will preside over the most powerful military force this world has ever seen. Their readiness will be my number one priority. To the extent any conduct, be it from homosexuality or any other difference in individuals, is detrimental to military readiness, the military code of conduct should absolutely address and remove that problem. We cannot let misconduct affect our morale or readiness in any way, and under my leadership we won't. Blacks and whites get along just fine in the military despite our different cultural backgrounds. There's absolutely no reason to expect that the great young men and women who serve in our armed forces can't get along with homosexuals as well."

[AsburySkinsFan]

The "Librawl" West Wing was great at spelling this out;

8XbPGsLSw1k

UcLPPiaJ4Ag

[twa]

I don't think any of these candidates right now sound like they could hold up in a debate against Obama. A lot of the stuff they are allowed to get away with saying would actually be challenged.

'''

I'm not saying you have to agree with Obama's policies, however for the purpose of the debates themselves, I think these candidates are bumbling and stumbling enough that it is going to make it a rather pedestrian affair for Obama to school them.

I look forward to O defending his record in a debate rather than empty platitudes of hope and change.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/183617-perry-dont-elect-the-smoothest-debater

"As conservatives we know that values and vision matter. It’s not who is the slickest candidate or the smoothest debater that we need to elect. We need to elect the candidate with the best record and the best vision for this country," he said at a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida. "The current occupant of the White House can sure talk a good game, but he doesn’t deliver."

may the best man or woman win....for all our sakes.

[Jumbo]

Very well done, WD.

And, though with a lot of OT content, in response to your effort:

Once again the military will be one of the social templates where we will see serious change influence the rest of the culture even as it is influenced by that culture as a broadly representative institution, however specialized its function. I am given to the following thoughts:

Regardless of those who, for more specific reasons, do not like to acknowledge any parallels between black/white struggles and gay/straight struggles in our culture, they certainly exist.

Right now, though the issues between blacks and whites are far from “totally resolved”, overall they have come a long way for MOST people in both social discourse and other forms of behavior.

There were many terms and lines of thought about blacks once far more commonly held or considered acceptable that are no longer. Ideas like they were "inferior" in numerous ways, or less moral for instance. And the relatively popular terms like "shine", or "porch monkey", or "jigaboo" in some social/geographical circles even while ****** (n-word) was becoming less acceptable in those same circles. That kind of thinking now lingers in a much smaller segment of the society and it is properly castigated by the large majority.

Terms like "homo", "fag", and "queer" have followed a similar path, however grudgingly in some quarters, and is also a work still in progress. BTW, on that note, it was very common for many people who would never consider themselves "true" bigots (and I am sure in many cases they were not) to use some of those previously mentioned racial terms (other than ******) just as banter and were reluctant to accept that society was changing around them--and for the better I think most of us would say. And they probably railed against what they viewed as their day's version of "political correctness." Some of my buddies and I still do that at times with "homo" when among ourselves, though much more rarely as time goes on.

Though in my circle, we all realize that if we were out in public with “normal” people around using that term would rightfully have the user regarded as being some kind of *******. It seems as though it's become less acceptable to us even in private these days as we are more conscious (late onset maturity?) of how many people have really been abused, tormented, and even experienced violence simply because of their homosexuality.

And it's too easy to find other ways of saying the same thing like "wuss" or "pansy-ass" or "whiny *****" or such. Similarly, harsh treatment of gays, in every way, is less and less culturally ignored (let alone approved of) along with anything of the "serious hate speech" category being outright unacceptable.

Even though there are powerful religious components, and various psychological and personal developmental factors, that underlie homosexually being less than "equal" in acceptance to heterosexuality as a human behavior for many people, I predict that there will come a time where change parallels even more of the black/white issue. Those who hold the more insulting, ridiculing, discriminating, bigoted, and certainly the more hateful and violent views, no matter what their justification, will be of a much smaller number and will find themselves among the less accepted members of society at large, just as the serious racially based bigot does today.

More on topic, I wonder if a GOP candidate could win via successfully keeping enough moderate repubs, garner enough votes from moderate dems unsatisfied with their party, independents, and many liber-Ts, if they had the courage to reach across to them and openly discard many of the favorite right-side talking points while not totally disowning conservative themes.

I.E. adding openly endorsing science only in science classes, ID in other classes; pledging importance and continuance of SS & Medicare with reform; supporting getting the government out of marriage; general equality of gays; rolling back the Bush tax cuts and adding a reasonable increase on those not paying income tax currently; etc etc. This thought, of course, has all the poltical depth as what might be expected of the average sixth grader, and I know the obvious response is “but then he/she’s (complimentary set-up) not a GOP candidate.” Oh well. :pfft:

[Wrong Direction]

I don't even know how to respond to such a gay post.

[Jumbo]

I don't even know how to respond to such a gay post.

No ****!

[Wrong Direction]

By the way, the more I think about it the more I think that the next couple of weeks are huge for Newt Gingrich. Consider:

Cain, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum, Johnson have zero traction to actually win a primary.

Palin isn't running for anything, instead she's running from sex jokes of all things.

Bachman has fallen out of favor with voters.

Pawlenty is out.

Perry is failing, and it's being discussed broadly on the radio and in articles.

The GOP electorate is still the electorate looking for the candidate they believe is actually conservative. McCain's failure makes it unlikely that R's ever enthusiastically support Romney (though I still think they'd vote in droves against Obama for any candidate).

...

And now Newt has promised his new, "bold" 21st century Contract for America.

This is Gingrich's opportunity to gain a foothold on the conservative vote. He could surge if his new contract is as bold as it should be. He will not surge if it's high-minded platitudes like "have a conversation about Medicare."

Newt blew it as speaker of the house. He blew it when he undermined the Ryan plan. He blew it with his staff. With all of that, he's still recognized as the smartest guy in the room, so to speak. He has this one, last, chance to put his finger on the pulse of the Republican voter just like he did in 1994. He either will, or he's done.

Such is the subplot of October 2011.

[ncr2h]

By the way, the more I think about it the more I think that the next couple of weeks are huge for Newt Gingrich. Consider:

Cain, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum, Johnson have zero traction to actually win a primary.

Palin isn't running for anything, instead she's running from sex jokes of all things.

Bachman has fallen out of favor with voters.

Pawlenty is out.

Perry is failing, and it's being discussed broadly on the radio and in articles.

The GOP electorate is still the electorate looking for the candidate they believe is actually conservative. McCain's failure makes it unlikely that R's ever enthusiastically support Romney (though I still think they'd vote in droves against Obama for any candidate).

...

And now Newt has promised his new, "bold" 21st century Contract for America.

This is Gingrich's opportunity to gain a foothold on the conservative vote. He could surge if his new contract is as bold as it should be. He will not surge if it's high-minded platitudes like "have a conversation about Medicare."

Newt blew it as speaker of the house. He blew it when he undermined the Ryan plan. He blew it with his staff. With all of that, he's still recognized as the smartest guy in the room, so to speak. He has this one, last, chance to put his finger on the pulse of the Republican voter just like he did in 1994. He either will, or he's done.

Such is the subplot of October 2011.

Paul shouldn't be lumped in with those others. He's polling in the double digits, he's got the funding, and he's got the most enthusiastic following we've seen in years. Compare that to Santorum and Huntsman, who are for the most part polling in the low single digits and are running out of funding. Paul has traction. Can he pull the nomination? I'd say it's a long shot, but not out of the question. Paul vs. Obama would be very interesting, IMO.

Newt doesn't appear all that conservative to me. So far his major points have been (1) overhaul the government to get rid of inefficiencies, and (2) attach unemployment insurance to a job training program. While I respect his ability to think outside the box (i.e. not just spit out some magic income tax rate that is going to cure our economy), his ideas don't sound like small government to me. Overhauling the government is going to take quite a bit of taxpayer $$ in and of itself, and do we really trust bureaucrats to make the government more efficient? What happens in the long term? I think we get back to the same place we were, only we wasted lots of $$ to get back there. As for tying unemployment insurance, it sounds smart until you think about it - who are they going to get the training from? The government? That means we have yet another area of government growth. If we let the private sector train these individuals, that just opens us up to more special interests. Why don't we just let the markets decide when/whom to hire, instead of giving people training that they don't want to do and employers don't want? People who want training can use their unemployment insurance to pay for it.

[Wrong Direction]

Paul shouldn't be lumped in with those others. He's polling in the double digits, he's got the funding, and he's got the most enthusiastic following we've seen in years. Compare that to Santorum and Huntsman, who are for the most part polling in the low single digits and are running out of funding. Paul has traction. Can he pull the nomination? I'd say it's a long shot, but not out of the question. Paul vs. Obama would be very interesting, IMO.

Newt doesn't appear all that conservative to me. So far his major points have been (1) overhaul the government to get rid of inefficiencies, and (2) attach unemployment insurance to a job training program. While I respect his ability to think outside the box (i.e. not just spit out some magic income tax rate that is going to cure our economy), his ideas don't sound like small government to me. Overhauling the government is going to take quite a bit of taxpayer $$ in and of itself, and do we really trust bureaucrats to make the government more efficient? What happens in the long term? I think we get back to the same place we were, only we wasted lots of $$ to get back there. As for tying unemployment insurance, it sounds smart until you think about it - who are they going to get the training from? The government? That means we have yet another area of government growth. If we let the private sector train these individuals, that just opens us up to more special interests. Why don't we just let the markets decide when/whom to hire, instead of giving people training that they don't want to do and employers don't want? People who want training can use their unemployment insurance to pay for it.

I disagree about the potential for Paul, mostly because he has a ceiling beyond which I don't think he can go, and I don't believe that ceiling is high.

I like your points about Newt though. He hasn't been nearly bold enough proposing real solutions, IMO. His TPs about healthcare fraud and government efficiency are terribly inflated and wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a credible investigator. Not to mention his personal baggage, issues with the NY special congressional election and again the lack of support for the Ryan plan. On the other hand, there is an opening, he's making a favorable impression in debates, he has a past of winning big and going bold, and he's about to re-announce himself as a candidate in the form of this new contract. It's his chance.

With all of that said, this article about Chris Christie once again considering a run comes out:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-president-Romney-Perry/2011/09/23/id/412133

Chris Christie Reconsidering 2012 Run, Will Decide in Days

Newsmax has learned that the effort to draft Christie culminated in a hush-hush powwow held in the past week with Christie and several notable Republican billionaires.

A source familiar with the meeting suggested that Christie seemed inclined to enter the race but said he needed more time.

Christie promised to make a final decision "within two weeks," the source said.

Another source involved in GOP fundraising tells Newsmax that that uncommitted fundraisers and donors have been receiving phone calls from top political aides to Christie, seeking their feedback about his possible entry into the race.

[Duckus]

I have been fascinated by Rick Perry for years.

For about a 6-8 months I have been telling people that Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee for President. 8 months ago people thought I was crazy. Now, not so much. The field was extremely weak and everyone has known in Austin that he would be running once Obama's numbers started to falter. I think his original plan was to wait until 2016, but this turned into the perfect opportunity.

But I was wrong. His campaign is in trouble and right now I give him just under a 50% chance to win. I have been hearing rumors all day that his campaign staff in Austin are extremely concerned. His numbers are weakening and they expect to see a big drop in the next 7-14 days.

Rick Perry has a huge problem - the more people get to know him the less they like him. He has never been that popular even here in Texas. Mostly under 50% in a state staunchly conservative.

I thought for sure he would be the nominee, now it is a toss-up.

[Wrong Direction]

I thought for sure he would be the nominee, now it is a toss-up.

I think this is being generous to Perry.

[Predicto]

Newt may be the smartest man in THAT room, but that isn't saying much.

There are plenty of smart people out there. Newt is a repulsive human being with a nasty streak a mile long and a flair for dishonesty. Worst of all, he IS smart enough to know that what he is saying is untrue. At least Bachmann believes her statements when she makes them.

Fact Check is full of his bull :pooh: Do a search there, there are literally scores of entries showing his lies and revisionist history, far more than anyone else standing on that podium.

---------- Post added September-23rd-2011 at 05:40 PM ----------

just to add:

Christie entering the race would be a godsend for the GOP.

[twa]

I think this is being generous to Perry.

Really?....the fact Perry streaked into a large lead should tell ya the confidence level in the prior field.

Unless Christie gets in ,Mitt's negatives will again take center stage .

The question is if he does get in becomes does he draw from Romney supporters more than Perry's?

ncrh2....I'd like to think Paul had a real shot.......perhaps if the field gets crowded enough.

Who's vulnerabilities are greater?.....this is getting interesting since I like competition and it's early in the game.