Perry and the Horserace By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. r.sklaroff@verizon.

net 215=459-4877 1/5/2012

{This has resulted from reading/digesting ~1000 postings on RedState and every effort has been made to be disinterested while maintaining key-themes. Anyone reading this who feels a major concern has been overlooked is invited to reply accordingly, and it will assuredly be updated assiduously. Composing this document has consumed a dozen-hours, so bear with me when noting that the initial section is more organized than are the random-postings [and occasional comments based thereupon] that were culled exclusively from this one site. The urgency to post this [so that it can be reviewed by people who are in-the-know] warrants getting the raw-info into-print. This is a version of Thank You Rick Perry and Your Family And Friends And Staff for having provided such hope for quality change in America.}

The entries upon RedState have been coming fast-and-furious, causing sensory overload. EE and other professional pundits have inside-knowledge/experience that, when conveyed repetitively, yield points that merit clarification. Therefore, this entry is posted upon scribd and then onto a site started months ago by Robert R. Guzzardi, Esquire and is now to be referenced episodically when appropriate issues arise. This essay constitutes thoughts that have been unstated, insufficiently articulated and/or worth repeating. It is generated also for those whose e-mail addresses were accumulated since the first of the year, predicated upon the trip to Des Moines [via Omaha, to ensure maximal time-use] and to caucus sites in Nevada [pronounced with emphasis on the second syllable and a long A ] and Collins [respectively, by Guzzardi and dr. bob ].

Candidly, it is also generated after experiencing the strong emotion that has animated this campaign. Although EE has advocated changes-at-the-top, The Bob [ dr. bob and Guzzardi ] can only praise the quality/efficiency of those who ran a clockwork organization from the perspective of the volunteers/surrogates. Without intruding upon their time-pressure, nothing but openness/politeness were encountered belying underlying anxieties that had to have been animating their activities. From when non-disclosure pledges were signed-off to when new friends were exit-interviewed, candor/content abounded which whenever it was vetted was consistently validated to tough critics. This survived mutual debriefing, following completion of occasionally separate fact-finding missions.

Political Calculations

Ignored are claims that so-and-so must win this-or-that or run at least at-this-place-but-no-lower. Emphasized is awareness of a pathway for Perry because, as the field narrows, there is a certain musical chairs quality to the do-si-do. He remains the only authentic candidate who is not a flipflopper, who has run a transparent campaign, who has linked Constitutional Limited Government with recognition of America s Judeo-Christian Roots, and who has deliverables to prove he is a man-of-action. He has Class, he shows/receives respect, he has a military-mind, he has no problem being accountable, and he is a truth-teller [for he know no other spin ]. From afar and up-close, he merits confidence [even when, as in the case of dr. bob, Mitt s views are actually closer, policy-wise]. And anyone who feels that their being Pro-Life should make those with Pro-Choice views shudder, they should recognize that most Americans are Multiple-Choice [and tolerated prior Pro-Life POTUS-terms unscathed].

He may lack the smoothness of Mitt, the rhetorical skills of The Newt, the slash-and-burn approach of Paul, and [surprisingly, of -late] the boyish-charm of Santorum [ The Other white meat Rick ]. This pun is employed to recall how Rick [Perry] noted his preference for Iowa pork over the other Rick s having funded D.C. pork. And, the rationalization provided by Santorum over this past weekend [ everyone was doin it, doin it ] is overtly undermined by citing but a few names [Coburn, DeMint, McCain]. This, plus his support for unionization [amply documented by Guzzardi] and for Davis-Bacon [mandating payment of prevailing wages on public works projects] will prove to be of-interest to the S.C. voters who have experienced the Boeing/NLRB battle.

Therefore, rather than projecting/predicting, it is simply noted that the strong possibility exists [to become manifest during the weekend debates] that: [1] The Newt will attack Mitt aggressively, to the point whereby he won t care if his numbers tank just as long as he drags Mitt down with him; [2] The effort of Huntsman to crack 10% may remain problematic [despite the endorsement by the Boston Globe] and potentially yield his departure by month s end; [3] Santorum s lack of organization [plus some strategic truth-telling] will impede him in S.C./Florida/Beyond, despite having received $1M today on-line; and [4] Paul will sink to his 10%-tithe thereafter.

There is a certain projection of one s values-set [personality/priorities/philosophies] when political allegiance is scrutinized, and The Bob is not immune to such probing. We want BHO s K St. and Mitt s Wall St. to yield to a populist Main St. which Perry characterized in one of his recent videos. We are aware that he may be criticized for having emphasized his faith in Iowa [instead of talking jobs/jobs/jobs], but we also know that this track-record would predictably help him in S.C., as he can now pivot to the Texas Model when articulating his battle-plan for America. Ultimately, we see him as

having conveyed who he is [and who Anita perceives him to be] to an audience that harbors a steep learning-curve.

He threatens both the D s and the RINO-Establishment in D.C., and a lot of people unjustly characterize him as intending to inject another Texas mafia, reminiscent of W within D.C., invoking a type of insider choosing winners and losers that is otherwise condemned when BHO deigns to fund Solyndra, etc. The Bob notes that the key-difference is that states are intended to compete [and Texas has achieved stellar results] when strategic funding yields rapid-growth. For example, building-up M.D. Anderson [and, as an oncologist, dr. bob has experienced the exemplary results since the time when it competed with the institution where I completed my fellowship, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center] by attracting top-notch physicians/researchers cannot be attacked as crony-capitalism.

Ultimately, as the field narrows, a perception should arise that the nominee will encompass the best of each component of the GOP, notwithstanding projections of electability [a point amply made by wise commentators including Rush, again, today]. In this regard, the fact that Mitt has eschewed the TEA {Taxed Enough Already} Party Movement AND the Evangelicals [having boycotted the Thanksgiving event sponsored by the Family Leader], THIS will become manifest in S.C. to his detriment [as Amy Kremer, Tea Party Express co-chair, just discussed on Greta]. Thus, if Mitt is to maintain independence of this component of true-Conservatives, he does so @ his peril; if he wins the nod, the TPM-activists will have lost both external credibility and self-respect. There will be isolated instances of those who claim to support this grass-roots movement to endorse him [Nikki Haley, the Independence Hall Tea Party Association], but they will be subject [themselves] to critique when they do so & [http://www.politicspa.com/philly-tea-party-endorses-romney/30440/ http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/news_columnists/jd_mullane/bucks-tea-partier-sells-naziitems/article_e9a60866-83c1-5a62-ac8b-4ad914606589.html]. Having spoken @ 3 Tea Parties, dr. bob advocates for the diffuse-power inherent in the TPM [ leaderless but not rudderless ] and denial of its import could yield a 3rd Party effort which could then re-elect BHO [and allow him to pack the SCOTUS for our collective lifetimes].

FNC

Viewers of the passing-scene must become dismayed @ FNC [Fox News Channel] for having studiously maligned/ignored him and his successes. The proof that this is itself a malignant process is not manifest as a tweet from Rupert supporting Santorum, nor is it Megyn s premature projection that Perry s reassessment was invariably a prelude to his withdrawal. The proof was noted @ 7 a.m. EST on 12/27/2011, when Dana Perino was gently asked to discuss [on the F&F curvy couch ] why Bush- 41

had seemingly endorsed Mitt. She discounted a Bush/Perry feud, and then claimed that the only reason Kay Bailey Hutchinson ran for the gubernatorial nod was that Perry had said he wasn t going to run for re-election. Yet, a quick google-search revealed that she had created an Exploratory Committee after she had been re-elected to the Senate [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-rick-perry-kay-baileyhutchison-governors-race/story?id=9955123#.TwZx3NRSRBE]. Therefore, tragically, it appears Dana lied [?] to fend-off any such criticism, seemingly validating it. And no one on FNC has bothered to correct the record.

snappy lamented/documented: I don t know if I m more upset with Romney or the Republican TV media (including their panelists and guest analysts) shilling for him. Between Dec 1 and Dec 18, the NYT reported that Romney got 126 minutes of air time (guest appearance) on Fox News. This compared to 37 minutes for Santorum, 51 minutes for Paul and Perry, 52 minutes for Gingrich and 76 minutes for Bachmann during that same period. It wouldn t be so glaring if at least ONE other Republican candidate came close and that doesn t even include all of the blathering about Romney. I m so fed up with Fox News shilling for Romney that I actually watched CNN caucus night coverage. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/politics/rick-santorum-fails-to-connect-in-iowa-but-hekeeps-the-faith.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=politics].

Personal Disclaimers

In the interest of self-disclosure, The Bob harbors no ulterior-motive [as was notable when conversing with others who support Perry]. Guzzardi funds those who promise to undermine the RINO s in PA, and dr. bob is a GOP-Committeeman [for almost two decades] and, thus, will dutifully support the nominee. But the former has not forestalled blogging aggressively on his [http://thelibertyblog.org/ ] and other sites [http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy], and the latter has found himself combatting local Republicans who have sold-out key-principles of good governance [such as ignoring the need to complete a cost-effect analysis when committing $$$ to an unjustified Eminent Domain foray]. The most dramatic example of an ongoing legal effort has been uploaded [http://www.scribd.com/doc/58334998/MontCo-Filing-3-31-11] and the reader is invited to explore other filings that have been provided in follow-up @ that site [including the exposure of violation of an attorney s and a judge s professional ethics, http://www.scribd.com/doc/77304967/CC-Filing-Brief2-1219-11]. The Bob [each] provided $180 to Michele @ the ZOA Annual Dinner, reflecting appreciation for her overall forthrightness and correctness regarding the Middle East; concomitantly, we told her National Finance Chair that we harbored fealty for Perry. The Bob knows we only live once, and there remains an ongoing effort to optimize the environmental impact that can be provided in the interim.

As lengthy as this intro must appear to be, it is necessary to elide over certain otherwise-fascinating explorations [such as how Sarah Palin has behaved]. Those who aren t in-the-know must respect individual rights [including their ability to conduct themselves due to whatever private feelings/thoughts they may sincerely harbor]. This places focus upon the public-record, undermining the temptation to get into back-and-forth arguments while blogging. An exception occurred when, on RedState, a few weeks ago, efforts were made by Wonkish1 and JSobieski to maintain that The Newt hadn t continued to support imposition of the Individual Mandate upon all Americans; opinions were honored when they were referenced. Other controversies solved themselves [such as when it became necessary to differentiate suspend vs. reassess ] and, thus do not require elaboration in this prcis.

The Caucuses & Associated Events

The cauci were often mischaracterized by those who didn t attend them, and the adherence to a defined agenda that supervened. NO commitments to ANY POTUS-candidate was generated thereat; rather, separate elections were conducted to select people who will attend county regional statewide convocations. Violating campaign-staff advice, the decision was made not to watch the vote-count because, candidly, there was a desire not to project an image of an aloof above the Mason-Dixon Line kinda-guy, descending upon a get-together by hicks. Surrogates were told to remember that, representing Perry [in comments/actions] was to predominate; any effort to oversee the TEENAGER [@ Collins, for he didn t appear to have achieved drinking-age] who volunteered to vote-count might have appeared unseemly. There was one glitch noted, however, by The Bob, @ both locations; there was no one who attended locally who was armed with trifold-handouts although it didn t seem to matter, for minds appeared to have been made-up prior thereto.

{BTW, in this regard, a key-clarification was noted during a chat with the lady who authored the Register poll that was published on Saturday @ 8 p.m. EST; although upwards of half of the electorate could be persuaded, only ~8% was actually undecided. She was queried @ an event that was livestreamed by Politico on Monday-p.m. [and was provided free-advice regarding the desire to control cold-symptoms]. Guzzardi characterized the event as having manifest how the MSM/LSM/ELM [Establishment-Leaning Media] recycled each other s writings/comments, perhaps incestuously but definitively repetitively. dr. bob was simply happy to convey to receptive reporters [notably CNN s Jamal Nkosi Simmons, who is a D] dismay @ the Perry coverage [blackout and oops -perseveration]. But it was fun to chat with Terry Branstad, for he explained during a one-on-one chat that he had tried to get Huntsman to come to Iowa when they had met @ a gubernatorial event in Salt Lake City; even after Huntsman suggested his views on expiring Ethanol subsidies were problematic to Iowans, he told him that he could achieve acceptance by discussing his opposition to ongoing mandates.}

Another example of why we appreciated this experience was noting how each day during the week prior to the caucus-event was started by an [optional] prayer service. Regardless of one s level of religiosity/spirituality, this was an uplifting BEHAVIORAL example of how heartfelt this effort has been. Whether or not Texas politics [and potential succession, etc.] may have affected decision-making, the fact-of-the-matter is that Perry is beloved for what he uniquely wishes to accomplish. For example, when others [such as The Newt] complained about the Virginia ballot-access law, Rick sued; after he was initially criticized for this failure, the other excluded candidates subsequently filed appearances, joining in his Constitutional [1st & 14th Amendments] challenge to the unwieldy thresholds that are now mandated [and how out-of-state canvassers are eschewed]. This is a do-er and this is why he is feared.

Handicapping Disclaimers

One can argue that The more things change, the more they stay the same with regard to the handicapping that appears ambient, but it cannot be denied that Perry s gradual re-rise in the polls has reflected his improved debate-performances. That s why it s vital to note two quotes from the 1/4/2012 WSJ. The editorial noted [end of graph #3] that Voters would do better to drop the pundit game theory and choose the best potential President. It is noted that the classic citation of The Buckley Rule the admonition to support the most conservative candidate who can win was not mentioned. Perhaps a sense of maturity has begun to emerge, recognizing the unknowable in a world of volatility.

And, on the op-ed page of the WSJ, the essay by Peter Robinson [a fellow @ the Hoover Institution, former RR-speechwriter and an http://ricochet.com/ editor] cited Perry twice: Rick Perry merits a special word. He s relaxed, appealing, a regular guy, a committed student in the Reagan school and yet. Although President Reagan might intentionally fumble for a moment as he answered a question RR once explained to a friend of mind that he wanted people to be able to see that he was thinking matters through, just as they would do if they were in his position he never turned in a performance quite like Gov. Perry s debate lapse. The governor of Texas, as you will recall, lost his train of thought for 53 seconds, then blurted Oops. Appearing normal differs from appearing addled. Mr. Perry s grade: C. Later, he wrote: Mr. Perry s most recent debate performances represented a dramatic improvement over his catastrophic early appearances .

Perhaps Perry s polling shows he doesn t have the potential strength harbored by The Newt in SC/FL, but pivotal in the view of The Bob is that both Mitt/Newt support the Individual Mandate. As was noted during the interview with Amy Kremer [supra], this is a key-concern among those who remain aghast @ ObamaCare. Illustrative of why it s just fine that Santorum has done well [tentatively] is that he denied

Mitt a big-win in Iowa; illustrative of why it s just fine that Santorum is being scrutinized [hastily] is that he should be exposed for the fiscal-conservative that he is NOT. And, to those who yearn for a metaphor, I point to 1980, when the GOP nominated a force-with-which-to reckon against Mr. Malaise [yes, he didn t use the word, but he certainly conveyed the feeling]. And we all know how that turnedout [and how Carter has revealed his anti-Semitic bitterness thereafter, in contrast].

Although dr. bob shook the hand of Frank Luntz @ the Politico-event, it was a source of dismay that his website only allowed for specific votes for Mitt/Newt after a recent debate; one cannot remain too upset with him, however, because he also signed the personal copy of Perry s Fed Up! book. The same cannot be said of Larry Sabato, who has consistently perpetuated the Oops moment instead of allowing for evolution. And, of course, the sweeping statements of the PMSBNC s Morning Joe crew [experienced Sunday-p.m., amongst a throng of D s] were so elitist that no effort was made to acquire signatures, lest the book become bespoiled]. Any suggestion that another candidate will emerge [http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/] is symptomatic of the desire to trash the R s, as the BHO-crowd consistently is attempting to do.

Take-Home Messages

My conclusion from what transpired in Iowa? It is always darkest before dawn, and Perry s strengths should inevitably grab his natural constituencies: Constitutional [intent and meaning] Conservatives, TPM [young and old] Turks, and Evangelical [doctrinaire and revisionist] Ethicists. As another blogger noted: If he is made of what I think he is, he will look at what happened, and the finer details of what the results show. A thorough review will show cracks in Romney s armor, Newt s continued implosion, Paul s being supported by cross-overs, and Santorum s eggs as all being in one basket.

A meeting is to occur in Texas among Conservatives who wish to ponder the benefits of coalescing behind one candidate. This is reminiscent of Robert Vander Plaats s Family Leader effort, which split but which led to his having supported Santorum. At the time, this was perceivable as an interim-move, subject to update if/when Santorum were gone; it was also a great help to his being catapulted above Perry. The same approach should be adopted this weekend; principles can be established and applied subsequently but, as much as there would be a benefit to Perry were they to endorse him, it is ultimately preferable for the TPM-model to be followed for diffusion reflects grass-roots strength. They should be vocal, but they should not feel their voices are being suppressed to benefit the whole. It must be recalled that this is what s wrong with BHO s collectivism, philosophically, and good intent inevitably backfires if it is effected unjustly. The recognition that this is a marathon [not a sprint] must govern this level of decision-making. He can remain a candidate so as to espouse key-concepts during

the campaign-season and note the reaction thereto. His swagger is born of humility not egocentricity reflecting an inner-confidence derived from a populism born of a deep moral-fiber.

Instant Blogging

Because it was sensed that stop-gap blogging was vital during the morning-after in the off-chance that Perry s people would scan these RedState comments, a few observations were quickly posted:

for whatever it's worth...[1]

rsklaroff Wednesday, January 4th at 5:28AM EST (link) I talked with everyone with a Heartbeat @ the Sheraton last night. These observations, provided in-particular from two who were provided bottles of Shiner beer [purchased locally @ Hy-Vee, after considerable research via web-site and distributors], suggest the following candid criteria are afoot. 1. Anita [and the family] will support whatever Rick decides. 2. The Campaign-Staff will support whatever Rick decides. 3. It cannot be concluded that there is turmoil among #1 and #2. Rick will issue a personal Executive Order that is consistent with the principles that have guided is overall political career; he will not blame/complain. [And Shiner Bock does, indeed, leave a sweet aftertaste.] In-particular, the [in]actions of Bush/McCain/Palin will not affect how he proceeds.

for whatever it's worth...[2]

rsklaroff Wednesday, January 4th at 5:37AM EST (link) the military facet of Perrys personality will become determinative. He will not listen to the pundits [pro/con], even those who provide reasonable explanations for what happened, because: 1. Whether or not The Newt follows-through on the desire to express his alter-ego [i.e., the flip from attempted-adherence to RR's 11th-Commandment to overtly calling Mitt a "liar"] is irrelevant to Perry. 2. Whether or not supporters were to threaten him with eternal strife were he to back-out [i.e., the consistent reinforcement by confidants of his central Federalist meme] is irrelevant to Perry. 3. It cannot be concluded that any such external considerations will affect his conclusions. The Perry-Operation was smooth and professional, and Perry knows it; he is concomitantly sensitive to the history of how a suboptimal outcome has prompted the resolute general to resign his commission.

for whatever it's worth...[3]

rsklaroff Wednesday, January 4th at 5:47AM EST (link) the supportive internet-based structure has legs. I met people @ my caucus [and Guzzardi met those @ his] who voted for people [i.e., those who harbored policy-positions they didn't truly comprehend] simply because: 1. Paul/Santorum had conversed REPEATEDLY with them. 2. Perry/Gingrich had not pressed-the-flesh (particularly, regarding Perry, @ the Ames Straw-Poll, the day he announced @ the RedState Gathering) 3. The Personal Touch was controlling, regardless of what anyone said @ the Caucus events. Granted, The Bob was in Nevada/Collins [two sites that were just-to-the-east of Ames], but this phenomenon was reported repeatedly as characterizing the motives of the voters.

{further back-and-forth yielded confirmation of this fact: many Iowans took it out on Perry, as they promised they would, because he stole some of their thunder at the Ames event when he announced in SC and his end corn-ethanol subsidies also proved damaging }

For whatever its worth[4]:

rsklaroff Wednesday, January 4th at 6:00AM EST (link) Center-stage is how Perry perceives the status/goals of the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party Movement because: 1. It really was quiescent in Iowa [based on chatter in both restaurants and the caucuses]. 2. It cannot be assumed to be projected to be quiescent elsewhere [based on self-perception of 2010-achievements]. 3. It remains potent, assuming it were to recognize that only Perry can serve as its standard-bearer. The TPM nurtures the heart of the Constitutional Conservative and, I confess my bias, it would be desirable to resist the temptation to submit to Mitts inevitability/electability juggernaut.

A Dialogue This exchange occurred via e-mail [with dr. bob having attracted a bit of a fan-club via RedState] and clarifies much of what transpired [with Comments interspersed]. Sent: To: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:38 PM rsklaroff@gmail.com

Subject:

RE: Perry

Hi Dr. S,

Just got done reading some RedState posts. Read some of your's and Bob G's. Any chance you could work for the Perry campaign?

Comment: SURE!

I have to say I was very surprised at EE's article on "Can Perry make a Comeback". Maybe I am too much of a supporter of the Gov.'s but I thought EE was for Perry. He could've pointed out his criticism's without trashing Perry's intelligence (played right into Perry's critics) and how much of the Politico's story about his staff was true. All that did was make the reporter look more credible and Perry look foolish for challenging his information.

Comment: Disagree. If EE is to be a credible truth-teller [and he provided an example of his concern, which had occurred yesterday], then he must maintain a take-no-prisoners approach. This was mutually-exclusive of the Mike Allen interview, for he was not going to validate MA without his first being provided a reference.

Erick's insistence in the article of his respect and fondness for several of Perry's campaign people made me think having Erick's respect (with his ability to have millions view his opinion) is a career killer.

Comment: Disagree; we need to ensure the reassessment is profound, as might occur following a military campaign.

Why is it that conservatives with a voice continue to magnify our side's neg.'s instead of rallying around the positive's. I am so sick of the so called people we are told have the same belief's that the average conservative has. From my point of view (and I am a VERY strong conservative) if the core of America had a daily platform from which to speak (which I thought was finally The Tea Party) they wouldn't

sound anything like the so-called conservatives who do have a platform. i.e. Mark Levine, Hannity, even Beck who is praising Santorum.

Comment: This is a healthy process, as people gradually are forced to learn of Perry s unique strengths.

Where is the Tea Party's support for Perry. I know they say they don't endorse but that's a cop out. They endorse locally. Those elections are important but for goodness sakes when there is someone who is finally willing and able (with The Lord beside him) to stand up against the Obama machine and all of his cronies, Repub's and Dem's alike, why wouldn't every American who has been crying out for this not coming to Perry's aid? I was going to say "Sorry for the rant" but actually I am not sorry. I am tired of us having to be careful of what we say or apologetic for it.

Comment: Concur that the TPM must awaken from its slumber and function accordingly; perhaps this will transpire more overtly now that Michele has departed.

I am at least glad there is you and a few others who speak out in Perry's defense.

Thanks for reading,

[signature of Conservnca(conservative in CA) ]

Delayed Blogging - Miscellaneous

Postings from other bloggers were of-interest. For example, the_invisible_hand [whose tagline, quoting P. J. O Rourke, is particularly intriguing: The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn t work and then they get elected and prove it. ] wrote: Guys/Gals, this is a tough business. Politics is heartbreak. Conservatives are the adults. Let s get going.

powertothepeople composed a lament when he thought Perry was going to pull-out. He warned against bandwagon hops by recalling what had made the TPM great was that it was committed to doing the right thing and supporting the right candidate regardless of the popularity of the decision or the candidate. ]. He concluded that it was vital to throw-out-the-bum because: Obama and his party are the enemy and we must remained focused in him or we will call him President Obama for another four years. This is why RedState monitors scrupulously expunge those who deviate from a rather simple/intuitive theme.

aesthete also sports a cute tag-line by Henry Brooks Adams [ You can t use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout! ] and he noted The insanity of the primary cycle reminds me of the lost opportunities and factitious, fratricidal wars embodied in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series. He advised this process has revealed some things about conservative thought and the Republican primaries that we should improve upon in the coming years. Because of the urgency of the situation, The Bob REJECTS this line of thought; the GOP must choose the best candidate NOW, and we must learn on the go and APPLY such knowledge assiduously. In the interest of full-disclosure, the observations [and assessments] follow: (1) Organization is *crucial* [of course]. (2) Our field is terrible [untrue]. (3) Iowan voters are not representative of the voting public [perhaps, but their rejections are instructive]. (4) Presentation/debate is important [of course].

Cheetah2 noted that Perry had been motivated by love-of-country. Another blogger noted that, when Perry read the letter of the guy whose car had broken-down while driving to Des Moines, he presaged the desire not to disappoint his followers. Other bloggers [helpfully] suggested he should deliver a major Foreign Policy Speech, or that he should adhere to a 50-state strategy. But pivotal is his ability to marshal necessary resources, as the campaign evolves. This is why The Bob is exploring ways to invite him to visit Philly .

JSobieski [with whom dr. bob feuded over The Newt, vide supra] routinely offers wise input; he lamented that the Iowans were sloppy because, inter alia, they reflected a natural tendency to dwell on
one optic to the exclusion of all else. Perrys career was overlooked primarily because of a vaccine that was never administered and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. More than a decade of executive leadership, but the immigration issue became a proxy for liberalism or RINOism, and Perry was overlooked. His tag-phrases are instructive: My rules-of-the-road for primary season. Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general. Rule #3: Dont let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2 Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3it will help us all to get along better. Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably arent furthering conservativism Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyones time.

STOP THE MADNESS! A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut! In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty! Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate! Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!

Loren Heal both truncated the history of the Perry campaign and dramatized the essence of his ability to foresee what had to be done and then to do it:
It wasnt the puffing up of minor issues that sunk Rick Perry. It was attacking Mitt on immigration and saying you have no heart unless you agree with him. And then having a brain freeze. I hope Perry can regain some stature and get some money flowing back in, but hes doing it wrong. Perry should have played video of himself speaking at the April 15, 2009 tea parties, while Sarah and Michele were still wondering what to do. In fact, he still should do that.

Additional Reactions

These thoughts are drawn from the following sites: http://www.redstate.com/trevorb/2012/01/04/iowa-upset/ http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/04/this-wont-play-well-in-south-carolina/#comment-157547 http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/05/the-biggest-news-of-the-day-for-mitt-romney/ http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/01/03/first-thoughts-on-the-iowa-primary/#comment62851 http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/01/04/result-of-iowa-they-didnt-want-mitt-in-2008theydont-want-him-now/#comment-6146 http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/04/everything-you-heard-last-night-was-bull-crap-rick-perrymight-want-to-stay-in-and-prepare-for-a-newtlear-attack/#comment-156426 http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/05/another-awkward-rick-santorum-vote/ http://www.redstate.com/governorperry/2012/01/05/stop-insider-trading-dead-in-its-tracks/ Perry!] [by

Polling internals have consistently shown that many advocates of other candidates have ID ed Perry as a second-choice, illustrating again why he should remain in-the-chase.

CircleGRanch just observed: Mark Halperin just stated on [P]MSNBC s Morning Joe that insiders at the Romney campaign still consider [Perry] the biggest threat to take the nomination away from their boss.

Is there any quality web-site that is so dominated by sincere/educated people who remain loyal to but one candidate?

a big problem with Perry is he talks like W. Not just accent, but speech patterns and mannerisms. Being governor of Texas as a main qualification? You mean like W? That W is actually a Yalie sets-up the obvious clarification, which Perry uttered early-on: He s an eli, I m an aggie! The rest can be derived .

Delayed Blogging - Santorum

Rick Santorum practiced law and lobbied for professional wrestling before he was elected to Congress at the young age of 32. He served in Congress for 16 years until he was defeated in his US Senate reelection bid by an 18 percentage point margin. After his 2006 defeat, he stayed in Washington as a lobbyist and consultant. In 2010, he earned nearly $1 million from his political connections . Santorum has received his paycheck over the years directly from the government or from firms that lobby government. He is the ultimate Washington Insider who is part of the problem not the solution. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE8032A020120104]

He has been, essentially, a stealth lobbyist, said Bill Allison, editorial director for the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. He has been hired to try to influence policy on behalf of his clients without crossing the thresholds that would require him to report what he s doing. [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rick-santorum-stealth-lobbyist/story?id=15298204#.TwYXU_ncBnQ]

Freedoms Truth spun a mean web-posting, which needs to be rebutted:

Santorum was concerned enough about SCOTUS judges being conservative that he only endorsed Specter after he promised to help shepherd Bush s appointees for SCOTUS through. [Rationalization]

Specter has his faults, but he kept that promise and we got Alito and Roberts out of that deal. That s not bad for a courtesy endorsement of a fellow Senator. [He was known as an unreliable conservative.]

I wanted Toomey to win in 2004, badly, but blaming Santorum for what he did is foolish. Santorum has been rock-solid on conservative appointments. [Had Santorum endorsed Toomey, he would have won.]

Santorum has been a leader on a number of issues when in office. [Other than welfare reform and focus on Iran, what did he accomplish/advocate?]

Santorum will have the same amount of executive experience as JFK, Obama, Johnson, and Lincoln. etc. Santorum served 12 years in Senate, while Obama served 2 before running for President. Since I am not thrilled with what Romney DID as Governor (aka Romneycare) and since Santorum served in office for far longer than Romney, I think Santorum long conservative record speaks better than Romney s short non-conservative record. [The record is decidedly mixed, as has been documented on RedState.]

Freedoms Truth advocated for Santorum over Perry and The Newt by citing his conservative voting record [American Conservative Union, National Right-to-Life Committee, Americans for Tax Reform, National Tax Limitation Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, League of Private Property Voters, 2005 Republican Liberty Caucus Economic Liberties, 2004 Republican Liberty Caucus, 2003-2004 Campaign for Working Families, 2003-2004 Concerned Women for America, 2005 American Conservative Union, 2003 Concerned Women for America, 2003 Eagle Forum, and 2003 National Journal Conservative on Economic Policy] over concerns that he didn t oppose myriad spending bills [http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum]. Policy positions were also noted [repeal Obamacare, cap spending at 18%, reform Social Security reform, oppose energy subsidies, privatize Freddie/Fannie Mae, and follow the Ryan roadmap and pass the BBA] and referenced

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-is-no-big-governmentconservative/2012/01/04/gIQA5Q1zaP_blog.html].

Regarding Huntsman, he succinctly concluded: Huntsman s ultimate problem is that he is superfluous. He added: Huntsman can t run against Obama after writing that fawning letter about how great Obama was.

He then, however, claimed: Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration. Santorum s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn t repeal it. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters. Each of these assertions is problematic when details are probed. For example, why wouldn t a governor attempt to recover IRS-monies sent to D.C.? And how is Perry assuredly to the left of Santorum on Illegal Immigration? As an argument favoring Santorum, this is both selective and incomplete.

He again lost credibility by ascribing deviating votes [earmarks, vote against NAFTA] to the need to accommodate his electorate, rather than recognizing they were essentially pro-union [citing http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902]. That he had failed to cite the rest of this citation was noted by kamiller42 when this was promptly posted: But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill. As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues. He concluded: The issue here is about federal jurisdiction. Santorum has been accused of willing to wield the federal government s power when it suits him, forfeiting any notion of whether it s the right thing to do.

And a follow-up note by JSobieski observed: He voted with the other Rs---I am asking about leadership. Santorum did not lead the charge on the issues you mention except maybe welfare reform. I remember Santorum on a lot of Sunday talk shows over the years and I never remember him talking about cutting spending. He was good on fighting tax increases, but so was W.

cimmarontrails cited CREW s most corrupt Congress list and noted Santorum was number three. He then noted Santorum s latest reply on Fox News he still backs Earmarks and Santorum likes to spend. He voted to raise the debt ceiling eight times and he also voted for Bush s Prescription Plan more unfunded-debt to add to our deficit today .Gov. Perry has done wonders for us. Our record does not lie facts are stubborn things and even the pundits need to find them.

rharrison cited Santorum s voting record while in the Senate [http://votesmart.org/candidate/keyvotes/27054/rick-santorum], noting that they reflect how his detractors on the right (like me) have painted him: mainly a big government conservative in the mold of George W Bush. After 2010 is that what we want? Ask yourself, how does Santorum differ from GWB in any real way? He doesn t.

Nuclear139 advocates for Santorum based upon his personal narrative [which Perry obviously mirrors]: For all of Santorum s problems, his story and life will be able to reach voters who were left behind by Obama; his example of hard work, sacrifice and family values can inspire a nation that has lost hope.

nepanyrush was almost making good points until he averred observations that were askew [ Santorum is a great candidate. He was very articulate in the debates, and actually is a great candidate, having three times defeated Democratic incumbents in a Democratic electorate. His talk after the Iowa results was very inspiring. ] and ended his mini-suggestion with a problematic confessional [ being from PA, I can tell you that he is very authentic. He will go to the mat for his principles. The Bob knows otherwise, as has been documented by Guzzardi extensively.

Santorum s book [ It Takes a Family, which he signed for me ~ 6 years ago] is correctly noted by minorcanmaven to be VERY problematic: He thinks the Feds need to set national standards for curriculum [and] he thinks National Service is a great idea. He thinks government is the answer just like they do on the left, only where they are Socialist, he is more Fascist. He s a good guy, well intentioned, but not a solution to the problems we face.

Return to Revolution wrote that Santorum is a FRAUD because Santorum had a GOA rating of C while Specter was a C-, in the PA Gun Lobby group FOAC (Firearm owners against crime) he was rated at about 60, and Specter a 54 on their votes (NRA ratings are garbage; if they like you they give you an A). He endorsed Specter and then campaigned for Lincoln Chafee in RI. He also had to be dragged to our side on amnesty was not for border security until forced into it. Time after time, he went along with the big spending republicans and put party before principles .Also consider the result of his endorsement of Specter over Toomey in 2004. The GOP was behind Specter too maybe it wouldn t have mattered. But the Specter won that primary by something like 15,000 votes out of a million. If Toomey wins that primary and the general, he is the 60th vote the dems need and blocks Obamacare in 2009.

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-surge-brings-ethics-questions-152702229.html

Additional Blogging - Issues

Citation of the instate-tuition issue yielded a reminder [by Gekster] that the core-concern is a leakyborder, to wit [1] paraphrasing Bill Clinton: What would you rather have them do, sell drugs on a street corner? and [2] They don t get subsidies; they have to pay the rate charged to residents. They are in the state for three years; they are pretty much a resident. Anyone else from the other states, when shown to have lived in-state for one year get the instate rate also. And foreigners with a visa can get the same after one year residency.

jimmyg piled on [http://www.austincc.edu/support/financialaid/noncitizens.php] while forgetting that these kids necessarily entered America as minors: Senate Bill 1528 replaces House Bill 1403 and continues the eligibility of undocumented students to qualify as residents if they have lived in Texas for the 36 months prior to high school graduation or the receipt of the GED. These students are eligible to apply for state aid such as Texas Grant, Texas Educational Opportunity Grant, Texas Public Education Grant, or CAL Loans.

texashistorian [whose tag-line quotes Paul Johnson thusly: The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. ] noted while we political junkies are well aware of what s been happening, we are in the distinct minority of voters.

This means that the Perry-reassessment must include a realistic review of the metrics of the typical voter. We can t ask for too much knowledge, nor can we tolerate too little. But the message must be honed, refined, streamlined. Months ago, dr. bob wrote [on RedState] that Rick should merely tether all answers to federalism concepts raised in Red Up! Answer the question within 10 seconds in a pithy fashion, segue into the underlying concept during the mid-section that targets BHO and invokes the TPM [either 10 seconds or 70 seconds], and then end with some sort of a zinger that undermines a competitor [preferably Romney].

The Total Package Message

Last night, BuddyP [whose tag-line mirrors the approach consistently adopted by The Bob: Facts > rational analysis > conclusions > advocacy. In that sequence ] covered the triad of domestic policy, foreign policy and social concerns when composing the following [http://www.redstate.com/buddyp/2012/01/04/perry-needs-a-total-package-message/#comment-2]:

Here s the message I think Rick Perry should deliver Immediately, and at every opportunity, in one form or another. It would take around 3 minutes to deliver, but he should have shorter versions

memorized (and I mean memorized with complete reliability so no long pauses, let alone oopses ) and well-practiced for effective delivery. Different venues/formats and occasions would fit different length versions debates, interviews, speeches, YouTube, email/press releases/website, etc.

I should note that I ve seen at least one excellent total package argument diary here on RS at least one was more thorough than mine, although a shorter message is necessary for verbal communication but I don t recall who wrote it/them so I was unable to reference them and possibly refine the below.

So here it is, my stab at The Optimal Message from Rick Perry:

What do we need in a nominee and in a president?

[Use your fingers to tick them off to reinforce the perception that you can remember a list of points]

Effective executive experience, particularly at creating jobs

Consistent social conservatism

Consistent economic and fiscal conservatism

Strength on national security

[and a] Track record of winning elections.

I have an effective record as governor. An executive a governor or a president needs different skills than a legislator like Senator Santorum or Congressman Paul or even Speaker Gingrich. An executive makes executive decisions. An executive chooses good people and manages them and ensures that government does what it should, does it efficiently, and doesn t do what it shouldn t do. The people of Texas have rewarded me for governing well by re-electing me twice, and as governor I ve enabled the

creation of jobs 48% of all the jobs created in the nation in the last couple of years have been created in Texas [or whatever the figure is that Perry has been using*].

I have a strong record as an economic and fiscal conservative. [Fill in details of own record, and make points knocking Santorum (e.g., earmarks; advocacy of steel tariffs) and Gingrich (e.g., Freddie Mac).]

I am a long-time, consistent social conservative, not someone who claimed with conviction to hold liberal positions on social issues when it was politically convenient, then flipped when conservatism was politically convenient, as Mitt Romney has done with abortion, gun control, gays serving openly in the military, and other social issues. On these important issues of core values, life, and freedom, we can t afford to elect someone who will take whatever position serves him politically at the moment. And we also need a nominee and a president has lived our values and sets a good example, and that, frankly, includes being faithful to one s spouse as vowed before God.

You can count on me to ensure that America is strong and our national security safeguarded. We have one candidate, Ron Paul, with a completely naive view of the world. I know, as Ronald Reagan showed, that peace comes through strength. I was proud to serve in our military, and I ll make sure our military is capable and as Commander in Chief I ll make sure our enemies don t underestimate our ability and our will to protect ourselves, our friends, and our national interests.

And our nominee should have a track record of winning elections. The last time Rick Santorum ran he lost his state by 18 points! And it was a tough year, but that was an exceptionally huge margin. Mitt Romney has a track record of mostly losing. I ve won every single election. Sometimes I ve started from behind, as I am now, but I ve managed to win every time. And I know I stumbled a couple of times in debates when I first jumped in, but as you ve seen since, I m prepared now and ready to debate Obama and make it clear to the American people that I ll lead the nation in a much better direction. And I assure you: I will beat Barack Obama.

With every other candidate, frankly, something we need is missing. I m the only total package , if you will. I will deliver ALL of what we need in a nominee and a president, and I ask for your vote.

* Note: That % of the nation s jobs created is an analytically unsound number, but probably very few people would realize or learn that it is invalid. I oppose misleading votes on an ethical basis, but I m including that talking point above just to show what would be effective, and apparently he has no

problem using that talking point, although it s possible he s not sufficiently analytically-inclined to get that it s a bogus metric, since it includes states that lost net jobs (meaning if we applied that metric to all states that grew net jobs, it would sum to much more than 100%).

BuddyP advocates reading the following book, which must be http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101.

scrutinized:

Additional Blogging - Romney

It is also necessary to confront the views of thosjefferson who supports Romney: It s bizarre that NHP & S are spending all this money attacking Romney instead of Obama, but it shows that they re more anti-Romney than anti-Obama. The best thing for Romney is having the anti-Romney people attack him for being too reasonable, too willing to adapt to changes in the economy, too willing to consider multiple perspectives to solve problems and fix things. That s exactly what successful business people do and it s what most Americans want right now. It s the exact opposite of the overly ideological Obama. So these so-called negative ads are making Romney more and more attractive to most Americans.

This characterizes the difference between compromise and seeking common-ground ; Mitt focuses on the former, whereas the TPM yearns for the latter. [And don t think that this split won t soon manifest itself in the House of Representatives, born of accumulated frustration that there have been no substantive budget-cuts after a year of GOP-majority status .]

nepanyrush posited that the 75% ceiling should apply to the anti-Romney candidates, conveniently forgetting that Mitt entered from the perspective of having been the last-man-standing in 08. He then advocated for Perry to withdraw for the sake of getting a conservative candidate because Santorum is really the best hope at this time. Let s see if this perspective survives weekend-scrutiny.

Samsara wrote a piece entitled Abbott and Costello which opened: No disrespect intended, I voted for one and I will vote for the other if I have to. She then apologized for posting MSM Milbank, but confessed this description of the endorsement made me laugh out loud and I thought I would share. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-out-ofcontrol/2012/01/04/gIQAacGSbP_story.html]

McCain grimaced when he was introduced, and as Romney delivered his own stump speech, an increasingly impatient McCain pulled up his sleeve and fidgeted with his bracelet. McCain gave his endorsement address without mentioning Romney s Iowa win until the end. By the way, we forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night, he said, laughing. Romney ignored him.

Then came the questions: First, one from an Occupy Wall Street infiltrator needling the candidate about his belief that corporations are people. A second questioner wanted to know why Romney flip-flopped on universal health care when he was governor of Massachusetts and why he would not increase health-care costs. Later, a Chinese American woman accused Romney of saying degrading things about China, and she complained that after 20 years of Reagan trickle-down economics, it didn t help me. My tin can is still empty.

Romney sat through most of the ambush with a tight grin and raised eyebrows. At length he attempted to challenge the woman to name a place where income is higher than it is in the United States.

The Occupy Wall Street guy began heckling. The U.S. has the highest income inequality in the entire developed world!

Romney tried to regain control. Excuse me, he said. You ve had your chance.

McCain walked toward the Occupy guy. Be quiet, he said, menacingly.

The woman, no longer in possession of a working microphone, began hollering.

For those who didn t hear, Romney offered, she says she loves this country and don t put any Asians down. I hope I haven t put any Asians down.

The woman s muffled shouting continued. Romney tried to answer. A baby started to cry.

aj_0000 noted The Establishment is Starting to Smell the Coffee by quoting the WSJ s Daniel Henninger s A House Divided essay. He has finally recognized that Romney is dividing the party. Turnout for the Iowa caucuses was lackluster. If you subtract the increase in independents brought in by Ron Paul, Republican turnout was down from 2008. Two years after the Tea Party brought massive enthusiasm and victories to the Republican Party, the force-feeding of Mitt Romney to the electorate is destroying all of it. I ve been criticized here for saying I will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee .Romney is Obama in sheep s clothing. He is everything that s wrong with the leadership of this country. I will not support it.

Snowshooze noted, regarding Iowa: accomplished.

Romney is NO LONGER the crown-Prince.

Mission

Lizzie composed great-quotes and provided this pair of hyperlinks for the Perry-Posse:

The Man Has Never Lost an Election, and Bowing Out Now Is Not an Option By JAY ROOT Published: January 5, 2012 [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/rick-perry-may-still-be-in-thepresidential-race-even-after-his-iowa-defeat.html?_r=1&ref=politics]

Perry s Political Obituary Has Not Yet Been Written By ROSS RAMSEY Published: January 5, 2012 [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/rick-perrys-iowa-loss-hasnt-slowed-him-down-forsouth-carolina.html].

ColdWarrior correctly posits: Republican primary/caucus?

Can we finally end this nonsense of having non-Republicans vote in a

While discounting each candidate except Romney, usedtobelib [citing prominently his business experience, as a suburban conservative voter], he wrote of Perry: Can t win the general. Fair or not, the country is still too mindful of another Texas governor whose problem being inarticulate made him the target of ridicule. Perry s early forays only served to confirm their fears, fair or not. He hasn t caught on even with members of his own party. If there is even a slight improvement in the unemployment numbers by the time the general comes around, people will give Obama a hopeful second look, and the only person they d be comfortable with in removing a President is one they consider his intellectual equal. Perry is not that guy, fair or not. He is not going to be viewed by a nation who doesn t know him well as bright, fair or not.

The problem, here, is that the assessment is static, prior to giving Perry a chance to convey his message. It is this type of thinking that confounds straight-thinkers. It s best to assess the process rather than to fixate on any one event.

seanl lost points when he cited Perry s letter [as Ag Commissioner] regarding HillaryCare as an endorsement, despite the fact that this was composed while the effort was being promulgated to influence its outcome; when subsequent clarification was provided along these lines, it was impugned as being retroactive but it was assuredly consistent with what had been composed in the letter.

aj_0000 asked which conservative could beat Romney, and kamiller42 responded thusly: All warts being equal...which candidate has the best philosophical vision and record to show he has the cure for what ails America?

Problems We Have 1. Economy in bad shape. 2. Jobs deficient. 3. Overreaching and ever growing federal government.

So the candidate America needs, needs 1. To believe in removing the constraints on the market. 2. Establish an environment which encourages business owners to create new jobs. 3. Understands what limited government is and not believe government is a force for good that has just been mishandled by previous operators.

Here s the break-down of the 3 candidates:

Newt: 1. Yes mostly. Still supports subsidies. 2. Yes 3. No. He believes what the government has been missing is his brain.

Santorum: 1. No. Santorum is not interested in a level playing field, e.g. tariffs, corporate tax breaks for some, subsidies, etc.

2. Yes. 3. No. I won t say he believes in big government, but he does believe in an activist government. I get a Boromir vibe from him.

Perry: 1. Yes. He is a free market guy. Ex: Let the different energy sources play on a level playing field. No ethanol subsidies. Cost him Iowa. Oh well. 2. Yes. Hello Texas. 1,000,000+ new jobs. 3. Yes. He is governor, aka executive, of a state which loves limited government and lives by it. He knows the value of limited government for the governed.

So yeah. I look at what the country needs and match it with the candidate with the best record and ideas. It s Rick Perry.

renl57 noted that Huntsman CHOSE to run to the left [trying to sound as moderate as possible] from the day he entered the race by [1] Accepting AGW [and implying those who don t are anti-science], [2] Refusing to take on Obama directly [cite even one debate in which Huntsman attacked Obama], and [3] Claiming that the main thing wrong with Obama s stimulus package was that it wasn t big enough [exactly what Paul Krugman said].

renl57 reprised his First impressions count posting, thusly: Perry never recovered from his stumbling performance in the first debates, including that disastrous gaffe where he couldn t even remember the Cabinet departments he wanted to phase out. And that s what everybody remembers. Just like Ford s disastrous gaffe on Eastern Europe and Dukakis disastrous gaffe on the death penalty. They never recovered either. You don t get a second chance to make a first impression. One would hope that he could recognize the ability to evolve, indeed, to evolve one s postings .

supergirl2911 properly replied: He led the polls for close to a month. He messed up in 2-3 debates largely emphasized and magnified by the media who had already started their story that he would not be a good debater. He also had a barrage of false media narratives to help lower his numbers. I say false because the way they were reported suggested a strong problem for the candidate s intelligence. A rock, gardasil, maybe he wouldn t debate, he s a norther [?], and of course the pro-amnesty blatant misrepresentation.

treeofliberty provided the most cogent attack on Perry s staff, to wit: If you look at Perry s poll numbers, he had already nosedived by the time of the infamous OOPS gaffe .it started well before then in September. I think all the attacks from all sides took their toll on Perry, his inadequate responses to them, seeming weak and ill prepared, and also let s not forget how much of the conservative media like Fox and talk radio ranged from neutral to outright anti-Perry which didn t help as the candidate himself was not responding and answering the attacks adequately anyway.

I blame Carney and his handlers more than Perry. They should ve known the condition of their candidate, regarding back surgery and debate prep those first debates he did NOT look prepared at all. That s more the staff than the candidate IMO. They should have rested and prepped Perry fully before throwing him into the lion s den. I think they really, naively expected a much more gentle and easy going atmosphere than the one they received.

Perhaps they excepted the Romney treatment big surprise.

It was just poor campaign strategy and execution all the way around. And spending time in New Hampshire when your guy is in single digits?? And running 4th or 5th in Iowa and SC??

It just made no sense.

snappy101 detailed why he felt Perry had a Poorly Run Campaign thusly: While the other candidates history bungled their up and down, Rick Perry did it with his own hand by 1) poor debate performances; 2) not emphasizing specifics in his own successful record and instead emphasizing his social consevatism and promises; 3) Not spending advertising dollars contrasting himself with Romney; 4) Not telling people since day one on the debate stage that his executive experience is what all of those people out of Congress lack. Whoever advised him on these things, especially Number 2 above needs to go. How many times do the polls have to tell him that Number One on people s minds is the economy and jobs and he, who has something worth bragging about, barely mentions it. He had a governor campaign ad with great stats and awards to show Texas is successful. I saw it before he declared he was running. All he had to do was change the ending to say Let Rick Perry Do For The Country What He Has Done For Texas or something like that. But no, we get ads that talk about social issues and promises.

afgjo replied that Perry had concluded the real cause of America s problems are spiritual, not economic, [and that] the fact that his messaging based on that insight has not resonated with the people of this country does not portend good things for our future. His tag-line [ Ceterum autem censeo, Obamaecuram esse delendam. ] refers to the need to destroy all-things-BHO, quoting Cato the Elder [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est].

supergirl2911 concluded: I also agree with numbers 2 and 4 above. The message has to be consistent and resonate. Although the center of it all is spiritual I think many voters don t want to be preached at and most repubs know that the social values will not carry the general.

LISTEN TO travis690 : The It-Never-Happened-Before Argument will be invalid this year when talking about the race being over after Florida, unless campaign contributors want to make it happen that way.

[1] Since all the states voting before March 1 will send proportional delegations to the convention, it will be mathematically impossible for any one candidate to end the race early. And I foresee contributors keeping at least one non-Romney alive for at least that long, unless Romney s the one to fall off the cliff in voting.

[2] The other thing that will save the party is if they abandon the concept of promoting the next-in-line candidate by default. It always begs the question: If this person is so good this year, then why wasn t he the chosen one four years ago? Personally, I would have voted for Romney for President four years ago; there was no way on earth I would have voted for McCain as President. But this year, I am seeing more about Romney that I don t like, and the Wall Street connections might be bad perception-wise for the so-called independents and moderates (two separate categories, and not necessarily the same voting block) after the horrible press that Capitalism has endured for the past four years.

Regarding the influence of SS, Moe Lane wrote: So in Czarist Russia there are these two Jews...living in a village. And one day one of them comes by the other s house, which like all peasant houses in Russia is one floor, no floor, and has chickens running in and out of it. The first Jewish peasant sees that the second one is reading via a candle, because who has money for oil lamps this absolutely scurrilous broadsheet saying how the Jews run this, the Jews run that, the Jews run everything. So he asks his friend, Mordecai! How can you read something like this? Mordecai looks at his friend, looks at his shack, looks at the chickens and shrugs. I just like to read about how well I m doing.

Radicalrighty noted that Perry got "Phil Gramm-ed" thusly: The MSM gave his debate gaffes plenty of coverage, then when he gained his footing, and began to shine, they gave him a Gramm-blackout. Also like Gramm, Perry made too many enemies with his common-sense ideas flat tax, part-time congress, eliminating entire departments, balanced budget amendment, ending foreign aid to enemy nations, tapping domestic energy, etc. These ideas, if known by the masses, would have tremendous popularity, and would threaten the behemoth that is DC. The solution? Don t let the masses know what the man s ideas are. If you mention him at all, keep them focused on a rock story, Gardisil, etc. Be damn sure the masses don t realize that gasoline and power bills would be cut in half in his first day in the White House as he, by Executive Order, opened up voluminous US energy supplies to the markets, driving down energy futures, even as hundreds of thousands of jobs are created. No, just run that story about illegals getting free college, again.

Scope recapitulated many of the prior points, adding: If it is true that Perry hired some of the former Bush people for his campaign team, he needs to dump them all .The media blackout against him is as destructive as anything in this race .He does still have the money to fight on, as the last swing through CA just a few weeks ago netted him the second highest amount in donor-dollars. I m sure he has domestic energy donors that will stay with him, if he accomplishes a reset to his campaign. I just don t see him quitting right now after only one race. [He entered] the race with a horde of those that were out to defeat him at all costs. He s had a harder hill to climb than any other candidate. He is hated by the Republican establishment, mostly the old Bushies and Karl Rove which is still a massive machine. He s had the trial lawyers promising a vendetta against him because of his tort reform and loser pays lawsuit reforms in TX. Fox has been in the bag for Romney, and has built up every tom, dick, and harry candidates in order to keep the conservative vote split. Dick Armey and his Freedomworks organization promised an all-out war against Romney from the beginning, but instead has disappeared from the scene without a peep. The Tea Parties have been a disaster in this election season. The R leadership in Washington has successfully marginalized those sent to Washington in 2010. The majority of Tea Parties left in the country have been absorbed into the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty, profess to being nonpartisan, and as with all non-partisan, bi-partisan efforts has lost any and all of its identity. It is no longer a conservative effort, not even fiscally.

NightTwister argued that If Newt & Perry both stay in, Romney will win. Newt is leading nationally, while Perry is polling much lower. Newt finished ahead of Perry and is way ahead of him in New Hampshire. Perry going straight to SC proves he knows he can t do anything in NH. What he overlooks is the possibility that The Newt brings-down Mitt and himself allowing Perry to persevere.

Two women who placed phone calls for Perry in Iowa were totally unimpressed by the people with whom they spoke. Annie54 noted They hadn t put forth any effort except to remember some sound bites [true or not, upon which they would predicate] their decision. irishgirl added that only the elderly favored Perry. Go figure.

thirstyboots punctuated his prediction that Perry would leave the race after Iowa [since August, because he] was always the lightweight/machine hack that inherited Texas from Bush and I was fairly sure he wouldn t beat those expectations. Texashistorian called him to-task.

lizzie provided this commentary, perhaps inspired by dr. bob

but clearly lurking within her cortex:

Thinking how Rick Perry studies military history. Trying to incorporate Dr. Sklaroff s earlier comments + everything Perry said in Perry, Iowa, and his last Youtube that had everyone cheering and crying.

Gov. Perry s scheduled campaign events in SC today were late afternoon. Hope he is already on a plane, flying it himself if he has to.

1) Bachmann gave a wonderful speech, but I do not think she will endorse anyone until there is a GOP nominee, based on what she said. No matter she exited with grace, and a huge reminder about PPACA aka ObamaCare. I still find it difficult to believe she is a stalking-horse from Romney. {I CONCUR, particularly after having chatted with her two months ago.}

2) In thinking about Perry s campaign as a military campaign (I am also a military history buff), my mind is still on the 20th Maine s Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain s surprising and valiant defense of Little Round Top on day 2 of the Battle of Gettysburg. This past summer, I checked every history of Gettysburg that had been written before 1990. Chamberlain barely gets one sentence. Yet, his leadership under impossible conditions, and personal courage, combined with his immense knowledge of military history, is now credited with having saved the Union line to fight Day 3.

For all you Confederacy history buffs, I can only suggest to NOT use Pickett s charge on Day 3 (a concept of duty that is almost alien to 21st century minds), but think about Nathaniel Bedford Forrest s successful insurgency that never quite ended

Which led me to think about insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, and, with that, I shall leave RedState because I really do have to drive to New Hampshire.

Closing thought, from the disillusioned fiscal conservative dem is that Rick Perry finally returned to his strangling regs/jobs/economy message that he started with, but got derailed when he faced Romney s surprise attack on that 2001 veto-proof in-state tuition Texas issue. THAT is what started Perry s steep poll decline the early debates only added to the another Texas governor dumber than W stereotype. The Paulbots waged cyber-war.

Anyway, in every war, success or failure is never determined by the early battles. Perry was late in organizing veterans, but I bet that network was the first one he checked last night.

One last point: do not underestimate the power of allies. Huntsman and Gingrich will knock Romney down to below 40% in New Hampshire, which will deflate Romney s inevitability and electability memes. Huntsman, Gingrich, and Santorum will tackle Ron Paul in NH as well. Meanwhile, the media will also be taking down Santorum and Ron Paul.

The only real questions are 1) how did Perry do in 4Q fundraising and we will not know that until Jan. 15, 2) how well will Perry do in fundraising Jan 4-15, and 3) how well will Perry handle the 2-3 questions he will get in the NH debates and the SC debates, because he will be on the opposite end of the stage from his friend, Jon Huntsman. It will be Santorum s turn as the pinata at the party in center stage, and Ron Paul will get enough time to ramble off into incoherence. Romney s glass jaw might shatter. For once, let Gingrich and Huntsman do the debate heavy lifting.

My contribution to military history is the little known story of the Battle for New York at the beginning of our Revolutionary War. Most of you know that Washington evacuated his forces from Brooklyn Heights to Manhattan, and then made their way through the hilly, dense forests that covered most of Manhattan at the time. The British Navy knew they had to destroy the insurgents in order to divide the colonies along the Hudson River. The Brits sailed to Throgs Neck, but found a few militia easily maneuvering swampy, boggy soil. The Brits then sailed north to Pelham Bay, but a brave militia fought them for three days (I drive by that marker on a regular basis), buying time for Washington s forces to cross the KingsBridge from Manhattan to The Bronx, where they had a skirmish at what is now the intersection of Jerome Avenue and GUN HILL ROAD. They were thus able to position their few cannon at

the Summit of what is now Woodlawn Cemetery with a direct shot at Mr. William s Bridge bridge across the Bronx River at the time.

the only

The three day delay meant the Brits arrived at Mr. William s Bridge too late those few cannon held the Brits on the east side of the Bronx River, enabling Washington s troops to continue north to White Plains, and then on to what is now West Point, where they crossed the Hudson River into New Jersey.

And, the rest is history.

Today, you can still visit that Summit in Woodlawn Cemetery (developed during the Civil War), and stand next to that big rock where those cannon had been placed, and see the Williamsbridge that is forever part of Gun Hill Road.

I suspect that Gov. Perry knows the lessons of tactical retreat, and the importance of knowing your terrain. Someday, I hope to take him to that big stone marker, and tell him this history.

assuming that rabid giant skunk who lives there is now gone I took some Dutch tourists up there a few years ago, and when the giant skunk showed up, they did not know what a skunk is, but they folllowed my lead in running in the opposite direction

It is time I made my pilgrimage back to Woodlawn on Thursday my apt is two blocks south but it will be to pray for Perry at Admiral David Farragut s grave (another winning insurgent) while giving a finger to the uber-robber baron Jay Gould s mini-Parthenon.

Here is how Perry works a room : http://www.timothy-bladel.com/.

From avagreen [noting her tag-line is Rick Perry doesn t have or need blood. He is filled with magma. ]: In 2008, Clear Channel Communications was bought out by a partnership between Bain Capital and Thomas Lee Partners. (Source) Bain Capital manages $67 Billion in assets, Lee Partners has about 10 billion in its investment fund. Guess who the Senior Partner in the transaction would be? Mitt Romney was the founder of Bain and is still a major stockholder in the company [http://www.moneyteachers.org/Romney+Beck+Limbaugh+and+Clear+Channel+Communi].

CarolynR provided suggestions, prominent among them was Suggestion #3 Be very specific, with specific EXAMPLES of big government and how it has hurt the American people Ex. Give an example of where the Republicans have let big companies off the hook without criminal penalty but have fined them money to keep their spending going. That is the old guard Republicans and that is the connection between Wall Street and Washington. They are allowed to continue doing business as usual. This is consistent with my advice; he should link specifics with his philosophy, as per Fed Up! She added this excerpt from Stansberry: I can t name a single major Wall Street firm that hasn t engaged in massive fraud over the last decade. Not one. They have all paid massive fines to the SEC. But in only one of these cases was any firm held criminally responsible. And that firm was Arthur Anderson, Enron s accountant! What about the bankers who actually lent the firm money against collateral they knew as bogus? What about the investment bankers who sold Enron s stock to the public, even though it knew the earnings were fraudulent? and what happened to the huge corporations who depositors, executives, and lawyers were full, active partners in the fraud that bankrupted Enron namely Citigroup and JPMorgan, the two largest banks on Wall Street?

She then opined: Governor Perry who paid for all of this. We did the taxpayers. This is just one example of what has happened in America thanks to the government. What about all those farmers in Iowa who lost their money investing in MF Global by John Corzine, the past New Jersey Senator. See, people need specifics and when they get specifics and they understand they get fired up. This is the rub against Bain Capital and against Obama...one of whom has played in the dirty sandbox of Compassionate Conservatism, Romney under the aforementioned descriptive and Obama under Hope and Change wherein He and the Democratic Party have taken the poor, the disadvantaged, the minorities and made money off of their misery by keeping them just content enough to vote for him.

She then noted: Treasury Secretary Paulsen tipped off 20 top hedge fund managers about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac s imminent collapse after assuring the public that it would not happen and as an aside, Mr. Gingrich was paid $1.6 million for consulting! Did you know that Louisiana Republican Billy Tauzin,

who was the chairman of the Energy and Commerce that pushed through the Bush Medicare Part D Plan resigned two months after the bill was passed to take a job paying $2.5 million per year as a lobbyist for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing of America? Did you also know that in that bill the government cannot NEGOTIATE with the pharmaceutical companies? Talk about ripping us off.

She added: The Congress with an 11% approval rating has to be given the true sunlight it deserves. We never hear about this on the news. The WSJ (controlled by Fox) does not report it. Nobody does. Meanwhile America is in decline. Want to get the TPM FIRED UP give them SPECIFIC INFORMATION about graft and corruption in this government and see what kind of response you get. Will WILLARD open his mouth? I doubt it he plays in the sandbox. Right now, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Come at them with all the ammo you have .and most of us on the board will be helping you out.

She concluded: Time to get on the phones EARLY in South Carolina. Time to get on their papers EARLY pointing out the problems with Obama and Romney. Do not worry about Gingrich although he is their almost favorite son Romney will kill him with the help of the media. Governor Perry you keep building your house of bricks we ll hand you the mortar and let the two other piggies NEWTIE and WOODEN WILLARD play at eliminating themselves.

carolynr added: Agreed Center...And He Should Be Very Specific, with easy to understand retorts because judging by Iowa most people don t think.

Additional Comments by dr. bob

There WERE people here from throughout America. Guzzardi and I were [pleasantly] dismayed when we encountered a Jewish Republican from upstate-NY @ dinner @ Baker s Square [great blackberry pie, on both visits]; harboring demographics comparable to ours, he had therefore traveled further than had we to assist this potential RR-force.

[we're anticipating flack upon return to Philly]... but we would have felt guilty had we NOT pitched-in and he had [perhaps] not hit double-digits.

His handshake/hugs/fist-bumps after his speech were as genuine/vigorous in the p.m. as they had been in the a.m. [when he appeared before the surrogates].

He is, if nothing else, highly self-aware; he won t be defined by what the MSM/LSM/ELM [Establishment-Leaning Media] will say/write.

That is why I told Anita that he offers a unique opportunity [compared/contrasted with other candidates] to transform D.C.; this threat is why he was ignored/impugned.

This had nothing to do with his overtly faith-oriented ads; it has everything to do with whether he can project a broadening of his base to those who might become disaffected by his GOP-colleagues.

Guzzardi could speak "forever" about Santorum's betrayal of Toomey and, amazingly, I recall Santorum s spokesperson rationalizing-away [@ the caucus] his having supported Specter because his opponent was a hack.

Toomey [Club for Growth Prez @ the time] was a true-Conservative, yet this was the line he had been fed to disseminate; it s enough to anger Guzzardi even more than he already has become.

I didn t have the floor, so I couldn t refute; I forgot to tell Guzzardi about this last night so when he returns [while "reassessing"] from getting a Starbucks fix, I suspect there will be a seismic reaction that you will all be able to sense when I provide him this remote recollection.

the "stupidity" of self-imbued pundits is routinely manifest when they project this adjective upon others.

Here, there is no question that The Newt has consistently espoused solutions that entail the active involvement of Big Government.

Call it a measured/necessary posture based upon think-tank approaches, base it upon an accurate/skewed presentation of history, or wrap it around seasoned presentation of rhetorical flourish but the core cannot be denied.

So, during this period of self-contemplation, let us PLEASE not divert the narrative from what Perry feels is the course the Deity has chosen for him to follow, notwithstanding the presence of any one competitor.

While I was provided signatures on my copy of Fed Up! by all four of them [along the "rope-line" @ midnight], I did not perceive them as conveying resignation to an unachievable political reality. This is not a leader who retains [indeed, would respect the existence of] a typical retinue of sycophants; rather, he continues to command troops that are poised to cross the Delaware [perhaps a fortnight after Christmas] on behalf of what he has espoused.