Quick Candidates Condition Round Up...(PT 2)

[Long Run]

That was definitely embarrassing for Perry. This has to be the final nail for him. You can give a yacking politician some leeway as they say or mis-say things on a long campaign trail. This was a debate that he prepared for; he had done poorly in prior debates and was supposed to show his ability to improve; and he makes perhaps the biggest political debate mistake in memory.

Gingrich continues to be the best at articulating the conservative case. At the start of the campaign, it seemed pretty clear that Americans, right and center, had pretty much made up their mind about Newt -- smart, but not likeable, downright nasty at times, not all that ethical, and often over-reaching. I had thought he was running to get his popularity up for books and tv, and to maybe get a cabinet position in a Romney Administration. But given the competition, the public's short memory and willingness to give a second chance, it is conceivable that Newt can use his smarts and persuasive abilities to actually have a chance at the nomination.

[Lord Jim]

Long Run, the totally mind boggling thing to me about what Perry did last night, is that he knew that his number one problem was his poor performance in debates; one would have thought that he would have made a particular effort to avoid making a fool out of himself in that forum again, and be at least minimally prepared, (at least to the point that he would remember what cabinet level departments he wanted to shut down...not a really high bar to be able to retain that bit of information....)

As i said before the man is a mystery to me...

I can not for the life of me understand, how a man so fundamentally incompetent in the most basic of political skills, up to this point managed to have such a successful political career...

It seems logically self falsifying to me...

[Andrew D]

What is being revealed here is the truth of the Republican base.

The only Republican who has a reasonable shot -- unless, of course, the Republican base goes completely over the precipice of insanity on which it is always dancing -- is despised by the loony-fringer core of the Republican party.

And who else is there?

There's Rick "I used to be able to count to three" Perry. There's Herman "blow me, bitch" Cain. There's Michelle "What? I should find out whether things are true before repeating them?" Bachman.

There's Newt "I have no ethics, and I'm proud of it" Gingrich.

Who deserves a special mention.

If the Democrats were running as a potential nominee a guy with the total lack of ethical integrity which Newt has displayed, the little Republicans would be all over it. Their God, Rush Limbaugh, would be self-righteously -- no, that can't be right; to be self-righteous, one must at least have some plausible claim to righteousness; goodbye, Rush -- denouncing him.

But Newt is a darling of the little right. So the uncontroverted fact that he is a complete ethical zero is of no significance.

There's Ron Paul. His problem is that he takes the conservatives' alleged "principles" seriously. That's the last thing they want.

The bottom line is that the Republicans have no one to offer. They might as well run Alan Keyes. At least that would be honest.

But who expects honesty from them?

[dgs49]

And of course, having run Bill "I Did Not Have Sex WIth That Woman" Clinton TWICE, the Dems have forever put to bed any thought of an Ethics requirement on their side.

But it's SOS in one sense: The positions that are required to appeal to the "base" are unpalatable to the general public. It requires a bit of dancing ability.

As has been said before, any one of last night's debaters would make a better president than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's unfortunate that they are spending so much time beating each other up, and so much time being examined that some flaws are inevitably going to come to the surface.

P.S., at 62 years old, I frequently have brain freezes like the one Perry had last night. Which is why I was so embarrassed for him.

[Gob]

So at this late stage in the dog and pony show, and with millions $$$ having been spent, and pointless debates and news coverage having been shown, could another candidate step up and get the nomination?

Sarah, paging Sarah....

[Lord Jim]

could another candidate step up and get the nomination?

Very unlikely at this point...

We're less than two months away from Iowa, and New Hampshire comes the week after that...

This will be the first year that the GOP is going to proportional representation in it's major primaries, (a mistake in my view; bring an end to the internecine mud slinging and expense as rapidly as you can and coalesce around a candidate as soon as possible is the best way to go...especially when taking on an incumbent) so it's theoretically possible we could have a brokered convention that might produce a better candidate than we have available now...

All things being equal, (but of course they aren't because everyone remembers his brother) Jeb Bush comes to mind...

[Andrew D]

And of course, having run Bill "I Did Not Have Sex WIth That Woman" Clinton TWICE, the Dems have forever put to bed any thought of an Ethics requirement on their side.

But Clinton did the country good. Something that no Republican President or pseudo-President has managed to do in living memory.

As has been said before, a dog turd rotting in the gutter any one of last night's debaters would make a better president than [any of the] lick-the-shithole-of-tyranny Republicans desperate to be their party's latest disaster.

Fixed that for you.

[Grim Reaper]

As has been said before, any one of last night's debaters would make a better president than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

You mean, as has been said by you.

P.S., at 62 years old, I frequently have brain freezes like the one Perry had last night. Which is why I was so embarrassed for him.

You having a brain freeze isn't the same as the person in charge of an entire country having a brain freeze.

[Sue U]

Oh God, Rick Perry, again:

Perry proposes to 'uproot all three branches of government'

By Dave Montgomery | The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

BETTENDORF, Iowa — Hoping that his infamous "oops moment" is old news, Gov. Rick Perry returned to Iowa on Monday with plans to unveil a sweeping federal consolidation that he said would "uproot all three branches of government."

Perry said he would shutter wasteful federal agencies, including the one he famously failed to remember in a debate last week.

Addressing about 270 Republicans at the Scott County Ronald Reagan Dinner on Monday night, Perry received a standing ovation after blasting the federal government for turning its back on average Americans and promising to attack Washington with a wrecking ball if he becomes president.

"The solution is not to nominate someone who is going to nibble around the edges," Perry said. "Washington doesn't need a new coat of paint. It needs a complete overhaul."

Perry will unveil his plan this morning at a town-hall meeting at a Bettendorf factory. Without offering details, he said the restructuring will include "very dramatic reforms" and will touch "every branch of government because they each have contributed to the demise of America."

It will also address "lifetime federal judges" who "rewrite our laws from the bench," he said.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/15/1 ... z1dnQ4gphI

He's going to uproot all three branches of government? What, issue an Executive Order to dissolve Congress? He's going to do something about "lifetime federal judges"? Doesn't Aricle III of the Constitution sort of set judicial tenure for life and prohibit that kind of political intereference with the judiciary? Has anyone ever told him about "separation of powers," or does he think that has something to do with Harry Potter? Maybe he figures that if he abolishes the Education Department, he won't have to worry about actually learning anything, like basic civics.

Look, I know he's from Texas and all, but it's a big state; they can't ALL be morons, can they?

[Rick]

Yeah if that's the case he really needn't run.

Once he got in he would make the executive branch redundant...

[Sue U]

Also, how does one uproot branches? Metaphor fail.

[Lord Jim]

Yeah, and Herman Cain decided to do a Rick Perry impersonation:

http://themoderatevoice.com/128766/the- ... ign-video/

Warning: very painful to watch....

[Rick]

Also, how does one uproot branches? Metaphor fail.

I hope that's not a test question.

I can't remember the answer...

[Gob]

Also, how does one uproot branches? Metaphor fail.

LOL!!

[BoSoxGal]

I thnk you should award him some points for the consistency he showed in staying within the tree/shrub category. Root, branch . . . in the end they are connected.

[dgs49]

An interesting development is now in process on the Republican side: Mr. Newt appears more and more to be the strongest candidate. Endorsed yesterday by the most influential paper in NH, he has figuratively kicked Candidate Romney in the balls. Romney, being a known commodity, is not likely to have any significant surges, but merely hopes to win by doing well everywhere.

Americans - especially voting Democrats - have shown a willingness to overlook personal foibles of the sort that Newt has had, and if he can get the social conservatives on his own side to overlook them...

The beauty of a Gingrich candidacy is that the Left and the Media (not EXACTLY the same thing, but pretty much) HATES him, and will be hard pressed to disguise their inevitable avalanche of attack pieces to look like they are not merely attack pieces. And once we get to the general election phase, the Obama camp will be doing everying they can to minimize the number of "debates," in which Barry is certain to be exposed for the lightweight "community organizer" that he remains.

LIke Newt or not, he knows how the system works, he can articulate initiatives not only in general terms, but specifically with reference to the affected programs, departments, and even people.

And let's face it, when exposed to the cold light of day, the Dems have nothing to offer but more spending of money we don't have, seasoned with a ton of envy.

Republicans already have a mountain of effective bumper sticker material, e.g., "You want Four More Years of This???"

[Gob]

Newt is old hat, uninspiring, seen as safe but boring, and has a stupid name.

[Andrew D]

And let's face it, when exposed to the cold light of day, the Dems have nothing to offer but more spending of money we don't have, seasoned with a ton of envy.

Well, that and a plausible way of paying off the national debt.

You know, the bipartisan, conservative economic policy which was working until the radical right sabotaged it.

[dgs49]

Andrew, you silly goose. NOBODY is saying anything about "paying off" the national debt, as that would put us in uncharted territory. The challenge is to bring spending in line with revenues, so that the debt service on the national debt does not strangle or bankrupt the country, or force us into hyperinflation with who-knows-what results.

Mr. Newt - like him or not - has a history of compromising with the hated Democrats when he was third-in-line for the Presidency, when to do so was advisable. His willingness to compromise on "core" republican/conservative issues was never more apparent than in the last debate, when he spoke about dealing with L-T "illegals" with compassion. And yet, I've seen no backlash in the polls.

Clearly, he is the candidate that Democrats should be silently supporting now. He is a walking, talking Pinata (pardon the lack of a tilda), whose history is one of compromise, when necessary, for the best interests of the country.

Whom can the Democrats put forward with a similar background? Hillary?

[Andrew D]

The territory is not "uncharted".

The territory is where we were when the budget deficit became a budget surplus.

Which was exactly what drove the radical right nuts: Government was providing the services which Americans, by overwhelming majorities, want it to provide, and it was running in the black.

That was anathema to the radical right-wingers, so they sabotaged it. Which is how we got where we are today.

The challenge is bringing spending and revenues in line with each other. Every sane proposal for doing that involves some additional revenues as well as some spending cuts. But the radical right is not sane. Which is why we are not getting anywhere.