It is generally accepted that he lost his debate with Hillary a decade ago when he invaded her personal-space. Why have the MSM-commentators not recognized that this transpired when Mitt aggressively placed his hand on to Rick’s shoulder…and held it there, even after they both continued to talk? Remember that, just prior thereto, Mitt had said he looked forward to hearing Rick’s evidence [regarding the hiring of Illegals] and Rick was in the process of complying. Mitt did this last time, and he did it this time, also, with The Newt.

Surprisingly, when this event has been cited [including by Tanya Reiman on FBN @ 10 p.m..] it has been concluded that Mitt feared control-loss…but that this was not inappropriate behavior for a front-runner. It is amazing, also, that The Newt is viewed as having “won” the debate despite his having actually “lost” on the issue of Yucca Mountain [citing "scientists" then being reminded that "scientists" had corroborated this choice] when compared with Rick’s reflex-response [citing the 10th Amendment as an example of why states would COMPETE for this position, awaiting the provision of sufficient "goodies" to justify being chosen as the nuke-repository].

The “manifest destiny” quote has been noted, occasionally [not being able to tolerate Illegals because Mitt exclaimed that he's running for office], but only sparingly has this admission been portrayed as the game-changer that Rick obviously intended to evince. Thus, [and this is going to be documented in an upcoming posting], Mitt was wrong both on the facts AND on the presentation; he “lost it” behaviorally…and it is hoped that he will “lose it” subsequently.

First, the key-quote from Mitt: “I don’t think I’ve hired an Illegal in my life.” This is untrue, obviously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/politics/western-republican-leadership-conference-wrlc-cnn-debate-at-the-venetian-resort-hotel-casino.html?pagewanted=9

Second, the subsequent-claim from Mitt: “…[W]hen that was pointed out to us, we let them go.” This is only true a year afterwards, not initially.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/politics/western-republican-leadership-conference-wrlc-cnn-debate-at-the-venetian-resort-hotel-casino.html?pagewanted=9

Third, the provoked-admission from Mitt: “So we went to the company and we said, look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. That’s — I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.” This reflects political ambition, rather than recognition of right/wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/politics/western-republican-leadership-conference-wrlc-cnn-debate-at-the-venetian-resort-hotel-casino.html?pagewanted=10

Fourth, the final-claim from Mitt: “It turns out that once again they hired someone who had falsified their documents, had — documents, and therefore we fired them.” This recapitulates quote-#2 [supra] but, again, doesn’t address the initial reaction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/politics/western-republican-leadership-conference-wrlc-cnn-debate-at-the-venetian-resort-hotel-casino.html?pagewanted=10

in the debate Tuesday night. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen someone’s face that red. This doesn’t bode well for Romney. If he becomes our nominee he can expect much stronger attacks than he has received from his Republican challengers so far. The media hasn’t even begun to attack him yet. The Democrats have a rich source of material they haven’t begun to mine with his history of flip-flops , Romneycare, animal cruelty, ect. Seeing how flustered Romney became when Perry attacked him proves that he does indeed have thin skin and a glass jaw.

It is vital that these issues be articulated and discussed during this hiatus prior to the Foreign Policy Debate in mid-November, inasmuch as they will provide chronic-fodder [just as BHO’s quote about Bible/Guns dominated most of 4/2008 prior to the PA-Primary.

This Romney-Perry Exchange was the main-event; Cain was destroyed [justifiably] on 9-9-9 [and tangentially on his foreign policy naivete], while the others played customary roles. Romney’s two hit-ads targeting Perry presaged his fears, and Perry’s intro targeting Romney presaged his attack; obviously, claiming he was the “authentic” rather than “convenient” conservative was thematically corroborated, and the “emperor” was revealed as lacking in “clothing.”

That final elitist quote “You really have to let both sides talk if you want to be POTUS” cries for an attitudinal readjustment that the upcoming ad-war will convey to the ¾ of the Conservatives who have constructed Romney’s glass-ceiling in polling. “The Bob” [Guzzardi and Dr. Bob, the latter being the author of this blog] ID’ed Rick as “the MAN” months ago, and there is no reason to have deviated from that posture following review of this spate of debates; he has surely come into his own, as they say….

…to illustrate both the deep-felt commitment of the Perry-Marriage and its import.

First, listen to the future-FOTUS. Unlike reports in the MSM, she was not “tearful” when lamenting the attacks on Rick; rather, she welled-up when recalling how she remembers the influence of her grandfather.

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/10/anita-perry-says-she-and-rick-have-been-brutalized-by-fellow-republicans-press-because-of-their-faith/

Second, recall the unprecedented gumption that yielded—a month ago—the press-conference in NYC regarding the UN vote on “Palestinian Statehood” that has been captured [compiled after much Internet-searching]. Experience the uniqueness of his standing astride Congressman Turner [who hired Rush, decades ago] and Deputy Knesset Speaker Danon [of the wing of the Likud that assuredly cannot stomach the mega-release of terrorists]. Then project the type of forthrightness that he will project when dealing with America’s enemies; his history of shooting a coyote that threatened his dog should serve as ample warning to political/military adversaries of the risk entailed when confronting his forthrightness.

Perry distills the issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q0Sqlj_I9o

turner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q0Sqlj_I9o

danon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxgWSPMLu44&feature=related

perry answers questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgsumGJswWk&feature=related

Last night, I spoke with seasoned-leaders of the loco-regional GOP at the monthly meeting of the Abington Township – Rockledge Borough Republican Organization [located in suburban-Philly, in Montgomery County]; I have been a committee-person for two decades. Ultimately [after perhaps three conversational exchanges], the final-repository of critical argument has been to invoke “electability.” My rejoinder has proven to be a stumper: we are addressing a recap of 1980 [the simile I prefer] rather than 1964 [with AuH2O overtly confronted with the inevitability of JFK-remorse].

Note how Rick has summarized these concerns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FIKySVnSvA.

*

The Boston Globe has published an update of its two contemporaneous/relevant pieces [which appeared one year apart and cite his “you’re fired!” letter]:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/fact-check-the-story-behind-the-accusation-that-mitt-romney-knew-had-hired-illegal-immigrants/P8deMLtSoAMK7kZ7FnAj2I/index.html?camp=obnetwork

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/12/01/illegal_immigrants_toiled_for_governor/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2007/12/romneys_stateme.html

*

The overview-piece was based on the debate-quotes, but perhaps-purposefully drew no conclusions.

The first piece quoted the owner of the landscaping company thusly: “Saenz said Romney never asked him if his workers are legal immigrants….Saenz said he had never requested any proof from his employees to show they are here legally. ‘I don’t need to tell them to show me documents….I know who they are, and they are legal.’ ” And, in contrast with the claim that Rick is flawed for not supporting a 2000-mile fence, Romney also was quoted as having adopted a comparable stance: “Romney supports construction of a new 700-mile fence along the country’s border with Mexico and stationing National Guard troops at the border until it is finished.”

The second piece quoted Mitt thusly: “Romney said then that he had met with the company owner in 2006, after the first incident, and instructed the company to make sure the people working for them were of legal status. Romney said the owner guaranteed that the company would comply with the law going forward. ‘After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions. They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.’ ”

The third piece provides a starting-point of any cogent analysis; review the text of the letter Mitt wrote when he finally “fired” the company that had hired the Illegals. The key question that follows, therefore, is whether comparable documentation exists—from a year prior—when he says he had warned the company against this practice [“…the clear instructions provided on this issue last year…”]; the follow-up question that follows is why he had initially “given them another chance” rather than having invoked the Reaganesque “trust but verify” approach, taking active steps to ensure it had complied with his demand.

*

I would anticipate that O’Reilly will quiz Rick on these issues, next Tuesday….

He’s so Brilliant he has “Nuanced” positions. Get off his back already because you’re just poisoning the well against the inevitable nominee.

/sarc

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Let’s face it, we have a very week field. Romney is a slick politician. The fact that he changed the line in his book shows that. He’s dishonest to a fault and willing to say anything to get elected.

There has always been something about Romney that bothered me aside from well known facts about his flip-flop on abortion, belief in big-government solutions to every problem, his role in bringing us Romney/Obamacare, etc., and I think you have put your finger on it: he is very much like Obama in the way he conducts himself. The slick, smiling fellow on the stage that everyone sees is not the real man. His attacks on Perry have given away his game and I suspect they reflect the real way this NE, Ivy League progressive views much of the south and other parts of flyover country. Obama’s outburst about those who cling to guns and religion similarly gave away his game. The video misrepresenting you and others will be a real eye-opener for many. Thanks for finally bringing Romney & Company’s duplicity to light.

Living in New Hampshire, we see this all the time from south of the border. If you like Scott Brown, you’ll love Mitt Romney. While Scott Brown was the best we could expect from Mass, in a statewide race, Mitt Romney is not the best we can expect from a national one.

well said, uncmike

Mitt Romney is ESTABLISHMENT! We do not need more of the same. Karl Rove’s attacks on Rick Perry; Peggy Noonan and even Kimberly Strassel at WSJ all tell us that Rick Perry is NOT ESTABLISHMENT.

Time for change in DC.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/10/19/mitt-romney-bleeds-i-star-in-the-film/#comment-135796

The ad was pulled by Mitt, aborted almost immediately following its birth; perhaps Mitt will need to explain its conception, and why he behaviorally flip-flopped.

This is another unforced error, accumulating daily; Mitt is unraveling, and GONE is that sense of inevitability [stoked by the MSM, promoted by MSNBC, acknowledged by CNN...but challenged by FNC/Rush/true-conservatives].

Romney’s thin-skin has been presaged in classic American literature:

“Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter–tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…. And one fine morning– So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
- F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, Ch. 9

Romney will be remembered historically as the also-ran, who forever punctured the classic GOP “next-in-line” model. If the TEA Party Movement has ANY residual potency, Rick will accrue support appropriately from those who would wish to defeat the Rockefeller-Republicans.

Who here trusts Mitt to fight for a conservative govt?

He is a fallback candidate, someone who would be better than Obama (not exactly a high bar). Republicans are settling if Romney is the nominee.

I think that Romney has presented himself well thus far, given his contradictions and record. Smooth, as Erick says.

But definitely not a genuine Conservative.

I am not confident at all in any of the other candidates to beat Obama and to be ‘thin skin” is not a dis-qualifier. I have not seen a politician as thin-skinned as Obama and it did not seem to hurt him. And Romney does not seem as thin-skinned as Obama. Indeed, some writers at National Review compared his back and forth with Perry as Reaganesque, reminiscent of “I paid for this microphone.”.

At any rate, while Romney’s attitude in the last debate was a turnoff for me, I don’t see it being the big factor that Eric does. The fact is, I think it was clear that Romney still did better in the debate than anyone but Gingrich, with his “bushel full of apples and oranges” type witticisms and ability to defend himself against a lot of attacks. Compare that with how Perry did when he was attacked in earlier debates. It is not even close.

The issue has always been who on the stage could consolidate the “anti-Romney” vote and defeat him. Perry got off the mat, but overall his poor communication skills will mean that Obama will run over him in the general election. Do you think Perry will be able to call Obama on all his lies? I have zero confidence in Perry in a debate with Obama. He did better, but still many at National Review trashed his performance as a “one-note” energy answer to everything. Gingrich has too much personal baggage. Santorum got defeated in his own (and my) home state by a lot, and it is not nearly as Democrat as Massachusetts. Cain will be eaten alive on foreign policy.

So, if Romney’s “thin skin” is a problem, it pales in comparison to the other candidate’s problems in the general election. I am beginning to think that we will end up with Obama again if Perry gets the nod. Obama has a gadzillion things to attack him on, but he remains a masterful and convincing liar and without the right person to catch him in his lies, he will convince the public it was the nasty Republicans that have caused the economic mess, defeated his efforts to fix the economy, took money from Wall Street to line their pockets, caused the deficit by reducing taxes, and all the other inane things that the Democrats have been filling the mush of their follower’s brains. Of all the candidates, Perry is the only one that I do not think could counter Obama on the stage. Even Santorum is smart and quick enough to point out Obama’s lies. Perry — I have zero confidence in him on the stage with Obama.

i want rush to get some of his influencial friends together and get rubio to run
i dont want a rino like mitt
i dont like the whole repub establishemnt and all of washington needs a house cleaning
rubio with real conservative support [note i did not say reub support] has to move dramatically right to save this country
that means reducing the size of gov 40% as well as cutting regulation by 60% with some common sense regulation anyone can read and understand

Not too surprising after all Cain has been Romney’s lap dog from the start. Has anyone really seen Cain attack Romney hard and surely the last few minutes of the last debate Cain really made it clear he was rooting for Romney’s VP spot.

Anyone with any brains knows Cain can’t be on the top of the ticket without any elected office experience he would be wiped out in the general election in a second. After Cain’s flip-flopping, support of TARP, the GITMO flap, the Fed audit flap, the 999 pizza special….

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/19/michael-steele-predicts-romney-cain-ticket/

Is that he has tried to be a career politician.

He claims he should be elected based on his
private sector experience. That record of
his supposed “successful” private sector
experience is hard to decipher.

Yet, he comes out with a hit site on Perry
called www.careerpolitician.com

On the website Romney states
“Career politicians got us into this mess, and they won’t help us out.”

Huh? Texas is one of the only states that have showed real job growth
during one of the worst downturns in American history.

And contrary to Romney stating that
“Nearly half of new jobs in Texas over the last 4 years
went to illegal immigrants” which is a baldfaced lie -
He used a flawed study and whips up a TV ad stating it is fact.

Mitt you lie – here is a paper which refutes that ad and your lie…..

A recent study claiming “immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of [Texas’ job] growth since 2007” was inaccurate because it relied on flawed methodology.

The main contention in the study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was, “Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).” It goes on to assert, backing up its numbers with data from government sources, that, “…between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.”

CIS also claimed that half of the newly-arrived immigrants were illegally in America. While a case can be made that these numbers are off using Department of Homeland Security data showing that the amount of illegal immigrants getting new jobs in Texas (60,000) was less than half number claimed in the CIS report (153,880), the greater issue was the flawed methodology that led to the report’s most widely-reported claim.

Put simply, CIS compared a net increase in jobs in Texas over a four year period with a gross increase in employed newly- arrived immigrants in Texas. This is truly an apples to oranges comparison that should be thought of in the same way as if a report claimed that Google is a larger company than Apple because its market capitalization of $162 billion exceeded Apple’s annual revenues of $100 billion.

It is true that Texas had a nation-leading net of 279,000 more jobs in the second quarter of 2011 than it did in the second quarter of 2007. But CIS’ claim that immigrants filled 225,000 of these jobs is wrong. There is no way to determine— statistically or otherwise—that this is the case. The numbers are simply not comparable.

Looking at the total number of jobs created in our dynamic and complex economy shows the fault of this claim.

Lastly, the CIS study notes that Texas’ current unemployment rate isn’t much better than the national average. However, it is important to point out that Texas has received an inflow of 781,542 domestic job seekers and their families in the past 10 years, with that number accelerating more recently. This has acted to inflate the unemployment rate in Texas. On the other end of the ledger, Americans moving to Texas in search of a better life have acted to reduce the unemployment rate of states such as New York and Massachusetts where 1,570,310 and 328,695 people, respectively, have moved out. This latter point has been largely ignored in the national debate about the impact on jobs that policies on taxes, regulations and the legal climate have.

We are living though the worst Presidency that America has seen.
We don’t need to repeat that mistake even if the candidate has an (R) by his name. In this case the (R) stands for RINO.

Watching Morning Joe this morning(occasionally have to keep up with what the other side is thinking!)… they were dismissing all other candidates as a complete waste of time and basically saying Romney had the nomination all sewed up. Their take is the media is only talking about the other cadidates to make it look like there is a race. If MSNBC is all for Romney…to quote a famous movie…Run Forrest Run!! Governor Perry keep after him!

The more I see of Romney, the more disgusted I am with him. I would be less enthusiastic about voting for him than I was for McCain.

But I’ve decided to look at it another, more positive way: If we can defeat him in this primary, then the chances are very good that we will never have to see him again on the national stage – at least not as a Republican.

who certainly deserves congratulations on his post, but there really is no new news here about Romney for anyone that has followed the campaign from the beginning. And, reflects on the 2008 run for nomination.

Of the sanctioned conservative field there are only three that have consistently adhered to their core values and not behaved as unabashed politicians. Of those three there is only one that the Republican establishment considers electable against BO. Yet, in the same breath, the Republic Party will say “Micky Mouse could be Obama now”. Go figure.

The Republican Party establishment wants Romney, if that isn’t clear, then you’re stupid, plane and simple. If Romney is the nominee, expect things to remain the same or get worse. I don’t want that, do you?

A opportunity exists in future debates where historical facts (stubborn things) can verify that all of the economic and social problems we are facing today are a direct result of the federal government’s intrusion into areas that it is Constitutionally forbidden to tread. And light can be shed on the similar but much more serious problems in Europe which our Constitution was written to protect us from and we are destined to be affected by their collapse in the not too distant future if we don’t act correctly in the 2012 elections.

There is no permanent solution to our social and economic problems without returning to the founding principles of our republic. If you want the system to remain fundamentally unchanged, vote for Romney and continue doing what the Republican Party has been doing for the last 60 years. Good luck to us all.

“LISTEN UP YOU MORONS! RICK PERRY IS TOO DAMN ANGRY TO BE PRESIDENT!!!”

Your love affair with Rick Perry is bordering on annoying. Perry looked small and petty with his cheap shot attack on Romney. I think most voters were instantly turned off. I know I was and I am no fan of Mitt Romney. I understand you think that your complex diagraming of Romney’s sentences in the debate you think you have uncovered some secret weapon for Perry to exploit. I tell you the average voter is not going to care. I want to be a Cain supporter, but I am making my peace with Romney and I suggest you and all of the other conservative purist that post on this website do the same. Ultimately my vote is based on one and only criteria….who can beat Obama in the general election. I tell you this with certainty….the Obama team is salivating over the opportunity to take on Rick Perry.

We all observed Perry/Santorum making some heavy blows against Romney’s glass jaw and his angry reactions. Been said here before but he will surely have to develop alot more composure and tougher skin if he’s going to survive against O in their debates. The debate moderaters will all be in the tank for O and they won’t allow Romney to out talk him and try to shut him up and they sure won’t let him lay a hand on O.

Seems others after the Vegas debates need to suck it up a little, too. Gingrich and Bachmann both have taken what they consider to be the high road as far as attacks in debates. Newt told Hannity that the arguments hurt the entire GOP. Bachmann said to Hannity yesterday that she wanted to focus solely on O during the debate but those exchanges between Perry and Romney were a distraction. Neither of these people said anything close to this after the attacks that were leveled at Perry in the earlier debates. Newt didn’t think Bachmann’s attacks on Gardasil hurt the party, did he? When Perry’s been under fire for being ‘weak on immigration’ neither of these two said anything , but let the truth on an important immigration issue be brought up about Romney and now all of a sudden the party’s being hurt. Neither of them (and Hannity, for that matter) thought Cain’s outrageous statement that he wouldn’t serve as Perry’s VP was a totally out of line comment that hurts the party. Hannity himself called Perry’s comments toward Romney ‘petty’. If Romney’s past is petty then why the heck have we been bombarded for weeks about Perry’s past? A past that includes injections never given and a highway never built! We’re supposed to be impressed with Romney’s past accomplishments, forgive his flip flops (because they’re petty) but we never seem to get around to talking about Perry’s past accomplishments—probably becaue they are petty.

There’s an old saying that the cream always rises to the top. Newt and Michelle, in their sanctimony, are doing nothing to help get the best candidate on the ballot. They run in fear of Romney and sucker punch Perry time and again. It’s getting rather pathetic.

I don’t think Eric is in the tank for Perry but I do think Eric most likely believes (and rightfully so) that the primary is really only about Romney and Perry in the end.

Given the choice between Romney and Perry, it should be very clear Perry is by far the most conservative candidate and surely the most conservative candidate in the republican field that has any chance at winning in both the primary and general (given his long record in elected office, his experience and having never lost a election). It comes down to a two person race, Romney and Perry in the end.

Perry is clearly exposing and framing Romney as Obama lite, a corrupt lying politician who will do anything to get elected. Perry is setting the framework up nicely.

Once Perry has the framework in place and I think he does, Perry will start going very positive with positive ads, positive solutions and positive policies. Perry is already starting the transformation and it will become more clear as the weeks go by.

Obama would love to take on Romney, Romney is too much like Obama in the end. Romney can’t make a case for all the poor policies that Obama has put in place because Romney’s recors is too much like Obama’s. Perry si making that case and clearly doing so too.

What always makes me laugh is how much the MSM misses how the viewers view the debates.

The MSM was out saying that Romney did well and he answered all the questions. While the truth is he got crushed. Romney will now have to deal with lots of articles and questions about him hiring illegals and his “I am running for office” answer was terrible.

Perry simply crushed him and made Romney look like a little kid screaming “mommy mommy.”

SNL just did a skit making fun of Romney for being a stiff. That’s been a criticism for years. I think the real problem is that Romney got the best of Perry again, when Perry tried to get tough and that bothers Perry supporters.

When Romney doesnt react, those who dont like him criticize him.. When he does react, and puts Perry in his place, they criticize him..

Even Glenn Beck TV said Romney delivered anther beat down and the exchange was a bloodbath. Seems to me like Perry supporters are desperate.

I am no fan of Mitt Romney. However, to witness RS continue to act as a campaign front for Rick Perry only serves to diminish its credibility as a source for political analysis from a conservative viewpoint.

It is clear that Romney did not knowingly hire illegals. To see Perry persist in his allegations, which clearly stretched the realms of reality, is to confirm that Perry lacks the character to be president.

This is what Rick Perry does. Other than the fact that he has occupied the office of governor at a fortunate period where, to no credit of his own (except for bribing businesses with taxpayer dollars), his state has led the nation in employment figures, there is nothing on which he can run to promote himself. Therefore, he levels petty and suspect attacks and allegations in an attempt to bring the other candidates down to his level. As a result, the Republican primary has degraded in decorum since his entry, and the debates have lost substantive value. Rather than highlighting key differences on what would make one candidate a better choice than another, post-debate analysis more closely resemble a recap of a WWE event.

In the face of such gross mischaracterization, I don’t blame Romney for releasing some emotion. For a Republican presidential candidate to make such misrepresentations about another Republican candidate is much more egregious than the reaction. Yet, since it was Rick Perry, leave it to RS to provide the spin.

The fact is that what is most Obama-like in this primary is the nature of Rick Perry’s campaign tactics. You could play sound bytes of Obama’s attacks against Republicans of late and lay them side by side with Perry’s attacks against Romney. Put that together with Solyndra and Perry’s record of capital cronyism in Texas, and you have a much more credible Obama comparison.

Look I am not a Romney cheerleader but to say he is thin skinned like Obama is pretty unfair. I just don’t think there’s anyway you can lump the 2 together like that. I do think Obama has set an unfortunate precedent for being overly petty and blaming the last president and whatnot that I hope future presidents do not follow.

Obama wanted to distinguish himself from the last president, and for the most part he did. We all hated it like his softness on foreign policy for example – but I expect the next president to do the same. To really draw a stark contrast from their predecessor.

On policy I’d rather have Perry than Romney (even though I think the redstate vs. bluestate difference of their governorships makes up some of this difference). But Perry is beyond tone deaf and awkward. His angry stance, prickliness, combined with weirdness, such as the repeated “Brother” reference would be something the squashy middle would be really turned off by, IMO.

pointed out that Romney’s dropping his left, leaving himself open to the jab.

It looked to me like Perry recognizes he can’t possibly go word for word with Romney, who’s clearly a faster, slicker talker. He thought he could get under Romney’s skin, however, with a continuation of some quick rabbit punches.

I know virtually every other pundit thought Romney came off better and/or Perry came off worse but I looked at it and saw a smile here and there from Perry, who seemed to know exactly what he was doing.

To drag out the analogy, Romney kept looking to the ref in the middle of the fight, complaing about the tactics, and Perry kept popping him in the ribs. The referee stood back smiling, perhaps with the thought that a strict adherence to the rulebook wouldn’t make for a show quite as good. This referee also couldn’t help but think that he wanted these two to be in no shape for the championship fight, where the referee has already placed his own bet!

Like the woman in NY who uttered these famous words after Nixon crushed McGovern in 1972, I am guessing that is going to be a recurring theme on RedState from January – March of next year.

Not sure who else watched Hannity last night. (and here we go, Hannity is a liberal, east coast, catholic, RINO, establishment guy, blah blah blah), but he had on Frank Luntz which he always does a day or two after the debate, and not surprisingly many in the audience believed that Newt won the debate – and there were several folks that said they swicted their support to Newt based on his performance.

More interesting – was what the focus group felt about the Romney-Perry exchange. Just about every person in that room came off with negative feelings about Rick Perry and in the follow-up comments, it was clear that people though Perry was undignified and not presidential and that Romney came out ahead. Closing the segment out – Luntz asked who would you vote for Perry or Romney in a two-man race, and overwhelmingly the group chose Romney. Therefore – I believe the conventional wisdom is wrong, in that many of you believe that once Newt and Bachman and Cain etc. leave the race – their support will flow to Perry, I think its not going to happen based on the damage Perry has sustained in these debates – I think Newt’s following will certainly flow to Romney, and to a lesser extent Cain’s as well.

Of course I am sure – Luntz will get attacked as a “liberal, RINO, establishment pollster etc.” – but I think his focus groups are usually spot on. Back in Summer of 2007, if you watched the Dem debates, even when Hillary was way out in front, the focus groups kept on showing good things for Obama which we know did materialize into higher polls and votes.

As someone said recently, the candidates that were leading during this time in the 2008 Presidential polls were Hillary Clinton (out polling Obama) on the Dem side, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Huckabee (on the Republican side). As the commenter then said……….all of them had dropped out or had been beaten by the end of the election period.

The fact that Cain is “leading” says a lot about the seriousness of these polls right now.

Gingrich on Hannity 10/19 on the petty debate crap:

“Newt Gingrich says while others on stage were bickering during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate, he was trying to focus on what needs to be done to raise the nation out of its economic doldrums. The former House speaker also told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Wednesday the debates have become less issue-oriented and more like a “Hollywood game show” and ego forum.

“Some other guys were spending almost all evening bickering — I was trying to focus very directly on what does America need to do to solve its problems,” Gingrich said. “How do we get jobs created? How do we balance the budget? How do we get out of the mess we are in? And I also think that people are ready for, talking about a different approach.

“You know, these debates haven’t only been debates — it’s been almost like a Hollywood game show: You know some moderator asking questions, a minute here, 30-second rebuttal there — a lot of back-and-forth stuff,” he said.

“Well, look, Sean, you know, it’s very important for us to remember that the goal of this effort is to defeat Barack Obama and get America back on the right track — the goal of this entire project isn’t have one ego or one ambition over another and then go get beaten by the president because we have beaten each other up so much,” Gingrich said. “Once or twice last night, the level of intensity, particularly between Governors Perry and Romney got to be almost like seventh graders in a school yard.”

The former House speaker also said the bickering made “very uncomfortable” and people he has spoken with after the debate shared his opinion.

“I thought it hurt the entire Republican Party — I know I have talked to people here in Arizona this afternoon who just plain turned it off,” Gingrich said. “They said: ‘This is so negative and so petty — I am not going to watch it.’ Now, that’s bad for the conservative movement and it’s bad for the Republican Party.

“We ought to be able to set a higher standard than that,” he said. “Doesn’t mean we can’t disagree — but we have to disagree based on the facts.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Debates Becoming Like ‘Hollywood Game Show,’ Gingrich Says

Like I said in my comment the other day, one thing is for certain. A defeat of Romney is the true litmus test for Perry’s ability to beat Obama, since Romney is very much Obama-lite. If Perry beats Romney in fight #1, he can beat Obama in fight #2.

Going up against Romney during the GOP nomination is Perry’s preparation for going up against Obama during the upcoming Presidential election.

Talking with CNN’s Carol Costello the morning after the debate, she asked him how he felt about being attacked by his R opponents. He said that the are “getting on his last nerve.”

Cain has only recently risen in the polls to top tier, and only now is getting the thorough vetting that the other top tier candidates have been getting for the last few months. If he is already on his last nerve with his opponents, how will he handle the ongoing criticisims that will surely come with his top tier status.

It seems that Cain’s sunny veneer is beginning to crack, with the increased scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how long he remains positive and inspiring. It appears that he is ready to get into the “gloves off” mode.

While Romney would be infinitely better as President than Obama (any GOP candidate would), they do share the same sort of arrogant narcissism that acts shocked when anyone dares to question them.

Both come across as of they are above questioning. Now Obama manifests these characteristics to a much greater degree than Romney. Obama is on a whole other scale in this arena. But the presence of these characteristics in Romney is troubling.

I have watched Fox go soft on the news and politics. I mean they are sounding like everyone else. What is funny though is that this primary campaign is being run by the Democrats. I watched the same thing happen here in Nevada with the unfortunate re-election of Harry Reid. They will help their favorite get nominated then slap em down. This is the closest I have seen yet that gets close to exposing this scenario.
I too believe that the MSM including Fox, the establishment Republicans, as well as Romney himself all believe that Romney deserves the presidency. I really hate it when I feel like I am being led down a primrose path.

Well…you’re spot on Erick. This guy, Romney, is mean spirited. Remember him getting huffy with the WaPo Debate,wherein a woman asked a question concerning the economic unrest in Europe. He had to keep correcting and correcting. He’s right…they are wrong…and they need to see this. He’s arrogant…he’s Obama’s clone.

HOWEVER…that was not the biggie. Fox News (of whom I was a fan) put forth this…using Luntz to rationalize it. Rick Perry is mean and Romney won. What are we watching…American Idol? I care about ideas, policies and evidence…and I like Perry. But…please guys…they think Perry was mean…are they living in another universe? Romney put his hands on Perry!!! Remember…and then came up with the “personal” attack that he understood that Rick was “testy” after a few bad debates. Look at the restraint Perry used. If it were me…I would have hit him in the mouth. Oh…and then he denied the Illegal story and then finally admitted to it. He says whatever to whomever, depending on their concerns and then will put in what HE WANTS. THIS GUY IS BIG TAX/SPEND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT…MAKE NO MISTAKE.

Fox wants us to have an Independent or a person that lacks government experience. The 999 does not compute….and it is being walked back.

that Perry revealed Romney’s true character and RINO politician. I don’t trust Romney and I pray I don’t have to vote for him. I will vote for Perry in the primary.

has shown any class when the going got a bit tough.
Romney for reasons given, but let’s not forget Perry’s “heartless” characterization for those of us who believe illegal immigration shouldn’t be tolerated much less subsidized by those sworn to uphold the law.
As for the illegal lawn worker. Get real. Grow up. Too stupid to even move up to the gotcha category.

Romney folks in the room today. Great job Mr Erickson.

“Romney made it known that he wanted the law followed.”

You engage in moral relativism; the questions cry to be distilled.

If Mitt makes personal assertions, he should be able to document how he “made it known” both to the landscaper-company [which would comply] and to his staff [which would monitor compliance].

The parallel with other methods to administer government are obvious.

*

If the “Texas-decision” reflects the 10th Amendment AND is not reflective of big-government [as opposed to the individual-mandate that RomneyCare emphasizes], then it’s just fine.

Furthermore, if this one component of Texas-policy is a magnet, then jobs are the ELECTRO-magnet.

*

“I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake!” – Mitt’s blood was drawn.

[as noted elsewhere, he had to entice the snake from its hole, prior to hitting it]