Two ideas that Perry came up with while Governor of Texas does show he is a pretty creative guy and got my attention before he even ran for President. Sadly neither of these two have been brought up by the Perry campaign during his debates and speeches nor have they been brought up by anybody here on RedState(although I’ve alluded to them a couple times).

The Border WebCams

This one is actually pretty fun and hopefully I might end up creating a little stampede to the site here. Basically in 2006 Perry came up with the idea of putting webcams along the border and putting the feed up online for anybody in the world to come on and spot for illegals on the Texas border. It took a few years for him to appropriate  a couple million dollars, implement the program, and set them up. The site is: http://www.blueservo.net/ and you can hop on today and start spotting after a quick registration. There are 21 cameras in total(I think there were about a dozen when I first came on over a year ago).

Personally I think if they offered up a small reward per spot and put up a few hundred more cameras they would have thousands of people doing it each day(partially for the fun and partially for a few extra bucks) and it would be substantially cheaper than loading the border with tons of people patrolling and cheaper than hiring thousands of people and paying them salaries to sit and watch cams all day. Apparently I think they are having some break down in their enforcement on webcam tips and I think it has to do with the fact that they want you to email them when you make a find(probably adds to much delay) so it might be a good idea to track down the phone number for the local enforcement agency and give them a call if you make a find instead.

But altogether its a pretty smart idea and something that I thought about when I was rooting for Perry to enter the race back in 2010 before the race had even started.

Higher Education Policy

Another area that doesn’t get mentioned about Perry was his ideas on higher education. Essentially in Perry’s first term he looked at separating the state aid directed at the public(read favored) state universities and giving it to students as a voucher. Apparently the public universities screamed bloody murder and succeeded in stopping it, but it was a good idea back then and its a good idea now(even though its not a federal one it does show he’s pretty creative and has good policy instincts). He ended settling later on for a pretty watered down sub par bill on trying to create some accountability for public universities, but maybe we’ll see his original idea more in the future.

Here is a so-so(but detailed) article that covers it from The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/perry-and-profs_593055.html

And now starts a small stampede of registrations on blueservo as that is probably more interesting than my diary!

Looking back at the start of Rush Limbaugh’s program in the 1980′s not many would have predicted at the time that it would usher in a new era of conservative talk radio that would completely change the political dynamic in the United States. The same could be said when Fox News had it first broadcast. Or even the day Rick Santelli made his comments on the floor of the NYSE that sparked the Tea Party.

Today I see a new revolutionary change that many may not think is a huge deal, but could easily be a huge ‘disruptive innovation’ that could upend our political world for generations.

What I’m referring to is the new changes in debate style that are occurring today. The Family Leader debate, the Cain and Gingrich Lincoln Douglas Debate, the upcoming Huntsman and Gingrich Lincoln Douglas Debate, and to a lessor extent the Bloomberg debate a while back all mark a very large change from the past way of doing things, and that change is that the amount of time for each candidates answers are rising enough that the expectation is changing to candidates giving an argument as opposed to talking points(because of a limitation on time).

I think a lot of people are overlooking how much of a seismic shift this represents because they are looking at it from the context of this primary and the current choices, but what they aren’t factoring in is the effect this has on the voting public and the democrats going forward.

On the Democrats

Most people(including myself) will point out that when it comes down to it the arguments of the left can’t hold under careful scrutiny. They never have and never will. So a change like this is actually going to force Democratic candidates to instead make an argument for what they are for(instead of just stating it) and defend it against pointed questions from their opponents. This is practically a guaranteed losing proposition for Democrats over the long term. There is no way a Democrat could hold an argument on Keynesian stimulus spending, government intervention in healthcare, the current construct of Social Security, etc. under that kind of scrutiny. There is no way! So going forward 1 of 2 things will happen if these debate changes stick. The first is that they will lose debate after debate after debate in the future. And the second(the more likely outcome as the population gets further educated on political issues from these) is that the Democratic party will start a very swift move to the right predicated on the fact that they can’t defend the arguments they’ve made up until this point.

On the voting public

There is a huge difference between 30 second talking point answers and several minute arguments and how that affects the voting public. The purpose of a 30 second(or even a minute long) limit is to force stagnation within the political views of the American public and therefore reduce the risk of loss to either side. And it comes from this broken notion in political science that 100% of politics is opposing value systems and that the two sides are going to line up the same way no matter how much propagation of information, arguments, and ideas is occurring. So essentially in the past the answers had to come in the form of “signing onto” existing proposals or beliefs that Americans already had at least a limited understanding of. But…

When you increase the answer time to allow for real arguments to formulate the dynamic changes completely. Candidates are then in the position of persuading and educating people to come to their side instead of “signing onto” existing divisions.

And since a very large number of people tune into Presidential Debates(especially during the general election) the affect this is going to have is to substantially accelerate the very slow changes in people’s personal views over time. And since I(and I’m sure practically all of the people on RedState) am confident that over time we will completely dominate these arguments we may in fact be looking at one of the most important changes in the campaign and election process in history.

Now I do see the irony in expecting a change that is rooted in debates from 150 years ago to last when it didn’t last back then, but I don’t think this change is going away this time. Its a different world and voters are going to demand this going forward and today political machines no longer exert influence on campaigns. Today voters do. I think(and I hope) that we will be looking back at today and pointing at this key change as a big turning point in our countries future and something that ushered in a new era of conservative governance.

All I have to say is WOW! I watched the first episode last night. Its becoming more common for networks to release the first episode on demand and online a week early to create buzz before the premier. Since I have Starz on satellite instead of cable I elected to watch it online.

I realize this is a bold statement, but best first episode of any series I’ve ever seen, and that includes my other favorites The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, The Borgias, and even Band of Brothers(even though that was more because the first episode was far from the best).

For those that haven’t heard me talk about it on here before, Boss is about a corrupt and morally deprived mayor of Chicago by the name of Tom Kane played by Kelsey Grammer. The character is loosely based off of Mayor Dick Daley and shows a man that is willing to justify any means to get what he wants. There is also a back story about him getting diagnosed with a rare degenerative neurological disorder that is going to increasingly make daily living more difficult. The show is directed by Gus Van Sant and he has done an amazing job in the first episode.

Here is the IMBD link on the show: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833285/
For those that want to see it. If you have Starz on demand you can watch the first episode anytime you want now. If you have Starz you can watch the premier at 10 pm(eastern) tomorrow on the network. If you don’t have Starz you can watch it on the Starz website you just need to enter your birthdate.    http://www.starz.com/originals/Boss/ScreeningRoom#/episode-1

^^^^So you can watch it right there^^^^

I should also point out to those that don’t like seeing shows that have vulgar language and nudity, this show has both. In the first episode there are a lot of swear words and their is a brief sex scene with some nudity.

Here’s the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxZSS8pViww

For those that are interested I hope you enjoy the show!

As I’ve said before on here I have not picked a horse in this race. Several of the candidates have different benefits and drawbacks making most acceptable to me. The only exceptions to that in my mind are Paul and Bachmann.

But the topic of Newt is coming up a lot more on Redstate as well as his previous personal and political mistakes. Well I am probably one of the very few that was closely following Newt back when those mistakes occurred. Why was I following Newt? Because during off years I have a habit of watching the speeches and comments of conservatives that are on the “cutting edge” of policy and argument. For example: I listen to all of Christie’s speeches because he has some very innovative ways of explaining things to people to get them on his side of issues. I listen to and read everything Paul Ryan puts out there because his innovative ways of approaching policy. Well this also meant that over the last 8 years I’ve listened to/watched about 120 speeches from Newt, read dozens of articles about different topics, read 3 books, watched 2 debates(before this cycle), etc.

So I’m in a unique spot to tell you exactly what was going on with Newt when he made each of these mistakes. Now in practically all of the cases, I wholeheartedly did not agree with Newt’s decisions, but at least I understood why he did them.

The Affairs

He had them in the late 90s. There is no question about it. And he’s admitted to them. The engaging in them does show a weakness in his character and everybody that brings that up is correct in pointing that out.

I can say that from sources close to the family he does really love Callista, and that she is a big part of his life today. Apparently at least in the case of his first marriage many of Newt’s relatives, friends, and even parents were rooting for the marriage fail because they really didn’t like her. In the case of Callista the opposite is true.

Also, I haven’t been able to track it down lately, but about 2-3 years ago Newt came on Dobson’s Focus on the Family program. James asked him about the affairs. Newt had a moment where instead of being the confident focused man he usually is, his voice became broken and sounded like he was almost on the verge of crying and said something like “There have been times in my life where I had no choice, but to get down on my knees and beg God to forgive the things I’ve done that I have trouble forgiving myself for.” Based on how that went, I find it extremely doubtful that anybody could fake that.

Still though he should have never had an affair on his wife. He should have broke it off before ever thinking of engaging in that behavior. And it is a real sign of his weakness in character.

The 1998 House Losses

The common story of what happened that year is so far off the mark I have no idea how it continues to be peddled today. In 1998 after Lewinsky broke a few in the house leadership had come to find out about Newt’s own infidelity. And that didn’t work real well considering they(including the NRCC chair) wanted to run on the Lewinsky scandal for the upcoming midterms.

Newt didn’t agree with the approach. He went to the rest of the leadership and said that the GOP couldn’t only run on Lewinsky and instead had to develop an even bolder reform package for that years elections. The rest of leadership(including the NRCC chair) told him to sit down and shut up because they wanted to run only on Lewinsky and they didn’t want him ruining it for them.

In 1998 the house lost seats and those same people that told Newt to “shut up” turned around and said that it was all Newt’s idea to run solely on Lewinsky. The republicans in the house believed them and then installed the people that just screwed up into leadership. Today the story is still told that it was Newt’s fault they lost in 98.

The Hospital Bed Divorce Papers

Just a flat out lie. Newt’s daughter who was their that day has said that the divorce was never brought up. Newt’s wife went in for minor surgery to remove, I believe, a tiny amount of malignant cancer. Newt and the family came to be supportive even though Newt’s wife had asked for the divorce a couple months prior when Newt told her about the affair.

The Couch

I had probably heard at least 15 speeches and a debate from Newt about the environment before he decided to appear on that couch. I didn’t agree with his thinking in the speeches and I didn’t agree with the decision to join Pelosi on the couch.

But this was Newt’s rationale that he had delivered numerous times before that commercial ever aired: Newt believed that best course of action of the GOP was to not completely cede environmental issues to the Dems and use the issue to make progress on what we cared about. So he floated two proposals. One is that companies would get 100% expensing of all factories, plants, equipment, etc. if it was a replacement of one that was less energy efficient(which is practically always true) and that is a pretty decent proposal. The other was to wipe out the EPA as a litigating and regulating body and convert its budget to one that issues “prizes” for technology that is an improvement environmentally. I agreed with the first part, but not the 2nd. But even I would agree that the whole solution was better than the current mess.

Either way, Newt was wrong to try to use global warming to get more conservative proposals through because it only gives moral support to those that believe in man made global warming. He was wrong to show up on that couch because he should have known that it would only benefit the left, and not lead to anybody reading his ideas anyway. It was a complete mistake, and today he would agree it was mistake and that he was naive to think that showing up on a couch in a commercial would lead people to looking at his conservative proposals.

The Endorsement

I’m pretty sure Newt’s endorsement of Scozzafava was because of a phone call he received from Chairman Steele(the two are friends). Newt came out and endorsed Dede and said something along the lines of this as his reason why: “Since I believe in individual districts right to choose their own candidate I don’t support national organizations coming in trying to over power the will of the people within a district”(or something like that). Well if that argument was actually true I would agree with Newt, but it wasn’t.

I believe it was Dick Armey that tracked down Newt about 4 days later and showed him Dede’s record and the method that was used to select her(not even remotely close to a primary, nor the will of the people). Newt came out and said oops, I’m really sorry. I didn’t realize that this liberal women was selected by a few GOP country chairs pretty much behind closed doors. I retract my endorsement. But people remember the mistake not the reason nor the apology.

“Right-Wing Social Engineering”

Now that was just stupid on his part. I really, really like Paul Ryan and I almost wanted to punch him for what he said. Now Newt would tell you over the last decade that he believes more in selling conservative ideas to the public and then implementing them much more than just enacting them while ignoring the people. I agree with that sentiment. It is clear that he had that concept in his mind when he made those stupid remarks. That rationale doesn’t excuse those remarks, but you can at least understand where he was coming from. But ultimately everybody was right for calling him out on saying something so pathetic.

Odds are Newt still wont be the nominee. While he does have a slim shot at pulling it off, its a very steep hill to climb.
But for those that were curious about the back story behind some of these dumb decisions, I hope you find this informative.

I was expecting to see this one come out, here. I saw little news reports alluding to how well Christie would have done given Quinnipiac’s findings.

Without Palin and Christie:

24% Romney
18% Cain
15% Perry
9% Gingrich
6% Paul
5% Bachmann
3% Santorum
1% Huntsman
19% Undecided

From September 27 – October 3, Quinnipiac University surveyed 2,118 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The Republican primary includes 927 voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1656

I should point out that I’m not the biggest fan of Quinnipiac’s polling talents. I personally put them near the bottom of my list given their overall polling results the last few cycles. But they are good enough to make the RCP list(which I agree they should be) so there’s your results.

We should be looking at full disclosure of exact fundraising numbers any day now as well.

This is the new story on the fundraising front.

First a Romney insider came out saying that they had raised $13-14 million in Q3. That makes it Romney’s worst Q in this cycle and in 08.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-30/romney-campaign-said-to-raise-up-to-14-million-in-quarter.html

Then not to long after that3  sources in the Perry campaign said they had raised at least $10 million exceeding their target for Q3. So it was believed that Perry had fallen short of Romney’s numbers.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/03/us-usa-campaign-perry-fundraising-idUSTRE7925M620111003

Now a new article has come out. And now sources close to the Perry campaign are claiming that Perry has raised about $15 million for Q3. Now I don’t want to get hopes to up here for you Perry supporters. There is 2 things that are odd about these comments.

1) Is that usually campaigns aren’t tthhaatttt good at keeping a lid on the numbers before they officially release them to public especially when you have the media thinking your going underperform your opponent when you actually have overperformed him. If this is actually true Perry’s team is very good at preventing leeks.

2) The $15 million is mentioned kind of “off the cuff” in an article about Perry’s Deputy Finance Director leaving the campaign. News of a candidate blowing out fundraising expectations is not a side note to an article about a staffer leaving, its almost front page news on several political sites. So I find that weird, too.

But here’s the source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65108.html

Update: So a couple hours after I posted this the Drudge Headline was that Perry raised $17 million. I guess Perry’s team is very good about keeping its mouth shut and not leaking to the press.

North Carolina: Cain 27, Romney/Gingrich 17, Perry 15, Paul/Bachmann 6, Santorum/Huntsman 2

Nebraska: Cain 30, Gingrich 16, Romney 13, Bachmann/Perry 10, Paul 5, Santorum 4, Huntsman 2

West Virginia: Cain 24, Gingrich 18, Romney 16, Perry 15, Bachmann 8, Paul 6, Santorum 3, Huntsman

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/10/cainmentum.html#more

New Washington Post National Poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_100211.html

NET LEANED VOTE PREFERENCE

                       All leaned Reps.   Among RVs
                           10/2/11        10/2/11
Mitt Romney                  21             20
Herman Cain                  14             15
Rick Perry                   14             15
Chris Christie               10             10
Sarah Palin                   9              8
Ron Paul                      9              7
Newt Gingrich                 6              7
Michele Bachmann              4              4
Rick Santorum                 1              2
Jon Huntsman                  1              1
Other (vol.)                  1              2
No one/None of them (vol.)    3              3
Would not vote (vol.)         *              *
No opinion                    6              6

NET LEANED VOTE PREFERENCE

                           --------------- Without Christie/Palin -----------------
                                   Among gen pop                 Among RVs
                           10/2/11   9/1/11   7/17/11    10/2/11   9/1/11   7/17/11
Mitt Romney                  25        25       30         25        25       30
Herman Cain                  16         4        7         17         5        7
Rick Perry                   16        29        8         17        30        8
Ron Paul                     11        10       11         9        10       10
Newt Gingrich                 7         6        6          9         5        6
Michele Bachmann              7         8       16          7         9       17
Rick Santorum                 2         3        3          2         3        3
Jon Huntsman                  1         1        3          1         1        3
Tim Pawlenty                 NA        NA        3         NA        NA        3
Other (vol.)                  2         2        1          2         2        1
No one/None of them (vol.)    5         5        2          4         4        2
Would not vote (vol.)         1         2        1          1         1        *
No opinion                    7         5        8          7         5        9

New St. Petersburg Times Poll for Florida

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/fla-poll-romney-28-cain-24-gingrich-10-perry-9

Romney – 28

Cain – 24

Gingrich – 10

Perry – 9

          MOE: 4.0 MOE: 4.2%
         9.20.2011  9.30.2011
         Percent    Percent    Difference
Bachman   5.2%        3.4%       -1.8%
Cain      4.9%       23.70%      18.80% in 10 days
Gingrich  8.7%        9.80%       1.06%
Huntsman  2.4%        1.80%       -0.65%
Paul      7.5%        3.40%       -4.12%
Perry     24.7%       9.10%       -15.55%
Romney    25.0%       28.20%       3.20%
Santorum    .9%        0.50%      -0.37%
Und       20.6%       20.10%      -0.53%
Total 100.0

This is War Room Logistics survey so add an extra 1-2 points of margin of error because they are small time poller. Plus they seem to have higher than normal undecideds

New Connecticut Poll

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CT_1003.pdf

Romney – 25

Perry – 18

Cain – 10

Gingrich – 10

Paul – 10

Bachmann – 8

Huntsman – 3

Santorum – 3

Johnson – 1

As mentioned in the other diary, the specific results for 3 more state polls coming out tomorrow.

I’m getting some news about PPP’s polling over the weekend apparently they weren’t expecting at all for Cain to be up as big as he is. One person even used the word “seismic” to refer to what they’re seeing.

Apparently, Cain is up really big. Even though they are doing 3 states right now they are now very confident Cain is way up in the national polls. It also just so happens that the 3 states they are polling have in the past put up some of the largest numbers for Perry.

The 3 states are West Virginia, Nebraska, and North Carolina.

A month ago Perry led  in West Virginia by more than 20 points. Now its a 4 way tie between Romney, Perry, Cain, and Newt.

A month ago Perry also led North Carolina by more than 20 points. Now Cain is up really big and Perry is in 3rd or 4th place(close on night one).

In Nebraska Cain is also up big time.

All 3 of these were expected to have some of the strongest Perry numbers out there, and now 2 of them are moving heavily for Cain and the last is a 4 way tie.

Poll release should probably be on or around Tuesday.