Texsox Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 Campaign have so many moving parts and there is so much prep work the candidate is only the tip of the iceberg. So I stand by my statement that is campaign was inept. One only has to look at Dubya to see that it is the entire campaign. Perry also went in too high and too late. Expectations placed him as a front runner even before he officially announced. Once he did enter the race, Romney zeroed on him for a quick KO which worked. And yes, a couple of really bad debate performances killed him. The Perry y'all saw was not the guy that is the longest serving governor in Texas state history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Thankfully we didn't get to know him better. He seemed like a complete dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 He did appear that way, plus he didn't fit into a nice GOP mold. Too moderate on immigration, too conservative on some social issues, to liberal on other social issues, and too traditional on budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 05:53 AM) He did appear that way, plus he didn't fit into a nice GOP mold. Too moderate on immigration, too conservative on some social issues, to liberal on other social issues, and too traditional on budgets. Tex, as people have been telling you all along... you don't seem to be viewing the same reality about Perry that everyone else is. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or playing a role here, or if you really believe these things you are posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 I've seen Perry a bit more than most of you. I have sat near him at a couple Scouting events, met him at the Boy Scout Report to State, (I have the picture somewhere), met him again when my daughter was awarded a Say No To Drugs writing award. He doesn't fit exactly into the current GOP mold. His immigration stance, especially when it comes to education is downright liberal. His balanced budget approach harkens back to pre-Reagan Republican platforms. Bottom line, for a Republican, he's about as close to my views as a Republican can get. I agree his campaign just sucked, I am stunned by how unprepared he was. I'm basing my opinion on the past 12 years of watching him not just the past six months. I have asked several times for anyone to outline why I would prefer Romney, Newt, and Rick over Perry and no one has taken up the project. He's the governor from my state, his is the only immigration policy that would not destroy the economy of the Rio Grande Valley where I live. No over the top hyperbole, I have posted several times why, from the GOP group, Perry was my favorite. I can't do anything more if you think it is an act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) His balanced budget approach harkens back to pre-Reagan Republican platforms. Bottom line, for a Republican, he's about as close to my views as a Republican can get. His balanced budget approach was no different than anyone else in this race. Pretend that somehow you're going to slash federal departments without explaining what you'll do without them (see his debate gaffe), and then pass a huge tax cut for the rich that magically drives down unemployment better than the last ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Perry also recently turned down federal funding for womens health clinics to make sure pp doesn't get it. He fits perfectly into the current GOP mold on almost every issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 12:19 PM) His balanced budget approach was no different than anyone else in this race. Pretend that somehow you're going to slash federal departments without explaining what you'll do without them (see his debate gaffe), and then pass a huge tax cut for the rich that magically drives down unemployment better than the last ones. He actually has a track recrod of doing it. Texas weathered the latest downturn better than most states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share Posted March 9, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) Perry also recently turned down federal funding for womens health clinics to make sure pp doesn't get it. He fits perfectly into the current GOP mold on almost every issue. IIRC there was also an issue with multiyear matching dollars from Texas which cannot be done based on our constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) He actually has a track recrod of doing it. Texas weathered the latest downturn better than most states. In no small part because Texas actually had strong regulations of its mortgage industry to prevent the kind of shenanigoats that really hit states that had stronger deregulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Yesterday, Mitt rMoney won the caucuses in Guam and I believe took all 9 delegates. Today, Rick Santorum appears to be crushing the Kansas caucuses (he was the only one to contest the state) and may take home all 40 delegates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 04:17 PM) IIRC there was also an issue with multiyear matching dollars from Texas which cannot be done based on our constitution. No, it was over them explicitly refusing to use the funding as required and not explicitly excluding PP. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/...bortion-dispute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2012 -> 05:40 PM) Yesterday, Mitt rMoney won the caucuses in Guam and I believe took all 9 delegates. Today, Rick Santorum appears to be crushing the Kansas caucuses (he was the only one to contest the state) and may take home all 40 delegates. Rick Santorum is probably only going to get 33 delegates out of the 40, the remaining seven going to Mittens. With Romney winning all the delegates in Guam and Mariana Islands, plus splitting the difference in Virgin Islands, and winning Wyoming as well. What does that mean? Rick Santorum's crushing defeat of Mittens in one state ended up cutting into Mittens' delegate lead by less than 10 delegates. If Gingrich and Mittens split victory in Alabama and Mississippi Tuesday - which is a very real possibility - Rmoney sorta wraps this thing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 03:12 PM) Rick Santorum is probably only going to get 33 delegates out of the 40, the remaining seven going to Mittens. With Romney winning all the delegates in Guam and Mariana Islands, plus splitting the difference in Virgin Islands, and winning Wyoming as well. What does that mean? Rick Santorum's crushing defeat of Mittens in one state ended up cutting into Mittens' delegate lead by less than 10 delegates. If Gingrich and Mittens split victory in Alabama and Mississippi Tuesday - which is a very real possibility - Rmoney sorta wraps this thing up. At this point, "Wraps up" is a relative thing. Unless rMoney's margin of victory starts going up, it's going to take him to June to really get enough delegates in hand to actually call the thing "Wrapped up". It's almost impossible for him to lose, but this is delegates, and if he stops campaigning in the primary/stops spending millions of superpac dollars trashing his primary opponents in every state, then his opponents can go right back to narrowing the gap. He has to keep competing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) At this point, "Wraps up" is a relative thing. Unless rMoney's margin of victory starts going up, it's going to take him to June to really get enough delegates in hand to actually call the thing "Wrapped up". It's almost impossible for him to lose, but this is delegates, and if he stops campaigning in the primary/stops spending millions of superpac dollars trashing his primary opponents in every state, then his opponents can go right back to narrowing the gap. He has to keep competing. Which means Boama gets re-elected in a landslide because there's not going to be any Rmoney left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 03:24 PM) At this point, "Wraps up" is a relative thing. Unless rMoney's margin of victory starts going up, it's going to take him to June to really get enough delegates in hand to actually call the thing "Wrapped up". It's almost impossible for him to lose, but this is delegates, and if he stops campaigning in the primary/stops spending millions of superpac dollars trashing his primary opponents in every state, then his opponents can go right back to narrowing the gap. He has to keep competing. You're not wrong, but I think Santorum winning Bronze in one or both of these contests is pretty much the end of him being a serious contender for the nomination. If Gingrich doesn't win a state, you could see him bow out and endorse Santorum... so tomorrow night could be very interesting on many levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 10:28 PM) Which means Boama gets re-elected in a landslide because there's not going to be any Rmoney left. You're not thinking in a SuperPAC world Kap. If all rMoney is able to do is preserve a couple of these loopholes like the one that gets him a 15% tax rate, that's worth somewhere around hundreds of billions of dollars to wall street over a 10 year period. A billion dollars given to a SuperPAC to try to protect that tax cut is a tiny investment, almost a rounding error for these incomes, and could produce returns of 100 on a $1 investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 This may be way out there, but Im wondering if Gingrich made a deal with Romney to stay in and Romney will make him VP. Otherwise this strategy is just nuts, because Santorum and Gingrich are killing each other. As for the money, the rich give to both Republican and Democrats. If you support both sides, you cant lose, that really is where the smart money is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Romney would be a fool to name Paul because there's no way that guy can be a heartbeat from the presidency. Rubio's already semi-campaigning for the VP slot. Santorum has to get Gingrich to pledge his delegates to him...if he (Newt) doesn't win either primary tonight. There's not great odds of that happening, yet, but the odds are greater than Gingrich jumping on board with Romney, that's for sure. Edited March 14, 2012 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 little Ricky has won Alabama solidly and has a solid lead in MS, with rMoney in third there. This is a bad night for Mitt. He needs 47% if the remainig delegates to clinch and is under 30% in both states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 09:09 PM) This may be way out there, but Im wondering if Gingrich made a deal with Romney to stay in and Romney will make him VP. Otherwise this strategy is just nuts, because Santorum and Gingrich are killing each other. As for the money, the rich give to both Republican and Democrats. If you support both sides, you cant lose, that really is where the smart money is. Actually, both staying in might be the best path here...if the other gets out, that could make things easier for Mitt. Right now a floor fight is an entirely plausible outcome if all 3 stay in, and no one knows what that would do. Santorum and Gingrich don't have a good chance at catching Mitt even if the other gets out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Oh, and after Puerto Rico...Illinois got next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Actually, you're forgetting the Missouri caucuses this Saturday, which Santorum should dominate, just like he did KS. Illinois has a 35-31 spread for Romney, although many believe the real lead is in the 8-12 percentage region. It was pretty much acknowledged that Romney was trailing Santorum in MI and OH with about a week to go in both states until the SUPER PAC money and campaign organization overwhelmed the underdog, but just barely. Another big factor will be the turnout of the really conservative members of the party for the down-ballot local/regional spots. That would tend to favor Santorum. Gingrich is only at 12% for Illinois. While it's true that the winner take all format would tend to favor Romney, an IL loss would be very hard to overcome psychologically. You'd have to also assume Louisiana would go for Santorum on the 24th of March. It does make the strategy of Paul and Gingrich trying to "contain" (by splitting the vote 4 ways) Romney an interesting one....according to exit polls, 3-4X as many Gringrich voters in AL and MS would go to Santorum, compared to Romney, if it was actually a two-way race between just the two of them and Gingrich's voters had to choose one or the other. Of course, outside of the Deep South, electability concerns are higher, and Romney has an advantage on the economy as well over Santorum. Santorum really needs to deliver a more detailed economic plan that caters more towards the middle class and also fill in the gap on energy policy/gas prices, where Newt has been trying to make headway in the south over the last 7-10 days. Very good Friedman/NY Times article on the future of capitalism in the US and world... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/...on-2012.html?hp http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73987.html Five takeaway lessons from Tuesday night Edited March 14, 2012 by caulfield12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 12:24 AM) Santorum really needs to deliver a more detailed economic plan that caters more towards the middle class and also fill in the gap on energy policy/gas prices, where Newt has been trying to make headway in the south over the last 7-10 days. Very good Friedman/NY Times article on the future of capitalism in the US and world... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/...on-2012.html?hp Point 1. No he doesn't. He's gotten this far without one, why put together specifics that people can attack? Mitt Romney's economic plan doesn't have enough specifics that its impact on tax revenues/deficits can be evaluated, why should Santorum do m ore than that? Secondly, it's nice to see Tom Freidman continue to write articles that could come verbatim out of President Obama's state of the Union Addresses while pretending that somehow he's this wise centrist and both parties would oppose him on them. And to write that article without indicating anything about which party thinks that 1 dollar of tax increases for $4 in deficit reduction is socialism, or which party thinks that infrastructure spending is socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2012 -> 07:00 AM) Point 1. No he doesn't. He's gotten this far without one, why put together specifics that people can attack? Mitt Romney's economic plan doesn't have enough specifics that its impact on tax revenues/deficits can be evaluated, why should Santorum do m ore than that? Secondly, it's nice to see Tom Freidman continue to write articles that could come verbatim out of President Obama's state of the Union Addresses while pretending that somehow he's this wise centrist and both parties would oppose him on them. And to write that article without indicating anything about which party thinks that 1 dollar of tax increases for $4 in deficit reduction is socialism, or which party thinks that infrastructure spending is socialism. Friedman really is fantastic at writing articles bemoaning the lack of a centrist third party that is 90% the standard democratic platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts