Posted on 10/24/2011 5:42:27 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s presidential forum unofficially marked a critical time for candidates in Iowa to start sealing the deal with Iowa’s ample number of social conservatives. It’s hard to say that some candidates won, while others lost. For the most part, all the candidates did well. Some just stood out more than others.
For an event that attracted scores of media and six presidential candidates, the most important people in the room were the activists who sat through the five-hour event. The Super Bowl takes less time if you don’t count parking, but even that event allows those in attendance to stretch their legs at halftime. That wasn’t the case on Saturday night.
In talking to a number of people after the event, the winners event were Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann did well too, but the other three shined. Herman Cain on the other hand was a disappointment.
Ordering the top three is difficult. I was looking for more than just which candidate could strike a chord with the audience. I was considering what each candidate needed to get of the event politically, which is incredibly important with the caucuses less than three months away.
Here is how I rank it. If you disagree, the comment section is all yours.
1. Rick Perry
Texas Governor Rick Perry did exactly what he needed to do on Saturday night. Perry looked and sounded like the conservative candidate many were excited about when he entered the race back in August. Gone was the unpolished candidate who we have come to know in the debates, and in his place was a relaxed, confident candidate who commanded the stage. Facing a roomful of more than 1000 social conservatives, the question that Perry needed to address was whether or not he was one of them. He gave the audience plenty of reasons to believe that they have a lot in common.
Perry did two things in his speech that were incredibly important. He touted his long list of pro-life, pro-family accomplishments as governor, but maybe more importantly, he shared his own personal testimony. As Perry bared his soul to the audience, the room fell silent. It was at that point that Perry captivated those in the room.
Perry’s pro-life accomplishments, including defunding Planned Parenthood, passing a parental consent law, and requiring women in Texas who are seeking abortions to have a sonogram, are impressive, but it was his personal testimony on Saturday night that may change Perry’s fortunes in Iowa because it will help build trust with social conservatives across the state.
Unlike the rest of candidates, Perry didn’t shrink away for taking issue with Herman Cain’s recent flubbing on the issue of abortion. Perry didn’t mention Cain’s name, but everyone knew whom he was talking about when he said, “It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life, but government should stay out of that decision. If that is your view, you are not pro-life.”
Perry was the clear winner on Saturday night because he accomplished everything he needed to do.
Promote his pro-life, pro-family record: CHECK
Convince the audience that you are an authentic social conservative: CHECK
Make a personal connection with the people in the room: CHECK
Capitalize on your opponent’s recent problems: CHECK
Define yourself instead of letting your opponents or the media do it: CHECK
I’d have a spring in my step today if I was the Perry campaign in Iowa. Again, this was the candidate that many were expecting when he entered the race.
2. Newt Gingrich.......Continues
You see thats my problem with it. He made that decision without ever taking it to the legislature.
Shows he has a problem with the process.
He also was one of the Governors to oppose Jan Brewer’s immigration law.
This is interesting, Steve King took both Perry and Santorum hunting this weekend. We’ll see if anything comes from it.
He was most emphatic when he said it---enunciating every word---one of the few times he actually sounded coherent.
That is not quite accurate. The problem is he has seemed to have taken both sides of the issue so he has left voters in a state of confusion.
Well, Liz, are you ready to take up the cause of getting all the states out of the business of mandating any vaccines?
It was a stupid ass thing to say. It was off the cuff and not premeditated. It is not a deal breaker so one must look for something of substance to disqualify a candidate.
…….”The Gardasil vaccine was recommended the FDA’s vaccine approval committee, more than 6 months before Governor Perry’s Executive Order. All girls who qualified for the Federal Vaccines for Children program were eligible to receive the vaccine free of charge: Medicaid, CHIPs, and uninsured or those with insurance that won’t pay for vaccines. The Texas Legislature had previously delegated unconditional authority to mandate new vaccines to the Department of State Health Services, which is under Governor Perry and the Executive Branch.” Source
I find it odd that some who griped about tactics of Palin fans are now getting their knickers in a twist when they are using the same tactics employed by the Palin fans.
Perry does a better job speaking when he is not in a debate format. Unfortunately, there will be Presidential debates.
I don't believe he could possibly come out of one of those on top based on past performance.
Apparently, he went that route b/c he wanted to hasten the process to get his hands on the Merck donations.
He also was one of the Governors to oppose Jan Brewer’s immigration law.
Was also for and against fences.
Said his letter endorsing TARP meant something else.
Promised Texans he would not run for president if they reelected him (AT THE SAME TIME he raised $55Mill for 2012).
Had a business deal with Rooty Giuliani to use eminent domain to take land from Texans to give to a Spanish company (Rooty's law client). All stood to profit mightily off the Texas land grab.
”Florida, Texas and seven other states filed a brief supporting Arizona's immigration law aimed at cracking down on illegal migrants after the U.S. government sued to block enforcement of the law.
Arizona's statute doesn't establish an immigration policy that would interfere with federal law, countering the U.S. argument, the states said in the filing today in federal court in Phoenix. The law isn't an "obstacle" to Congress' objectives, the states wrote. .........
The states, in their filing, asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to reject the U.S. injunction request. Bolton scheduled a hearing in the case for July 22.
Representatives of the U.S. Justice Department didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
The Arizona law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. The statute requires local police officers who come in contact with someone for law enforcement reasons to check the individual's immigration status if they suspect the person lacks proper documentation.
Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia, plus the territory of the Mariana Islands, also joined in today's brief supporting Arizona...." [end excerpt]
I'm seeing a pattern that the Cain supporters don't seem to want to acknowledge. Cain is not well organized and is constantly backtracking on earlier statements. It might be considered "refreshing" now, but do we really want a candidate who has to constantly explain what he has explained?
Gosh Liz. Please give a LINK.
You hate him, if you want, I choose to look at the big picture and I see a man who has been governor of a very large state for 10 years who has a pretty darned good record of job creation, protecting life, trying to protect TX from illegals in spite of a federal government who will not do their job.
I see a man who understands the role of plentiful, cheap energy in restoring this country to prosperity with resulting job creation. He's actually had to do it. The only other person in this race who has been a governor and has had to govern, is Romney, who is from a totally different kind of state from Perry. I'll take Perry, thank you.
There’s a patten for sure.
It most certainly was a deal breaker, Ma’am, considering how I supported him until the exact second he said that.
I’m done supporting people who pander to illegals.
Shows he has a problem with the process.
Rick has a history of this going back to his days as the state's Ag Commissioner. He's pretty loose making highly questionable loans with other people's money, got his hand slapped, but kept doing it anyway via other means. The state comptroller is still trying to clean up that financial mess. Same behavior concerning TTC, his own "private" slush fund to subsidize jobs and his dirty little secret called the Franchise Tax designed as a work around to gain revenues that a state income tax could bring if he thought he could sell it to Texans (no dice).
Then go support your candidate.
And good luck.
I want someone who can successfully govern—not win a high school debate contest. Obama can’t speak without a teleprompter. I’m willing to take my chances. Perry has had to govern. There is only one other person in the race who meets that criteria—Mitt Romney. I’ll take Perry.
Liz, did you read the letter? I did, and no logical person could conclude Perry was supporting TARP from that letter. It’s another distortion from the Perry haters.
You’re like the gossipy old man hanging around the water cooler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.