[nathanbedford]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the nomination is Rick Perry's to lose.

It is quite possible that he will proceed to lose it with his performance in the upcoming debates but I think not. My guess is that he will avoid making any huge blunders and will thus easily negotiate the low hurdle which confronts him as his test.

Because Perry has an enviable telegenic presence which rivals Romney's, his performance at the debates will be a success if he does not fail. If he avoids jaw-dropping gaffes he will have reassured the bulk of the party that he is an acceptable candidate because they have already concluded that his record is satisfactory. If he does not get trapped on immigration, health care, or some scandal, he will only increase his lead.

Therefore, he can easily outpace Romney and Bachmann merely by being adequate in debate. These columns one reads saying that he must outshine everyone to maintain his level of high expectations is exactly wrong. The contrary is true.

If Sarah Palin enters the race, her bar is considerably higher. She must affirmatively dispose of a 3 year long accumulated sense by a substantial portion of the party that she is not fit for the nomination or, if nominated, she is a risk to lose. That means that Sarah Palin must affirmatively win the debates and walk away as the clear winner. Hearts must beat faster for minds to be changed. That is a very high bar indeed.

To compound Palin's problems and to further raise the bar for her in the debates, she must so positively impress that she can overcome her lack of organization and her lack of funds. She might be able to do this because of her extraordinary personality and because of the extraordinary devotion of her supporters. If Palin slips in any way, or even merely fails to outshine everyone else, she will not be able to expand her base or fund her campaign adequately.

I remain of the opinion that you will not enter the race. Clearly, the train has nearly left the station.

[mylife]

What you have said is true.
It doesnt make Palin less Conservative than Perry, but it is true.

She Is behind in the race and the fact is she does not have a track record.

Nobody loves the underdog more than me, but its a very outside chance.

[mylife]

Best For Sarah to bide her time.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Astute analysis as usual FRiend. But I consider it unlikely she will enter or participate in the debates remaining.

Her time has already run out and she lacks the organization skills or the funds to launch an effective campaign.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Voters (and donors) want to see the person they’re going to give their heart, sweat and money to out there taking it and giving it — they want them to win, to see a true leader for the United States of America.

The Jim DeMint Labor Day Forum in S.C. is today at 2:00.

The Reagan Library debate will be held Wednesday evening.

The Florida debate is scheduled for September 22.

[samtheman]

As usual, your post here was extremely thoughtful and well written. In this case, your #7 on this thread will be the object of scorn by some very vocal members of FR.

I think what you wrote in #7 is completely logical and, to a certain extent even obvious. But others will be angered by it and see you, the messenger, as a kind of villain. But I’m sure you already knew that when you posted.

As always, thanks for sharing your insights with the rest of us.

[Diogenesis]

It is clear that many have underestimated Gov. Palin.

The decision to enter and compete is hers, and
the public will LISTEN to them all.

Rick Perry has border issues, and issues regarding
his misunderstanding of what he did with PerryCARE.
These are neither small nor insurmountable.

That said, the next POTUS will be the candidate
most in resonance with the public ... which is ‘fed up’
with the political nonsense, lies, fascism and open borders.

[montag813]

If he does not get trapped on immigration, health care, or some scandal, he will only increase his lead.

Trapped? His immigration positions are a disaster. Worse than even Bush. I don't get it, frankly. (Read these emails from his top campaign bundlers bragging about how they killed dozens of immigration enforcement bills in TX.) Aside from that I would be all in for Perry.

[grey_whiskers]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the nomination is Rick Perry's to lose.

Don't count your strawmen before they get flamed.

There is increasing opposition research on Perry, from both movement conservatives and from Dems.

His biggest achilles heels are (of course) the borders and (less obvious) crony capitalism / wheeling and dealing / "pay to play".

Sarah's strategy is several layers above brilliant.

Obama is trying to run on a classic lib/Marxist class warfare "let's get the rich bastards". But like the ghetto trash Marxist that he is, he can't help but live high on the hog: jet-setting to Martha's Vineyard while demanding that *Congress* "fix the jobs situation* is electoral tetrodotoxin. Palin is taking the same base of resentment Obama is stoking, and subtly redirecting it towards "lets get those bastards who spent all OUR money and want more, while they live like kings."

This is a no-brainer to sink Obama, and with but a slight modification, can be aimed at Perry.

Perry will play the "I'm experienced, she's a quitter card" -- but that makes it *impossible* for him to play the "I'm a downtrodden outsider, let me fix things" card simultaneously.

I understand what you say about Sarah's hurdle: but much of that is resentment of women who are a "7" and below. In person, she's electric. And below the radar, she is being invited to talks with foreign leaders -- Israel, India, Hong Kong or Singapore.

All it will take is one sterling debate for people to shake the cobwebs loose.

I think she enters after a debate or two, hoping that one of her opponents will suffer a haymaker and throw their support to her.

Let me put it this way: would anyone have kept in the public eye with the tweets and speeches, appear at the Iowa State Fair and release the "Iowa Passion" video (the soundtrack at 0:52 has someone asking her "are you going to run for President?", then have the Indianola speech and release The Undefeated on Pay-Per-View and Walmart,

...if she ONLY intended to endorse Perry?

Perry's *attitude* concerns me a LOT. He has a "command and control" mindset seen in Gardasil -- yes, it had to be mandatory to get Federal Funding, but I thought he was all state sovereignty.

Other posters have pointed out issues with the Trans-Texas corridor, semi-flip-flops on gay marriage as a states' rights vs. moral issue, pandering to Mexico, etc.

And who in their right mind calling themselves a conservative would have chosen ANY Democrat over Reagan's own VP during the end of Reagan's second term?

Even more troubling in this regard is his pushing of Rodriguez to the TX Supreme Court and pushing against the lawyer who won the racial preferences case; couple that with supporting Guiliani in 2008, and I think he's a finger-in-the-wind guy.

We had enough problems with a non-movement conservative out of Texas last time.

Obama is weaker than any Dem since Carter, or maybe even LBJ, if the rumours of the Donks trying to primary him are true. This is the best time possible to get a REAL conservative in the White House, especially with the 2010 Teanami, the Donks defending 17 or 18 Senate seats, and the possibility of real coat-tails. We could unravel the work of the left going back a generation. Why throw it away out of cowardice? ("We / she / a conservative can't win^TM")

I remain of the opinion that you will not enter the race. Clearly, the train has nearly left the station.

FRiend, your train has derailed catastrophially if you ever thought *I* was going to enter the race.

I hope that was a typo...;-)

Cheers!