Posted on 01/05/2012 1:16:43 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
National conservative leaders are wondering who, if anyone, can stop Mitt Romney from walking off with the Republican nomination after his narrow win in Iowa and his expected comfortable victory in New Hampshire next week. The name that keeps surfacing is Rick Perry, which says a lot about the desperation that the anti-Romney forces are feeling now.
[snip]
Perry insiders say that the plausible course forward for the candidate is to make this a one-on-one race with Mr. Romney so that the conservative vote doesn't split in two, three or four ways.
South Carolina has a history of deciding the eventual GOP primary winner. If Mr. Perry can take first or second place, he can live to fight another day and prepare for Super Tuesday, when voters in the bulk of Southern states go to the polls. Perry supporters also say that a comeback depends on his ability to make this a North versus South race. They say that three-quarters of Republican voters aren't sold on Mr. Romney. The problem for Mr. Perry, of course, is that even more voters aren't sold on him, either, in part because he has done such a lousy job of educating voters about his admirable record on jobs and growth in Texas.
Many conservative leaders that I talked to after the Iowa caucuses are rallying around the latest flash, Rick Santorum. But others have concluded that despite all of his debate mishaps and his poorly run campaign thus far, Mr. Perry may be the only Republican candidate capable of beating Mr. Romney. As one campaign aide told me: "We have to make a good second impression."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I’m posting the post-caucus link from the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association below.
Don’t forget how they said we wanted to “kill illegals” because we don’t support amnesty.
Flash in the pan.
Honest discussion? You and your buddies have done nothing but troll every other candidate’s threads trashing them and THEN promoting Perry. It was especially disgusting on the Cain threads.
You know, after this utter demolition by Doughty One of one of your trademark Perrybot-mode babbling nonsense posts, I hoped that maybe you would come to the realization that babbling nonsense Perrybot-mode posts were neither behooving to you nor doing much for your candidate.
Guess that hope was misplaced.
First of all, CW pinged me to this thread, while betlittling my position that folks should start making the case for their conservative choice instead of bashing the others.
Second, I did not ping Jim to this thread, hardly the sign of me wanting to get anyone banned. I just asked CW if she was willing to belittle Jim's position on positive campaigning versus negative campaigning against conservatives on FR, given that it closely mirrors mine.
And I have gotten my answer - she has used all kinds of nonsensical responses to pretend the 800 pound gorilla is not taking the same position I am. Because it is the last thing she (and apparently you) want to hear, because you use FR for your Perrybot litter box and don't want that to change.
And it's clear why - your Perrybot modus operandi has been to use FR to unleash Perry campaign talking points on other candidates - while you pretend otherwise - in a lame attempt at astroturfing. It's slimy and low. And if you don't think negative attacks in the primary don't matter in the general, recall that it was Al Gore's 1988 primary campaign that introduced the world to Willie Horton. This stuff comes back around in the general and will haunt the eventual GOP nominee.
It's time to stick to making the case for your guy instead of bashing the others. A simple yet principled point that only campaign hacks and those overly-enamored of their opinions don't grasp when we need to find a candidate to stand against the specter of Romney, Paul and Obama.
BTW, did you even bother reading Jim's post? I would think you would take a few minutes and give it proper consideration in Jim's house.
Because Perry isn't a better candidate. Period. As reflected in Iowa, and today's poll numbers in NH.
lol! Yes, like saying we "hate Texas females and want them to die of cancer" because we were critical of RINO Rick's Gardasil mandate.
I don't support amnesty and will not vote for any candidate who does. That doesn't mean I hate Mexicans, it doesn't mean I hate anyone. It simply means I don't want those who entered this country in defiance of our laws to become voting citizens because I know they will vote democRAT.
And I don't support unwanted and unnecessary nanny-state vaccination mandates. That doesn't mean I hate Texas females and want them to die of cancer any more than do the Texas legislators who passed a bill overturning RINO Rick's nanny-state EO.
When those who do so lower themselves to saying such things it's a clear indicator they have no legitimate argument, at least none they deem tenable.
Amnesty for ILLEGALs and nanny-state vaccinations are not conservative. But we're apparently hates for not buying into them. So be it.
” Can Perry Come Back?”
.
No!
All he can do is help Romney win.
Great post DB.
Translation - you're too chickensh** to belittle Jim's opinion the way you belittled mine, even though Jim and I are in complete agreement.
Not that I'm surprised, coward.
If we don't realize the need to put forth an anti-Romney without his guts hanging out, we should stop the negative stuff now and take the attack to where it belongs - to Romney, RuPaul and eventually to King Obama the First.
Except he hasn’t come back even once. The press touts these comebacks yet when did that happen?
No, I think if he ever does have a comeback, it will only take one.
Gingrich is pro-amnesty. I have no desire to debate that issue with anyone as it is pointless; the man said he wants to make certain ILLEGAL aliens legal and, by his own words that is amnesty. I backed off of condemning him for that long ago. If he gets the nomination I hope he wins. But I won't be voting for him as I cannot vote for a pro-amnesty candidate.
Agreed. Don't know if he just has an incompetent campign mgr or what but he needs to change it up.
Would like to see him go after Obama, say what Obama did wrong with job creation and what he'd do differently. Talk about the backroom deals with Obamacare and how that kind of thing doesn't go on in TX. Needs to be himself and stop listening to people around him.
It then means that either one of the other has-been anti-Romneys gets another look or we get Romney. And that is what Romney has been banking on all along.
Santorum was mired in single digits just a couple of weeks ago. Given the history, he could end back up there again. And then we have to decide who can be recycled to be the anti-anti-Romney.
Realize the dynamic and fight it. We need to build the anti-Romneys up instead of tearing them down.
I have had issues with all three men. And willingly admit I have expressed those issues often on FR.
But take a moment and think - our choices are stark - Mitt, Paul, or Perry, Newt or Santorum. And compare the three anti-Romneys to Obama. Cripes, it is a no-brainer. Perry at least has shown he is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business and understands the 10th. Santorum is pro-life and pro-business and largely is conservative. Newt is pro-life and cripes, he led the last EFFECTIVE conservative revolution in DC - effective meaning the real power to carry out changes such as welfare reform.
You cannot make the case how any of those three would not be a significant improvement over Obama or Romney or Paul. So please, with all due respect, make the case as to which man is the best of the three.
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.