Skip to comments.Reuters: Obama’s campaign team wants to face Perry (easier to beat than the more moderate Romney)
Posted on 08/18/2011 6:30:22 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When you’ve got a record of economic achievement as solid as The One’s, why care who your opponent is?
The Texas governor, a social and fiscal conservative, is seen by Obama’s top election campaigners and fundraisers as easier to beat than the more moderate Mitt Romney in the presidential election.
“I was praying Perry would get in the race,” said a former White House aide closely linked to Obama’s campaign.
While Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago will not talk on the record about possible election rivals, fundraisers, senior activists and influential Chicagoans close to the president say Perry’s more polarizing views make him a bigger target for the Democrat in a general election…
Michele Bachmann, a senior Tea Party figure, is the Republican contender the Obama campaigners would most like to take on in 2012, although she seems unlikely to win the nomination, according to several sources close to the Obama campaign.
Reverse psychology! But wait — they really would prefer to face Bachmann, no? And not just because she’s the furthest to the right of the big three in the field. She has no executive experience, her campaign isn’t as focused on jobs as Romney’s and Perry’s are, and colorful oppo-research material about her keeps popping up. Yesterday it was her security staffers being oddly aggressive with the press; today it’s the claim that she used to refer to herself as “Dr. Michele Bachmann.” None of that matters in isolation, but the point of oppo is to create a total picture, piece by piece, of a candidate being too risky for the presidency. So they’re using regular psychology in saying they want to face Bachmann — but reverse psychology in saying they want to face Perry so that Republicans won’t nominate him? Or are they using reverse-reverse psychology, knowing that Republicans will assume they’re using reverse psychology and will therefore want to nominate Perry, who really is the candidate the White House secretly wants to face? It is odd that they’d go public with this knowing how conservatives will react unless they’re deliberately trying to elevate Perry. Easily the best primary endorsement he’s gotten by far.
The Cold War generation had Kremlinology, we have this. Exit question: What’s it all about, Alfie?
The only advantage Obama has is in turning Republican voters away from Rick Perry.
Do you understand now?
This is pure BS.
They are scared spitless.
A very good friend of mine was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and is a naturalized U.S.citizen. We served together in the Navy. Another friend’s ancestor came to California with the first RC Bishop back in the 18th century. They are no more likely to vote alike than any other American ethnic group.
There is no megalithic block of Hispanic voters, I know that. It isn’t the U.S. citizens of Hispanic ancestry that I worry about; it is voter fraud by illegal aliens perpetrated by Democratic Party operatives in blue states.
Law and order issues combined with jobs, jobs, jobs, is where I hope to see the next election arguments predominate.
If you recall, immigration was never mentioned in the mcCain Obama debates
RE: Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann is the way to go.
You gotta be in the game to play, Sarah.
Neither do I. Obama just gave them amnesty on his own today. And which candidate on our side said they would deport illegal aliens? You speak of Perry like he's the only one below a B on Illegals.
So, who WILL deport illegals on our side?
If I was Obama , I would like my chances right now against Romney and Perry. With Perry , he gets to run against George Bush again. With Romney , Obamacare is eliminated as an issue.
That is where first principles come in. Where is the person who will enforce the law, even if he/she may not agree with it personally?
It is principles I’m now looking at in candidates, and not necessarily their words, but their actions while in office.
So, who WILL deport illegals on our side?
By 1604 Philippe 2/3 had pretty much forced the Treaty of London on everybody and development in North America took a new course. The French came in, the Brits did, the Dutch (but only as protected by the English from the Spanish), the Danes, the Swedes and many others ~ one way or the other.
So, what happened to all those Spaniards who were wandering about? Did they just leave?
No, they didn't leave. Some officials did. You find grandees from "Florida" showing up in New Mexico of course, but you also find the same surveyors surveying, gold miners mining, distillers distilling, fur traders trading and everything else.
What I'm finding in detail searches for 1500s ancestors to this great land is that virtually NO ONE went back to Europe. They came here. Did their stuff mostly without supervision; dined very well on meat every day; and eventually died only to be buried under unusual rocks posted over their graves ~ just about anywhere anyone would care to bury them too.
Up until the 1800s there were few restrictions on Hispanics from the Americas moving into North America, nor were there any qualms about the Cubans or Spaniards from Spain themselves. The Portuguese were as welcome as anybody.
The concern with Hispanics begins with the Great Depression. At the same time the original quite plentiful supply seem to have simply blended into the landscape.
Whoever is willing to enforce our immigration laws as they exist right now. So far that appears to only be Bachmann.
Remember my prediction about Perry with Obama??? Looks like it’s already coming true... watch for the shift to the middle next.
Dammit Jim, how do you expect to debate when you use logic? :)
She seems to be concerned with the Soviet Union right now.
Meanwhile, China's playing wargames in the east Asia sea and threatening war with Vietnam.
Um, there were disputes in the area north of the Rio Grande during the early to mid 1800s. The Mexican government wasn’t doing anything to protect Spanish, now Mexican colonists from Indians raids, mainly by Apaches.
Mexico had a highly centralized government and if an army officer wanted to be promoted, it wasn’t going to happen away from Mexico City in some dump of a fort up near the Colorado River! Much of Mexico’s problems as an independent nation extend from the fact it maintained a colonial-type centralized government for way too long.
Yankees could get their government to come out and protect settlers. Former Spanish colonists noticed. Not everyone had loyalty to Mexico.
Just as an aside, my paternal grandmother’s parents were Welsh and my great grandfather was a collier, a coal miner. One place he worked as a miner was a gold mine in northern Mexico.
Pancho Villa raided the mining camp and forced everyone - men, women, and children - into the mine, then stacked explosives up against the mine entrance. The Mexicans were driven away by the U.S. cavalry before they could blow the entrance and bury everyone alive.
Needless to say, my great grandparents couldn’t move fast enough to get back to the sanity of the British Empire in Canada!
This period of time before the Depression was very volatile in Mexico’s history. There were frequent raids back and forth across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Yeah, I’m not exactly excited about Bachmann. She really has no experience like a governor would have as an executive.
I waiting to see what Palin decides.