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?
Reuters’ wishful thinking.....knowing that Perry would bitchslap the AnointedIdiot all day long.....=.=
They have no damn clue who best to run against.
Rick Perry believes exactly the same thing about open borders and illegal aliens as Obama. And Perry has done great things to help Muslims in Texas.
Obama can skin Perry like a catfish with those two issues.
It is not their choice!
“Pleeez, don’t thow me in dat der briar patch....!
Right. McCain was quite a challenge.
Hehehehe, just wait until Sarah joins the race.
Perry: The Troops Prefer A President Who’s Worn The Uniform
Obama: Watch Your Mouth, But I’ll Cut You Some Slack
Perry: You’re Killing Jobs
RE: Obama can skin Perry like a catfish with those two issues
And Obama is better than Perry on those issues?
Obama’s Justice Department sued Arizona for trying to enforce immigration laws.
And of course, never mind that Obama has always been suspected of being soft on Muslims to a point where he snubs Israel.. and let’s not forget that (fair or unfair) many suspect that he’s secretly a Muslim himself.
If they both believe the same about illegal immigration and muslims how would Obama "skin" Perry? If they both have the same views on a topic (hypothetically speaking) then that topic is essentially taken off the table. It's comparative analysis 101.
RE: Hehehehe, just wait until Sarah joins the race.
November 2011 is the cut off date by which I’ll hold up some hope that she will announce. After that, I’ll just wait for her next reality show.
Even Donald D. Duck with modest financial backing could beat the Fabulous Zero. I heard Rush say that their strategy is to run against Romney, so look for them to try to take out Perry now.
Obama knows he's going to lose in 2012. His objective now is to raise plenty of money, and spend it with people who will kick back a large percentage to O's offshore accounts. He loses, but has plenty of money to ride into the sunset with.
In order to accomplish this, he needs an evangelical Christian to run against, in order to get large sums of money from anti-Christians who fly into a rage at the mere thought that a serious Christian would be in the White House.
What do you think?
Just like they ‘feared’ McCain last time. riiiiight.
2. My reading is that Obama would most like to face Romney. First, it won't matter who wins, since both will continue ObamaCare and big government. Second, Romney doesn't have a lot of support from conservatives, and he's not going to take liberal votes away from the community organizer, so Romney would give Obama a better chance than anyone with values and beliefs. Finally, Romney has a huge amount of baggage that is sitting around not being aired, so it will be "news" if Mitt gets the nomination and the media decide to release the dirt.
Carter was thrilled when Reagan got the GOP nomination in 1980. He wanted to run against the extremist. How’d that turn out, Jimmah?
Perry has played Obama like a drum this week. He even managed to get the rino’s in a dither. (Rove/Perino)
First, Perry has been trying to secure the border in Texas. So, your first statement is not true. Gov Perry has been very verbal against Obama's lack of interest in sending more guards down to the border. That's fact.
Secondly, when it comes to illegals and what is done to them. The REAL question is which one of the two will try to by-pass Congress and ignore the Constitution and legalise the illegals on their own. Well, judging by history and the pattern we know which one would do that. And it AIN'T Perry.
That's because they have to believe it ~ they don't know any better but they read the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times for many years and that's the way both those failed institutions looked at it.
In reality American political thought is arrayed in coalitions that together sop up about 99% of all political interest ~ there are only 2 coalitions ~ Republicans and Democrats.
Everybody not inside the coalitions is part of a very thin fringe.
In short, there are no moderates, no independents ~ even if the people think they are, they're not ~ they've made a choice long ago.
A winning Republican has to do two tricks. One is to hold the Republicam base (the greater part of the Republican coalition) AND attract voters who are actually part of an interest that is part of the Democrat coalition.
Going for "the moderates" will lose the Republican base and not really attract Democrats ~ after all, they are NOT moderates at all and have their own interests. The successful Republican candidate next year will keep all the Republican votes and attract people like Maxine Waters on the jobs issue ~ since it will still be around, and may be even worse!
A successful Democrat candidate next year is already out of business ~ the coalition is fractured ~ the public employee unions are going one way and the African-Americans have shifted to JOBS JOBS JOBS, and right they are. With 50% unemployment rates in Detroit, and nearly as high rates in other major cities with a large African American vote, their issue is JOBS. All that other stuff they wanted ain't happening!
But let's say there is a Democrat who could hold the Democrat coalition voters together ~ what would he sell the Republicans on?
Anyone who's looked at the polls knows that NOTHING on the Democrat side is attracting anyone from the Republican base. No Democrat can win election for President without some Republican voters coming over.
Carter wanted to face Reagan too!
Perry will grab a large percentage of the hispanic vote and Zero will be done........they pray that it isn’t Perry.
Those two issues, illegal aliens and Muslim infiltration, are hot-button issues with the majority of conservative Republicans.
All Obama has to do is mock Perry for supporting the very things Obama encourages; there is not a lick of difference between either man on those issues.
Those two issues were also the problem many Republicans had with G.W.Bush, or don’t you two remember? I want a candidate who will uphold our laws and protect Americans from assault within, and I do not believe Rick Perry is that candidate. He plays politics to Power in Texas while he should be governor to all Texans.
Where are my boots .? The Reuter’s BS is getting deep.
Can you believe the crap the left wing media will try to sell these days?
One word - Gardasil
Very well said, Mooie.
You could be right. That might explain the announcement, today, that the Obama administration was going to halt deportations and apply the dream act selectively on an individual basis.
Obama wants to make it a campaign issue for Perry.
Michelle Bachmann B-
Herman Cain ......C-
Sarah Palin ......D
Mitt Romney ......D-
Rick Perry ...... D-
Allahpundit is really pimping big-time for Rick Perry at Hot Air. That says a lot about Perry NOT being a dependable conservative.
The Hispanic unemployment rate is second only to that of the African American community, and this problem isn't getting better. We are now into our third year of recent high school graduates AND college graduates stepping out into some serious long term unemployment, and virtually 100% "underemployment" for those who do manage to get jobs.
Today we heard Obama is off having a vacation and when he gets back he'll tell us about his jobs program ~ he knows NO ONE CARES about his "plan".
I have some concerns with Perry, but I see him as infinitely better than Obammy on virtually every issue.
Perry is on record opposing Arizona's SB1070.
Where do I start?
“First, Perry has been trying to secure the border in Texas...Perry has been very verbal against Obama’s lack of interest...”
Talk is cheap. Actions speak much louder than words.
Perry attacked Arizona from actually passing legislation that would help that state. That legislation DID NOT deport anyone, just handed them over to ICE, which as we’ve seen today has been ordered by Obama NOT to deport.
I don’t believe for a moment Perry would deport illegal aliens even if he were President. Here’s why: he has rich and powerful interests who want the virtual slave labor illegals provide.
Construction and farm interests primarily, and those are jobs Americans should be doing - not people being exploited by the wealthy and not being paid a living wage.
Perry is an open borders kind of politician and has bought into the North American Federation concept. Yep, the New World Order. And then there is his friendship with the Aga Khan....
The following is from Jihadwatch.com:
“...on Aug. 26, 2008, the Aga Khan Development Network made a proud announcement: “The Syrian Government and the Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) yesterday signed three landmark agreements designed to strengthen collaboration in the areas of microfinance, healthcare, and cultural tourism.” Syria’s Prime Minister, Mohamed Naji Al-Otri, and the Aga Khan signed the agreements. The agreements involved recognition of the First Microfinance Institution, or FMFI, part of the Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance, “as the first microfinance institution to operate in the country.” Between 2003 and 2008, it spent $40 million to develop business in Syria.”
“Investigative reporter Mark Mitchell observes that “the Aga Khan Foundation’s membership and supporters also include top military officers in Syria, such as General Moustapha Sharba, who had a hand in the early stages of the covert nuclear weapons program that Syria was developing with help from North Korea (and probably Iran).” Sharba is in this photo with Ismaili leaders; the full identification of the people pictured is on this page under “82001971.””
“The Aga Khan Development Network is doing all this in partnership with the Syrian government that is now firing on its citizens, and for years has allowed the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah to operate with impunity out of Damascus. Sure, the Ismailis are peaceful. But why shouldn’t there be questions about a candidate’s friendship with the owner of a bank accused of funding al-Qaida (and never exonerated), a man who also does business with the terror-supporting government of Syria?”
This doesn’t sound good to me; does it sound good to you?
I’m fed up with the lesser of two evils, got it? I want a candidate with principles.
Gov. Rick Perry falls short in that category, in my estimation.
That’s what I said, if both are just as bad on the issue, where’s the Obama advantage on immigration?
Yes, I understand how you would feel that way, I truly do.
There are many things a governor can do to turn off the flow of illegal aliens, and one of them is being done in New Mexico. All drivers holding licenses in New Mexico must report to a DMV office and prove they are a legal resident of the state.
Another hindrance to illegal aliens is shutting off the flow of tax-based goodies that keep them here: food stamps, free medical care and tuition support, for example. Cut off welfare to illegal aliens and they will self-deport.
Now I understand that the Feds may step in and take up the slack resulting from state actions, but Perry helped pass Texas’s Dream legislation for illegals. That sucks.
You see Perry as infinitely better than Obama; OK. But think about this - if this is what Perry has done as governor, what worse things might he do, in defiance of American public expectations, if elected President?
I voted for George W. Bush and came to regret it after eight years. Frankly, that isn’t where I want to be in 2016.
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.