Perry Holds. Bachmann Implodes.

Erick Erickson, RedState: Rick Perry has locked in his front runner lead and in a novel twist of things, some Democrats are starting to panic. Why? Because the way Perry talks about immigration works to his advantage with Hispanic immigrants and Hispanic immigrants want someone other than Obama.

At the same time, Michele Bachmann seems to have hit the self-destruct button on her campaign. Even Ed Rollins is less than “all in” for her it seems.

Mitt Romney has a problem and it is bigger than Rick Perry's problem -- he's boxing himself in on entitlement reform in a way that hurts him both with tea party activists and non-tea party activists.

Then there's Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, and Santorum. They continue to struggle. A brouhaha has hit the Herman Cain campaign. Huntsman has no sense of humor. Santorum continues to be this year's Admiral Stockdale, and Gingrich's posturing at Monday's debate suggests a man reconciled to his fate.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/1 ... r-15-2011/

The edge that Romney has over Perry? He makes a lot of blue states more competitive. If Romney wins, Obama and the DNC will have to compete in a lot more states, spending that billion dollar war chest faster.
Perry might win Wyoming by 80% but that isn't any more electoral votes than if Romney won it by 55%. And would Perry carry Colorado?

Think Perry will win a New England state? A Pacific coast state?

It's just TOO damn early for this debate.....OVER A YEAR AWAY......(JMO).....let me just stir the pot alittle. WHAT IF Hillary elects to
enter the fray? I know,she's has stated adamantly she will NOT....BUT, if the base is disenchanted with O and she wants to make sure
an R is not successful??????? :po(saw the interview with Cheny,who had truly glowing things to say about her :faint: )

I do find it interesting that Republicans are already dropping out, months before the caucus.

Before the Iowa caucus in 2008, Obama was a minor candidate. There are still months for frontrunners to blow up.

Perhaps more important is what good does it do to elect a Republican to sit behind the Resolute Desk who will simply continue the current policies at a slower pace like the last 2 Republicans elected president did? We don't need another Republican president who thinks that national government is a good thing as long as it is in the hands of a Republican executive. If that is what the election boils down to we might as well keep what we've got for another 4 years. What good does it do to elect a Republican who governs like a Democrat? We had one of those for 2 terms 3 years ago, another one that failed to be reelected to a second term and most recently one who was defeated in the 2008 election.

I don't know about you 109, but I'd much rather lose the election than elect another Republican who is little more than Democrat-light. I want an executive who says that regardless of Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, there are current programs that are inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and he won't sign a budget that funds them. I want an executive who says in his first State of the Union that the federal government's budget will decline by $250 Billion each and every year until spending matches revenue or he won't sign it and then be willing to follow through on it. I want a president who tells Congress that another hike in the debt limit won't be signed unless the legislation contains a Constitutional amendment that limits government spending to a percentage of GDP unless there is a declared war being fought. The last thing we need right now is another president and Congress who tell us that they will be cutting hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars from the deficit in the future and pretending that they can actually enact spending restraints that will restrict the actions of the next Congress or the next president. We've had enough of those presidents over the last couple of decades to last us a lifetime, and we've got a national debt that has no possibility of being paid off in the lifetime of any child born today to prove it.

PrintSmith wrote: Perhaps more important is what good does it do to elect a Republican to sit behind the Resolute Desk who will simply continue the current policies at a slower pace like the last 2 Republicans elected president did? We don't need another Republican president who thinks that national government is a good thing as long as it is in the hands of a Republican executive. If that is what the election boils down to we might as well keep what we've got for another 4 years. What good does it do to elect a Republican who governs like a Democrat? We had one of those for 2 terms 3 years ago, another one that failed to be reelected to a second term and most recently one who was defeated in the 2008 election.

I don't know about you 109, but I'd much rather lose the election than elect another Republican who is little more than Democrat-light. I want an executive who says that regardless of Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, there are current programs that are inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and he won't sign a budget that funds them. I want an executive who says in his first State of the Union that the federal government's budget will decline by $250 Billion each and every year until spending matches revenue or he won't sign it and then be willing to follow through on it. I want a president who tells Congress that another hike in the debt limit won't be signed unless the legislation contains a Constitutional amendment that limits government spending to a percentage of GDP unless there is a declared war being fought. The last thing we need right now is another president and Congress who tell us that they will be cutting hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars from the deficit in the future and pretending that they can actually enact spending restraints that will restrict the actions of the next Congress or the next president. We've had enough of those presidents over the last couple of decades to last us a lifetime, and we've got a national debt that has no possibility of being paid off in the lifetime of any child born today to prove it.

Not a chance! We cannot forget that the next President will pick 2 possibly 3 Supreme Court Justices. If Obama wins, this nation will change for the next 20-30 years.

This cartoon showed up on Politico today...



http://www.politico.com/wuerker/archive ... ioner.html

PrintSmith wrote: Perhaps more important is what good does it do to elect a Republican to sit behind the Resolute Desk who will simply continue the current policies at a slower pace like the last 2 Republicans elected president did? We don't need another Republican president who thinks that national government is a good thing as long as it is in the hands of a Republican executive. If that is what the election boils down to we might as well keep what we've got for another 4 years. What good does it do to elect a Republican who governs like a Democrat? We had one of those for 2 terms 3 years ago, another one that failed to be reelected to a second term and most recently one who was defeated in the 2008 election.

I don't know about you 109, but I'd much rather lose the election than elect another Republican who is little more than Democrat-light. I want an executive who says that regardless of Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, there are current programs that are inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and he won't sign a budget that funds them. I want an executive who says in his first State of the Union that the federal government's budget will decline by $250 Billion each and every year until spending matches revenue or he won't sign it and then be willing to follow through on it. I want a president who tells Congress that another hike in the debt limit won't be signed unless the legislation contains a Constitutional amendment that limits government spending to a percentage of GDP unless there is a declared war being fought. The last thing we need right now is another president and Congress who tell us that they will be cutting hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars from the deficit in the future and pretending that they can actually enact spending restraints that will restrict the actions of the next Congress or the next president. We've had enough of those presidents over the last couple of decades to last us a lifetime, and we've got a national debt that has no possibility of being paid off in the lifetime of any child born today to prove it.

You have a good point, when you look at spending, foreign relations and support of the military, Obama isn't that different from a RINO.

If the GOP keeps Congress and the goverment deadlocked, that might be better for the country than letting the Republicans win everything, then they will spend, but on their favorite donors.