Rick Perry is in the race and he has shook things up. There is some good news, even for those who do not like Perry. Mitt Romney is no longer the frontrunner.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who was a close second to Bachmann on Saturday, has the support of nine percent (9%) of Likely Primary Voters, followed by Georgia businessman Herman Cain at six percent (6%) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with five percent (5%). Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, and ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each get one percent (1%) support, while Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter comes in statistically at zero.
The full story is here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/e...
What does this mean?
Perry’s launch into the race was masterful. He came out with a strong message and a well-orchestrated entry. His first campaign commercial was almost iconic with references to him as the “jobs governor” and images of Perry on his Texas ranch. Cowboy imagery always plays well with Middle America as does Perry’s cred as a self made man.
The conventional wisdom was Perry would take votes away from Bachmann. His entry certainly did take some but if Rasmussen’s numbers are right, he has taken a lot more away from Romney than from Bachmann.
The consensus among the Tea Party seems to be that Bachmann is the best Tea Party candidate. That is not a universal feeling, but it seems to be a strong feeling. Almost no one in the Tea Party movement wants to see a Romney Presidency. A Romney Presidency would be little more than a second term for Obama.
Perry may be an acceptable second choice to many members of the Tea Party who favor Bachmann.
The good new is, Perry’s bounce has bounced Romney out of his front-runner status. The Tea Party has two goals here. We must block Romney from getting the nomination and we must defeat Obama.
Perry’s bounce probably won’t last and the race will tighten up among the three front-runners. However, Perry’s entry is clearly hurting Romney more than Bachmann and no one in the Tea Party is crying about that.
Regarding ; it's 3 a.m.
.... "That leaves only Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. Both showed a gritty take no prisoners attitude Thursday night.
Of the two of them, Gingrich is actually the one who seems to get it the most, at least in this area. His most memorable lines from the New Hampshire debate were concerning his call for a loyalty test for those working for the American government. Remember his story about the Time Square Bomber? When the judge asked about the oath he took as an American citizen, he said, “I am your enemy. I lied.”
Unfortunately Gingrich is not a conservative. He is a big government, inside the beltway Republican party guy. We all remember him sharing a park bench with Nancy Pelosi, plugging global warming. He also said the era of Reagan was over. Much of his famed Contract With America involved the promises we would get votes on certain issues, not that they would pass them.
Thursday night, Newt was probably the smartest guy on the stage. He looked and sounded forceful and Presidential. That would be great, if only he were a conservative.
If Newt were a real Tea Party candidate, who really supported our beliefs, he could be the next Reagan. He not only understands Washington but is generally a well-rounded and well-educated man. He is a visionary and a true “General” in a fight. But for Newt Gingrich, the GOP would not have taken control of the House of Representatives in 1994 and might have never done it.
If he were only a conservative.
Really? Newt Gingrich may have some history (I will now call experience) but he seems to be as conservative to me now as anyone other candidate, if not more so.
***I really wish someone would explain to me how Newt Gingrich is 'not conservative enough' for America but Perry or Romney might be?? Really?
I have learned so much about the candidates here already and I am thankful for the info. I had thought at one time I would be 'jumping up and down' for Rick Perry as the POTUS but not anymore.
Gingrich may not be the 'new shiney kid on the block' but I am convinced he has a plan, the knowledge , experience and is worth much more consideration and credit than he has been given.
My husband and I were discussing the 'GOP media picks' (spoken about here on TPN) this morning and why the media would want to sway voters already; that is obvious. Then it occured to me 'What may not be so obvious' (and maybe more importantly) is the silence of the news media regarding N.G.; that seems to shout volumes to me. Maybe it's NOT what they are saying, it is what they are NOT saying. Why is that?
Why was Newts numbers low in the Iowa Straw Poll? He didn't participate; in part because of money and he knew the state would go to Michelle anyway.
Why was Newt the only candidate Sarah Palin gave a compliment to after the Iowa debate with Sean Hannity and no one else? Was that a 'NOD' from her? Maybe.
B.O. would not want to debate Gingrich or run against him; so they won't even say his name; really? Why is that?
I will continue to do my homework and research, it is early in the process. I would hate to see a potentially great candidate leave too early and leave U.S. with what; who ?
IF anyone is considering Gingrich at all please look deeper (maybe you have) because he will need support or at least encouragement to stay in.
I do hope I am free to voice my opinion here, if not, that is fine too but just please consider a different viewpoint. Thanks.
If you think of this as a horse race, like the media covers elections, there are two kinds: Speed horses and Closers. Perry is a speed horse. He's fast out of the gate but if forced to maintain a fast pace, he'll tire out. His chance will be getting enough of a lead that he can cruise to a win without being pressed. Romney will be more of a closer. His problem is that he is falling quickly behind and could be out of the race before it hits the first turn. Ron Paul will be in the race, but he needs some help from the track conditions, like another bank bailout this fall or spring.
I would like to see Scott Walker enter the race and talk seriously about balancing the budget and downsizing Government. The liberals would turn white as a ghost.
Don't even bother with Perry! He is really a demo-rat! Perry was a democrat and then switched to a republican in 1989. His stand on illegal immigration and closing the borders and protecting our borders is the same as Obama's. The only reason he is in the race is to take votes away from the Republican candidate for 2012. The fact that Perry would keep the company of Al Gore and Islamic leaders is enough. When I read what his stand was on the Borders issue, that was enough. He is just another smooth talker like Obama. Perry has the good looks, but that is all. I would not trust him or listen to him as far as I could throw him! If you would like more info. check out http://www.visiontoamerica.org/3254/rick-perry-has-some-explaining-...
Perry's remarks about the Federal Reserve may cause some problems for him initally, but it is going to start people thinking/talking about the Federal Reserve, and that leads to people learning things about the federal Reserve most people don't know.
In the long run, that knowledge will benefit the Tea Party..
I am uneasy about Rick Perry as well, for far too many reasons than I care to discuss just now. At the same time, I recall an incident that happened in a Race Relations Class that I was moderating back in the day when I was stationed in Honolulu.
A black soldier from Selma Alabama was asked: How is it that George Wallace keeps getting elected as governor in Alabama - he is a racist?
The soldier thought for about a half moment and said: No. You are wrong. Governor Wallace is not a racist. He is a politician. Before civil rights became the law of the land, the electorate - those people who voted were all white and they wanted to keep segregation. And George Wallace did what those who had put him in office wanted him to do: He fought segregation right up until the moment that the Federal Government took him into custody and removed him from the steps of Alabama University. Once Civil Rights became reality and the electorate became mostly black they kept re-electing him because he was a true politician; he did what those who put him in office wanted him to do. If George Wallace said he was going to do something he went and did it.
I am hoping that Rick Perry is nothing more sinister than a pure politician.
At this moment, the conservative movement has more power than ever before and perhaps he is capable of listening to our calls for a smaller, more responsible government.
We all need to keep open minds, do our own research and back any candidate besides Mitt-the-Nit-Wit Romney.
Las Vegas, Nevada