At least one other contender believes that Rick Santorum may be surging: Rick Perry hits Santorum for his earmark requests in this new radio spot to be airing in Iowa:
It's not a two man race. Santorm - a big government Republican - is surging in all polls. The target of the add is perfectly appropriate, but there are many, many more things Santorum have done that are fiscally irresponsible, while the ad concentrated on earmarks only. Santorum has no fiscal credibility whatsoever.
Perry isn't trying to win in Iowa. He's just trying to "show".
Plus, Santorum is the natural enemy of Perry on Perry's biggest issue: the Tenth Amendment. Unfortunately, NRO consistently ignores the 10th in its endorsements of candidates - falling in love with big government neocons or social cons to the exclusion of fiscal cons - almost to comical "Weekly Standard" proportions.
I didn't say that NRO hasn't reported on the issues. In fact, I have been very pleased by the campaign coverage, particularly on the Corner (which is why I keep coming back even though I still have no 'star' to allow immediate commenting).
My comment was explicitly that NRO ignores the 10th when giving out endorsements. Hence NRO's (federalism-be-damned) inclusion of Santorum as an "acceptable" candidate and the rejection of Perry as "unacceptable".
Democrats are pushing this mythic narrative, it isn't reality.
Certainly, a number of sideline pundits on the sound side will mimic this fashionable concept, afraid to lose acceptance amongst those who buy books. Ratings, readers, etc., drive many weak offerings.
But it is growing clear Mr. Romney offers a very strong potential. The latest Rasmussen showing Romney with poll edge on Obama, is a peak at the sampling Democrats fear.
Santorum is surging into the top tier because nobody in Iowa knows his actual record (begging for earmarks, running Jack Abramoff's K Street Project for the Senate GOP, endorsing Specter, etc.).
Good for Perry for having the stones for calling Santorum out for being a complete fraud. PA voters had the right idea when they tossed his butt out in 2006.
Perry could conceivably finish fifth or even sixth, in the state that was supposed to be his launching pad. That's why he's running this ad. If he's not in the top 4, he's confirmed as a laughingstock unelectable outside of Texas.
Seems more and more like an enormous waste of time and money.
The Perry Campaign is very poor.
The Ads Perry ran which offered the silly populism against "Wall Street", had more in common with the 'occupy' folly and Obama than anything else. Reflected the embarrassing anti-Capitalist rant of Gingrich, mimicking the Democratic Party in a misguided effort to deflect from his graft via Fannie and Freddie.
Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Williamson and others are entertaining similar populist conspiracy theory delusions, which are hardly conservative.
I truly feel Perry and others probably would do much better focusing on the dreadful Obama. Again, another strong point about the Romney Campaign, who seems to remain focused on the ultimate priority.
[quote]I truly feel Perry and others probably would do much better focusing on the dreadful Obama. Again, another strong point about the Romney Campaign, who seems to remain focused on the ultimate priority[/quote]
Didn't Romney spend a good bit bashing Newt? Please don't act like Romney is above the fray.
The only time Romney goes negative is when he is fighting for the lead. The others run negative ads because they are fighting for the conservative vote, i.e. the non-Romney vote.
Perry and Santorum will likely both drop out of the race in January, and both will likely end up supporting Romney as the nominee. That said, this ad is an interesting one. It hurts Santorum with his base to hear what a supporter of earmarks he was. It doesn't really help Perry, however, in light of the response from the Santorum camp that Perry himself bragged about his success in lobbying Congress for earmarks for Texas. The dispute tends to hurt them both.
". It hurts Santorum with his base to hear what a supporter of earmarks he was. "
Doesn't it entirely depend on what kinds of earmarks we're talking about?
Congress has two choices when it releases funds to the care of the Executive: It can either release those funds without conditions, or it can release those funds with conditions - conditions like where that money is going to be spent and specifically what it's going to be spent for.
Personally, I think the latter is better than the former and is in closer keeping to the actual Constitutional responsibilities of Congress. IOW, why should Congress just give the President a blank check to spend as he pleases - which is what happens without earmarks.
My only real problems with earmarks are when they're inserted in the middle of the night, or only moments before a Bill reaches the floor for its final up or down vote. That's dirty pool. And, I think it's completely unacceptable to have these earmarks inserted without attribution.
So long as a House or Senate member is willing to put their name on the earmark, and so long as the earmark clears the Committee hurdles like any amendment has to, and then it's voted on with the full daylight and debate that it deserves, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an earmark, and I would argue it's actually the preferable way to go.
Tea party is going to burst into a frenzy if Myth Romney wins the primary. They dislike him to the core. Turned on him from about August 2008 onward. Romney is a mix of McCain, Dole, Bush and Arlen Specter. So watch out. This is going to get bloody. The tea party's main goal has become to defeat the idiots in the RNC. Make no mistake about that. Maybe not in goofy Governor Nikki Haley's eyes or dumb Amy Kraemer. But the tea party base is going to go bonkers when this election process hits the fan. Because a lot of people are fed up with the GOP since it doesn't stand for the opposition to Obama. It stands of appeasing the DNC and the idiots who are on tv mouthing off about how great Obama is. So the tea party has found out the first step to beating Obama is beating the RNC establishment and all their candidates. Be forewarned.
It's a two-man race between Paul and Romney and Perry is attacking Santorum?
Who is running this guy's campaign?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not a two man race. Santorm - a big government Republican - is surging in all polls. The target of the add is perfectly appropriate, but there are many, many more things Santorum have done that are fiscally irresponsible, while the ad concentrated on earmarks only. Santorum has no fiscal credibility whatsoever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul isn't a serious candidate. Perry's only hope is to be the only thing between Romney and the nomination by the time they get to SC.
Santorum doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell, but he could further split the vote between Gingrich and Perry,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry isn't trying to win in Iowa. He's just trying to "show".
Plus, Santorum is the natural enemy of Perry on Perry's biggest issue: the Tenth Amendment. Unfortunately, NRO consistently ignores the 10th in its endorsements of candidates - falling in love with big government neocons or social cons to the exclusion of fiscal cons - almost to comical "Weekly Standard" proportions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Unfortunately, NRO consistently ignores the 10th in its endorsements of candidates"
I'm not a Rick Perry fan, but I think that NRO has consistently displayed his stance on the 10th Amendment.
External Link
External Link
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't say that NRO hasn't reported on the issues. In fact, I have been very pleased by the campaign coverage, particularly on the Corner (which is why I keep coming back even though I still have no 'star' to allow immediate commenting).
My comment was explicitly that NRO ignores the 10th when giving out endorsements. Hence NRO's (federalism-be-damned) inclusion of Santorum as an "acceptable" candidate and the rejection of Perry as "unacceptable".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry reeks of desperation. Has for about two months.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe whole field reeks of desperation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemocrats are pushing this mythic narrative, it isn't reality.
Certainly, a number of sideline pundits on the sound side will mimic this fashionable concept, afraid to lose acceptance amongst those who buy books. Ratings, readers, etc., drive many weak offerings.
But it is growing clear Mr. Romney offers a very strong potential. The latest Rasmussen showing Romney with poll edge on Obama, is a peak at the sampling Democrats fear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum is surging into the top tier because nobody in Iowa knows his actual record (begging for earmarks, running Jack Abramoff's K Street Project for the Senate GOP, endorsing Specter, etc.).
Good for Perry for having the stones for calling Santorum out for being a complete fraud. PA voters had the right idea when they tossed his butt out in 2006.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry could conceivably finish fifth or even sixth, in the state that was supposed to be his launching pad. That's why he's running this ad. If he's not in the top 4, he's confirmed as a laughingstock unelectable outside of Texas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems more and more like an enormous waste of time and money.
The Perry Campaign is very poor.
The Ads Perry ran which offered the silly populism against "Wall Street", had more in common with the 'occupy' folly and Obama than anything else. Reflected the embarrassing anti-Capitalist rant of Gingrich, mimicking the Democratic Party in a misguided effort to deflect from his graft via Fannie and Freddie.
Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Williamson and others are entertaining similar populist conspiracy theory delusions, which are hardly conservative.
I truly feel Perry and others probably would do much better focusing on the dreadful Obama. Again, another strong point about the Romney Campaign, who seems to remain focused on the ultimate priority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse[quote]I truly feel Perry and others probably would do much better focusing on the dreadful Obama. Again, another strong point about the Romney Campaign, who seems to remain focused on the ultimate priority[/quote]
Didn't Romney spend a good bit bashing Newt? Please don't act like Romney is above the fray.
The only time Romney goes negative is when he is fighting for the lead. The others run negative ads because they are fighting for the conservative vote, i.e. the non-Romney vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerry and Santorum will likely both drop out of the race in January, and both will likely end up supporting Romney as the nominee. That said, this ad is an interesting one. It hurts Santorum with his base to hear what a supporter of earmarks he was. It doesn't really help Perry, however, in light of the response from the Santorum camp that Perry himself bragged about his success in lobbying Congress for earmarks for Texas. The dispute tends to hurt them both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse". It hurts Santorum with his base to hear what a supporter of earmarks he was. "
Doesn't it entirely depend on what kinds of earmarks we're talking about?
Congress has two choices when it releases funds to the care of the Executive: It can either release those funds without conditions, or it can release those funds with conditions - conditions like where that money is going to be spent and specifically what it's going to be spent for.
Personally, I think the latter is better than the former and is in closer keeping to the actual Constitutional responsibilities of Congress. IOW, why should Congress just give the President a blank check to spend as he pleases - which is what happens without earmarks.
My only real problems with earmarks are when they're inserted in the middle of the night, or only moments before a Bill reaches the floor for its final up or down vote. That's dirty pool. And, I think it's completely unacceptable to have these earmarks inserted without attribution.
So long as a House or Senate member is willing to put their name on the earmark, and so long as the earmark clears the Committee hurdles like any amendment has to, and then it's voted on with the full daylight and debate that it deserves, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an earmark, and I would argue it's actually the preferable way to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTea party is going to burst into a frenzy if Myth Romney wins the primary. They dislike him to the core. Turned on him from about August 2008 onward. Romney is a mix of McCain, Dole, Bush and Arlen Specter. So watch out. This is going to get bloody. The tea party's main goal has become to defeat the idiots in the RNC. Make no mistake about that. Maybe not in goofy Governor Nikki Haley's eyes or dumb Amy Kraemer. But the tea party base is going to go bonkers when this election process hits the fan. Because a lot of people are fed up with the GOP since it doesn't stand for the opposition to Obama. It stands of appeasing the DNC and the idiots who are on tv mouthing off about how great Obama is. So the tea party has found out the first step to beating Obama is beating the RNC establishment and all their candidates. Be forewarned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnybody but Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Perry. Otherwise they lose to Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse