The Quote of Stupid of the Day: Rick Perry

At the Iowa debate tonight, Rick Perry said the following:

“There are a lot of folks that said Tim Tebow wasn't going to be a very good NFL quarterback. There are people that stood up and said, 'Well, he doesn't have the right throwing mechanisms, or he's not playing the game right,' " and he won two national championships, and that looked pretty good. We were the national champions in job creation back in Texas. And so, am I ready for the next level? Let me tell you, I hope I am the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses.”

That's good enough to win the first quote of stupid of the day. Congratulations Rick!

Rich Perry: Strong

If you're my friend on Facebook or even if you've just been on the internet in the last day, you've probably seen this ad. I went on a mini-rant yesterday and I just wanted to follow up on that.

I've made it clear that I don't like Rick Perry. He's pretty much stands for everything I hate and I'm not talking about policies. I have no idea who approved this video, but it was not the best thing to release. He makes Herman Cain's smoking campaign manager ad look good. Here's what I said yesterday:

My favorite part is when he says "faith made America strong, it can make her strong again" with that nod and that smile like he was thinking to himself "this sounds great." I thought conservatives were the ones that think America is great the way it is and the evil Liberals are the ones that want change. That was a lie? Just an all around laugh.

That nod and that smile are what I'd like to talk about. As we've seen more of Rick Perry, we've seen how inarticulate this man is. I don't have a problem with us mobilizing our energy resources or restructuring our tax system. What differentiates politicians for me is how they carry themselves.

What I value are people who are articulate, intelligent and aware. Rick Perry lacks all of these attributes. This is why I don't like him.

Perry's Campaign Dies

How do you offer nothing?

Rick Perry's Flat Tax Hail Mary

Rick Perry finally introduced his tax plan, a couple days after promising to have a plan ready for us in the CNN debate. Perry wants to simplify:

"It starts with scrapping the three million words of the current tax code, and starting over with something much simpler: a flat tax," Perry said.

This isn't the first time that someone has proposed a flat tax; Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, and Jerry Brown have all run on it in the past. The problem with the flat tax is that it doesn't stick:

The allure of the flat tax is that it promises to wipe clean the complicated tax code. But it does this by throwing out some popular tax deductions, including breaks for mortgage interest payments, charitable giving and employer-paid health care.

We're talking about its popularity, not its viability. The rich would rather pay money to charity and get deductions than give money to the government. There's still the matter of burdening the poor:

The details of each flat tax proposal differ — the overall rate, whether some low-income families will be exempt and which deductions might be spared on the chopping block. But experts say they invariably increase taxes on lower-income households and cut them for the rich, a potentially dicey proposition for voters worried about the country’s decades-long trend of growing income inequality.

There's also the difficulty that goes with passing it:

“At least, in theory, it’s a simple plan, but getting from here to there would be enormously complex,” Bartlett said.

Others believe that the flat tax is a winner:

After all, tax simplification is both needed and polls well, and the flat tax promises a simpler approach to paying taxes. And at a time when President Obama is campaigning against the fact that Warren Buffett and his secretary pay different rates, the flat tax idea might just have met its moment for broader-based appeal.

Given the "class warfare" battles over taxes and spending and everything else, now might actually be a time when the flat tax has its breakthrough on the national stage.

Others believe that it is a joke:

Just because a tax is flat doesn't mean it can't go up. And if Perry's team designs a plan that maintains popular items such as the charitable deduction it's not a flat tax and pretty soon it looks like the same complicated mess we have now.

Th rich will want the ability to deduct no matter what. If he includes that, then the tax isn't exactly flat. In fact, it would skew it the other way.

The tax might help Perry with the Tea Partiers though:

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey thinks this could revive Mr. Perry’s campaign. “The flat tax does more for Perry’s candidacy than anything else he could have done,” the former House majority leader told The Washington Times in an interview. “If Perry really means it, and he gets elected and makes it the top priority of his presidency, it would be the single best thing that could be done to spur economic growth and job creation in public policy today.”

I'm not so high on it because I don't think it will pass. I think it's very gimmicky. There are going to be questions about whether the poor will be exempt from the tax and what that line will be. There will also be other questions like deducations and things like that. Regarding conservatives, I think Perry is going to win over voters with this. The question is will he stand tall in defending it. There are a lot of things about it that raise questions and to really make a stand, he'll have to start doing well in debates, which, if you've seen the other debates, is as tall a task as Perry can face.

At the end of the day, it's a novel attempt to try and get back in the race. This could be his prayer at the buzzer.

Reenergizing America

Over the weekend, I described Rick Perry's jobs plan as unattainable. I still feel that that is the case. It will take a long time before the job numbers that he mentioned are actually realized, and he will be long out of office when that is the case. However, I do agree with Perry that the energy industry can create jobs:

We can create hundreds of thousands of jobs and increase our oil output by 25 percent if we fully develop oil and gas shale formations in the Northeast, mountain West and Southwest. I also support drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain (ANWR), offshore expansion in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, and development of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, all of which would maintain the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. This will create more than 185,000 U.S. jobs.

The numbers are ambitious, at least for the immediate future. In fact, some think the plan would take years to materialize jobs:

"It's not going to be overnight," said David Dismukes, associate executive director for the Center for Energy Studies at Louisiana State University. "These are big capital-oriented investments. People don't turn on a dime with these investments."

There's a lot of potential in energy though:

"I don't know any other industry that can bring this quantity of jobs to the market," she said. "We have the potential that's not being realized and it could be."

With the unemployment rate as high as it is, it makes sense to ease some of the restrictions in order to get some of these industries working. It's not just the drilling and mining that will create jobs, there's a trickle down effect:

With millions of Americans clamoring for employment opportunities, there is no excuse to delay. A study released last month by the Woods Mackenzie research firm found that 1.4 million jobs and $800 billion in new government revenue could be created over the next two decades by removing barriers to increased domestic oil and gas production. These are high-paying jobs, available now, and private industry—not the taxpayer—is making the investment.

The two main political talking points are jobs and balancing the budget. This would help both of those things. By enabling these projects, they can spur industry. It will help construction of plants and drilling sites. It will bring management, it will bring financial support. There's a lot of potential in spurring this industry.

Versus digging up and rebuilding perfectly fine roads, this is a much better solution. This actually creates new jobs that will last, rather than creating new work. This expands an industry that will not only provide jobs, but will also provide tax revenue from these new projects. It's really a no-brainer.

Mitt Romney: About Faith

When it comes to the presidential election, faith always seems to play a large part in the race. Christianity is the name of the game and outsiders are viewed through a wary eye. We saw this happen last election when Barack Obama's faith was called into question. For Mitt Romney, it's something has had plague him his entire career and something he has been forced to downplay.

While many misguidedly govern by faith, the main appeal of faith seems to be a person's character. I don't think that's exclusive to Christianity. You can tell a lot about a person's character by their devotion to their faith.

This has come to a head because Rick Perry's camp has been on the offensive:

The Daily Beast has obtained a series of e-mails that show an influential evangelical activist with close ties to the Perry campaign stressing the political importance of “juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false God of Mormonism,” and calling for a “clarion call to Evangelical pastors and pews” that will be “the key to the primary” for Perry.

This would represent a low point in politics, but like I said, it's nothing we haven't seen before. Obama's faith was questioned last election. Romney is actually a mormon and there are a lot of misconceptions of the religion. Fortunately, there are other people, like Joe Lieberman, who have spoken out for him:

Now we have two Mormon candidates running for president, and one of them, Romney, may well be the Republican nominee. Once again the promise of religious freedom enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution will be tested, along with our Founders' dream that America would be a shining city on a hill where religious freedom, diversity and tolerance thrive. And once again, a barrier may be broken.

My experience in 2000 gives me great confidence that the American people will again reject any sectarian religious tests for office and show their strong character, instinctive fairness and steadfast belief in our Constitution. That truly is the American way.

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of the man himself, but it does provide a sentiment that we judge our president by his character and not by his religion. Regardless, it seems like the Mormon Church has helped define Romney as a person:

“He told me that, as human beings, our work isn’t measured by taking the sum of our good deeds and the sum of our bad deeds and seeing how things even out,” recalled Mr. Clark, now 37, sober and working as a filmmaker in Utah. “He said, ‘The only thing you need to think about is: Are you trying to improve, are you trying to do better? And if you are, then you’re a saint.’ ”

Romney has long been a prominent figure in the Mormon Church and the biggest in the Boston community for so long. As a result, he has shown a lot of leadership and responsibility, even having a large part in the building of a church. For better or worse, he's taken it on himself to be a member of his community and support others:

If Mr. Romney, who no longer holds an official church title, seems overly polished or wooden on the campaign trail, his defenders say that is just how he is, reserved yet caring. “He’s always been that way, that’s his demeanor,” Mrs. Oparowski said.

While there may be many questions about Romney's religion, I don't think there should be questions about Romney. I do believe the "Mormon issue" will be played out in the coming weeks, but I don't think it will be what defines the election, though it may define Romney's campaign. While at times the man seem distant, Romney does care, and I believe he want dearly to help this country get back on track. Otherwise, why would he run again?

Rick Perry: The Way Out

Rick Perry's wife recently contended that Rick Perry has been brutalized for his faith by the media:

It's been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today...We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith. He is the only true conservative – well, there are some true conservatives. And they're there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.

This seems a bit misguided because, in my opinion, doubts about Perry's campaign have been warranted by his poor turnouts at the debates and his lack of substantiative plans for America. There was also the "niggerhead" fiasco.

Oh, and now there's this:

"My son had to resign his job because of federal regulations that Washington has put on us," Mrs. Perry said while campaigning for her husband in South Carolina, after a voter shared the story of losing his job.

"He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can't go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations," she continued, referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission. "He has a wife... he's trying to start a business. So I can empathize."

"My son lost his job because of this administration," she said a few minutes later.

Uh, what? He voluntarily resigned:

According to several reports, Perry’s son, Griffin worked as an investment banker at Deutche Bank before voluntarily resigning his job two weeks ago to work on his father’s presidential campaign. SEC regulations stipulate that it’s illegal to be an investment advisor and work on a campaign.

I don't know how you can blame that on the current administration. Unless it was a product of recent campaign reform, it has nothing to do with the current administration. Obama has been blamed for so many things that have not been true, particularly by the Perry and Bachmann camps (the candidates especially). Anita Perry needs to get a clue.

Anita Perry is speaking out for her husband because he is struggling. He needs something to get him going. He's lost ground and is losing more ground. He has to have some element to pick him up. Anita Perry's speaking out might hurt the Texas Governor though:

Mrs. Perry insists that her husband is authentic and went so far as to suggest that his opponents aren't. She'll have a hard time convincing Herman Cain's fans of that. And while the idea of a religious "elect" or chosen people may be part of some Christian theologies, most voters aren't likely to subscribe to the belief that Mr. Perry has been handpicked by God. Voters tend to like picking the candidates themselves.

To his credit, he's not alienating all voters:

“We are going to participate whenever and wherever they are,” said Robert Black, a Perry campaign spokesman.

Some of the other Republican candidates are boycotting the Nevada caucus because they moved up their primary. While it is disappointing that Nevada moved up their primary, it's important that the people get to hear what the candidates say and have a say themselves in which one represents them. This is a good move by Perry, in a campaign that has been closer to lackluster than spectacular.

I criticized Perry earlier this week for his withholding of a jobs plan. Well, he came out with one:

"Right here in Pennsylvania, and across the state line in West Virginia and Ohio, we will tap the full potential of the Marcellus Shale and create another 250,000 jobs," he said in unveiling a major piece of his overall economic plan.

Does this sound familiar? Sounds like Texas, don't it:

Even in Texas, the industries classified by the US Labor Department as "oil and gas extraction" and "mining support" account for just about 2 of every 100 jobs. But jobs in basic industries like mining or manufacturing typically help sustain many other jobs throughout a local economy. And over the past decade, Texas has seen energy jobs rise as a share of its economy.

Compared with Texas, other states appear to have plenty of room to grow. In the other 49 states collectively, the "oil and gas" and "mining support" industries account for less than 0.3 percent of all jobs. Those totals don't include some other energy-related jobs, such as in coal mining or renewable sources.

We've heard this type of plan before from Bachmann and Gingrich. The problem is the plan might be unattainable. A lot of these aren't promises, they're wishes that would need congress's approval:

“It’d be very difficult for an administration to walk back these regulations by itself,” says Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler, who’s no fan of the rules. The EPA, after all, is required to regulate carbon by the Supreme Court. Perry’s administration could try to overturn the agency’s “Endangerment Finding,” a scientific document arguing that carbon-dioxide poses a threat to human health and welfare. But given the solidity of climate science — and the fact that the EPA has been warning about global warming for the past 15 years — that’d be a hard sell in the courts. If Perry wanted to junk air-pollution rules, he’d need Congress.

I think overall, this plan falls short because much of it is out of the President's control. Just like the tax code and other initiative. The United States is not Texas and not every state has energy supporting industries. You can't rely on that. To go further, it's not going to make up for what Perry is produced so far. For the most part, I think candidates are judged by their substance. You do have to have the presidential look and composure. Perry has finally brought substance, but I don't think it makes up for everything else. His campaign is misfiring all over the place, and I don't know if he can correct that. He dug a hole for himself and there might not be a way out.

A Change In Tactics

The latest GOP debate on the economy took place in New Hampshire earlier tonight. It displayed a change from the direction of previous debates. Herman Cain played a much larger role. The Pizzaman has seen his poll ratings rise rapidly in the wake of his performance in the previous debate and his victory in the Florida straw poll. His larger role seems to have come at the expense of Texas Governor, Rick Perry, who has fallen from the graces. Perry underwhelmed again and seemed widely ignored by the other candidates. He also made no attempts to take control of the debate or issues, which may or may not have been a bad thing, given his previous mediocre performances.

The key thing about Perry is that he still hasn't fully released his economic plan:

Mr. Perry is set to deliver his first major policy speech of the campaign on Friday in Pittsburgh, on energy and jobs. When pressed for specifics, he said, “I’m not going to lay it out all for you tonight.” Asked about Mr. Romney’s lengthy economic plan, he said, “You know, Mitt’s had six years to be working on a plan. I’ve been in this for about eight weeks.” Asked if he might accept a budget compromise that could involve raising revenue, as President Ronald Reagan did, Mr. Perry suggested that he would not.

The problem with this is that he comes across as unprepared. This was a debate on economics and Perry is withholding his plan for campaign speeches? Please. You're on a national stage in an important primary state, you have to deliver the goods. I have no idea who is running Perry's campaign, but they have failed miserably.

In the meantime, Cain has received the most attention from the other candidates:

Later, when Jon M. Huntsman joked that Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan — which calls for reducing the individual and corporate income taxes to 9 percent and introducing a 9 percent national sales tax — sounded more like the price of pizza, Mr. Cain shot back that it “didn’t come off a pizza box, no.”

Bachmann also poured it on:

Bachmann said Cain’s plan wasn’t a jobs plan, but a proposal that would give Congress “a pipeline in a sales tax.”

“When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil is in the details,” she said.

Cain is convinced that his simple tax code will spur economic growth, but there are just too many concerns with it. It's also the only thing he has brought to the table thus far in terms of getting this economy going. As I've said in the past, the flat tax won't work because it'll put an immense burden on the poor who can barely make ends meet as things stand now. A flat tax will reduce their purchasing power and they will have to make tougher decisions about their consumption. Broadening the tax base has a similar effect.

Simple can be good, but simple won't necessarily work.

Romney seems to understand that:

“I have had the experience in my life of taking on some tough problems,” Romney said. “And I must admit that simple answers are always very helpful but oftentimes inadequate. And in my view, to get this economy going again, we’re going to have to deal with more than just tax policy and just energy policy, even though both of those are part of my plan.”

His approach seems much more pragmatic and with a stronger expectation of what Washington is going to be like. Cain, Perry, and Bachmann have all portrayed themselves as somewhat of Washington outsiders, but their problem is that they don't know how Washington works. Romney has the experience of working with liberals in Massachusetts and had to work with them to accomplish some of his initiative, which is what it's going to be like in DC. This is not even getting into his private sector experience.

We've already had like 4-5 debates and doesn't appear like a new candidate is going to enter nor does it appear that further debating is going to change the landscape of the primaries. Right now, it's pretty clear who should be the nominee and it isn't even close. In the long term, you have to look at the person who makes the most sense; this time it's Mitt Romney.

Is Rick Perry Done?

Is Rick Perry Done?

Over the last week, we've seen increased speculation and encouragement for New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, to enter the GOP race. We've also seen the emergence of Herman Cain after his win in the Florida Straw Poll. We also had this drop this week:
Once again, the poll numbers are in and Rick Perry has dropped:

Among announced candidates — without Christie or Palin in the race — Romney leads with 25 percent, which is identical to his support from a month ago. Perry and Cain are tied for second with 16 percent, numbers representing a 13-point drop for Perry and a 12-point rise for Cain since early September.

What may be worse is that his core support seems to be eroding:

The falloff for Perry against other announced candidates has been particularly steep among those aligned with the tea party movement. In early September, Perry had a 3-to-1 advantage over any other candidate among those “strongly” backing the tea party, but his supported has plummeted from 45 percent to 10 percent in this group.

Conservatives aren't happy with the Texas Governor either:

Among all conservatives, Perry’s support has been sliced in half, from 39 to 19 percent. Some of his decline may stem from shaky debate showings: A majority of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who have watched recent debates say the more they hear about Perry, the less they like him.

I pretty much said the same exact thing in a recent blog post. It's worth checking out this graphic that shows how fast Perry's support is finding its way to other candidates, mainly Herman Cain. However, it's probably most relevant to see how he compares to Mitt Romney, the current front runner:

Romney has big – 20-point – advantages over Perry on two important questions: experience and electability. When asked who has the better experience to be president, Romney wins 50 to 30 percent.

Perry's struggles are being documented by the media. Some have questioned the Drudge effect:

Drudge's editorial decisions replace Perry's message of solid, inspirational, conservatism with an inept, flagging candidate. And while Drudge doesn't exert the broad influence over the scattered media landscape that he did over a more concentrated media five or 10 years ago, he still wields immense power, particularly in shaping the narrative of the right. He has helped chip away at Perry's image to hundreds of thousands of conservative readers daily, just for starters.

Blogs definitely have a big say in shaping narrative, but Drudge has to be one of the biggest. Many people go to his site as a source to finding links to news articles. Sometimes people just read his headlines without reading the articles. It's definitely been a factor, but hasn't Perry just done poorly himself?

Christian Science concludes what we've already heard about Perry, he doesn't wear well:

What happened in mid-September? That’s when debate season got rolling. Whether voters watched the debates or not, they appear to have heard much about Perry’s poor performances. It is also possible that publicity about Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” has taken a toll on his support.

The hits keep coming.

My interest in Perry sputtered rapidly since he entered the race. His first speech was open, honest and spoke to the ideals that America should live up to. Unfortunately, he has shown that he might not have the qualities to be the President of the United States. We have already elected a great orator into office. We need someone who will get things done. It's not the flubs which have undone Perry, it's his ability to achieve. I think people have realized that his potential is much lower than initially expected and the voters are flocking to other candidates.

Rick Perry is done as far as I'm concerned, and I would like to see Herman Cain get more feature time in the debates. We deserve to see more of a candidate that actually has broad appeal through out the party.

Christie Leaves Us Waiting

Although Chris Christie did not discuss a potential bid for the Republican nomination for President, it did not stop people from asking him:
The guy appears to be very charismatic and you can see why so many people want him to run for President. I wholeheartedly agree with him that if you are going to run for President, you have to be up for it. It's a taxing job and you heart has to be in it.

That hasn't stopped important figures from urging him into the race:

The renewed consideration about a White House run came after prodding this week from some Republicans he idolizes, including former First Lady Nancy Reagan, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and former President George W. Bush, sources said.

The people want him in the race and other leaders want him in the race, what's holding him back? Even Romney says it would be fun to have Christie in the race:

"Chris is a great friend, a great guy, a colorful character," the former Massachusetts governor said Wednesday at a campaign event in Manchester, N.H. "Who knows? Maybe he'll get in. I think it'd be fun if he got in."I

That sounds wrong coming from a potential competitor right? May be it's more a sign of the weakness of the current crop of candidates. The voters seem undecided. Romney, who is the current favorite, has not won any of the straw polls thus far. Rick Perry, the other frontrunner, hasn't won either. There is a lot of indecision between the Republicans, and that's because one candidate hasn't risen above the others. The GOP is hoping so:
An old Northeast Republican Moderate eh? I like the sounds of that, but don't we already have one of those? What makes Christie different from Mitt Romney? I don't know.

The other main question is whether it's too late. He still has some time:

Late October appears to be the latest someone could get in, gear up, and run in the early states, given all the requirements and needs of a campaign.

It would be best if he announced sooner rather than later to meet all the deadlines. Campaigning is another story.

Ultimately, it's about who raises fervor within the party and rejuvenates and unites a divided party. It appears that Christie could be that guy. The best candidate, Mitt Romney, has never garnered enough enthusiasm. Interest in Perry cooled down just as fast as it heated up. The rest of the candidates don't seem to be legitimate contenders. Christie will either win the race or make it abundantly clear who should win the race.

Stuttering Perry

When I first heard Rick Perry declare his candidacy, I was excited. It meant new blood in the race; someone different who could inject life into the GOP. The more I've seen of him, the more I am unimpressed with him as a person and as a leader.

I'm not the only one that think so:

While he established himself as the frontrunner, those days were numbered as he quickly has lost ground as a result of the last two debates. I can't really explain it because he has a good enough record where he really has a chance. Time and time again he seems unprepared in the debates. He's getting hammered on Social Security. He's getting hammered on crony capitalism. He's getting hammered on immigration. If he had been prepared, he would withstand the attacks, but he's just taking the hit. He's campaign has taken a hit.

He can't even attack an opponent right now:

The most telling moment Thursday evening was a botched attack on top rival Mitt Romney for Romney’s move during his political career toward more conservative stances in a number of issues, an attack that obviously had been readied in advance.

But Perry blew the delivery, offering instead a muddled stew of lines about Romney’s positions on abortion and healthcare, leaving the audience at the Fox News/Google debate in Orlando, Fla., and the audience at home unsure where Romney stood now or Romney stood then. (Of course, Romney’s critics would maintain that has always been the case.) It allowed Romney to close his portion of the debate decisively, while making a case that Perry didn’t seem to have a grasp of the issues.

The lack of preparation has reflected poorly on him. It would be easy to compare him George W. Bush, but that might be unfair to Bush at this point. Perry is just weak:

Perry arguably let Santorum push him around on border issues, as well, where Perry’s expertise should be unchallenged. Instead, Santorum hammered Perry on providing college tuition aid to the children of illegal immigrants and mocked him on border security. In another answer, Perry misspoke, saying Medicaid when he meant Medicare.

May be debating is just not his thing. However, as a President, you need to be multidimensional. There's also the fact that Perry has repeatedly stated that he wants to have a conversation on the issues, yet in the debates, he has repeatedly shied away from such discussion.

Don't even get me started on that smile.

But that has more with the "look," which when all is said and done isn't important if a man (or woman) is capable. However, if a man is capable, he most certainly look Presidential, right? It's the stupidest thing to judge a potential President on looks, but people do do it. But is this a Presidential look?

The aura of that first speech is lost. This is no secret:

When former senator Rick Santorum started to push Perry on his illegal immigration record, Perry made the mistake of asking Santorum whether he had been to the border. Of course, the former two-term senator has. Lots of members of Congress have. (And you don’t ask questions like that unless you’ve got a pretty good idea about the answer.)

That was symptomatic of Perry’s problems Thursday night. While he tried to recover from the attacks on himself by leveling his own attacks on the other candidates — mostly Mitt Romney, of course — he showed himself to be pretty inept at the art of the attack.

Whether or not debate is an important part of being president, it will be an important part of the election. If he does get past the attacks from Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, and the rest of the GOP Presidential hopefuls, he will have to go toe-to-toe with Obama. Now, that might be easier considering Obama has struggled on issues which Perry has succeeded. However, Obama has already once been elected President. He can do it again.

Perry needs to step up his game, or step down from his candidacy.

Defending Romney

Mitt Romney continues to get attacked over his lackluster jobs record as governor. From a pure numbers perspective, he probably should be bashed. However, when you consider what he did compared to his predecessors and his successors, he looks favorabley compared to someone like Rick Perry:

Romney was right. Employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the number of jobs in Texas grew nearly 3 percent annually while Ann Richards was governor and about 5 percent per year under Bush. Over Perry's 11 years as governor, job growth has averaged less than 2 percent per year.

With the favorable jobs market of Texas, Perry's growth rate has lagged behind both Bush and Richards. What does that say about Perry? As governor, Romney was in charge of turning around Massachusetts. He did it with a democratic legislature, something that Perry hasn't had to deal with. He had to deal with a bad credit rating, which he helped improve. He had to deal with the democratic healthcare legislation, which now ironically bare his name, RomneyCare. All of the potential issues that a future President of the United States is going to deal with, Romney has already faced.

Despite challenges, Romney produced results. Were they the best results in the country? Absolutely not. But given the circumstances, Romney was an effective governor.

Attacking Obama

Rick Perry released his first ad:

Ripping Obama and attacking the state of the nation. The visuals are moving. I would have gone for a more subtle jab:

I would have done a take of the iconic Shepard Fairey print of Obama, except, of course, with the zero for his zero job growth in August.

Talking Points: Tea Party Debate

If you were watching the Tea Party Debate last night, then you missed a great football game. Yes, I spent the evening basking in the glow of my television as two Michigan quarterbacks threw for a Monday Night Football record amount of yards. I flipped over to the debate for may be ten seconds and heard Herman Cain speak, but I missed the majority of the action.

I don't know how many of you missed it, but I'm going to review the main talking points.

Social Security:
Mitt Romney attacked Rick Perry for calling it a Ponzi Scheme:

In the debate, Romney chided Perry for referring to Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" and vowed to protect the program. Romney called such language "over the top" and said that Perry wrote in his book "Fed Up!" that the entitlement program is unconstitutional.

Rick Perry responded by saying that Romney was using the term to scare seniors. While that may be true, Perry did say that in his book. What's more important to me is that Romney is taking the offensive. My big knock on him has been that he is not very assertive in the debates. He seemed to really leave his mark last night.

I expect him to show that he is serious about being president and taking control of the Republican primaries.

Rick Perry, meanwhile, wrote this op-ed in USA Today:

For too long, politicians have been afraid to speak honestly about Social Security. We must have the guts to talk about its financial condition if we are to fix Social Security and make it financially viable for generations to come.

So basically, he says we should talk about it, but doesn't give a solution. He didn't provide a solution last night either. He will continue to get pounded on this and other matters of entitlement reform until he comes up with a proper plan for making Social Security financially viable.

HPV:
Perry also continues to be attacked for making young girls get HPV vaccinations. Michelle Bachmann has been the most offended by this:

"To have innocent little 12-year old girls be forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just flat out wrong," Bachmann says in her e-mail requesting donations, titled "I'm Offended.

Perry has been weak in defending himself. The thing Republicans seem most offended by is the fact it was passed through an executive order rather than through the legislature.

It's an effort to help these young women healthy. I don't see how you can't strongly defend yourself against that.

Regardless, it does bring into question Perry's values. He has admitted that he would have liked to have gotten it through the legislature, but there's also questions of chrony capitalism in this matter. Bachmann again:

She returned to that line of attack on NBC’s "Today" show. “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause” of the HPV vaccination program. She ripped Perry for deciding to implement the program through a 2007 executive order.

Crony capitalism or not, I don't know how big an issue is. Yeah, it has brought into question Perry's character, but there are other flaws with Perry related to bigger issues.

Immigration:
While I don't see this as being a huge issue, Perry also came weak on immigration:

Third, immigration. In Texas, Perry has extended in-state, taxpayer-subsidized tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. It's a sensible policy, as it brings them into the fold and gives them the opportunity to improve their lives and contribute to the wider economy. But his opponents slammed Perry hard for a policy they called "amnesty." Romney was straightforward in stating what is, for most conservatives, gospel: This is a nation of laws, and we follow the laws.

As a border state, Perry should have a stronger opinion or more connected policies regarding immigration, but he failed once again. Even Jon Huntsman ripped him on it:

Even Jon Huntsman, when he wasn’t making baffling jokes about Kurt Cobain, told Perry his claim that he couldn’t secure the border was “pretty much a treasonous comment.”

Perry responded to the attacks with this:

"What we did in the state of Texas was clearly a states right issue. And the legislature passed with only four dissenting votes in the House and the Senate to allow this to occur," he said. "We were clearly sending a message to young people, regardless of what the sound of their last name is, that we believe in you. That if you want to live in the state of Texas and you want to pursue citizenship, that we're going to allow you the opportunity to be contributing members in the state of Texas and not be a drag on our state."

I'm not quite sure how well that's going to fly, especially with Tea Party voters. Anything that suggests providing subsidies is a hot button issue. Giving these benefits to illegal immigrants is, as Bachmann put it, "not the American way."

Also notable was Rick Santorum's flub:

Former two-term Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Perry's support for the Texas DREAM act was a ploy to attract Latino voters.

"What Governor Perry's done is he provided in-state tuition for -- for illegal immigrants. Maybe that was an attempt to attract the illegal vote -- I mean, the Latino voters," Santorum said, quickly correcting his flub.

I don't think attacking a race of people is a good idea, Mr. Santorum.

Jobs:
Romney finally made a strong case for Perry's record:

It's easy to do well when you have everything going for you. In Massachusetts, which is one of the most liberal states, Romney didn't have a lot going for him. He had a democratic state senate. He had high taxes. There were jobs leaving the state. There were a lot of things going to the other way.

From Fact Check:

Romney is correct that Massachusetts was losing jobs month after month for nearly a year before he took office. Those losses stabilized in his first year, and the state then began to see job growth. According to BLS statistics, over the entirety of Romney's term in office, the ranks of Massachusetts' employed went from 3,224,600 to 3,270,400. That’s a 1.4 percent increase. However, that was far slower growth than the national average, 5.3 percent. In fact, as Perry and Huntsman correctly pointed out at the debate, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the length of Romney's term. The only states that did worse: Louisiana, Michigan and Ohio.

So what's the difference between the rate at which Massachusetts was losing jobs and the job growth that Romney had? Are we not talking turn around? Or are we just focusing on job growth?

Isn't this a legitimate question to see whether he did turn things around even if at a slow pace?

General Impressions:
It sounds like Perry is losing his lead or he's suffering from being the front runner at the moment. As the front runner, he is taking the brunt of the crossfire from his opponents. He has a target on his back and the rest of the candidates, even Michelle Bachmann, are hitting it.

The most important thing to me was to see Mitt Romney actually take control and assert himself. He took command and showed that he is passionate about wanting to be president. He showed them that he means serious business. That's what stood out to me.

The rest of the candidates aren't legitimate contenders to me. Bachmann is this year's Sarah Palin. Ron Paul still isn't a viable mainstream candidate. Rick Santorum isn't really making any headway. I've been very disappointed with Jon Huntsman who has yet to be in bloom.

As the candidates continue to debate, we'll learn more about how things are going to turn up. It seems now that there are two horses with the rest nipping at their heels.

The Forgotten Son: Ron Paul

Ron Paul always seems to not be taken seriously. It's unfortunate. After all, he's the one who said governments should have less influence on people's lives. He campaigned hard on it in 2008. Now, it seems everyone else is capitalizing on his original message. He continues to be forgotten:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The media's ignoring of Ron Paul hasn't gone unnoticed in the mainstream media either:

By now, pretty much everyone agrees Ron Paul was ignored by the media following his second place finish in the Ames straw poll on Saturday. Whether or not the media blackout was justified due to his less-than-favorable campaign prospects is subject to debate.

So what are Paul's prospects? We can judge some of it by his ability to raise money right? Well, he's cash:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised $1.8 million in 24 hours on Saturday and Sunday, a major online "money bomb" timed to coincide with his 76th birthday. This is the fourth time Paul has raised more than $1 million in a day this campaign cycle, and a signal that he will have the money to compete as long as he wants for the Republican presidential nomination.

Paul is still behind Romney and Perry as far as raising money, but the man is raising more money than Michelle Bachmann at this point. He's not going away. And with all that money, he should not go away quietly.

He's also polling well in New Hampshire:

On the ballot Romney remains in a strong position. He leads all candidates with 36% of the vote. However, Perry, making his first appearance in the NH Journal poll, debuts with a strong 18%. Ron Paul continues to impress despite relatively little media attention with 14%. And Bachmann earns 10%. All other candidates were in single digits.

So despite the lack of media attention, Paul continues to raise money and do well in the polls. You've got to still wonder why no one's considering him a serious contender. Is the media attention the only thing keeping him from being a serious contender.

Yet we see all these other candidates that seemingly have no chance getting media attention. Rick Santorum continues to get attention, despite finishing a distant fourth place. Even Jon Huntsman is getting more attention than Ron Paul. What's the deal with that:

Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.

Even more worrying is the fact that not only is Paul getting outshined in media coverage by his fellow candidates, but also by the potential Presidential candidates.

The Tea Party is using a radio blitz for Sarah Palin. Everyone under the sun are waiting for a Paul Ryan or Chris Christie to throw their hat into the race.

It's unbelievable.

In many ways, by not giving Ron Paul fair time or attention, he is becoming a forgotten man in this race. However, the extent to which people are going to ignore him is ridiculous. Palin, Ryan, and Christie aren't even in the race, and attention should not focus on them until they decide they want to serve our country. Huntsman and Santorum are not campaigning nearly as well as Paul, yet they are both getting the mainstream treatment. Whether you like Ron Paul or not, you should agree his voice should at least be heard. The media blackout on Ron Paul is anti-American.

Let the man have a voice.

The Tea Party Candidate

One of the top challenges for any Republican candidate for President is to win the Tea Party vote.

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that may or may not be misunderstood. When it first emerged, the protests seemed silly because there seemed to be racially motivated, particularly in the way they tried to convince the public that Barack Obama was born outside the United States:

It's been a very controversial movement:

"Given how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics," Campbell and Putnam write. "But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic."

In spite of this, it has continued to gain political influence amongst Republican presidential candidates.

Rather than discuss the movement, I would like to address in regards to their Tea Party politics.

Michelle Bachmann has been championing herself as a Tea Party Republican, particularly in highlighting her recent voting record in light of the debt crisis. However, she was burned in Friday's Wall Street Journal for some of her stances:

If Mrs. Bachmann is worried that Mr. Ryan's reforms would not address her concerns, then there are other approaches to choose from. But she has declined to offer or endorse any, expressing only vague support for a small increase in the retirement age and greater means testing—neither of which would make a real dent in Medicare's growth, since neither would reform the grossly inefficient payment system that causes costs to explode throughout the health sector. An asterisk is not enough.

The problem is that while the Tea Party has admirable political goals, its politicians may not have the spine to get things done. Providing concrete policies is an important factor:

A posture of bold fiscal conservatism is simply not compatible with timid evasions on Medicare reform. The combination may be politically convenient, but it is substantively incoherent. And it's not just Mrs. Bachmann who has done this—most of the GOP presidential candidates have as well. Virtually every speech they give is laced with promises to tame our deficit and debt, to scale back the size, scope, reach and cost of government. Yet they have little to say when it comes to fixing the fundamental structure of our health entitlements. They want to will the ends but not the means to those ends. And that just won't do.

You can't shy away from strength. By dodging concrete policies, you're building uncertainty for your campaign. One of the main criticisms of Obama was that he didn't provide concrete policies. I think a 2012 candidate will have to provide a much stronger stance on the issues.

Tea Party activists also have concerns about Rick Perry:

The activists and enthusiasts were much more likely to express doubts about a Perry candidacy. Many were dissatisfied with his time as governor and doubted the authenticity of his conservative credentials.

These are the two "front-runners." I discount Mitt Romney only because I think his religion will be an issue and his spotty record is something that he won't defend. Romney is a smart guy, but he's not charismatic and he's not outspoken. I think he genuinely wants to be President and probably would do a good job if elected. However, he lacks those two traits which are prime on the campaign trail. Oh, and he's definitely not a Tea Party favorite.

Interestingly, the two candidates that would probably most appeal to the Tea Party are not even in the race.

Chris Christie of New Jersey had this to say earlier this year:

And let me tell you what the truth is. What's the truth that no one is talking about-here is the truth that no one is talking about: you're going to have to raise the retirement age for social security. Oh I just said it and I'm still standing here! I did not vaporize into the carpeting and I said it! We have to reform Medicare because it costs too much and it is going to bankrupt us. Once again lightning did not come through the windows and strike me dead. And we have to fix Medicaid because it's not only bankrupting the federal government, it's bankrupting every state government. There you go. If we're not honest about these things, on the state level about pensions and benefits and on the federal level about social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we are on the path to ruin.

Christie is mulling a run as is Paul Ryan, who brought us the Path to Prosperity:

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

Both of these candidates fit the Tea Party agenda so far as cutting government spending and reducing taxes. More importantly, they have a strong record for entitlement reform. They have a strong stance against it and would provide the spine that the Republicans that the other candidates lack.

While the Bachmanns and the Perrys may have the charisma to appeal to the Tea Party supporters, they lack the record to bring about changes the Tea Party activiists can get behind. There's hope that one of these men will run for the presidency. However, until then, the Tea Party activists will have to settle for less.

Rick Perry and the Aggie Complex

Is Rick Perry just another mediocre Aggie?

Stay with me here.

Rick Perry succeeded George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. Bush ended up serving two terms as President of the United States, while Perry is in the middle of his third term as Governor. Part of me wonders whether the Aggie complex, a constant jealousy of Texas, is the primary driver of Perry's Presidential hopes.

You probably want to stop me there. By some miracle, President Bush went to Yale. Yes, but his brother, Jed, went to Texas and so did his daughter, Jenna. The family has strong ties to the University.

So what's this Aggie complex about? Well, the University of Texas at Austin is the flagship university of the state of Texas. They were the big player in the Big XII and they've always watched out for Texas A&M. They've been more of a little brother to Texas than Michigan State has to Michigan, although the jealousy is very similar.

Recently, Texas announced that they're going to start their own television network.

This has further sparked A&M's envy so much so that they are trying to join the SEC:

In the eyes of most Aggies, moving to the SEC means they'll no longer have to operate in Texas' vast shadow.

Aggies fans overcome with excitement over a move to the SEC. There's also a pretty good explanation for the Aggie Complex in there:

"It’s really hard to watch a bigger school kind of bully their way around the conference and make the money they want to," Turner said. "So you have to do something, but I think a lot of fans are kind of uneasy about, 'Is this what we really want?'"

And more:

"We want to carve our own niche, and we don’t want to be the little brother, but you almost don’t want to leave big brother," Turner said.

They want out of Texas's shadow just as Perry seems to want to get out of Bush's shadow. What's more is the Aggies are trying to move to the SEC to be in a conference of schools in constituencies that Perry will appeal to in his own campaign.

However, the SEC appears to have rejected A&M's bid to join them, at least for the moment:

Southeastern Conference presidents and chancellors committee didn't reject Texas A&M in their meeting Sunday, they simply “reaffirmed (their) satisfaction with the present 12 institutional alignment.”

If Texas A&M joined the SEC, they would be amongst company that has attracted suspicion over the last few years. The SEC has been under scrutiny for a number of reasons, but amongst these is their lowered standards:

The SEC will push for the rest of the nation to adopt its oversigning rules. Thankfully, the SEC will not push its ban on the grad-student exception to the rest of the country. Hopefully, the SEC will remain the only league dumb enough to wipe from the books the only rule in the NCAA that actually provides a positive incentive for athletes.

The fact of the matter is that A&M is trading one problem for another. They have to prove to the rest of the country that they are hellbent on having rules that both preserve academic and NCAA integrity. If Perry is successful in his bid for Republican nomination, he too will be trading one problem for another. He will go from living in Bush's shadow in Texas to being plagued by his shadow on the national stage. Although the conservative southeast helped President Bush get in both 2004 and 2000:

There were cracks in that foundation for McCain because of Bush in 2008:

The question is whether Rick Perry can continue his strong start and consolidate the conservative base while appealing to skeptical northerners who might not take to another brash cowboy from Texas. At the end of Bush's term, he did not have a high approval rating:
The similarities will clearly be highlighted in the media and don't think 2.5 years of Obama has made people forget:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Perry will have to shake Bush's shadow in order to win the presidency. The problem is that he might not be able to do it. He has similar beliefs and ideologies, and he might not be able to get away from that. If he does, he might lose the bases that he needs to win. In the end though, I see him as being another failed Aggie with an Aggie Complex.

GOP Race Heats Up

Despite the departure of Tim Pawlenty, the GOP race is heating up. Over the weekend, Tim Pawlenty dropped out, Rick Perry dropped in, and Michelle Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll. Meanwhile, Obama is touring the midwest.

What's this all mean?

Questions.

Let's start with Rick Perry. First, fact checking his speech:

On a blended basis, we would rate this as a Two Pinocchio speech, similar to many of the other announcement speeches — a mishmash of high-flying rhetoric and facts sometimes tethered uncertainly to the truth. We look forward to rating more of the governor’s statements in the future.

There's some interesting stuff about his claims that low-taxes leading to the success he has had in Texas, including:

Texas, as a state rich in oil and national gas, has also benefited from increases in energy prices that have slowed the economy elsewhere in the country. Higher energy prices have meant more jobs in Texas. Though Perry proudly claims the job growth is the result of a low-tax, anti-regulatory environment, others have pointed to a big investment in education in the 1980s that, yes, was the result of a tax increase.

So let's address this point by point.

How does Texas's economy differ from the American economy:

“Because the Texas economy has been prosperous during his tenure as governor, he has not had to make the draconian choices that one would have to make in the White House,” said Bryan W. Brown, chairman of the Rice University economics department and a critic of Mr. Perry’s economic record. “We have no idea how he would perform when he has to make calls for the entire country.”

It's easy to govern when things are going well. Obama inherited a nation underwater and has had to balance his campaign promises with balance to keep the country afloat. Perry's record in Texas might contrast with the needs of the nation:

“The Texas model can’t be the blueprint for the United States to successfully compete in the 21st century economy, where you need a well-educated work force,” said Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based liberal research group.

In Texas, Perry has been questioned by democrats for:

And if Mr. Perry were to win the Republican nomination, he would face critics, among them Democrats, who have long complained that the state’s economic health has come at a steep a price: a long-term hollowing out of the state’s prospects because of deep cuts to education spending, low rates of investment in research and development, and a disparity in the job market that confines many blacks and Hispanics to minimum-wage jobs without health insurance.

This does not sound like a recipe for growth.

On a national stage, this could be a huge issue. Education is probably the second largest point of debate coming into the 2012 election. As someone that is hellbent on improving America's future, this does not bode well for Perry. Considering that education is one of the things that has faced the most cuts over the last few years, and clearly, education has started to fall behind:
I'm a staunch believer in one of the few things that government should invest in is education. However, like all forms of government, you have to make sure it is running efficiently, and that is done through incentives. Massachusetts, probably the most liberal state in the union, understands this:

In Massachusetts, Mitchell Chester, state education commissioner of Massachusetts, said his state, which also posts higher than average scores on the national exam, created a plan to "aim high, make sure results count" by holding schools accountable for results and targeting support to help them succeed.

Seems a little bit off topic, but if we're going to make cuts, I expect education to be one of the victims, and without, a economy high in human capital, we're going to continue to struggle. All of these candidates want to lower taxes, and with the budget concerns, we're going to need to make cuts. It'll be interesting to see how these candidates outline their plans. For Rick Perry, you can't ignore the fact that an investment in education played a role in his success as governor, but that his cuts in education will inevitably be a drag in the future. Perry has benefited from rising oil prices, which is integral to the Texas economy. In a more complex national economy, he might struggle to have the same degree of success.

Furthermore, there are questions about whether Perry can win the middle:

The concern for Republicans, however, lies with those swing voters in the middle. Among independent voters, a slight majority of 50% said government should do more, while 44% said it should do less.

I find this very interesting, considering how many people have been critical of Obama. You have to wonder how polarizing an issue this is. It seems like government is taking adaptive measures, while people might want them to do less or more in regards to spending and taxes.

There are still a lot of questions regarding Perry's candidacy, but there's a belief that he can overtake Bachmann:

Logic says that Perry will eclipse Bachmann in Iowa because he’s as conservative but with the bonus of extensive executive experience. As a fiscal and social conservative who’s an evangelical with a background in agriculture, Perry seems a natural fit for the state.

The question is whether he can make the same connection with the voters that Bachmann seems to have done. Bachmann lacks executive experience and while she has won over a lot of supporters, I think her executive experience is going to be crucial in determining her fate. In many ways, she could be the conservative Obama. In the same way that liberals aren't happy with Obama, conservatives might not be happy with Bachmann.

Bachmann has to prove to conservatives she is not (did they steal my headline?):

Americans are already living with the consequences of electing a President who sounded good but had achieved little as a legislator and had no executive experience. Mrs. Bachmann will have to persuade voters she isn't the conservative version of Mr. Obama.

I don't believe she will. To me, she's a political chameleon, always painting herself in a way that will appeal to her desired constituency:

More substantively, her attempt to position herself at all times as the anti-establishment outsider has made her seem on occasion less principled than opportunistic. She quickly distanced herself from Paul Ryan's Medicare reform when it came under liberal fire, even as she purports to be the scourge of uncontrolled spending. Her recent opposition to the debt-ceiling deal on grounds that GOP leaders should have insisted on first passing a balanced budget amendment, while holding only the House, was a political fantasy.

She seems misguided and her candidacy for President of the United States of America seems like a political fantasy.

For the time being, she's up there with the top dogs, so let's not count her out yet. She's going to play a part in the race, stealing votes from the other two top dogs. I just don't think she can beat two candidates with executive experience. That's a big deal in this race.

My top dog in this race is Mitt Romney. I just worry about his electability. While religion is not an issue with me, it is with evangelical conservatives. Furthermore, I don't think he asserts himself well enough. A big thing he's going to have to do is differentiate himself from other candidates:

“I think understanding how the economy works by having worked in the real economy is finally essential for the White House, and I hope people recognize that,” Romney told reporters after touring and addressing employees at a small manufacturer.

“I respect the other people in this race, but I think the only other person that has that kind of extensive private sector experience, besides me, in the Republican race is Herman Cain. And I respect Herman Cain, but I also think it’s helpful to have had that government experience that I’ve had,” said Romney.

He has to be assertive. He has been riding too high on his qualifications. He has to make an earnest effort to reach out to the voters and take a stronger stance defending his record and his beliefs. People have questions about him regarding the policies that were passed when he was governor of Massachusetts and about his religion. He needs to defend these stronger. You have to convince conservatives that you have strong socially conservative beliefs.

The best candidate does not always win the nomination. Often times, it's about the best campaign. The best candidate, for me, is Mitt Romney. As of now, it appears Bachmann and Perry are running better campaigns. It will be interesting to see how things unravel as things develop.

The New Front-Runner?

As was widely confirmed, Rick Perry declared his candidacy for President of the United States of America.


With his speech, Perry juxtaposes himself as the business and private enterprise friendly candidate who will restore American pride. As I said before, he is in many ways the anti-Obama.

While I am wary of Perry's social stances in regards to abortion and gay marriage, I was impressed and even moved by his speech. I think he did a great job of appealing to Americans' patriotic values as well as outlining his plans to help America grow in the future.

I believe Perry has a much stronger understanding of what it will take for America to get back on its feet than the current administration. Some of the things that he wants to do is simplify the tax system, repeal ObamaCare, get our credit rating back to AAA, and create jobs - create, innovate, and succeed.

Listen, we're going to need someone who is going to encourage private enterprise. Recovery isn't going to happen through fiscal spending. While infrastructure improvements and updates are necessary, the real long term growth is going to come from a reassurance of our private sector and through the encouragement of innovation. We need a President that understands these needs. Rick Perry understands.

While I will not confirm that he's my favorite candidate, I will say he has catapulted himself to the front of the GOP race for the moment.

Enter The Fray - Rick Perry

So Rick Perry is expected to announce his candidacy for President of the United States of America tomorrow. His foray into the race should see him instantly catapult him to the top of the Republican race. He will probably run on a jobs candidacy, being the only candidate with a strong record of job creation from public office. This should give him a strong leg up over Mitt Romney and John Huntsman, both of whom were successful businessman.

So how does he stack up?

Well, the man can fundraise:

“He is the most successful fund-raiser in the history of Texas politics,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog organization that tracks campaign spending. “He may be the best in the country. He will have no trouble raising the money he needs for his presidential campaign.”

Only Mitt Romney can compete with Perry in terms of money raised. In the last two weeks, he's raised twice as much as every other candidate. Financially, Rick Perry should be one of the toughest candidates to top.

As I said before, he will be the job's candidate:

Over the past year, Texas' job growth was twice the national average. In fact, of all the jobs created since June 2009, 30 percent – about 295,000 jobs – were created in Texas, according to a report from the Dallas Federal Reserve which analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That should make him a favorite in this recession. People want someone who will be business friendly and help the economy grow. Not someone who will continuously mislead the economy and not give a certain outlook over their future actions.

So what's been the secret to his success? Taxes:

Yucel said much of this job growth can be attributed to Texas' low tax rate – the state has no income tax -- few regulations and a law limiting tort litigation. Texas, according to Perry, is the "epicenter of growth."

Low taxes and few regulations are business friendly. Limited tort litigation is doctor friendly. In many ways, Perry is the anti-Obama. From the two and a half years we've seen so far, an anti-Obama is just what we might need to grow as a country.

Or is he? According to Joseph Henchman, while Perry decreased franchise taxes, he increased margin taxes, resulting in increased revenue:

"I think Perry's margin tax in Texas is a destructive type of tax," said Joseph Henchman, the vice president of state projects for the Tax Foundation. "You have taxes being levied on taxes based on how many levels of production a product has. It basically encourages people to form conglomerates purely for tax reasons which is economically destructive. You have these taxes pyramiding on each other so the effective rate is higher."

But what did Perry's opponents do? Unemployment under Pawlenty as Minnesota governor:

Still, 25 states had a lower unemployment rate in June 2011 than Texas, including Pawlenty's state of Minnesota in which 6.7 percent of the population is unemployed.

And the budget:

Pawlenty took office in 2003 when the state's budget was facing a $2 billion shortfall. Within his first year as governor Moody's rating agency downgraded Minnesota from a perfect AAA credit rating to AA1, one step lower, citing short-term fixes to long-term budget woes as the reason for the downgrade.

Despite the unemployment rate, Pawlenty has let his state's debt get down graded. He didn't solve the state's problems, but rather slowed it down by slowing down spending. It sounds very similar to what Boehner's plan appears to be doing.

Romney helped raise Massachusetts's credit rating:

Conversely, during Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's tenure from 2003 to 2007, he petitioned the S&P credit rating agency to increase his state's credit rating from AA- to AA, which they did in 2005, according to a report obtained by Politico.

But did he raise taxes:

But the credit upgrade did not come without a cost. In 2002 Massachusetts raised more than $1 billion in additional tax revenue and in 2004 the state increased fees such as those for drivers' licenses, raising an additional $271 million annually, according to the report.

Actually, no:

Henchman said former Romney is the only GOP candidate who saw income taxes decrease while he was in office, albeit slightly, from 5.6 percent when he took office in 2003 to 5.3 percent by the time he left in 2007.

The article seems a bit misleading about this fact.

Meanwhile, Huntsman went with a flat tax:

"Huntsman's flat tax achievement is an achievement," Henchman said. "It reduced complexity and it made it a much more growth-friendly tax system."

You may ask why I'm focusing on taxes, the credit rating, and job creation. Because it's going to be the most important talking point for debate for the 2012 election. It should have been for the 2008 election, but instead they focused on healthcare, immigration, and the war. As I said then, the economy is always the most important issue whether it's good or bad.

The 2012 election will be about creating jobs, solving the debt crisis, and restoring the credit rating of this country.

However, since people do like to focus on other, relatively minute details, let's look at Perry's social stances. He is staunchly anti-abortion and anti-gay rights:

Governor Perry and the supporters of "the Response" can say all they want that the prayer rally was a non-political event, but the fact is the event was sponsored by the American Family Association, an exclusively Christian group with a narrowly-focused political agenda that revolves mostly around outlawing abortion and curtailing gay rights.

I have a hard time taking these types of people seriously. You know, the ones that not only are intolerant in their private lives, but also feel it is their mission to force their views on your publicly. For me, it's hard to trust someone for this. One of the founding principles of our country is the separation of church and state and when someone's viewpoint is derived from religious beliefs, you are blurring that very sacred line.

Carl Medearis feels similarly about the political implications of Perry's religious rally:

But here's my suggestion for the next politician that feels the need to call the nation to prayer, and wants to do so in a way that honors Jesus. Why not make the event open to people of all faiths and political persuasions? And rather than focusing on a narrow set of political concerns, why not make the focus of prayer something that Jesus actually talked about, like removing the planks from our eyes before we judge others... and loving our neighbor as ourselves?

Regardless, the "Response" may have been a political move to consolidate support of the conservative Christian base:

By leaving politics out of The Response, Perry formed a bond with the evangelical community that no other 2012 Republican presidential candidate has, at least on such a large scale: He earned their respect.

"I think by him not saying anything [political], that shows he kept his word," Stringer said. "I think if he had said something, he would have totally lost any equity with anybody. By not doing anything, even those that don’t ever vote for him, those that don’t agree with his politics, they can say ‘you know what, we can pray for that guy, and he went up a notch in my book.'"
y

Yes, but the event was still sponsored by a anti-abortion and anti-gay rights group. So what about that homeboy? It's all politics, right?

Whether or not I'm a fan of Rick Perry, he might be the candidate to beat. Regardless of how annoyed I get with social issues entwined with religion and politics, this election might be about jobs. I think we have a lot to learn about all of these candidates in regards to what they intend to do to help grow our economy. However, on record, Rick Perry appears to be one of the stronger candidates. I can't really knock him for that, and it appears the Obama administration is already taking notice.

The 2012 election is about jobs. When you're voting in the caucuses and primaries as well as the general election, keep this in mind. The economy should outweigh everything else.