I generally prefer to stick to discussing the local & statewide issues as much as possible but hey, I'm human and I get attracted to the national spotlight from time to time as well.
I saw the news about Rick Perry last night and I woke up this morning to learn news about Newt Gingrich. For those of you busy actually getting ready for the holiday this Christmas Eve and don't know what I'm talking about, it appears that both candidates have FAILED to obtain ballot access in Virginia for not submitting enough certified signatures. It seems that their rules are particularly tight in VA.
The deadline for presidential candidates to submit their raw signatures into the local Registrar of Voters was yesterday at 5:00 pm. The next deadline is submission into the Secretary of the Commonwealth by Friday, January 6 at 5:00 pm. The deadline to file objections to any signatures is Monday, January 9 at 5:00 pm
All that having been said, just what is the state of the various Republican presidential campaigns here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
Could Gingrich or Perry flame out here? Do they have strong campaigns around here? Are they on life support? How about Ron Paul? I assume that we can assume that Mitt Romney isn't doing too bad in his home turf but what about Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, or Jon Huntsman?
Who would you even contact if you wanted to sign on for a particular campaign?
Today is Christmas Eve and the New Year is just about a week away. That leaves just over three quick months until primary day. I bet most RMG'ers know who they're voting for but for whom will we be able to vote & just how reasonable are their chances at earning delegates here in Massachusetts?
Most political junkies by now have heard the term "Truthers," the far-left-fringe nuts who think that the George W. Bush Administration was responsible for 9/11. Just about everybody sane on the political left - and certainly every Democratic elected official of any prominence - 100% discredits the Truther bunch as nuts. Politically, they are an embarrassment.
I'm curious, for those conservatives and Republicans on RMG, do the "Birthers" similarly embarrass you? Or, perhaps, do you still question the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate and/or maintain any hint of a doubt as to where he was born?
I bring this up because, after some hiatus, the Birth Certificate is back in the news thanks to Rick Perry's, let's say, "uncertainty" about President Obama's birthplace:
Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States? I have no reason to think otherwise.
That's not a definitive, "Yes, I believe he"- Well, I don't have a definitive answer, because he's never seen my birth certificate.
But you've seen his. I don't know. Have I?
You don't believe what's been released? I don't know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
And? That came up.
And he said? He doesn't think it's real.
And you said? I don't have any idea. It doesn't matter. He's the President of the United States. He's elected. It's a distractive issue.
This isn't a fringe nut (like the random Truthers on the left). This borderline-Birther is a "serious" candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. And he "doesn't have any idea" if our current President is telling the truth or lying about his birthplace and the authenticity of his birth certificate.
Imagine if a Democratic candidate for President declared that he or she thought that George W. Bush was actually behind 9/11 - that this hypothetical Democratic Presidential candidate was a "Truther". He or she would be laughed off the stage and out of the mainstream.
So I'm curious if Birthers in general embarrass you as a conservative and/or Republican - and if it further embarrasses you that Rick Perry, a possible Republican nominee for President, is flirting with Birtherism. Thoughts?
The lame-stream media says that the 2012 Republican Presidential primary is a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. As such, the two campaigns have been going hard on one another, blow for blow, back and forth.
About a week and a half ago, the Romney camp took this shot at Rick Perry for being soft on illegal immigration:
The Perry camp responded yesterday with this shot, reminding us that RomneyCare was the precursor to ObamaCare:
After watching them both, whose ad do you think is more effective - Team Romney's attacking Perry on illegal immigration or Team Perry's attacking Romney on health care? Does either make you less likely to vote for their intended target? Do you think either ad crosses the line? Does their tone, violating Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, make you more likely to vote for someone else, like Herman Cain?
Since RMG denizens hate pay-to-play politics and corruption and cronyism, I thought you'd like this exposé explaining exactly why Republican Presidential candidate (new frontrunner?) and Texas Governor Rick Perry should be indicted inducted into the Pay-to-Play Hall of Fame:
Over three terms in office, Mr. Perry's administration has doled out grants, tax breaks, contracts and appointments to hundreds of his most generous supporters and their businesses. And they have helped Mr. Perry raise more money than any politician in Texas history, donations that have periodically raised eyebrows but, thanks to loose campaign finance laws and a business-friendly political culture dominated in recent years by Republicans, have only fueled Mr. Perry's ascent. [...]
According to a study last year by Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog organization, Mr. Perry has raised at least $17 million from more than 900 appointees or their spouses, roughly one dollar out of every five that he has raised as governor. [...]
"I know that at least some of the people who were initially approached to be regents have been later turned down because they didn't pass what I would call a loyalty test," said Jon L. Hagler, a prominent A&M alumnus and a major donor to the university. [...]
More than a quarter of the companies that have received grants from the enterprise fund in the most recent fiscal year, or their chief executives, made contributions to either Mr. Perry's campaign dating back to 2001 or to the Republican Governors Association since 2008, when Mr. Perry became its chairman, according to an analysis by The New York Times.
The article goes on and on and on and on, including several instances of companies getting contracts or grants accompanied by, let's say, "interestingly" timed contributions. There are seemingly limitless skeletons in Rick Perry's fundraising closet. The article touches on the shady relationship between Rick Perry and homebuilder Bob Perry (no relation). Expect to hear more about this relationship. (If you liked Tony Rezko, you'll LOVE Bob Perry.) I only wonder who will be the first Republican Presidential candidate to mention Bob Perry.
So, RMGers, does Rick Perry's record of graft and cronyism and pay-to-play politics make you more or less likely to support him - and more or less comfortable with the prospect of Perry as the Republican nominee? Let's say Rick Perry wins the Presidential nomination; not that a Republican Presidential nominee would actually stop in Massachusetts in the final month, but, hypothetically, would you want Perry campaigning with Scott Brown in Massachusetts in the closing weeks of the 2012 election?