Republicans: Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney (Withdrawal of Endorsement of Michele Bachmann)

Notice how this blog waws right about Rick Perry, and Rush Limbaugh was wrong (as has been true of almost all cases where this blog and Limbaugh have disagreed). Limbaugh--although he would deny it, because that is what he does when he is caught being wrong on an important matter, such as failing to dreail McCain SOON enough it the 2008 election--was out there promoting Perry a a "savior" conservatives were looking for, before Perry entered the race and showed that he was no "savior". Meanwhile this blog told you, correctly and in FROESIGHT, that Perry was no "savior", but rather has been an ineffective "spokesman" for conservatism in Texas, although an adequate govnor (not rocking the boat) for more than 10 years. I even told you, in advance, that Rick Perry was DISAPPOINTING on illegal immigraton.


What do we know about the Repubican race? First, polls have been DISCRediTED, and yet EVERY media outlet has "doubled down" on the "reporting" of polls as the only way they know how to "cover" an electon. Can it be any more clearer that almost all of these people ("journalists") deserve nothing but contempt. Doubt me? Never do that. Oh, I know you don't doubt me about "journalists" deserving nothing but contempt. "Pollls" (lol) show that almost everyone agrees with me on that. But what abut polls?



Well, you have the Iowa straw poll, and the polls after Michele Bachmann did well in one or two debates, showing Michele Bachmann supposedly among the "top tier" of candidates. Did those polls mean ANYTHING? Obviously not. Then you had those polls showing Rick Perry AHEAD in the Repubican race, before he was really in it. Did those polls mean ANYTHING? Obviously not. Well, they did mean that the media people are ALL STUPID for paying any attention at all to these polls, as if they had meaning, but that back handed meaning is the only meaning there was. You say that the polls indicated that both Bachmann and Perry had an opportunity, which they squandered? Did yoiu really need a POLL to see that? Anyone could see that Bachmann was initially impresssive and that the long-time governor of Texas would make an initial splash (as people around the country did not know what this blog knew, and "journalists" wre not going to gell them). The inaaccurate polls merely GOT IN THT EWAY of the process of looking at reality, rather than fantasy.


Now thre is Herman Cain. As I have said repeatedly, I would love to see Herman Cain as President. That does not mean I don't see the flaws in Cain. I do. Can has never shown that he can win a big political election, OR that he can govern. In today's world, Cain says that is a virtue. To a large degree, he is RIGHT. However, it makes Cain pretty much an unknown quantity, who a person can read into whatever that person wants to read into him (although not that Cain is a "politics as usual" politician). Thus, immediately after the meanignlesss Florida straw poll, the Wall Street Journal poll had Cain "tied" with Romney at 17%. This MEANIGNLESS poll was a big deal to the MEDIA. "Meaningless?" That is what I said. !7%? That is supposed to mean anything? The UNDECIDED were 22%. If those undecided went for Rick Santorum, he would suddenly be in the LEAD. These polls do not mean a thing, and the "journalists" who live and die by them (almost all of them) are convicted from their own mouths as being STUPID. Just answer for yourself this one question: Would we be better off, and really "know" just as much or mor, if NO polls existed? If you are honest, there is only one correct answer to that question. For some eight years, this blog has told you plls are evil things (including polls this blog "agrees" with, as far as the results go). This blog has been proven right. The "journalists" have beeen proven wrong. What else is new? Along the way, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been proven wrong, when they disagree with this blog.


So what is going on? This blog told you. "Politics as usual" is on its last legs. People are TIRED of it. People no longer BLIEVE (correctly) the "establishment". People want someting DIFFERENT. What they are getting is "politics as usaul". I have said that Mitt Romney is not impressive, while Herman Cain can be impressive. That has to be qualified, which I have done. Mitt Romney IS "impressive", as a "politics as usal", slick politican. He has gotten better at debating since 2008, and it is hard to "trip him up" on anything. At the same time, Mitt Romney could be a poster child for "politcs as usual". Look at this Mormon religioni thing. Romney is perfectly willing to promote a FALSE reading of Article Six of the Constitutoin to try to say that the Founders of this country clearly wanted "religouis diversity". Article Six does NOT establish that. The First Amendment DOES establish that the orginal people of this country were deathly afraid of a NATIONAL CHURCH. The First Amendment only applied to the Federal Government (until the Suprme Court, in recent times, used the 14th Amendment to apply it to the sates). Nope. Romney is perfectly willing to distort the Constitution for his own purposes, by attempting to use the term "religous test" to give Article Six a meaning and importance it never had (as shown by the Firt Amendment being thought necessary). Can you "blame" Romney for using any tactic he can to fight the BIGOTRY--encouraged by the biogts of the media--that Romney has faced since 2007? No, I don't "blame" Romney. I am just saying he is a "politics as usual" guy. He panders to the middle class (in a patronizing, stupid way) by using the very sAME language as Obama. He CALCULATED a "poll-driven" position on China. He BELATEDLY came out against the debt ceiling "deal", as an obvious political counter to Michichele Bachmann. He is willing to demagogue on Social Security against Rick Perry, just as Obama would have done. I could go on. But you KNOW, as everyone does, that Romney is a "politics" as usual guy.


That is what is going on here, as this blog told you before the media finally began to catch on--when it smacked them in the face with the surge of Cain (not "predicted" in their sacred polls). People are HUNGERING for someone who is NOT "politics as usual". When Perry showed himself quickly to be really about "politics as usual", Texas style, people turned off. Michele Bachmann proved hereself, unable to be BOLD, like Herman Cain, and showed herself to be "politics" as usual, Tea Party style. Bachmann still acts like a MEANINGLESS opposition to raising the debt ceiling is important to voters. Where is she as far as PROPOSALS to CUT OUR SPENDING NOW? SShe avoids those questions. That is why this blgo is WITHDRAWING its endoresement of Bachmann. Oh, i would be glad to see her President. She is sincere, but just incapable of actually presenting conservative IDEAS (as distinguished from rather meaningless talking points). People lhave been SEARCHINGB for someone who is not "politics as usual". They were disappointed in Michele Bachmann. They were disappointed in Rick Perry. I like Rick Santorum, but he comes across prettymuch as a conservative version of "politics as usual". Newt Gingrach has been impressive, but everyone recognizes that he has NOTHING TO LOSE, beause he has already lost all chance to be President. Ron Paul can be very mpressive, but we all know that he is evn nuttier than Iam. He will not be President. Ditto for Gary Johnson. Who does that leave? It leaves the IMPRESSIVE Herman Cain, who still has the problem of little money, little organization, and the lack of any assurance that he can stand up to the pressure that weil now be on him. It is like running your FIRST horse race in the Grand National ("National Velvet", and--impressive as Cain is--Cain is no Elizabeth Taylor).


This is where the media is STILL getting it wrong. They keep saying that Repubicans are lokking for the "not Romney". Whle hat is true, it has no insight. People are looking for an "alternative" to Romney simply because they recognize that Romney is "politics as usua". They have NOT rejected Perry and Bachmann because they have not opposed Romney well. They have rejected them becaue they have NOT shown themselves to be wiling to really get beyond "politics as usual". People recognized that Perry NEVER was something different, and they recognized that merely being against raising the debt ceiling, or ObamaCare, is not a real break from "politics as usual". Bachmann is still a heroine to me, but I think people are right that she has failed to show that she is capable of BOLD LEADERSHIP. Cain, on the other hand, seems to have shown he is capable of that, but what he has not yet shown is that he can stand of to the real PRESSURE of being taken serously. Nor do the "polls' sow that.


Romney represents the "last hurrah" of "politics as usual"--establishment politics--in the Repubican Paarty. It may work one more time. I think thre is still a chance for Rick Santorum to catch fire (a remote chance). But it really is heading toward Herman Cain being the only obstacle left for Romney, who is the "default" canddiate (as everyone recognizes). What the "leadership" of the Repubican Party, and Romney himself, have still not "got" is that "politcs as usual" is oon its last legs. Chirs Christie (despite his "politics as usual" endorsement of Romney) has shown it. Obama, himself, showed it by FALSELY portraying himself as something "different". But the same onld politicians keep playing the same old games. and people are tired of it. They wILL revolt. The only question is WHEN. Romney should not be too sure that "when" will not be herman Cain. Herman Cain "gets it". He is the only person with a chance for the nomination of whom that can be said, and that may yet vault him to the nomination. If I had to bet, I would say thte chances are that Romney will show why "politics as usual" has lasted this long, as Obama has done, and that Romney will end up the nominee. But I do not--not being media stupid--underestimate the power of an idea whose time has come. "Politics as usual" is a dEAD idea walking. Romney may or may not be its last hurrah. The lure of "politics as usual" is ALWAYS "victory". That is getting tired too.


In the above paragraph, I alost convinced myself to endorse Herman Cain. I just can't bring myself to do it, glad as I would be for Herman Cain to be President (if only to shake thinngs up, and drive a nail into the heart of "politics as usual'). Yes, I favor Cainover Mitt Romney. Yet, if I had to endorse anyone right now, it would be Rick Santorum. But Santorum has just not shown an ability to break away himself from "politics as usual". Hwoever, his ideas are so solid that he is another I would be glad to see as President, unlikely as that now seems. I supported Romney is 2008, and I have not forgotten why. The main reason, of coure, was that the alternative then was the hopless John McCain. But you can see that it is NOT "RomneyCare" taht really bothers me about Ronney. It is the "politics as usual" PANDERING. My opinon of Romney has gone down since 2008. I don't know that I can even support him against Obama. That will depend a lot on how much the REPUBLICAN PARTY betrays me in Congress. IF I repudiate the Republican party, I WILL repudiate Romney (not Cain or Santorum or Paul or Bachmann). But there is nothing Romney can now do to excapte the taint of "politics as usual".


The debatge? I actually thought everyone did weel in the Repubican field. Even Perry did relatively well (relative to his own terrible performances), although he remained unimprssive. The "conventional wisdom" is that Romney "won". I don't thinks so. As usual, Romney came across as SLICK, but he stil comes across as "politics as usual". Yes, he answered Herman Cain relatively well on that "politics as usual" 59 point (lol, as Cain pointed out) economic "plan". Someone really ought to make the effort of lookng at that plan and pointing out the FLAWS (which have to be there in a 59 point plan, if only that the plan is not nearly as comprehensive and detailed as the "59" points would promise). Romney is depending on no one having the STAMINA to try to pick apart his 59 points, or the TIME. You scertainly don't hagve the time in a debate. Like I said: "politics as usual". No, I don't think Romney "won". Sure, he defeated Perry. But so did everyone else. He did NOT defeat Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, or even Bachmann--much less Cain. Romney just did not hurt himelf, which makes the "estalbishment" think he "won". IF Herman Cain cannot stand up to the pressure he will now get, and lets himself be reduced to ONLY the "9-9-9" plan, then Ronmney will win (if no one else catches fire). But Romney--slick and competent as he now knows how to present himself--is never gong to rise above "politics as usual". That may NOT be enough this year, although it is probably still the way to bet. Romney has the money and the organization, and the corret impression that he is the SAFEST bet to beat Obama. But people are TIRED of this "politics as usual" reasoning, and Romney had better hope that CAIN does not keep learning, and getting better.


Romney will win New Hampshire, by the way. He will NOT win Ioa, unless everyone else absolutely collapses. That leaaves South Carolina and Florida. Will there be a winner by then? Maybe, and maybe not. I keep telling you that the shole system is being set up for DEADLOCK, ifmore than two credible candidates can stay in the race. Here, Paul will get his percentage, and be able to stay in until the end. IF Perry had been able to maintain credibility, the rise of Cain may have meant DEADLOCK (because Romney will always get his 20-25%, overall, although not that high is some states and much highter in others). Can Perry make enough a a splash, with money, to stay in the race? I doubt it. Can Santorum, or someone else, catch fire enough to join Cain and Romney? The "conventional wisdom" is that the race MUST reduce to 2 candidates. I do't think that is true, and I think that changes in the way delegates are allocated makes it MORE likely that we could get a deadlock. But thre are not an obvious THREE strong candidates in the race right now, and that is what you need for a dealock to occur. Still, Romney's support is so soft that the race COULD fragment into several different power centers, where the situation is still fluid after Florida. And it the situation is not clear by after the Florida primary, the delegates are chosen so fast that there is little chance for any candidate to build big momentum after that. Look at how close Clinton and Obama reallyh were, given the way delegates were allocated, without a third person even remaining. IF Edewards had stayed just a LITTLE more credible, he could have held the balance of power. The media is not telling you this, but this blog has been telling you isince the 2008 election: the way delegate selection has "evolved" is making it MORE likely for a deadlock rather than less likely. There is a natural inclination to reduce a race to two people, but that inclination may not always operate FAST enough if delegates are spread around among a number of candidates who stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday.


P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).