Chris Christie endorsed Willard Mitt Romney today. Unfortunately Christie repeatedly talked about pie, growing the pie, smaller pie, bigger pie…. He was talking about the economic pie, but for some reason our funny bone was tickled.
The Christie endorsement of Willard Mitt Romney is an attempt to get a snowball rolling down the mountain and give Willard some momentum. It won’t work. No matter who gets in or gets out or what happens, Republican voters shift to someone other than Willard.
Another reason to hold a pre-debate press conference today was to try and hurt Rick Perry with the Mormon controversy of recent days. It won’t work.
We have written that the Mormon issue would come up again and predict now it will emerge yet again – just before the evangelical heavy Iowa caucuses. It will happen again because it works – it worked for Ted Kennedy when he ran against Romney:
“Willard Mitt Romney is the presumed Republican front runner. We suppose he could get the nomination. But we doubt it.
First of all, Willard is a Mormon. Nobody likes to talk about this but evangelical Christians do not think kindly of Mormons. There are many reasons for this, which we will not get into because we do not want to get involved in sectarian violence. But do remember that Ted Kennedy, the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur who engineered the coup that gifted Obama the nomination, used Romney’s Mormonism to destroy Romney years ago when Romney ran against Kennedy for the Senate seat from Massachusetts.
And if you think Barack Obama and his army of thugs do not know that history of Ted and Willard’s Excellent Adventure and will not use the same religious line of attack against Romney, well then you should get out of here and go back to your coloring book and videos of Barney.”
Many Republicans and conservatives are upset at what they call the religious bigotry and are quaking in fear about what it says regarding Republicans. But, hey, read up on the Ted Kennedy campaign and what they did in South Boston to bang the anti Mormon drum. And while evangelicals have valid doctrinal reasons to declare Mormons non-Christians and to therefore oppose Mormons, perhaps the pearl clutching Republicans/conservatives should highlight the liberal anti-Mormonism:
“Politically, more Democrats than Republicans say they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate. Liberal Democrats stand out, with 41% saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate. Only about a quarter or fewer in other groups say this.”
Don’t forget the flip-flopping:
So even with all the recent bad news about Rick Perry and his bumbling performance at the last debate, we still think Perry will be the Republicans nominee.
Charlie Cook agrees with this assessment:
“The Cook Report: It’s Perry’s to Win
If he learns from his mistakes, the Texas governor will be Barack Obama’s opponent in the fall. [snip]
It comes down to Perry’s capacity to turn the corner.
Clearly, most Republican voters would much prefer a very, very, very conservative nominee to the more buttoned-down Romney. (Even if he has shed his pinstriped suits and nice ties in favor of sports shirts and khakis, he still looks like he could be a Haggar slacks model.) It’s unclear whether they want, or will end up supporting, Perry—but, obviously, they want a Perry-like conservative. But it comes down to Perry’s capacity to turn the corner, to become a national, as opposed to a Texas or a Deep South, candidate.
Perry has shown a proclivity to step on his own body parts and will undoubtedly do so again. The question is whether he learns from his mistakes. If he does, he will be the GOP nominee and stands a fair chance of beating President Obama, given the horrific economy and the public’s loss of confidence in the president. If he doesn’t and isn’t more careful about what he says and how he says it, Perry will either lose the nomination, or he will win it and then lose a general election that’s there for the taking. Simple as that.”
“By traditional yardsticks of measuring a presidential candidate’s potential success, he falls short. For hard-charging conservatives who have become disillusioned with Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and now Perry, and who have resisted the appeal of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, Cain may be the new flavor of the month. But without the apparatus, money, or expertise in actually winning a party’s nomination, it’s doubtful that he can go very far. The current flurry won’t keep the titans of business and finance on the sidelines; their skepticism will likely mirror that of the political pros and pundits.”
Cain is doing remarkably well but we suspect that is because he is a bit of a charmer and because Republicans don’t want Willard and recoiled at the Rick Perry they saw in the most recent debate. Cain could conceivably acquire a campaign organization as other campaigns collapse and get oodles of cash sufficient to compete with Perry’s $17 million haul, but we won’t believe it until we see it.
Many call tonight “the Perry last chance debate. Rick Perry better perform well tonight or his promising campaign will flutter to the ground dead. Perry has been trying to “shape the battleground” with a new Perry ad attacking ObamneyCare:
Via the New York Times Perry operatives promise that for tonight, Perry will (as we strongly suggested) prepared and studied for the debate. Perry will also get some sleep before the debate.
While the Republicans debate, the Occupy Wall Street rave has turned into a zoo. We wrote we would take Occupy Wall Street seriously and with respect when we see them act seriously and with respect. When they move to occupy Lafayette Park and take the fight to Barack Obama we will treat them as something more than a zoo. But we are not holding our collective breaths.
How can anyone take the Zoo-cotti (Zoo-cooties?) rave and their supporters seriously when you read something like this:
“Occupation can lead to ownership, whether or not you want it.
The spread of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement was met with initial hesitation in both the Democratic and Republican parties. That might be an appropriate response to any protests that aim themselves squarely at the establishment, particularly those with goals that are diverse and diffuse as the current protesters’ are.
But a consensus is emerging among Democrats that the “Occupy” movement is worth tapping into, even helping along and joining with in some instances.
“I support the message to the establishment,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Change has to happen. We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry.”
Honey, you are the establishment. The counterculture of the 1960s is the establishment. Nancy Pelosi is the establishment. Granted, Pelosi and the counterculture of the 1960s cum establishment of the 21st century has proven a great disappointment. After all, Gloria Steinem fundraising for “hostile work place for women” Barack Obama, was the last heel in the coffin.
As to the Occupy Wall Street Zoo-cotti Park activities there are some things that make sensible people dizzy with laughter:
“It started as a gathering of furious youngsters, protesting about the supposed lack of opportunities for the average American.
But then the freeloaders came along.
As the Occupy Wall Street protest continued in full strength in Manhattan this weekend, the atmosphere in New York’s financial district became increasingly debauched.
Conspicuously living among the politically active in the makeshift village in Zuccotti Park are opportunistic junkies and homeless people – making the most of the free food on offer.
Also present and infuriating the hard core of activists are a number of teens looking to turn the gathering into an urban rave.
Among the banners and flags are now discarded packets of condoms, cigarettes and bottles of spirits, while naked youngsters happily get together with just sleeping bags covering their modesty. [snip]
Among the activists, however, clearly there are some on the ground with less noble intentions.
‘Most of the kids are trust-fund babies. They don’t need to be here,’ Andre, a 40-year-old activist told the New York Post.”
The sex, drugs, and homeless don’t bother too many other than the pearl clutchers. The trust-fund babies have a right to whine too. But there is a certain stupidity which really disgusts.
Why do the Zoo-cotties tolerate, nay, cheer someone like Russell Simmons? Russell Simmons is a multi-millionaire owner of a debit card company. And they are cheering him?
Kanye West, with elective dentistry to replace his regular teeth with gold teeth, thick gold chains draped round his neck, arrived at Zoo-cottie in a $300,000 car and a $300.00 shirt – and he was cheered. Do the Zoo-cottie’s think West and Simmons are part of the alleged 99% (Tea Party activists are not allowed in that 99% nor are the white working class we presume since they are not part of the Obama situation comedy coalition)?
“OWS has a far better chance of advancing its agenda by acting as a tea-party-esque weight on Obama’s left than by lining up as good soldiers for his campaign. And O surely realizes it: That’s part of the reason I don’t buy the theory that these protests were organized by the Democratic brain trust. There’s way too much that can go wrong for them with a crowd this radical, from momentum for a primary challenge to the sort of nightmare scenario described by Rendell in recalling the 1968 Democratic convention. What’ll be lots of fun over the next month or two is watching how the media handles its love affair with the protesters if they end up coalescing around principles that are a bit too far left for Democrats to market to undecided voters. Job one, above all else, is reelecting Obama to beat back the wingnut hordes, and there’s a chance that OWS could make that job harder, not easier. What will the New York Times op-ed page do then?”
The Zoo animals should get out of their cages and fight against Barack Obama. Until then, we’ll throw peanut shells into the cages and mock them.