Posts tagged perry
In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!
We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-SD™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.
The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic for two reasons:
- Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
- The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”
We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.
This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.
The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.
The Centeno-Schultz Clinic takes your blood, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and a doctor puts them back in your body where there is damaged tissue. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s blood from his or her own body.
The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.
However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx clinic.
Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.
The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.
Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.
Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.
Gingrich has now seen a big drop in his Iowa standing two weeks in a row. His share of the vote has gone from 27% to 22% to 14%. And there’s been a large drop in his personal favorability numbers as well from +31 (62/31) to +12 (52/40) to now -1 (46/47). Negative ads over the last few weeks have really chipped away at Gingrich’s image as being a strong conservative- now only 36% of voters believe that he has ‘strong principles,’ while 43% think he does not.
Paul’s ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he’s run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it’s ‘very important’ that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.
Paul’s base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest. Among voters under 45 he’s at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He’s really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney’s blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.
Romney’s vote share is up 4 points from a week ago to 20% from it previous 16% standing. His favorability numbers have improved a little bit as well from 48/44 to 49/40. One thing Romney really has going for him is more room for growth than Paul. Among voters who say they’re not firmly committed to their current candidate choice, Romney is the second choice for 19% compared to 17% for Perry, 15% for Bachmann, and only 13% for Paul. It’s particularly worth noting that among Gingrich- who seems more likely to keep falling than turn it around- voters, he’s the second choice of 30% compared to only 11% for Paul.
In addition to having more support right now Paul also has firmer support (73% solidly committed) than Romney does (68% solidly committed.) But at the same time Romney appears to have more room for growth, which could allow him to overtake Paul in the last two weeks.
Two other notes on Romney: he’s now winning the electability primary- 25% of voters think he would have the best chance to defeat Obama compared to 17% for Gingrich and 16% for Paul. And he also leads Paul 24-18 among voters who watched the Sioux City debate on Thursday night, confirming general perception that he had the stronger performance.
The rest of the field isn’t getting much traction. Among the three candidates tied at 10%, Santorum has gained a couple points compared to last week, Perry has moved up a single point, and Bachmann is down a point. There is some indication that Iowans are warming up to Perry a little bit. He’s gone from a -4 (43/47) favorability to a +8 (48/40).
With six candidates in double digits there are still a lot of different things that could happen the final two weeks in Iowa. But it looks like Paul and Romney have emerged as the clear front runners.
Full results here
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!
There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.
Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he’s also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.
Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008- he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:
-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are ‘new’ for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven’t done this before.
-He’s also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.
-Among Republicans Gingrich leads Paul 25-17. But with voters who identify as Democrats or independents, 21% of the electorate in a year with no action on the Democratic side, Paul leads Gingrich 34-14 with Romney at 17%.
Young voters, independents, and folks who haven’t voted in caucuses before is an unusual coalition for a Republican candidate…the big question is whether these folks will really come out and vote…if they do, we could be in for a big upset.
Paul’s supporters are considerably more committed to him than Gingrich’s are. 77% of current Paul voters say they’re definitely going to vote for him, compared to only 54% for Gingrich. Romney has much more solid support than Gingrich as well, 67% of his voters saying they’re with him for the long haul. Among only voters who say their mind’s totally made up, 29% support Paul to 21% for Gingrich, 18% for Romney, and 11% for Bachmann.
Rick Perry generated a ton of attention in the last week with his ad decrying the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and the ‘War on Christmas,’ but it hasn’t done much for his poll standing. He was at 9% and he’s still at 9%. His favorability numbers are under water with 43% of likely voters viewing him favorably to 47% with a negative opinion. The only Republican who’s less well regarded is Jon Huntsman. Only 41% of Iowa Republicans even oppose gays serving in the military to 28% who support it and 31% unsure…and Perry’s only tied for fourth even with those who are opposed, behind Gingrich, Bachmann, and Paul.
-52% of likely voters claim to have watched the debate in Des Moines on Saturday night. Although I’m skeptical that many really watched, it does speak to how influential the debates have been in this race.
-Republicans continue to think Gingrich is the most electable candidate. 30% think it’s him to 21% for Romney, and 14% for Paul with no one else in double digits.
-Here’s a finding that helps explain why Mitt Romney’s struggling so much: 31% of voters have a favorable opinion of the Republican establishment and an equal 31% have an unfavorable one with 38% unsure. When Romney rolls out endorsement after endorsement, to a lot of voters that’s actually coming across as a negative thing. With those anti-establishment voters Paul’s at 34% to 18% for Gingrich, 12% for Santorum, and only 10% for Romney.
-39% of voters think that Mitt Romney has stronger values to 18% for Newt Gingrich. 43% aren’t sure and that’s pretty telling.
-Finally we threw in a Tim Tebow favorability question for part of the field period. He comes out at a net +35 (48/13), making him more popular than any of the actual candidates. Maybe in 2024…
Our next weekly Iowa poll with be out on Monday the 19th.
Full results here
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Upon hearing that Donald Trump will interview his fellow neocons at another GOP debate in late December, I recalled that Trump gave the Republican nomination a shot himself in 2000, and of course again briefly in the past year. A quick Web search unearthed quite a few of Trump’s political opinions on topics ranging from civil rights to war. After reading through some of these Trumpisms I thought I’d attempt to anticipate some questions that “The Donald,” as he is sometimes called, would ask his fellow neocons who are seeking the Republican nomination. So here goes.
“Mr. Gingrich, when I sought the nomination in 2000 I asked the question, ‘Who else has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?’ Would you agree with me that we should start another war with North Korea?”
“Senator Santorum, when I was running I said that Israel is “our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier” that “is there for us.” But, well, not exactly. There are no Israeli soldiers fighting side-by-side with “us” in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you become president, would you pressure Israel to supply soldiers for our Mideast wars?”
“Governor Romney, I know you have taken a lot of heat for being, well, a socialist by introducing socialized healthcare in Massachusetts. I suspect you might agree with me that there’s nothing inherently bad about socialism as long as it’s run by smart, deal-making businessmen like you and me. For example, when I was running I proposed a 14.25% wealth tax on “the wealthiest Americans,” something the Marxist-inspired “Occupy Wall Street” movement would probably go for. I also called for universal healthcare, stating that what we need is a “well-administered single-payer system.” Would you in fact agree with me that socialism of this sort is OK as long as it is well administered by smart and handsome businessmen like us?”
“Governor Perry, when I was running I advocated the death penalty for convicted murderers, and stated that “lethal injections are too comfortable a way to go.” Would you, as president, issue an executive order to allow a state like Texas to ignore the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and allow the state to publicly behead convicted murderers?”
“Back to Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Speaker, even though we now have a military presence in over 150 countries and our military budget exceeds that of all the other nations of the world combined, I stand by my statement made eleven years ago that ‘the defense budget is too low.’ Don’t you agree?’”
“Here’s a question for all the panelists: I have often said that ‘a good deal maker is cunning, secretive, and focused,’ and that, as such, Richard Nixon was one of our best political deal makers ever. If president, would you resurrect the Nixonian art of deal making, as I have suggested?”
“At the risk of appearing to be a bitter, small-minded cheap shot artist, here’s a question for Congressman Ron Paul, who is not here tonight (as Trump addresses an empty chair on the stage): Congressman Paul, wouldn’t your agenda of peace, real, free-market capitalism, and free trade with all leave you, as president, with almost nothing to do? Why would anyone vote for a man who simply wants to leave everyone alone to pursue their own interests with government doing nothing but protecting life, liberty, and property? And a defense policy that defends America sounds nice, but then who would be the world’s policeman? Who would make sure that everyone is behaving themselves in Central Africa and the Far East? I won’t stay up all night waiting for answers to these questions – I’ve got a Miss USA contest to prepare for.”
December 9, 2011
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
[CIM Comment: Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!]
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!
DES MOINES, Iowa – Texas Rep. Ron Paul has a serious chance of winning a top-two spot in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, enabling him to create problems for at least one of the GOP’s presumptive front-runners heading into New Hampshire, political analysts said.
As some GOP candidates have faltered, Paul has maintained a steady rise in Iowa state polls since he won second place behind Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann in the state’s straw poll in August.
Today, Bachmann’s support has fallen to single digits. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain each enjoyed brief stints as front-runners. But Perry’s support faded following a string of poor debate performances and Cain dropped out after one woman alleged a 13-year affair with him and others claimed he sexually harassed them.
Paul, meanwhile, continues to earn second or third place in Iowa state polls.
Leading the pack is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who won between 26 percent and 33 percent of support in three recent polls.
Paul and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are running neck-and-neck behind Gingrich with an average of 18 percent in support.
For Paul to win the caucuses, he would have to earn at least 30 percent of the vote on Jan. 3, according to Steve Grubbs, a longtime Iowa political consultant and state director of Cain’s former campaign.
But Paul has a fervent following that could surprise on caucus day.
“The people who like Ron Paul are intensely loyal and they will turn out [on caucus day] no matter what,” said Jeff Stein, a political analyst and Iowa caucus historian. “I don’t think there is that kind of loyalty for any other candidate in the field.”
Paul’s supporters are the least likely to change their minds, according to a Des Moines Register poll.
“A Ron Paul victory in Iowa is a very, very real possiblity,” said Tim Albrecht, spokesman for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad.
Despite his top-tier status in Iowa, Paul — who leans libertarian and ran for president as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 1988 — has had a hard time gaining traction nationally within the Republican establishment.
“Ron Paul is the uncle who is honest to a fault,” Grubbs said. “Everybody loves him and most people agree with about 80 percent of what he says. It’s the other 20 percent that’s such a deal-killer.”
If he won Iowa, Paul would solidify a first-tier status in the race.
If he placed second, he would drive a wedge between Gingrich and Romney, who are perceived nationally as the top two front-runners, Stein said.
Placing second behind Romney, Paul would blunt Gingrich’s surge in the polls.
Coming in second behind Gingrich, Paul would deal a serious blow to Romney heading into New Hampshire, where Gingrich is catching up to Romney in the polls.
This is a moment unworthy of any traditional classification. Before the CBS News debate last night, Rick Perry joked around with his fellow candidates in what can only be described as the Republican party version of Curb Your Enthusiasm. It’s almost frightening to see these candidates talking so casually to each other (My God, they’re human beings!), and whatever tension existed between them was immediately deflated by Perry sharing a funny moment he had with fellow Texan Ron Paul after his amazingly awkward momentat last Wednesday’s CNBC debate.
As all the candidates convened backstage prior to last night’s debate, Perry was shaking hands with his rivals and acting rather friendly with Rick Santorum. Perry joked that if he needed a lifeline, he would look to his fellow Rick for assistance, which was followed by the most hilarious high-five ever.
Then Perry turned to Paul (whom Perry referred to as “the doc”), and explained how after forgetting which federal agency he would cut, the congressman whispered to him, “That’s happened to everybody… most of us just haven’t done it in front of 4 million people.” Paul laughed and admitted he was just trying to make Perry feel better.
Watch the video below, courtesy of CBS:
[CIM Comment: 1 minute 31 seconds, Ron Paul got more air time behind stage before the debate than during the national broadcast portion of the debate. Just saying...]
I wrote in August that Rick Perry will self- destruct within 30 days. His prospects for the presidency were as phony as the fantasy of a two-person race was false. Perry is a phony conservative who is not conservative. He is a pay-for-play politician who gobbled up Obama stimulus like a hound dog eating a bone, and created oceans of new government jobs in Texas while his big donors mysteriously received big government contracts. The Texas deficit ballooned and the Texas jobless rate doubled on Rick Perry’s watch.
I will not speculate about the reasons for Rick Perry’ s strange, weird and incoherent debate performance. Major new negative stories about Perry will soon emerge in the media. Trust me. Perry will drop out long before the year ends. If he dropped out today Ron Paul could well be in second place. Will pundits say it is a two-man race between Romney and Paul?
This is the most unpredicable campaign in many years. One insider recently asserted that if the election were held today Obama would certainly lose. Nonsense. Obama would cream Perry. I laughed when media pundits lauded the buffoon Donald Trump for a month as the great Republican hope.
This notion that the GOP contest was a two-man race was a mirage and pure pundit malpractice from the beginning.
Another mirage is Chris Christie, a not-very- popular freshman governor with zero national experience who could easily be defeated for reelection by dynamic Democratic Mayor Cory Booker.
Sarah Palin could jump in, but if she did, her motive would be to prevent any other Republican from winning. Obama would clean Palin’s clock. So what next?
Mitt Romney is the Tom Dewey of 2012. He is qualified, presidential — and distrusted by virtually everyone. Like Dewey he looks like the plastic man on the wedding cake. He could be elected. Remember, Dewey almost won in 1948, but if Obama plays Truman I suspect he beats Mitt, but I could be wrong.
When Perry drops out, Ron Paul could be in second place. It could be a magical moment for Ron Paul, and perhaps Herman Cain, for a clean shot at second place. Let’s see what they do with it. Both Paul and Cain deserve far more respect from the major media. This is not a Soviet campaign where Pravda-like pundits treat certain candidates as though they do not exist.
If Jon Huntsman moves above the 10 percent he recently polled in New Hampshire, he becomes very serious. If not, he drops out by December and endorses Mitt.
The Republican battle is the exact opposite of a two-person race and always has been. It is wide open like the Wild West. The big question is who emerges as the leading conservative opponent to Romney, and whether Romney can make the leap to be trusted as a credible president.
Forget Chris Christie. The man to watch is Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana. Daniels is trusted by all factions of the party, is highly qualified, and in my view has the best chance of defeating Obama. I have said it before. Remember where you heard it.
Rick Perry is toast. The two-man race is dead. The Republicans have entered the Wild West without Perry as a big-time player.
Why Are Rick Perry And Mitt Romney Getting About Twice As Much Talking Time During The Republican Debates As The Other Candidates?0
Considering the fact that no real votes will be cast until next year and considering the fact that the polls are constantly changing, shouldn’t all of the candidates participating in the Republican debates be given roughly the same amount of time to talk? After all, what kind of a “debate” is it when certain candidates are given double (or sometimes even triple) the amount of talking time? Why is it that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have been getting about twice as much talking time as the other candidates during the Republican debates? It is amazing that more people are not calling into question the credibility of these “debates”. Whether you support one of the Republican candidates or not, we should all be able to agree that one of the goals for these debates should be to treat the candidates as fairly and evenly as possible. Unfortunately, as the numbers you are about to see indicate, that is definitely not happening.
According to blogger Wes Hemings, the following is how much talking time each candidate received during the last Republican debate….
Ron Paul 4:33
So was it just Fox News that was so slanted?
What has happened at other recent Republican debates?
Well, Hemmings also analyzed the distribution of talking time during the recent Republican debate on CNN….
Ron Paul 7:34
Wow – that debate certainly did not seem fair either.
Hemmings also broke down the talking time allotted to each candidate during the recent MSNBC debate….
In all three debates, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney received far more talking time than any of the other candidates. They are always positioned at center stage and the attention never stays away from those two for very long.
These debates reinforce the perception that none of the other candidates even has a chance. For example, a recent USA Today article entitled “GOP debates signal a race between Romney and Perry” made the following statement….
The debates have bolstered what most polls of the Republican race have shown; it’s a two-man race between Perry and Romney.
All of the major news networks spend far more time talking about Perry and Romney than they do about the other candidates. Then during the debates, Perry and Romney receive far more talking time than the other candidates do. Then after the debates, most of the talking heads spend most of their time talking about how Perry and Romney did (even if their instant online polls show that one of the other candidates won the debate).
There is something fundamentally un-American about what has been going on in these debates. How is our choice of candidates supposed to be legitimate when two candidates keep getting pushed to the front?
Another thing that the numbers above reveal is a significant bias in favor of “establishment candidates” on the part of those running the debates.
Okay, if they want to give Perry and Romney extra time because they are leading in the polls, then why don’t those rules apply to all the other candidates? For example, Jon Huntsman (an establishment candidate) has been averaging 1.2% support in recent polls. Yet Huntsman received more talking time than any of the other “second tier” candidates in the last debate. In fact, he received more than 50% more talking time than some of them.
If polls are going to mean so much during these debates, then it is not just Perry and Romney that should benefit. For example, during the recent debate on Fox News, the first question went to Rick Perry (1st in the polls at the time), the second question went to Mitt Romney (2nd in the polls at the time), and then the candidate that was running third in the polls at the time (Ron Paul) was completely skipped over. In fact, they didn’t come back to him until well into the debate.
Herman Cain is currently getting more than 4 times the support in the polls that Jon Huntsman is getting, and yet Huntsman has been given significantly more talking time during each of the recent Republican debates.
So why is Huntsman getting so much talking time?
He barely even registers in the polls.
What in the world is going on?
It seems as though there is a less than subtle attempt by the mainstream media to feature establishment candidates such as Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and John Huntsman. But if any of them is actually elected, things will continue to run pretty much the same way that they did under Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
No matter who we seem to elect, not much seems to change. We could really use some fresh thinking in the White House, and yet the mainstream media continues to push establishment candidates into our faces.
The favoritism for Rick Perry and Mitt Romney has become so obvious that even Saturday Night Live is making jokes about the fact that none of the other candidates seem to have a shot at winning. You can see video of the Saturday Night Live spoof of the recent Republican debates right here.
No real votes are going to be cast for Republican candidates until next February. What would be the harm in giving each of the candidates an equal number of questions and a roughly equal amount of time to express their views?
I was deeply insulted by how Fox News, CNN and MSNBC handled the recent debates. It should be obvious to any thinking human being that Perry and Romney are being favored. Republican voters are being highly manipulated and it is disgusting.
How is it fair that Mitt Romney got 18.65% of the talking time in the last debate but Michele Bachmann only got only 9.54% of the talking time?
How is it fair that Rick Perry got 17.14% of the talking time in the last debate but Herman Cain only got 9.80% of the talking time?
How is it fair that Jon Huntsman got 11.79% of the talking time in the last debate but Ron Paul only got 6.98% of the talking time?
Even if you support Perry, Romney or Huntsman, you should still be in favor of fair and balanced debates.
Right now, the Republican Party is losing credibility because of these debates, the mainstream news media is losing credibility because of these debates and our entire political process is losing credibility because of these debates.
Is there anyone out there that is able to defend the shameful favoritism that is going on?
If so, please step up to the plate.
One of the cardinal rules of politics is “never attack down,” meaning a front-runner should never attack or respond to an opponent who is far behind. Yet that is what Rick Perry is doing. He is intimidated by Ron Paul, and responding to Ron Paul. Why? The answer is that Ron Paul is a true libertarian and a true conservative, while the latest version of Rick Perry, the man who once championed Al Gore, is a phony conservative and can’t even pretend to be a phony libertarian.
As I have written repeatedly, Rick Perry is the ultimate pay-for-play government man, the exact opposite of a true conservative and a true libertarian. Ron Paul, whether one agrees with him or not, is the true libertarian and a genuine conservative in ways that Rick Perry can never be. That is why Rick Perry fears Ron Paul.
I completely disagree with the mainstream media and insider pundit consensus that Republicans now have a two-person race. I again predict that Rick Perry will self-destruct.
Mitt Romney has inherent problems that are very deep and explain why he cannot rise above a certain level of support and level of trust from Republicans or Democrats.
I believe a new Republican candidate will emerge well before the Republican convention and will write who I believe it is, and why, in the not-too-distant future.
For now it is fascinating to watch Ron Paul get under Rick Perry’s skin, and into Rick Perry’s head.
Rick Perry is afraid of Ron Paul.
Rick Perry should be afraid of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul’s very presence reveals what a polyester impersonation of a conservative Rick Perry actually is.
The beneficiary of this will not be Mitt Romney, whatever other insiders instruct you to believe.