Archduke Russell John wrote:I actually have discussed this a number of times. Currently a majority of states (26) have open or semi open primaries which allow Indpendents to vote which ever party they choose. Of those 26, about 2/3 are fully open primaries which allow Republicans and Democrats to vote on each other primary ballots.

This alone, I say without reservation, is about as dumb a fact as there is in politics. It is true, but it is exceptionally dumb. Why?

Well, why should registered Democrats vote in the Republican primary or vice-versa? They will have an opportunity to cross party lines in November, but why allow such mischief in the primary? What is the point of having a party if those in the opposing party may determine (because of the size of the candidate pool) the Republican nominee?

I realize that is a bit of a longshot. However, it is not impossible--and it should be.

There is no Democratic Presidential campaign primary.

Yet. Let Obama drop another 5 points before October and we might be surprised. If he looks unelectable, who knows?

Therefore, in 26 states Independents are going to be voting in the Republican primary and in about 18 of them, conservative Democrats unhappy with Obama may choose to vote in the Republican Primaries/Caucuses. So when you count moderate Republican, Independents, and conservative Democrats, it is possible that a good portion of the voters in the Republican primaries/caucuses of 26 states are not going to be the social conservatives that everybody says makes up the Republican base. Somebody like Perry or Bachman will not play well with those voters

Of course, this presumes the mushy middle will form behind a single candidate and be so enthusiastic in their moderation that they vote in large numbers. Call them the "slightly miffed middle." Could it happen? Sure.

The moderates gave us that great candidate, John McCain. Ah yes, those were glorious days!

Steve likes to say that he will crawl over broken glass and vote for Romney but would stay home if it was Huntsman.

Because Huntsman is no more a Republican than Evan Bayh. I have yet to see anything from him in a speech or debate performance that makes me think he is anyone to take seriously. I think the polls bear that out. Romney had quite a moment while being heckled by a left-wing nut in Iowa. He's got more conservatism in his moderate little finger than Huntsman has at all.

Well, I have been a Republican for 24 years. I am very active in my local Republican Party. I have worked for a Republican elected official, and held elected office as a Republican. I truly think Obama is a disaster as President. He lacks any leadership qualities and is a complete and total failure as President.

Spot on.

Having said that, if my choice for a Republican President is Michelle Bachman or Rick Perry, I will most likely vote for the Libertarian Party Candidate.

It won't be Bachmann. Perry? Can't really say, but it appears that the Republican establishment is determined to get someone in the race who can crush him--Ryan or Christie.are the rumors. Honestly, I still think Jeb is the man to galvanize the GOP--great record, conservative enough, fluent in Spanish, wife from Mexico. He would have an open door into the Latino communities.

That said, if it is Perry and you want to throw away your vote, I have only two words for you: Ross Perot. I did it and have always regretted it.

Doctor Fate wrote:This alone, I say without reservation, is about as dumb a fact as there is in politics. It is true, but it is exceptionally dumb. Why?

Not sure what you are saying is dumb my comments or the fact that some states allow cross party voting in the primaries.

If it is the former, screw you.

If it is the latter, my apologies for the screw you and I agree.

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, why should registered Democrats vote in the Republican primary or vice-versa? They will have an opportunity to cross party lines in November, but why allow such mischief in the primary? What is the point of having a party if those in the opposing party may determine (because of the size of the candidate pool) the Republican nominee?

Well, because they are conservative democrats who do not like Obama and want to have an alternative to vote for. If they have the option to influence whether their November choice is between Obama and Bachman/Perry or Obama and a Republican they can vote for they would.

Doctor Fate wrote:The moderates gave us that great candidate, John McCain. Ah yes, those were glorious days!

I loved him has the choice and voted for him. He lost because people voted against Bush.

Doctor Fate wrote: Can't really say, but it appears that the Republican establishment is determined to get someone in the race who can crush him--Ryan or Christie.are the rumors.

Not going to happen. Ryan doesn't have a chance for a couple of reasons. First off, his Budgetary plan would be too much of a drag for him. The Medicare and Social Security provisions are hated by the Middle and Left while the fact that it wouldn't actually cut the deficit for something like 10 years and will actually increase the deficit before it cuts it is hated by the tea party.

Additionally, a member of the House hasn't won the Presidency since the 1800's.

Further, Chris Christie isn't going to run. There really isn't anything else to say on that one.

Doctor Fate wrote:That said, if it is Perry and you want to throw away your vote, I have only two words for you: Ross Perot. I did it and have always regretted it.

Says the man who has already stated he won't even go out to vote if it is a certain Republican.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:This alone, I say without reservation, is about as dumb a fact as there is in politics. It is true, but it is exceptionally dumb. Why?

Not sure what you are saying is dumb my comments or the fact that some states allow cross party voting in the primaries.

If it is the former, screw you.

If it is the latter, my apologies for the screw you and I agree.

If I thought you were dumb, I'd say so. I said the fact (or truth you were asserting) was dumb. That's fairly unambiguous.

Apology accepted.

Doctor Fate wrote:Well, why should registered Democrats vote in the Republican primary or vice-versa? They will have an opportunity to cross party lines in November, but why allow such mischief in the primary? What is the point of having a party if those in the opposing party may determine (because of the size of the candidate pool) the Republican nominee?

Well, because they are conservative democrats who do not like Obama and want to have an alternative to vote for. If they have the option to influence whether their November choice is between Obama and Bachman/Perry or Obama and a Republican they can vote for they would.

Not the GOP's problem. Let THEM start a third party. They should not get to subvert the Republican party.

Doctor Fate wrote:The moderates gave us that great candidate, John McCain. Ah yes, those were glorious days!

I loved him has the choice and voted for him. He lost because people voted against Bush.

Loved him? Did you watch the debates? He was awful. During one of them he wandered around the stage like he'd lost his mind. I voted for him, but he was hopeless. He suspended his campaign to address the fiscal crisis? Then he said nothing and voted with the herd.

They voted against Bush, sure. But, they could not bring themselves to see McCain as anything but a political drone because that is how he ran. One of the worst campaigns since . . . okay, only have to go back to Dole. That was sad--another great man who was uniquely inept as a candidate.

Doctor Fate wrote: Can't really say, but it appears that the Republican establishment is determined to get someone in the race who can crush him--Ryan or Christie.are the rumors.

Not going to happen. Ryan doesn't have a chance for a couple of reasons. First off, his Budgetary plan would be too much of a drag for him. The Medicare and Social Security provisions are hated by the Middle and Left while the fact that it wouldn't actually cut the deficit for something like 10 years and will actually increase the deficit before it cuts it is hated by the tea party.

If the former is true, it is because the Middle and Left are ignorant. I'm sorry, but if something like what Ryan proposed is not done, the whole system collapses. People may not like that, but I'm with Romney. Anyone want an SSI withholding of 44%? It's impossible. Someone has to tell the truth. It won't be Dem-O-Gogue.

Additionally, a member of the House hasn't won the Presidency since the 1800's.

True. Amazing fact: Until 2008, no black man had ever been elected President. Things happen.

Further, Chris Christie isn't going to run. There really isn't anything else to say on that one.

There are reports that Christie and Ryan have agreed between them that one of them HAS to run. I don't know if it's true, but someone has to tell Americans the truth in clear, unvarnished language. Hint: it won't be the man with the (D) next to his name.

Doctor Fate wrote:That said, if it is Perry and you want to throw away your vote, I have only two words for you: Ross Perot. I did it and have always regretted it.

Says the man who has already stated he won't even go out to vote if it is a certain Republican.

Huntsman won't be the nominee. If he's the nominee, I will buy you a front row seat to his inauguration.

You can't be the nominee of a party when the base of the party is viscerally repulsed by you. That would be Huntsman. He has done everything possible in the past week to alienate the core of the party. If he were the nominee, the party would dissolve because it's entire base would leave and form a new party. He is running like a Democrat, attacks Republicans like a Democrat, and has positions that are ever so slightly to the right of Hillary.

No sale.

Bachmann will not be the nominee. A lot of people see the GOP can actually win. They won't let a loose cannon like Bachmann get the nomination--even if it means drafting Jeb.

Perry? He's said some untoward things, but I don't think he's as right-wing as some do here.

Doctor Fate wrote:Not the GOP's problem. Let THEM start a third party. They should not get to subvert the Republican party.

I actually agree with you on this. Originially, I was a proponent of open primaries because I agreed with the concept of giving the voters the biggest choice in options for President. However, once I really thought about it, I changed my position. I basically explain it as such. The primary is the party choosing who they want to be their nominee, what right does a Democrat have to choose who the Republicans are going to put up and vice versa.

However, what ever we may think, it is the way things are now and I think the Independents and conservative Democrats are going to have a big influence on the Republican primary.

Doctor Fate wrote:Loved him? Did you watch the debates? He was awful. During one of them he wandered around the stage like he'd lost his mind. I voted for him, but he was hopeless. He suspended his campaign to address the fiscal crisis? Then he said nothing and voted with the herd.

Yes I did and yes I agree that he ran a bad campaign. However, he is exactly the type of candidate I want to see the Republican party put up.

Doctor Fate wrote:If the former is true, it is because the Middle and Left are ignorant. I'm sorry, but if something like what Ryan proposed is not done, the whole system collapses. People may not like that, but I'm with Romney. Anyone want an SSI withholding of 44%? It's impossible. Someone has to tell the truth. It won't be Dem-O-Gogue

Be that as it may, the information I states is the truth. Which kills his chances. Further, what is his path to the Presidency. He has no money and no fund raising apparatus on the national level.

Doctor Fate wrote:There are reports that Christie and Ryan have agreed between them that one of them HAS to run.

Can you provide a cite for this because I have not seen anything.

Doctor Fate wrote:Huntsman won't be the nominee. If he's the nominee, I will buy you a front row seat to his inauguration.

and I never said he was going to be the nominee. All I have said is that I think he is going to be in the running.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can't be the nominee of a party when the base of the party is viscerally repulsed by you. That would be Huntsman. He has done everything possible in the past week to alienate the core of the party. If he were the nominee, the party would dissolve because it's entire base would leave and form a new party. He is running like a Democrat, attacks Republicans like a Democrat, and has positions that are ever so slightly to the right of Hillary.[/quoite]
And this is what I don't understand because this does not describe the Huntsman I have read. He is pro-life and anti gay marriage. He supports civil unions which a majority of the nation does. He was a tax cutting Governor and while his initial state healthcare plan may have considered a state mandate, his final plan did not and was almost exclusively market based solutuions. Further, his climate change stance is similar to your's, i.e. that it is too economically damaging to implement the changes.

As for him attacking Republicans like a Democrat, it's the primaries. They are all going to be attacking one another like that within the next couple of months. And I will tell you that Perry's recent comments about Evolution and Intelligent Design took him off my list of serious candidates.

Doctor Fate wrote:Perry? He's said some untoward things, but I don't think he's as right-wing as some do here.

Whether he is as right wing as some think the fact his moderate Republicans, Independents and conservative democrats (those voting in 26 Republican primaries/caucuses) will not vote for another conservative christian from Texas. Especially one who isn't trying to dampen his evangelicalism the way Bush did.

Archduke Russell John wrote:However, what ever we may think, it is the way things are now and I think the Independents and conservative Democrats are going to have a big influence on the Republican primary.

Maybe. Depends on enthusiasm of so-called "conservative" Democrats. Frankly, the Party with Waters, Frank, Pelosi, and Obama should not have any "conservatives" left. Their response to everything for the last 50 years has been "tax and spend." Waters just told the Tea Party to "go to hell." Why? Because they oppose more taxes and more spending.

Yes I did and yes I agree that he ran a bad campaign. However, he is exactly the type of candidate I want to see the Republican party put up.

I would argue the last 3 "moderate" Republicans (where GWB falls is arguable) were all terrible campaigners--Bush 41, Dole, and McCain. When you stand for nothing but "moderation," the liberal candidate can say he/she is moderate too. Given the choice between "moderates," the electorate will choose the moderate they like. In the case of Obama, he had a message--even if it was a lie. McCain? "I'm not as bad as Bush" resonated as well as "It could be worse" will resonate for Obama.

Doctor Fate wrote:If the former is true, it is because the Middle and Left are ignorant. I'm sorry, but if something like what Ryan proposed is not done, the whole system collapses. People may not like that, but I'm with Romney. Anyone want an SSI withholding of 44%? It's impossible. Someone has to tell the truth. It won't be Dem-O-Gogue

Be that as it may, the information I states is the truth. Which kills his chances. Further, what is his path to the Presidency. He has no money and no fund raising apparatus on the national level.

Maybe. Will the country vote for bankruptcy (i.e. re-elect Obama)? I don't know. Depends on if enough people will listen.

Clinton got in late, was obscure (to the electorate at large), and yet he seemed to do okay.

Doctor Fate wrote:There are reports that Christie and Ryan have agreed between them that one of them HAS to run.

Can you provide a cite for this because I have not seen anything.

I'd seen it on an interview. Took about 45 seconds to google.

Although the two men have not been especially close personally, their conversation about the campaign was blunt, and they agreed on a central point: If these issues are to get the kind of attention they deserve, one of the two men will have to run. One source called it a de facto pact, but another described it as a more informal understanding. Christie told Ryan what he has (usually) told others: He does not want to run.

There is one political truth I think is inarguable: there is a niche for someone who seems what Obama is not--a leader unafraid to tell people the unvarnished truth. Obama repeats his "winning the future" nonsense and it's come to the point where only the true believers actually believe HE believes it. If we could get a Christie or a Ryan on the stage, one one one with Obama, I think Obama is going to wind up looking exceptionally ordinary. The facts are not on his side and he gets agitated when they are cited to him. He thinks he is above the truth.

Doctor Fate wrote:Huntsman won't be the nominee. If he's the nominee, I will buy you a front row seat to his inauguration.

and I never said he was going to be the nominee. All I have said is that I think he is going to be in the running.

I've read he won't invest his own money. Given that he has alienated virtually every conservative, whose going to fund him? If he doesn't win NH, he's done. Toast. Smoked. Please post any evidence that he will win NH.

Doctor Fate wrote:You can't be the nominee of a party when the base of the party is viscerally repulsed by you. That would be Huntsman. He has done everything possible in the past week to alienate the core of the party. If he were the nominee, the party would dissolve because it's entire base would leave and form a new party. He is running like a Democrat, attacks Republicans like a Democrat, and has positions that are ever so slightly to the right of Hillary.

And this is what I don't understand because this does not describe the Huntsman I have read. He is pro-life and anti gay marriage. He supports civil unions which a majority of the nation does. He was a tax cutting Governor and while his initial state healthcare plan may have considered a state mandate, his final plan did not and was almost exclusively market based solutuions. Further, his climate change stance is similar to your's, i.e. that it is too economically damaging to implement the changes.

He was in favor of cap and trade before he was against it. He was also for the healthcare mandate.

As for him attacking Republicans like a Democrat, it's the primaries. They are all going to be attacking one another like that within the next couple of months. And I will tell you that Perry's recent comments about Evolution and Intelligent Design took him off my list of serious candidates.

Huntsman has gone out of his way. Believe whatever you want, he's done.

As for Evolution and ID, please, do tell, what does that have to do with being President? Will he by executive order outlaw the teaching of Evolution--you know, like Obama is using EO and agency overreach to enact the DREAM Act and Cap and Trade?

I get it. You think he's too culturally conservative. My question is what realistic impact can one man, even the POTUS, have on the religious State of the Union? Particularly when he has said he's fine under the 10th Amendment with gay marriage?

Are you so virulently anti-Christian that you actually do what I'm accused of doing? I get accused of not being willing to vote for someone who does not agree with my theology. Yet, I'd vote for a Mormon (Romney). You won't vote for a devoted Christian.

Interesting.

I think there are reasons not to like Perry, but I think Evolution is a fairly feeble one to base helping re-elect Obama (which is what a 3rd party vote is). And, I say that as someone who helped elect Bill Clinton by doing the same thing. I learned.

And no, Huntsman is of a different stripe. He is running as the anti-Republican Republican.

Whether he is as right wing as some think the fact his moderate Republicans, Independents and conservative democrats (those voting in 26 Republican primaries/caucuses) will not vote for another conservative christian from Texas. Especially one who isn't trying to dampen his evangelicalism the way Bush did.

Q: Why do you suppose a moderate Republican, like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, could not defeat Perry? She had the Bush machinery behind her. So, what happened?

Doctor Fate wrote:I would argue the last 3 "moderate" Republicans (where GWB falls is arguable) were all terrible campaigners--Bush 41, Dole, and McCain. When you stand for nothing but "moderation," the liberal candidate can say he/she is moderate too. Given the choice between "moderates," the electorate will choose the moderate they like.

Or could it have been they were all on the wrong side of the Generational divide? The Country was ready to move on to the next, younger generation, for a President and the Republicans put up somebody too old.

Doctor Fate wrote:I've read he won't invest his own money. Given that he has alienated virtually every conservative, whose going to fund him? If he doesn't win NH, he's done. Toast. Smoked. Please post any evidence that he will win NH.

I read that as well. However, if it comes November, December and he needs to, don't you think he will put his money up.

Doctor Fate wrote:He was in favor of cap and trade before he was against it. He was also for the healthcare mandate.

Which is pretty much what I said. But hey, I guess that means Chris Christie is out of the running because he just said he agreed with manmade global warming in this letter to the NJ Senate vetoing a bill they passed. Where he says

While I acknowledge that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, that climate change is real, that human activity plays a role in these changes and that these changes are impacting our state, I simply disagree that RGGI is an effective mechanism for addressing global warming.

Which is I believe the position that Jon Huntsman now holds.

Doctor Fate wrote:Are you so virulently anti-Christian .

You and Randy calling me an anti-christian is rich given you have no idea who I am personally. I go to church just about every sunday and I picked the pre-school I sent my children to because it is run by my church and includes bible study as part of their circulum. So @#$! both of you.

Evolution comment is because it shows a person who is either a pandering intellectually dishonest person or someone lacking in intelligence.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I've read he won't invest his own money. Given that he has alienated virtually every conservative, whose going to fund him? If he doesn't win NH, he's done. Toast. Smoked. Please post any evidence that he will win NH.

I read that as well. However, if it comes November, December and he needs to, don't you think he will put his money up.

No, because even he knows this is a lost cause.

Doctor Fate wrote:He was in favor of cap and trade before he was against it. He was also for the healthcare mandate.

Which is pretty much what I said. But hey, I guess that means Chris Christie is out of the running because he just said he agreed with manmade global warming in this letter to the NJ Senate vetoing a bill they passed. Where he says

While I acknowledge that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, that climate change is real, that human activity plays a role in these changes and that these changes are impacting our state, I simply disagree that RGGI is an effective mechanism for addressing global warming.

Which is I believe the position that Jon Huntsman now holds.

Maybe. Sometimes, delivery matters.

Doctor Fate wrote:Are you so virulently anti-Christian .

You and Randy calling me an anti-christian is rich given you have no idea who I am personally.

Actually, I did not "call" you anything. I asked a question. That's why I put the verb first and a question mark at the end.

Let me put it another way: Romney and Huntsman belong to a religion (I think Huntsman is still Mormon) that believes they can become gods--literally running their own worlds and having their own worshipers. Yet, you'll vote for either of them and not for Perry?

That seems a legitimate question to me.

I go to church just about every sunday and I picked the pre-school I sent my children to because it is run by my church and includes bible study as part of their circulum. So @#$! both of you.

Um, you seem quick on the trigger.

I could argue on theological grounds that your position seems to make both Jesus and Paul liars (since they referred to an actual Adam), but that's up to you to sort out.

Evolution comment is because it shows a person who is either a pandering intellectually dishonest person or someone lacking in intelligence.

I'm sorry, but this is bias defined. Anyone who does not believe in evolution is dishonest or stupid? Really? I've got a number of people I would love to introduce you to. After they twist you into intellectual jello, I think you might have to alter that statement a bit.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Whether he is as right wing as some think the fact his moderate Republicans, Independents and conservative democrats (those voting in 26 Republican primaries/caucuses) will not vote for another conservative christian from Texas. Especially one who isn't trying to dampen his evangelicalism the way Bush did.

Q: Why do you suppose a moderate Republican, like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, could not defeat Perry? She had the Bush machinery behind her. So, what happened?

As much as I hate to break up this stellar display of right wing unity, I have to point out that a Gubernatorial pr imary is not the same thing as a Presidential one, and there were some differences between the Texas Republican race and what you will have next year:

1) Perry was an incumbent.
2) There was a Democrat Primary.
3) Texan republicans are not necessarily representative of all US Republicans.

Whether you like it or not, there are a lot of US states that will have open primaries, and as such will attract people other than hardcore Republicans to the polls in next years' GOP campaign.

Some of them have quite a few delegates up for grabs as well, I tried to work out how many based on the 2008 delegation numbers, but it's a fluid situation. It looks to me like about 925 delegates from Open primary states, and 275 from 'Part-Closed' primary states where unaffiliated or Independents can vote in the Republican race, compared to 1036 in Closed Primary or Caucus states. But then there's California and Washington, which have 'Top Two' primaries which are sort of Open but I'm not sure how they'd work in a Presidential election if one party's nominee didn't match between State and national. There's over 200 delegates there.

Looks like about 50/50 between closed primaries and those where Independents, unaffiliateds and people registered as Democrats could vote.

Yeah, sure, whatever. What percentage of Democrats will vote in the GOP primary? How many of them will unite behind one candidate?

Also, I understand many/most of the primaries will be proportional this time, which will dilute the ability of Democrats to choose the nominee for the GOP.

Frankly, I'm not sure it will matter much. The polls should not give much confidence to Obama and Co.

I know it's early, but this is hardly a vote of confidence for the President.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yeah, sure, whatever. What percentage of Democrats will vote in the GOP primary? How many of them will unite behind one candidate?

It's unknown. I expect that it's more likely that Independents will be more influential. It's often forgotten that there is more American politics than the two main parties, but according to this link http://people-press.org/2011/07/22/gop- ... te-voters/ the latest tallies put Independents ahead of Republicans and at almost the same level as Democrats: 34% of American voters are registered Independent, while only 28% are registered Republicans. Of course, many Independents will tend to support one party or the other, and more tend to vote Republican in general elections than for the Democrats, and I guess more of them are less likely to vote at all, but they are not to be ignored. In order to win the Presidency, a Republican candidate needs most of the Independent vote.

Also, I understand many/most of the primaries will be proportional this time, which will dilute the ability of Democrats to choose the nominee for the GOP.

Perhaps, but it depends on whether those are the Open ones or not, and which way they lean, and on whether there appears to be a 'unifier' on one wing or another.

Okay, but I'm betting the family farm it won't be Huntsman.

It also won't be Ryan.

Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan has decided for a final time that he will not run for president in 2012, THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned. Ryan, who began seriously considering a bid in late May after Indiana governor Mitch Daniels took himself out of the race, had consulted with top Republicans, including Karl Rove and Frank Luntz, as he contemplated his political future. And though many of those he talked with told him he would be a viable candidate in such a fluid race, even as a late entry, Ryan ultimately decided to continue his focus on debt and entitlement reform as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

“I sincerely appreciate the support from those eager to chart a brighter future for the next generation. While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party’s nomination for President. I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation. I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance this effort in Congress.”

This is a funny post, citing TIME magazine from 1980, Makes me wonder--is Perry really unelectable? Also, would the Archduke have voted for Reagan?

Then, as now, the conventional wisdom of the media is that the GOP would surely blow its chance of taking down Carter if it nominated an “extremist” candidate like Reagan. A moderate was the way to go. The media loved John Anderson in 1980, just as they love Jon Huntsman today. Here’s how Time magazine analyzed it in March of 1980:

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle. . .

Carter, for all his problems, has the power of incumbency. As President, he can react to challenges by changing the direction of the whole Government, which he has done recently by attempting to balance the budget in the coming fiscal year, a course urged by all Republican candidates. Carter is an undeniably deft—and extremely lucky—politician. He also is a relatively known quantity in the White House, whereas the inexperienced Reagan would require a definite leap of faith by voters supporting him. Says Northwestern University Political Scientist Louis Masotti: “There’s a variation on the old cliché: you don’t change horses’ asses in midstream. You’ve got one, and at least you know its contours.”

I don’t know why Time even bothers paying the new horses’ asses it calls reporters right now, since they can just recycle old copy and merely switch out the names with a computer keystroke. So today we are told that Rick Perry is unacceptable because he says crazy things about climate change and evolution. Hmmm, who does that remind me of? Oh yes, the candidate in 1980 who, when asked about evolution, said: “I think that recent discoveries down through the years pointed [out] great flaws in it.” Reagan also said that he thought “creationist theory” should be taught side-by-side with evolution in schools. OMG!

So, does history tell us anything?

Yeah, that Reagan was a better actor than he was a scientist. Who knew?

Good news for Huntsman! He landed a major endorsement (no, not Jeb Bush Jr. this time).

In trying to determine who will be the next Republican nominee for POTUS I'd like to ask when was the last time a Republican candidate for POTUS was not either born or spent a substantial part of his life west of the Mississippi River?