Erick Erickson's Blog, page 99

Attacking Marco Rubio

The Washington Post has chosen to launch an attack on Marco Rubio because he may have gotten part of his parents' life story wrong. They put the story on the front page of the Washington Post.

Barack Obama, trying to push health care reform, screwed up details about a central story he used to get his package through Congress. Likewise, Barack Obama claimed his uncle had freed Jews at Auschwitz. It did not happen unless Obama's uncle was a member of the Red Army. The Soviets freed Jews at Auschwitz. Obama, in Selma, tried to tie his father's life story to the Kennedy family, claiming his father came to America on a scholarship from the Kennedy family. He also claimed his father fought in World War II.

In 1988, Joe Biden was forced off the Presidential trail when it came out he had plagiarized a speech by British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock. He also got wrong the tragic events of his wife and daughter's death.

All of these stories got media attention, but none have gotten as much attention as what the Washington Post gave to Marco Rubio. This shows just how much the left fears Marco Rubio.

Morning Briefing for October 24, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For October 24, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Attacking Marco Rubio

2. Senate gives money to rich people. Where's the #OWS outrage

3. Econ. Professor Explains to #OccupyWallSt Crowd How Marxist America Will Work

4. A Mea Culpa on Herman Cain and Abortion

5. As Obama's NLRB Drags Its Feet On Employee Charge, Former NLRB Member Drops a Boeing Bombshell

6. Paging the Missouri Tea Party: Here's One to Primary

———————————————————————-

1. Attacking Marco Rubio

The Washington Post has chosen to launch an attack on Marco Rubio because he may have gotten part of his parents' life story wrong. They put the story on the front page of the Washington Post.

Barack Obama, trying to push health care reform, screwed up details about a central story he used to get his package through Congress. Likewise, Barack Obama claimed his uncle had freed Jews at Auschwitz. It did not happen unless Obama's uncle was a member of the Red Army. The Soviets freed Jews at Auschwitz. Obama, in Selma, tried to tie his father's life story to the Kennedy family, claiming his father came to America on a scholarship from the Kennedy family. He also claimed his father fought in World War II.

In 1988, Joe Biden was forced off the Presidential trail when it came out he had plagiarized a speech by British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock. He also got wrong the tragic events of his wife and daughter's death.

All of these stories got media attention, but none have gotten as much attention as what the Washington Post gave to Marco Rubio. This shows just how much the left fears Marco Rubio.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Senate gives money to rich people. Where's the #OWS outrage

Late Friday, the Senate voted for an amendment to give a subsidy to rich people. Not the first time, and it won't be the last time. But is a perfect microcosm of today's politics and the politics that got us into the housing crisis. Next time any of the Senate Democrats say anything about "Occupy Wall Street", they should get asked a simple question: if you are so worried about the 99%, why are you subsidizing housing for the wealthy.

Here's what happened. Senators Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer, who represent rich Democrats in New Jersey and New York respectively, offered an amendment to raise the amount of a mortgage that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will backstop. The level that was backstopped by Fannie and Freddie was lowered to $620k, but they raised it again to $729k. So the government will offer a loan guarantee so that people can buy a $720k house.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Econ. Professor Explains to #OccupyWallSt Crowd How Marxist America Will Work

Nearly a year ago, union appointees within the Obama Labor Department launched their 'Death by a Thousand Cuts' initiative on America's employers (obviously, not their name for it, but that is what it is). Since then, American businesses (large and small)—those that are America's job creators—have been under unprecedented attack by the Obama Administration and its union handlers.

Now, perhaps by coincidence, the Democrat-supported Marxists occupying city parks across the country are calling for socialism (or whatever nom du jour they want to call it, with whatever coherency they can muster on a given day). Only an idiot (or a liar) would argue that the Marxist movement is not out to destroy American free enterprise.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. A Mea Culpa on Herman Cain and Abortion

Yesterday I wrote two posts about Herman Cain's stance on abortion, which may be read here and here. One of the good things about blogging is that it allows you to shoot from the hip, which allows instant commentary and feedback on news that the traditional media cannot provide. However, it is also sometimes one of the bad things about blogging, in that it allows you sometimes to shoot before the facts are all in. Having considered the information I received via email over the last day, I now realize that calling Herman Cain "pro-choice" was not just wrong, it was disastrously wrong, and for that I am sorry.

I have come to understand that Herman Cain has in reality done far more for the pro-life movement than I ever have. For instance, he donated $1 million of his own money in an attempt to encourage black voters to vote pro-life. His 2004 Senate campaign made life a central issue. His work opposing abortion – especially among the black population – has led many leftist organizations to denounce him with hysterical, shrieking screeds; which is probative evidence of the fact that they were to some degree effective.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. As Obama's NLRB Drags Its Feet On Employee Charge, Former NLRB Member Drops a Boeing Bombshell

Most observers of President Obama's union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board know that the NLRB has earned its much-deserved criticisms due to its over-the-top advocacy for union bosses. In addition to the other anti-worker and anti-jobs rulings, the NLRB's effort to help the Machinists' union kill the jobs at Boeing's South Carolina plant because workers decertified the union is probably the most well known example. However, another layer of just how far Obama's union appointees will go to appease their union masters was peeled back by a recent comment made by a former member of the NLRB.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. Paging the Missouri Tea Party: Here's One to Primary

She was elected in 1996, and is serving her 8th full term in Congress.

She believes her mission in life is to solve world hunger—whether its through foreign aid or food stamps here in this country that we can no longer afford. But if people start eating too much, well hold it right it there, because the federal government has a role in controlling obesity too.

She will subsidize anything. Tobacco, sugar, peanuts, milk, mohair, energy, Fannie and Freddie, the Postal Service, the DC metro system, small businesses, and the purchases of auto consumers (Cash for Clunkers).

Increasing the minimum wage? She is a fan. Price controls on prescription drugs? She co-sponsored the bill. Davis-Bacon? She supports it.She has voted the wrong way on almost every big bill that her party got wrong on principle since coming to Congress: No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, TARP (twice), multiple farms bills, multiple highway bills, SCHIP, etc.

She wants to tax the internet, voting not to extend the moratorium on internet taxation. She wants oil and gas companies to pay more in taxes and be treated differently than other companies.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The Washington Post Did Not Put This on the Front Page

It's not just Marco Rubio who may have gotten facts wrong about his family history.

But the Washington Post never put this on its front page.

An aide to Barack Obama says the candidate misspoke on Memorial Day when he told a group of veterans that his uncle was among the American troops who liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp.

In fact, Obama's great uncle took part in the liberation of one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald, spokesman Bill Burton said this afternoon.

Paging the Missouri Tea Party: Here's One to Primary

"She represents a +15 GOP district that voted for George Bush and John McCain for president by 63% and 62% respectively. "

She was elected in 1996, and is serving her 8th full term in Congress.

She believes her mission in life is to solve world hunger—whether its through foreign aid or food stamps here in this country that we can no longer afford. But if people start eating too much, well hold it right it there, because the federal government has a role in controlling obesity too.

She will subsidize anything. Tobacco, sugar, peanuts, milk, mohair, energy, Fannie and Freddie, the Postal Service, the DC metro system, small businesses, and the purchases of auto consumers (Cash for Clunkers).

Increasing the minimum wage? She is a fan. Price controls on prescription drugs? She co-sponsored the bill. Davis-Bacon? She supports it.She has voted the wrong way on almost every big bill that her party got wrong on principle since coming to Congress: No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, TARP (twice), multiple farms bills, multiple highway bills, SCHIP, etc.

She wants to tax the internet, voting not to extend the moratorium on internet taxation. She wants oil and gas companies to pay more in taxes and be treated differently than other companies.

She is an appropriator, and a "cardinal" who chairs a subcommittee. She opposed comprehensive reforms to improve a budget process geared to spend. She opposed the line-item veto. She opposed a cap on entitlement spending even though appropriators are notorious for arguing that discretionary spending isn't the problem, just exploding entitlements. She supported none of the Hefley 1% cuts. She has never supported a budget offered by the conservative Republican Study Committee.

In casting over a hundred votes on whether to cut special-interest earmarks out of spending bills, I can literally find only two example where she was willing to support such an amendment. Both were this year. One was John Murtha's National Drug Intelligence Center that has become controversial, causing her to flip her earlier support. And the other was to reinstate an earmark for Alaska's Don Young, which probably had more to do with sticking with her appropriators who wrote the bill than anything.

But these exceptions run up hard against the rest of her earmark votes: a Johnstown industry "incubator" (another Murtha earmark), a West Virginia research corporation, a planning and urban research in San Francisco, the infamous Charlie Rangel center, a Wisconsin regional planning commission, among many. As late as FY 2010, at the peak of outrage over earmarks, she was still funneling $30 million in earmarks being included in various bills, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

She currently scores a 49% on the Heritage Action scorecard.

No boys and girls. She is not Carolyn Maloney from NYC, Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco or Jan Schakowsky from Illinois.

She represents a +15 GOP district that voted for George Bush and John McCain for president by 63% and 62% respectively.

She is now the chairman of the remaining Republican liberals in the House, the Tuesday Group.

She is Jo Ann Emerson, and she represents Missouri's 8th district. She needs to be primaried.

Washington Post Reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, Once Punched By a 70 Year Old for Crappy Writing, Does Birther Inspired Hit on Marco Rubio

Manuel Roig-Franzia is a reporter for the Washington Post who once got punched by his 70 year old editor, Henry Allen, for writing "the second worst story [Allen had] seen in Style in 43 years." That's right, Roig-Franzia wrote a horrible piece in the Style section. His 70 year old editor did not like it. Roig-Franzia reportedly called his 70 year old editor and Marine a "c**ksucker", and the Marine punched him.

Manuel Roig-Franzia has a well documented history of being an apologist for the Cuban communist regime and a hater of the Catholic church. He is also now writing a book on Marco Rubio.

We can get a sense of the book by his stunning hit job on Marco Rubio in the Washington Post.. Roig-Franzia claims Rubio has embellished his "compelling version of his family's history that had special resonance in South Florida." Again, keep in mind that Roig-Franzia is an apologist for the Cuban communist regime.

Roig-Franzia writes, "a review of documents — including naturalization papers and other official records — reveals that the Florida Republican's account embellishes the facts. The documents show that Rubio's parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence more than 21 / 2 years before Castro's forces overthrew the Cuban government and took power on New Year's Day 1959."

Now, there are two problems for Roig-Franzia. First, the communist apologist failed to actually quote Marco Rubio embellishing his story. The Miami Herald really destroys the piece.

The Washington Post just released this interesting story headlined "Marco Rubio's compelling family story embellishes facts, documents show." The paper flagged a clear inaccuracy in his official Senate biography that states the Senator's parents "came to America following Fidel Castro's takeover."

That's false. Rubio's parents came to the US before then, in 1956. They remained in the US after Castro took over in 1959. They returned to Cuba for brief stints early on, before the country devolved into Soviet-style totalitarianism.

But the top of the story suggests Rubio himself has given this "dramatatic account:" that "he was the son of exiles, he told audiences, Cuban Americans forced off their beloved island after 'a thug,' Fidel Castro, took power."

However, the story doesn't cite one speech where Rubio actually said that.

To back up the lead, the Washington Post excerpts from a 2006 address in the Florida House where Rubio said "in January of 1959 a thug named Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and countless Cubans were forced to flee… Today your children and grandchildren are the secretary of commerce of the United States and multiple members of Congress…and soon, even speaker of the Florida House."

The catch: If you listen to the speech, Rubio isn't just talking about those who specifically fled Cuba after Castro took power. He doesn't say that his parents fled Cuba. Instead, he was talking about "a community of exiles." That is: He was talking about all the Cubans who live in Mia

What's more, Manuel Roig-Franzia does not say how he came to know these facts about Marco Rubio. But Gabriel Malor knows.

Rubio has been hounded since he rose to prominence by birthers intent on sabotaging any further rise he might have in politics. Malor notes, "Birthers intent on somehow proving that he's not a "natural-born citizen" dug up his parents' adjustment and naturalization paperwork. That's where WaPo got the dates for his parents' arrival to the United States."

That's right boys and girls. Manuel Roig-Franzia, who was once punched by a 70 year old for atrocious writing in a freaking style section, uses a Birther originated attack to discredit Marco Rubio and can't even offer up a quote from Rubio.

And you know what? Even if he could offer up a quote, does it matter? How many of you know the full and accurate story of your parents and grandparents?

Herman Cain Clarifies His Abortion Position

Yesterday, Leon Wolf wrote that Herman Cain's abortion position sounds much like that of the mythical pro-life Democrat, or like those Democrats who try to cast themselves as "personally" pro-life, but who would not do anything to actually change the law.

On Piers Morgan's show on CNN, Herman Cain seemingly took the position that while he is pro-life and things abortion is wrong, he would not as President do anything to stop women from having abortions.

Later, he clarified his statement:

"Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply "order" people to not seek an abortion.

My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.

As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.

I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.

I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life."

This is the second time in as many days where Herman has walked something back claiming to have misunderstood a reporter's questions. The problem though, is that it is difficult to claim Piers Morgan was asking if Cain would order people to not have abortions based on how Herman himself answered the question. From the transcript:

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can't hide behind now the mask, if you don't mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don't. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

Herman did not raise the issue of him, as President, doing something. He answered as "the government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do." This is consistent with an interview Herman gave back in July where there was no wiggle on saying he misunderstood.

Here he is on John Stossel's show.

Again, it sounds clearly that Herman Cain is personally pro-life, but he does not favor government intervention in the matter. That position is deeply troubling to pro-life advocates who want government to take steps to end abortion.

His statement from late yesterday seems to put this all to rest, but you'll have to forgive pro-lifers who have been betrayed often by "pro-life" politicians who say they are pro-life only to do nothing about it in office. Herman's statement in July is consistent with his statement two nights ago and both are clearly premised on him being personally pro-life, but unwilling to push for making abortion illegal.

After all, John Stossel did not ask Herman if he wanted to order people not to have abortions. A clear review of the Stossel conversation leaves no wiggle room for Herman to say he misunderstood.

CAIN: I'm pro-life from conception, yes.

STOSSEL: Any cases where it should be legal?

CAIN: I don't think government should make that decision.

He wasn't talking about the President. The question was not premised on Herman Cain trying to make it illegal or legal. It was premised on government in general and Cain's response was that "government should not make that decision."

Let me say this — I know Herman Cain. I know Herman Cain is pro-life. Remember this? I don't doubt his sincerity in the least little bit. I don't doubt that as President, Herman would be an advocate for life. I believe his clarifying statement from yesterday.

What I do think, however, is that Herman is, as he says he is, not a politician. As much as that is a good thing, I think it also gets him into trouble. If Herman keeps saying he misunderstood reporters, at some point that becomes just another excuse. As I wrote in the Horserace yesterday, "The [media] narrative is that Herman wants it both ways. He says X and then says Y and then, when pressed, says he misunderstood, is not afraid to say he did not know, or tries to reconcile the positions. He's going to have to be clearer and more decisive to hold on to a lead many think he can't."

Pro-lifers who are as yet uncommitted in this race want clarity on the subject above all else.

Morning Briefing for October 21, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For October 21, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Barack Obama's Fun With Pronouns

2. Herman Cain Clarifies His Abortion Position

3. African-American former Congressman supports voter ID, concerned about fraud

4. The Horserace for October 20, 2011

———————————————————————-

1. Barack Obama's Fun With Pronouns

By now you've probably heard about Barack Obama's interview with Jake Tapper where he says, "I believe all the choices we've made have been the right ones."

I want to focus on something else that I think gets to the heart of the matter. It's Barack Obama's fun use of the pronoun "it," as in the economy. He tells Tapper, "The economy is not where it wants to be."

Since when did the economy have an opinion on where it wants to be? When did we anthropormophize the economic? Does Walt Disney know about this? Maybe we should put this economy in the Hall of Presidents or something and let it speak for itself.

"I want to be bigger," said Mr. Economy.

Nooooooo. This is the President giving away the game. Barry O thinks, like with the physician, the economy should heal itself. The economy does not want anything. People want jobs. Investors want growth. The economy Does. Not. Want.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Herman Cain Clarifies His Abortion Position

Yesterday, Leon Wolf wrote that Herman Cain's abortion position sounds much like that of the mythical pro-life Democrat, or like those Democrats who try to cast themselves as "personally" pro-life, but who would not do anything to actually change the law.

On Piers Morgan's show on CNN, Herman Cain seemingly took the position that while he is pro-life and things abortion is wrong, he would not as President do anything to stop women from having abortions.

Later, he clarified his statement.

This is the second time in as many days where Herman has walked something back claiming to have misunderstood a reporter's questions. The problem though, is that it is difficult to claim Piers Morgan was asking if Cain would order people to not have abortions based on how Herman himself answered the question.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. African-American former Congressman supports voter ID, concerned about fraud

So the left would have you believe that the voter fraud debate is really about racist Republicans trying to prevent African-Americans and other minorities from voting. The New York Times ran this argument earlier this month, conveniently ignoring that the right-wing bastion Rhode Island passed a voter ID sponsored by leading African-Americans and Latinos, all Democrats.

Well, today we are greeted by an op-ed by former Congressman Artur Davis, who was one of the shining lights of African-American Southern Democrats. Davis says that he made a mistake in opposing voter ID and that the real thing that needs immediate action is "manufactured" ballots in Alabama's Black Belt, which refers to the color of the dirt.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. The Horserace for October 20, 2011

It's a turning point on the campaign trail. No one has knocked Herman Cain from his perch yet, but there is a growing consensus among both Democrat and Republican consultants that this is still a race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Why aren't they taking Herman Cain seriously? Why is this a Romney v. Perry race? And what about Michele Bachman? Intentional or not, she seems ready to embrace the role of spoiler for Mitt Romney.

Conservatives are starting to get antsy. Consolidation of the field is not happening. And things are starting to get ugly. Will Newt be the next guy to try to consolidate the field? We'll get into it all in this week's Horserace.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Barack Obama's Fun With Pronouns

By now you've probably heard about Barack Obama's interview with Jake Tapper where he says, "I believe all the choices we've made have been the right ones."

I want to focus on something else that I think gets to the heart of the matter. It's Barack Obama's fun use of the pronoun "it," as in the economy. He tells Tapper, "The economy is not where it wants to be."

Since when did the economy have an opinion on where it wants to be? When did we anthropormophize the economic? Does Walt Disney know about this? Maybe we should put this economy in the Hall of Presidents or something and let it speak for itself.

"I want to be bigger," said Mr. Economy.

Nooooooo. This is the President giving away the game. Barry O thinks, like with the physician, the economy should heal itself. The economy does not want anything. People want jobs. Investors want growth. The economy Does. Not. Want.

Barack Obama has become so detached from his own destructive policies, he is having to anthropormophize the freaking economy and give it wants and desires so he can just blame it. It's just not living up to what it wants.

The question is "where does Barack Obama want the economy to be?" But were we to ask that question and get an answer, the next question would be, "why is it not there then?" And Obama would blame the Republicans, but he would then have to ignore his first stimulus and two years of Democrat control of both Congress and the White House.

Jason Mattera, Ben Domenech, Herman Cain and Porn #EERS

Tonight on the Erick Erickson Show I'm going to interview Jason Mattera about his video interview with Joe Biden and also spend a half hour with Ben Domenech, author of the very excellent Transom and a RedState Founder, on the state of play in 2012.

I'll break down Herman Cain's position on abortion and how pro-lifers were suddenly confused this morning.

Oh, and I'll kick of the show at 7pm talking porn. Seriously. You can listen to it all tonight live right here on the nation's largest talk radio station.

And call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

The Horserace for October 20, 2011

It's a turning point on the campaign trail. No one has knocked Herman Cain from his perch yet, but there is a growing consensus among both Democrat and Republican consultants that this is still a race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Why aren't they taking Herman Cain seriously? Why is this a Romney v. Perry race? And what about Michele Bachman? Intentional or not, she seems ready to embrace the role of spoiler for Mitt Romney.

Conservatives are starting to get antsy. Consolidation of the field is not happening. And things are starting to get ugly. Will Newt be the next guy to try to consolidate the field? We'll get into it all in this week's Horserace.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is stuck. Out of money and mostly out of time, she has to do something and it seems more and more what she has decided is to play the spoiler for Mitt Romney and hope he pays off her campaign debts like he did for Tim Pawlenty. At least a lot of conservatives are whispering that to each other solely by being perplexed by these last two debates.

Two debates ago, Bachmann got a super softball question from Mitt Romney designed to give her a lifeline, keep her in the race, and prevent consolidation.

In this week's CNN debate, Bachmann returned the favor. As Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich were piling up on Romney, Michele Bachmann jumps in, redirects the conversation to Obamacare, and shut down the one attack on Mitt Romney conservatives have finally been gearing up for. Intentional or not, the number of angry emails fired off between conservatives that night over Bachmann's redirect does not help her.

I don't see a path to victory for her right now. Her staying in the race keeps consolidation from happening against Romney, which is why he wants her in.

Herman Cain

In the lead and in the spotlight, Herman continues to shine as the most optimist candidate, but there is trouble on the horizon. Neither Democrat nor Republican consultants bank on Herman winning. Why? He has no operational structure in Florida, Iowa, or pretty much anywhere else and has only three months to get a well oiled machine in place. He's running a national campaign convinced that his charisma, energy, and message will get people out in the early states as he builds momentum. Conventional wisdom holds that such a strategy does not work. But then Herman has been defying conventional wisdom.

Last night, on Piers Morgan, Herman gave a muddled message on abortion issues that, before sun up, had spread far and wide among pro-life groups, many of which were gearing up to rally to him. Look, I know Herman is pro-life. And I don't doubt his conviction. But that's because I know him personally. I also know at least one pro-life group by mid-morning this morning was in serious conversation about his statements last night and they want some clarity consistent with a statement he gave earlier in the week.

Here is the media narrative shaping up on Herman. He is going to have to avoid playing to it in the way Michele Bachmann played straight into the "diva" narrative the media set for her. The narrative is that Herman wants it both ways. He says X and then says Y and then, when pressed, says he misunderstood, is not afraid to say he did not know, or tries to reconcile the positions. He's going to have to be clearer and more decisive to hold on to a lead many think he can't.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich may be starting to see a path to victory. I am starting to see one for him, but it depends on taking out Herman Cain. Voters are starting to flirt with Newt. As Herman's image gets tarnished a bit over 999 and now this abortion matter, conservative voters are taking another look at Newt. They'll either go to him or probably back to Perry if Perry's reboot goes well.

Newt, in fact, does not have to directly take on Herman by attacking Herman. He can just contrast himself brightly. Voters are going to take a look as they become skittish of a national sales tax.

But Newt is not raising the money to pave a path to victory and it could be all for nothing.

Jon Huntsman

Jon who?

Ron Paul

Ron Paul will not be the nominee.

Rick Perry

Perry's debate performance keeps him in the game, but Mitt overplaying his hand post debate by pushing out the "Perry is angry" stuff and the "Perry is stupid" video helped Perry more than anything.

He's getting a second bite at the apple. He cannot afford to screw up again with a bad debate performance. The Romney guns are coming fast because Perry is the only guy with the ground organization and money to compete against Romney. The Romney team knows that if consolidation happens, it will be to Perry's advantage unless they can take him out early.

Perry will unveil his flat tax proposal very, very soon. I've seen a preview. It is a beautiful tax plan that brings simplification to a disastrous system and is not regressive. But the question remains, can Perry sell his plan?

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is still the front runner. Why not just use the polls and say it is Herman? Because Mitt Romney has the money, team, and game to win this thing if consolidation does not happen. And Team Romney knows it.

But I wonder if the Romney campaign's overreaction to last night's debate was their tell that they know they have real problems. Romney bled after last night. His unforced errors are already showing up in the media and his opponents' media.

And now the others know how to throw him off his game. Gang up on Romney and he not only lashes out, but he also swallows his foot. The CNN debate could, long term, keep doing damage to Romney. For now at least, it keeps GOP primary voters from settling for Romney. The inevitability meme his campaign has been generating just isn't working right now. Conservative voters do not trust him.

Rick Santorum

Santorum will not be the nominee.