Perry, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, & Paul: A No-Holds-Barred Analysis Of How The GOP Horse Race Is Shaping Up

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Perry, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, & Paul: A No-Holds-Barred Analysis Of How The GOP Horse Race Is Shaping Up

Written By : John Hawkins

(Before you read this, do keep in mind that I have not endorsed anyone and I’m not going to pull any punches. So if you can’t stand the idea of someone saying something negative about your favorite candidate, you should probably stop now.)

Right off the bat, it’s worth noting that this is a better field to choose from than we had in 2008. Back then, we had Duncan Hunter (whom I worked for), Fred Thompson, and a bunch of other guys it was impossible to get excited about. Unlike a lot of conservatives, I was at least lukewarm on Mike Huckabee, but I really didn’t like Romney or Giuliani and McCain made my skin crawl. This time around, the field’s better, but the number of potentially viable candidates is probably a little smaller, too. In fact, barring Sarah Palin’s entry into the race or a Rick Perry meltdown, this is perilously close to turning into a two person race already. Let’s start with the front-runner…

1) Rick Perry: Perry’s leading the polls in Iowa and South Carolina, he has money, charisma, and he’s doing well with conservatives. So, he’s definitely the front runner and could certainly win, BUT — and this is a big but — his lead is more fragile than he looks. There are a number of potential pitfalls that could cut Perry down to size.

A) Perry is the front runner and he excites conservatives, which means that the establishment Republicans and the mainstream media hate him with the burning heat of 1000 suns. In addition, the other candidates, the Bushies/Karl Rove contingent, and Ron Paul’s crazier fans who think Perry was helping the Bilderbergers institute a North American Union are ALL going to be gunning for him. If there’s one lesson that can be learned from what was done to Sarah Palin, it’s that there doesn’t have to be much “there there” to damage someone’s reputation. Toss enough smears against the wall for a long enough time and some of them will eventually stick.

B) When the entirety of your political world changes from being one state (Texas) to the whole United States, you will quickly find that you’re way behind on the learning curve. There are undoubtedly huge gaps in Rick Perry’s level of knowledge about certain national issues that could conceivably be exposed in interviews or debates. In the age of YouTube, those mistakes, even if they’re largely inconsequential, like Palin’s weak Katie Couric interview in 2008, live on forever and are ENDLESSLY repeated. Hopefully, Rick Perry’s staff is drilling him non-stop to get him fully up to speed in a hurry.

C) Rick Perry has one very obvious Achilles heel: illegal immigration. He is probably to Bush’s right on the issue, but he’s well to the left of most of the base. I also notice that Perry has yet to stake out an official position on the issue on his website. Could that one issue cost him the nomination? You bet it could. However, he does have a saving grace: Mitt Romney has a terrible record on illegal immigration and has moved to the Right. So, if Perry does the same, that at least gets him back on an even plane with his top competitor.

2) Mitt Romney: Being a Mormon doesn’t help Mitt Romney, but his real problem is that he comes across as a phony, plastic, car salesman of a candidate who doesn’t believe in anything and will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. Although Romney’s not a bad speaker, he inspires no passion or excitement because it’s hard to get jazzed up about a political robot mouthing slogans that are programmed into him based on poll testing. Romney is competent, organized, can raise money, and he has successful private sector experience, but he’s not a movement conservative, he’s not particularly likable, and he reeks of inauthenticity.

3) Michele Bachmann: Before Perry got in, it was shaping up to be a Bachmann vs. Romney fight, but the Texan has stolen a lot of her thunder. To be perfectly honest, Bachmann is probably going to have a tough time getting more traction unless Palin doesn’t get in and Perry collapses. If that were to happen, then Bachmann could have a shot as the Romney alternative. If that doesn’t happen, then she’s going to have to put everything she has into Iowa, hope she pulls off a come-from-behind victory, and then ride the momentum from there.

Bachmann, who’s charismatic, photogenic, genuinely conservative, frighteningly organized, and an enthusiastic campaigner has a couple of problems. She’s a congresswoman, not a governor and she has trouble staying on message. Fiery conservatives can win elections, but they need a lot of message discipline. When those on the opposition are telling everyone that you’re a radical, extremist, crazy person, the public doesn’t take them at their word, but they do watch you very carefully to see what you say. In Bachmann’s case, every two or three weeks, she blurts out a line or two that allows her to be portrayed as a wild-eyed radical. In the race for the presidency, where every comment can become national front page news, those little gaffes can absolutely kill you over the course of a campaign.

4) Sarah Palin: Out of everyone who’s run for the presidency in the last few elections, on both sides of the aisle, I find Sarah Palin to be the most admirable person. She’s extremely competent, charismatic, she’s succeeded in business, politics, raised a big family, made a huge difference for the GOP in 2010, done more for feminism than anyone since Susan B. Anthony — she’s just an extraordinary human being. Of course, because all of that’s true, the Left has put together an unprecedented three year long, incredibly vicious smear campaign aimed at her and her family.

Sadly, it was effective. Sarah Palin has lost some conservative support and her numbers with Independents are mediocre. While I do think she could conceivably win the presidency and the nomination, I think it would be a tremendous uphill fight for her. If she got in the race tomorrow, she would probably get a big enough bounce to put her in second place, but it’s entirely possible that a week later she could be sitting in third place, with roughly 10% of the vote. Additionally, while she would fight to make up that ground, she’d have Bachmann fighting her tooth and nail for her constituency and poll after poll would likely show her performing worse than the other major candidates against Obama.

Although again, I am a great admirer of Sarah Palin and do think she could conceivably win the nomination and the presidency, I would advise her to take a lesson from Richard Nixon in 1964, skip the election and look for her chance to run again in either 2012 or 2016….if she wants to run at all. After all, even though she doesn’t hold political office, Sarah Palin is making millions of dollars and is one of the single most influential people in politics. That’s not to say that the presidency wouldn’t be a step up, but it would be a much smaller step up for her than for any other Republican candidate in the race.

5) Ron Paul: Paul can raise money, dominate online polls, and he has inspired the largest group of rabid, diehard supporters you’ll find anywhere in politics. Unfortunately, most of those fanatical supporters are conspiracy theorists, pacifists, or Big-L Libertarians. In other words, the very traits that have allowed Ron Paul to acquire that frothing mass of zealous supporters who can outwork and out-donate any other candidate’s followers 1-for-1, make it impossible for him to have wider appeal. That’s because most of the primary voters are conservatives, not Libertarians, they’re turned off by conspiracy theories, and Paul’s pacifistic/isolationist foreign policy views are anathema to most conservatives. So, although Ron Paul will generate lots of excitement for a certain segment of the base, he will never be able to acquire the critical mass he needs to win the nomination.

6) The Rest: Herman Cain is an appealing guy, but he’s raw and has made too many rookie mistakes. Rick Santorum is a strong advocate for social conservatives, but he lacks the charisma and necessary stature (He lost his last race as a senator) to take off. Newt Gingrich doesn’t seem to be getting much traction. Jon Huntsman is far too moderate to have any appeal. Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson, and Thaddeus McCotter don’t seem to be getting enough oxygen right now to even get a serious look from most voters. That’s particularly a shame in the case of McCotter, who’s charismatic and conservative. While you should “never say ‘never,’” at the moment, none of these candidates look likely to move up into the top tier right now.

PS: If you want contribute to the eventual winner, you can do it at Raising Red.

Han Solo

Your really lowering the bar for Ron Paul and your painting him with LAST elections brush.

He support was the small libertarian wing of the party in 08. But he got his name out there and got people exposed to him. And this time I see MUCH broader support for his campain than last time, especially with the middle and independents. Of all the candidates, he wipes the floor with Obama in the critical middle and makes obama fight on his own turf.

Ron Paul could easily win the general. The problem is getting past the pro-big government progressive republicians who at just as afraid of his reducing their beloved massive national government as the socialists on the far left are.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

Ron Paul could not win the general election for President if his name were the only one on the ballot and write-ins were not allowed.
Anonymous

You know, I actually am sympatheitic to you Paul supporters. I’m a big fan of Patrick Buchanan and as an old-school Paleo-Conservative I would have loved to have voted for him in 2000. But on the other hand, I was realistic enough to realise that I was in the minority (even in my own party) and that Buchanan had pretty much zero chance to win the election. You guys need to come to that same realization.

And it’s not just Neo-Cons* that have an issue with Paul. Others, even traditional conservatives, do as well. In my case, although as a Paleo-Con some of Paul’s platform resonates with me, (especially his “America first” and limited foreign entanglements stance) there are a couple of issues that are pretty much show stoppers for me.

As a 20 year criminal justice professional and just someone who sees the huge damage that our drug culture does to the nation (something that will not change to a large degree with legalization) I have a big problem with Paul’s pro-drug legalization stance. I’m also convinced that his pro-drug platform is why he attracts so many nuts and fringe types.

The real deal breaker for me is his immigration stance. Despite what many of his supporters seem to believe, he’s pro-open borders and pro-amnesty. Several of my friends who are Paul supporters were very suprised when I pointed this out, but it’s true. He spells out his pro-criminal stance on immigration and his favoring open borders in his most recent book. In addition in past speeches he has come out in favor of scrapping immigration laws entirely (an insane idea) and he also opposes E-Verify, and was against Arizona’s SB-1070. As third world (especially illegal) immigration is the biggest threat the nation faces, this is a real deal breaker for me.

But make no mistake about it. Like all the Republican candiates, in the highly unlikely event that Paul got the Republican nomination (although Monkeys are more likley to fly out of my a–, than that to occur) I’d hold my nose and vote for him over Obama.

*- Before anyone has a stroke, as always, my use of “neo-con” is to refer to big spending, internationalist, George Bush type “conservatives”. I’m not using it as a code word for “jews” as many anti-semite types often do.
Anonymous

You know, I actually am sympatheitic to you Paul supporters. I’m a big fan of Patrick Buchanan and as an old-school Paleo-Conservative I would have loved to have voted for him in 2000. But on the other hand, I was realistic enough to realise that I was in the minority (even in my own party) and that Buchanan had pretty much zero chance to win the election. You guys need to come to that same realization.

And it’s not just Neo-Cons* that have an issue with Paul. Others, even traditional conservatives, do as well. In my case, although as a Paleo-Con some of Paul’s platform resonates with me, (especially his “America first” and limited foreign entanglements stance) there are a couple of issues that are pretty much show stoppers for me.

As a 20 year criminal justice professional and just someone who sees the huge damage that our drug culture does to the nation (something that will not change to a large degree with legalization) I have a big problem with Paul’s pro-drug legalization stance. I’m also convinced that his pro-drug platform is why he attracts so many nuts and fringe types.

The real deal breaker for me is his immigration stance. Despite what many of his supporters seem to believe, he’s pro-open borders and pro-amnesty. Several of my friends who are Paul supporters were very suprised when I pointed this out, but it’s true. He spells out his pro-criminal stance on immigration and his favoring open borders in his most recent book. In addition in past speeches he has come out in favor of scrapping immigration laws entirely (an insane idea) and he also opposes E-Verify, and was against Arizona’s SB-1070. As third world (especially illegal) immigration is the biggest threat the nation faces, this is a real deal breaker for me.

But make no mistake about it. Like all the Republican candiates, in the highly unlikely event that Paul got the Republican nomination (although Monkeys are more likley to fly out of my a–, than that to occur) I’d hold my nose and vote for him over Obama.

*- Before anyone has a stroke, as always, my use of “neo-con” is to refer to big spending, internationalist, George Bush type “conservatives”. I’m not using it as a code word for “jews” as many anti-semite types often do.
Anonymous

You know, I actually am sympatheitic to you Paul supporters. I’m a big fan of Patrick Buchanan and as an old-school Paleo-Conservative I would have loved to have voted for him in 2000. But on the other hand, I was realistic enough to realise that I was in the minority (even in my own party) and that Buchanan had pretty much zero chance to win the election. You guys need to come to that same realization.

And it’s not just Neo-Cons* that have an issue with Paul. Others, even traditional conservatives, do as well. In my case, although as a Paleo-Con some of Paul’s platform resonates with me, (especially his “America first” and limited foreign entanglements stance) there are a couple of issues that are pretty much show stoppers for me.

As a 20 year criminal justice professional and just someone who sees the huge damage that our drug culture does to the nation (something that will not change to a large degree with legalization) I have a big problem with Paul’s pro-drug legalization stance. I’m also convinced that his pro-drug platform is why he attracts so many nuts and fringe types.

The real deal breaker for me is his immigration stance. Despite what many of his supporters seem to believe, he’s pro-open borders and pro-amnesty. Several of my friends who are Paul supporters were very suprised when I pointed this out, but it’s true. He spells out his pro-criminal stance on immigration and his favoring open borders in his most recent book. In addition in past speeches he has come out in favor of scrapping immigration laws entirely (an insane idea) and he also opposes E-Verify, and was against Arizona’s SB-1070. As third world (especially illegal) immigration is the biggest threat the nation faces, this is a real deal breaker for me.

But make no mistake about it. Like all the Republican candiates, in the highly unlikely event that Paul got the Republican nomination (although Monkeys are more likley to fly out of my a–, than that to occur) I’d hold my nose and vote for him over Obama.

*- Before anyone has a stroke, as always, my use of “neo-con” is to refer to big spending, internationalist, George Bush type “conservatives”. I’m not using it as a code word for “jews” as many anti-semite types often do.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Ron Paul’s biggest problems are his age (he’s VERY old), his followers (he’s attracted some really crazy people), and some of his policy ideas make the general public say “what the hell??” I appreciate you like the guy, but I think you grossly overestimate his appeal to the general public.

Anonymous

Perry had the net effect of making this a fight between him and Romney, while effectively pricing everybody else out of the race. Bachmann is the third wheel that will hang around, and it’s difficult to see how any of the others will get the traction and resources needed to compete.

I think Palin is overexposed at this point (even among the base), and would be better served picking up a Senate seat and letting time and experience rehab her image. She’ll still only be 56 in 2020.

The elephant in the room (pun intended) is if the eventual nominee will be Tea Party-compatible. I imagine the feeling is that Perry and Bachmann would, while Romney wouldn’t. That could very well trigger a 3rd party run or party split, which might be necessary but also very dangerous.
Anonymous

It’s probably going to wind up being either Perry or Romney with a minority or female (probably Bachman or Palin) running mate. Anyone want to take bets against that? ;-)

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Not a chance I would bet against that. I’ve long said that it will probably be Romney, and he would be wise to pick Bachmann as his running mate. If it ends up being Perry (and a lot can happen between now and when we have an official Republican to run against Obama), he might need someone a bit squishier to soften his General Election image.

Personally, I prefer Bachmann. I like Perry’s economic policies, but, not real happy with his involvement with pushing social issues. Bachmann tends not to push her own social leanings through government.

Anonymous

The scariest thing about Perry is that he’s making me take a second look at Romney. I like Bachmann but can’t help the feeling she ought to be running for governor instead of President. Nobody goes from the House to the Presidency.

I’m just looking forward to the all-Indian ticket of Jindal/Haley in 2020.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

Yup. Romney is certainly squishy on certain things, but, on others, he is pretty good. I think he’d do a great job on the economy and mostly staying out of people’s private lives. Other things, squishy. Whether he truly believes in State’s rights, we’d have to see. Picking Bachmann would give him serious street cred with Conservatives. I’d love to see her as the candidate, and anything can happen, but, yeah, a Rep being elected would be tough.

President Friedman

Just a hunch, but regardless of who wins the primay, I don’t think they’ll tap any of the other GOP contenders for VP. I’m betting we’ll see either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio get the nod, and I lean towards Ryan.

President Friedman

Also, while I doubt it would happen, if Perry or Palin were to win it, I think they’d do well to pick Pawlenty as a VP. Either Pery or Palin are going to be a tough sell in midwestern and eastern states like Ohio and Pennsylvania (and the 2012 candidate has to win at least one of those states to have a chance in hell of winning), and Pawlenty’s record as a conservative governer in a moderate-to-blue state could hep them significantly. He might also be able to deliver Minnesota, which is something I’m not sure Bachman can do.

President Friedman

Just a hunch, but regardless of who wins the primay, I don’t think they’ll tap any of the other GOP contenders for VP. I’m betting we’ll see either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio get the nod, and I lean towards Ryan.
President Friedman

Just a hunch, but regardless of who wins the primay, I don’t think they’ll tap any of the other GOP contenders for VP. I’m betting we’ll see either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio get the nod, and I lean towards Ryan.

Anonymous

Perry is the only real choice this time around.

And Nixon noticed no one has mentioned that Barak Obama is a Stuttering Clusterf7ck of a Miserable Failure.

Lighthouse

Kept the country out of a depression, nailed Bin Laden, ended DADT, just for starters.

Failed presidents are forced to resign, Dick, just like your namesake.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Kept the country out of a depression, nailed Bin Laden, ended DADT, just for starters. ”

Made the recession, unemployment and the national debt worse by an order of magnitude, followed George W. Bush’s policies and took credit for success achieved by their use, and, yes, ended DADT. That’s a pretty piss-poor record, unless he was actively trying to screw up the country as much as possible in his one (and hopefully only) term.
Anonymous

Its humorous to see you throw in that little dig at Nixon considering that compared to Obama’s own scandal, guns-for-cartels, Watergate was a relative non-story.

http://www.vega.com Vega – Proud Liberal from NYC

Nixon!

Anonymous

Perry is the only real choice this time around.

And Nixon noticed no one has mentioned that Barak Obama is a Stuttering Clusterf7ck of a Miserable Failure.
President Friedman

Everything hinges on Palin.

If she’s not running, then I think Perry is pretty much a shoe in, like it or not (I lean towards not). Forget everything else, this is America and one should never underestimate the ability of folksy good looking people to win in politics if they can just stay away from big scandals (if my man Fred Thompson had just a little more in the looks department, he would have been the nominee in 2008, ‘fire in the belly’ be damned).

If Palin gets in the race, that’s when it gets interesting. Her and Perry will be fighting over the same group of voters, and if one doesn’t get the lion’s share of said voters, we could very likley see Romney benefit from the split and walk away with the Blue Ribbon.

I love elections.
I hate elections.

Anonymous

The article about Perry in Linkiest is a pretty good breakdown of the race. Basically if Perry doesn’t implode and if he picks a VP like Rudy or Christie that will make the Establishment giggle in delight, he’s all but won already.

As to your comment below, Rubio would be extremely popular and a natural fit for Perry. There would be shattering of teacups all over the Beltway with that ticket though. Romney would gain considerable Establishment support if Perry hinted he was going that direction.

President Friedman

Everything hinges on Palin.

If she’s not running, then I think Perry is pretty much a shoe in, like it or not (I lean towards not). Forget everything else, this is America and one should never underestimate the ability of folksy good looking people to win in politics if they can just stay away from big scandals (if my man Fred Thompson had just a little more in the looks department, he would have been the nominee in 2008, ‘fire in the belly’ be damned).

If Palin gets in the race, that’s when it gets interesting. Her and Perry will be fighting over the same group of voters, and if one doesn’t get the lion’s share of said voters, we could very likley see Romney benefit from the split and walk away with the Blue Ribbon.

I love elections.
I hate elections.
Lighthouse

All the republican candidates have too much baggage, both religious and political, to be electable as president.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Lighthouse

All the republican candidates have too much baggage, both religious and political, to be electable as president.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Anonymous

If that’s true, which I don’t believe for a moment, then I hope you enjoy Jimmah Cahtah’s third term.

http://www.vega.com Vega – Proud Liberal from NYC

Not a great list of choices here, but I guess they never are at this point.

Perry is of course the frontrunner and it’s going to be down to him and Romney. Romney has formed a national organization and raised tons of money. He’s in it for the long haul and he needs to be because he’s skipping Iowa (he’s following the McCain formula). Perry has really not been vetted by the public yet and once he is he will be taken down a peg.

But he would be the “base” candidate because the base won’t go gaga for Romney. But more moderate areas won’t go for Perry.

Bachman sent shivers throughout the nation with her win in the Iowa Poll so she is on the outs unless Perry totally stumbles. Because he still has the Jesus-credentials but he was also governor and is quite a shrewd politician.

Sarah Palin is not running, I don’t think. She can have quite a nice and famous life, with great influence and vast wealth, by not running.

Plus, she is a known commodity, and people don’t like her. Not in the way people don’t like Bachmann. No, people do NOT like Palin. And it’s the majority of the country. Base conservatives will always love her

(LMAO at the Susan B. Anthony reference. Palin, while accomplished, is not a feminist icon like Anthony. Conservatives see her that way because they’ve needed an attractive female dyed-in-the-wool conservative who isn’t hesitant about committing petty attacks while staying in an Ivory Tower) but she cannot change the opinions of that many people in the election.

Whereas Perry is pretty much an unknown commodity.

So it comes down to Perry, unless the moderates in Florida, New Hampshire, Michigan, etc. push Romney over the top.
http://www.vega.com Vega – Proud Liberal from NYC

Not a great list of choices here, but I guess they never are at this point.

Perry is of course the frontrunner and it’s going to be down to him and Romney. Romney has formed a national organization and raised tons of money. He’s in it for the long haul and he needs to be because he’s skipping Iowa (he’s following the McCain formula). Perry has really not been vetted by the public yet and once he is he will be taken down a peg.

But he would be the “base” candidate because the base won’t go gaga for Romney. But more moderate areas won’t go for Perry.

Bachman sent shivers throughout the nation with her win in the Iowa Poll so she is on the outs unless Perry totally stumbles. Because he still has the Jesus-credentials but he was also governor and is quite a shrewd politician.

Sarah Palin is not running, I don’t think. She can have quite a nice and famous life, with great influence and vast wealth, by not running.

Plus, she is a known commodity, and people don’t like her. Not in the way people don’t like Bachmann. No, people do NOT like Palin. And it’s the majority of the country. Base conservatives will always love her

(LMAO at the Susan B. Anthony reference. Palin, while accomplished, is not a feminist icon like Anthony. Conservatives see her that way because they’ve needed an attractive female dyed-in-the-wool conservative who isn’t hesitant about committing petty attacks while staying in an Ivory Tower) but she cannot change the opinions of that many people in the election.

Whereas Perry is pretty much an unknown commodity.

So it comes down to Perry, unless the moderates in Florida, New Hampshire, Michigan, etc. push Romney over the top.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well we’re not going to see a Washington/Jefferson election ever again. Its always one guy you don’t really like vs another guy you like even less.

http://www.vega.com Vega – Proud Liberal from NYC

Where are all the true geniuses?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I’ll take a man of honor, dignity, dedication, and honesty over a genius, really. Ordinary intelligence but a true heart and a will to serve trumps smart.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I’ll take a man of honor, dignity, dedication, and honesty over a genius, really. Ordinary intelligence but a true heart and a will to serve trumps smart.

http://www.vega.com Vega – Proud Liberal from NYC

Where are all the true geniuses?

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well we’re not going to see a Washington/Jefferson election ever again. Its always one guy you don’t really like vs another guy you like even less.

JoeBrit

Well here’s Rick Perry’s Tea Party values and what he will apparrently defend on the road. There’s just too much here that can be denied.

The Texas Tribune reviews Rick Perry’s book Fed Up! so you don’t have to read it yourself. It appears to me that Mr. Perry is a socially-conservative libertarian of the worst sort. He wants the federal government to do practically nothing and the federal courts to shut their collective pie holes. Yet, he’s concerned about cuts in defense spending; he wants the government investigating every failed pregnancy in the country; and he thinks Texas should be able put people on trial for sodomy. If you’re polling the issues, Mr. Perry seems to be on the minority side of pretty much everything. He dislikes everything that the government does that people value and respect, and he supports the kinds of things people don’t want the government doing, like inspecting their underpants. Ask him how he’ll protect Social Security and Medicare and he’ll tell you that he’ll dissolve those programs and leave it to the states to provide for the dignity of the elderly. Ask him how he’ll improve schools and he’ll tell you that he’ll get the federal government out of your business and leave it to local governments to worry about education. Ask him how he’ll prevent another financial catastrophe on Wall Street and he’ll tell you that he’ll get the federal government off Wall Street’s back, and then he’ll blame Fannie and Freddie for making loans to black people. Ask him if CEO-pay is too high and he’ll say it’s none of our business. Ask him about climate change and he’ll say it’s a scam carried out by unethical intellectuals. I don’t think a majority of the people support any of these positions. He’s going to run on a platform of ‘Elect me and I’ll do nothing except spend money on bombs and miscarriage investigations.” Doesn’t strike me as a winner. ….Booman/Booman Tribunehttp://www.boomantribune.com/