Monday, December 12, 2011

There May Be Something More To Romney's $10,000 Bet With Rick Perry

A lot of people are still making a fuss about Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet with Rick Perry during the Iowa Debates. It has been brought to my attention that Romney was intentionally making subtle reference to some recent high profile bets that have been taking place. 
It may have been a reference to a bet was made between Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling for $10,000 that President Obama could beat either Romney or Gingrich in the 2012 general election. 
Mitt Romney could have also been referring to a bet that was placed between US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Ted Balestreri, a co-owner of the Sardine Factory restaurant in Mr Panetta's home town of Monterey. They made a bet that if Leon Panetta tracked down Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Balestri would open his oldest wine bottle in his collection. The bottle, a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild from 1870, is worth $10,000.
Romney might have also been referring to a bet that took place on Bill O'Reily's Fox News television show, The Factor. A few years ago, The Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen was on Bill O’Reilly’s show and demanded that CNN fire Lou Dobbs because he believed that he was giving in accurate reports on the issue of immigration. In response, O’Reilly was absolutely confident that CNN would not respond to Mr. Cohen's request to fire Lou Dobbs that he was willing to bet Cohen $10,000.
Mitt Romney may have had another high profile bet in mind that I have not mentioned. However, it doesn't matter what event Mitt Romney was alluding to when he made that bet with Rick Perry. 
What does matter is that $10,000 bet was not a spontaneous offer by Mitt Romney but appears to have been planned before hand. Romney could have offered Rick Perry a $10 or a $500,000 bet, yet he chose the $10,000 amount. 
Why did he choose that amount?  The Romney team probably expected the media and liberals to jump on Mitt Romney for making a huge bet in a time when our country's economy isn't doing well. With this in mind, they laid out a trap that would expose the media and liberal hypocrisy over the outrage that would surely come once he made that bet because they didn't express any outrage at any of the high profile, public and expensive bets that have been placed since the housing market collapsed in 2008.  
Please note that Bob Beckel is a well known liberal who makes a frequent appearance on Fox News and there was no outrage by liberals or the media when he made that bet. Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen is a liberal who attempted to collect on Bill O'Reilly's bet.
It appears that that this bet was designed to highlight two things: (1) Rick Perry was not being truthful about the changes made in Romney's hardback and paperback editions of his book, No Apology and (2) to highlight the hypocrisy behind the media's outrage towards the bet that would have surely come as soon as that bet was offered. 
Regardless if Mitt Romney was just making a bet with Rick Perry that he knew Rick Perry would lose or if he also did it to intentionally highlight the expected hypocrisy from liberal commentators and news reporters, the hypocrisy exist. And the media may deny that the hypocrisy exists but America will see it.


  1. I think all the attention about the bet is ridiculous. I think it's more ridiculous that Rick Perry would bring up that in which he failed at fact checker long ago. Obviously, Romney was showing that Rick Perry was wrong again. To read more into it as the media has, is silly and I think most reasonable folks realize that. Heck, he should've bet a million.

  2. The Beckel bet was last week! Coincidence? Suuuure. Whatever the real game plan, when Romney throws these things out there, he always has good cover,as well as plausible deniability of the strategy. Consider the whole Newt "suicide-bomb" on Monday (rhetorically speaking, of course). It got Newt's goat and it raises questions about his principles and the nature of his work as "an historian". Best of all, Romney has ample cover not only by Newt's previous comments praising him, but by the fact that Romney actually volunteered his time to the Olympics and to the MA governorship. Called to serve, indeed! Wayto go Team Romney!

  3. I am now thinking that a couple core elements of what appears to be a "Romney as Provacateur" strategy include:
    A) having a good cover to limit, if not eliminate the potential for any real fallout
    B) using material that maximizes the potential for multiple positive effects (immediate and longer term)
    The media, Obama, DNC, Perry, Gingrich, etc. risk exposing themselves to greater political harm if they push any one of these recent issues too hard or too long. Yep. That, too, would be just one more of the possible positive effects. Think about it. The ad, the bet, and the swipe Gingrich’s earnings as a "historian" (LOL). Even the "corporatons are people, too" bit works! On any of these, the more the attacks on Romney build, the better his cover works. I'll bet 2 cents that there are more examples. Win-Win all the way around. It is amazing what can be done when the truth is on your side. I love it!

  4. Rick Perry loves gambling cash

  5. Harman Cain defends Mitt