Mitt Romney Is Not Running In 2016

Mitt Romney appeared at the University of Utah today to meet with students at the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016.

Romney also made it clear to the overflow crowd of students, faculty and business leaders gathered to hear his 45-minute speech that he was done running for the White House after two unsuccessful tries.

"I've had two bites at the apple. Three strikes and you're out," he said.
Romney, who received hearty applause after a questioner thanked him for his 2008 and 2012 presidential races, jokingly suggested his wife, Ann, or son Josh — who lives in Utah — would be better candidates next time around.

Before the speech, Romney said he was "feeling bad I'm not in the White House," calling it a "great thrill to run for president" and an honor to have had the support of Utahns.

"The country faces real challenges, which unfortunately are not being addressed in the way I'd hope they'd be. A lot of people are hurting. A lot of people across the country can't find work," he said, including new college graduates.

I knew that Mitt Romney would not be running again in 2016. Its not that I had any inside information but I knew that he just wasn't going to run. I don't think he wants to become like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who have ran for President in multiple presidential elections. I also think he wants to move on and do other things whether it be in business or politics. 

There are many people (I am not one of them) who want Mitt Romney to run in 2016. There's even a Facebook group called Mitt Romney for President 2016 that has already been set up to promote that idea. Even though I am deeply saddened that Mitt Romney lost and I believe he would have made a great president, he made the right choice not to run again. 

As far as 2016 goes, I would like to see the following people throw their hats into the ring for that Presidential election: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Robert McDonnell, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts, Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Former U.S. Representative Allen West and former Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan. 

I also don't want the following people to run in 2016: Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, John Huntsman Jr., and Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee.
 

Do you think it was right for Mitt Romney to decide not to run in 2016? Who do you think should run in 2016?

Is Newt Gingrich Playing Passive-Agressive With Romney's Faith

Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne, the Pentecoastal pastor who runs the The River at Tampa Bay church, held a Newt Gingrich rally on church grounds. After the completion of that pro-Newt rally, Dr. Rodney-Brown explained to Florida voters that they can overlook Newt's affairs but they cannot accept Romney's faith:

After the event, Howard-Browne said that the marital infidelities of Gingrich, like all sinners, could be left in the past. 

'We've got to hold people accountable. But if they say they've asked for forgiveness then we have to go with what the word of God said - we have to forgive.'

He expressed grave reservations, however, about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. 

'Mormonism is a cult and that's the problem,' he said. 

'Mormonism, if you study the whole history of it, and I'm not trying to create a problem, but they had death squads that would go around kill everybody that wasn't a Mormon.'

Mormons, he said, were 'very honourable people, very clean-married, godly, family' and their faith had 'been doctored up and painted nicely.' But the 'problem is the additon to the scripture, which is the book of Mormon, and all the other additives that Joseph Smith brought to the table.'

Howard-Browne said he was not aligned with any candidate, though he left the church grounds in Gingrich's bus afterwards. Gingrich was not present for his prayer.

Dennis Prager, a well known Los Angeles conservative talk show host has this to say about those who believe Romney's faith is a cult or a bizzare religion:

This kind of rhetoric about a candidate's religion has no place in any political campaign. Pastors like Robert Jeffress and Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne are preaching a dangerous, false and dark idea that a candidate's faith is more important than his values. 

The good news is that other religious leaders have publicly stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. Influential Christians like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen , Richard J. Mouw, Reverend Franklin Graham and Reverend Rob Schenck have all stated that Christians can vote for a Mormon. The truth is that a candidate's values is more important than his faith. 

I recommend my readers to watch a debate between attorney Jay Sekulow and Pastor Robert Jeffress on Mitt Romney's religion because they discuss whether or not a candidate's faith or values is the primary issue voters should be using when deciding to vote for a candidate. Its a powerful and educational debate that every voter should watch.

Newt Gingrich is trying to play the same old tired strategy of playing passive-aggressive with Mitt Romney's faith. This strategy started with Mike Huckabee who employed this trick during the 2008 Presidential election. Other candidates like Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry have attempted to employ this tactic in this election before dropping out of this race.

What is so interesting is that Newt Gingrich, along with other 2012 candidates, denounced Pastor Robert Jeffress who supported Rick Perry and called Mormonism a cult. When Craig Bergman, who used to be the Iowa campaign director for Newt Gingrich's campaign called the LDS religion a cult,  the Gingrich team quickly dispatched a spokesman to repudiate Craig Bergman's statement: 

"He made a comment to a focus group prior to becoming an employee that is inconsistent with Newt 2012's pledge to run a positive and solutions orientated campaign," said R.C. Hammond, press secretary for Gingrich.

Another Iowa Gingrich campaign staffer emphasized that Newt did not agree with Mr. Bergman's statement: 

Linda Upmeyer, the chairwoman for Gingrich’s Iowa campaign, reached by telephone for reaction this afternoon, said she’s never heard Gingrich himself say anything negative about Mormonism.

“I’ve never had any discussion that resembled that with Speaker Gingrich,” Upmeyer said. “I have no doubt there are people that reject Mormonism but I’ve never engaged in a conversation regarding that, ever.”

Is this part of a new desperate strategy to defeat Romney by employing a passive-aggressive strategy against Mitt's religion? So far, there has been no response from Newt Gringrich's campaign. They haven't rushed out to repudiate Dr. Howard Rodney-Browne's statements about Romney's faith like they have with Pastor Jeffress or Craig Bergman. I hope and expect that the Gingrich campaign issue a statement distancing themselves from Rodney-Browne's statements about the LDS faith very soon.

Rick Perry To Suspend His Campaign Soon

The GOP race is getting very small very quickly. Jon Huntsman dropped out a couple of days ago and now Rick Perry is dropping out too: 

Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid Thursday for the Republican presidential nomination, two sources familiar with his plans told CNN.

The Texas governor will make the announcement before the CNN debate in South Carolina, the sources said.

The official announcement is expected to be aired on television within the next hour. However, the big question is who will he endorse? Will it be Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich? Apparently he's set to endorse Newt:

Perry will also endorse former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who appears to be gaining momentum in South Carolina. The endorsement could give Gingrich a critical boost just two days ahead of the Palmetto state primary. 

Rick Perry's suspending his campaign will affect the race. Newt Gingrich will get a bump in the polls but it will not be enough to catch up to Mitt Romney who has a significant lead in South Carolina. 

Why The Attacks On Bain Have Backfired on Perry and Gingrich

Sometime in the future when Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will suspend their campaign, they will have no one to blame but themselves for losing to Mitt Romney and failing to win the Republican nomination. They could have turned their campaigns around but they didn't. Instead, they chose to attack Romney for his work in Bain with the hopes of hurting him but instead they have damaged themselves beyond repair.

Below are several reasons why their ship is sinking and will continue to sink until they bow out of the race:

How The Attacks Have Hurt Them

1. The biggest reason why Gingrich and Perry's attacks on Bain have blown up in their faces is because these candidates who are willing to break Reagan's 11th commandment of attacking another conservative and going on to commit the ultimate unpardonable sin of disparaging Capitalism. For many conservatives, their is no atonement that is sufficient to redeem them from their mistake of launching an assult on capitalism. 

That's why  a big supporter of Rick Perry has backed off from supporting him and is now supporting Romney precisely because of his leftist attacks on Mitt Romney's work with Bain. Another Rick Perry supporter named Roger Simon has also abandoned Rick Perry for his assault on capitalism. 

2. It is impossible to believe their claims that they are not attacking capitalism but just attacking his record. Either they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how creative destruction works or that their knowledge of how free market economies work is getting in the way of their attempts to take Mitt down. These men are claiming that Romney's business was not capitalism but but a destructive, profit-driven perversion of it. Thanks to them, this is no longer a left-wing argument. They have now legitimized Obama's attacks on the free market which makes it harder for them to defeat Obama. Businesses know this and that's why they're rallying around Mitt. They know that they need someone who can defend capitalism and defeat Obama. Mitt's got both. 

3. If Gingrich or Perry become President, their attacks on Romney will come to haunt them. Obama will essentially argue that their attacks on Romney is an agreement with Obama's perspective on wall street, free markets and capitalism.  It will be hard for them to switch from being attackers of capitalism to defenders of capitalism. If they try to defend it, Obama will run attack ads against them using their own words. Mitt Romney has perfectly summed up the core issue of the 2012 election by saying that "Capitalism is on trial."

4. As a result of their attacks on Romney and his businesses, many businesses are choosing to rally around Mitt instead of the other GOP candidates. They've already had four years of Obama villifying businesses, they're not excited for enduring another four years from Obama. They're not excited to have a Republican in office who may or may not vilify them while in they're in office either. Hence, Mitt Romney is the smart choice for them. That's why it is no surprise that the chamber of commerce has told the two Republican candidates to shut up about their assault on capitalism. 

5. Not only are business not lining up behind Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich but the assault on Mitt Romney's career as a venture capitalist makes the Occupy Wall Streeters happy because it plays right into their argument that the 99% deserve to attack are being taken advantage of by the wealthy 1%. However, this argument doesn't make the 53% of Americans happy. They're tired of class warfare. They're tired of anti-capitalism. They're extremely unhappy at Perry and Gingrich because they've been vilified by the President and they don't want another four years of attacks on them from Democrat or Republican. That's why they're rallying around Mitt. At least he defends the American economic way of life.

6. The attack on Bain are far left tactics. It doesn't matter that the attacks on Bain have are not true, they will still press the attack hoping that it will hurt Romney. That's what liberals do. They will attack even if its factually not true because they think the attack works or that it actually does work. That's what Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman are doing. That's why Gingrich is airing segments of an anti-capitalist movie he's purchased in his false attack ads on Mitt. He's now desperate enough that he's now willing to buy a movie that uses every trick in the liberal play book in order to take down Romney. Even Michael Moore admires this movie.

7. When people are desperate they either show their true colors or their weakness. This is true for both Perry and Gingrich in that they have shown both at the same time as they continue to attack Mitt. They have shown themselves to be disloyal to conservative principles and they demonstrate how they really feel about the free market. As a result, Mitt Romney will most likely win South Carolina. 

 How The Attacks Have Helped Mitt

8. The Bain Attacks has had the opposite effect of uniting conservatives of all stripes into defending and supporting Mitt Romney. Conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and others are appalled at the leftist attacks from so-called conservatives. 

9. Politicians like Rudy Guiliani, Jim DeMint, Tim Pawlenty, and others are disturbed by these class warfare attacks from these so-called conservatives. Conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and The Club for Growth have come to Mitt's defense. 

10. These attacks have even got Mitt Romney's old Republican rivals like John McCain and Mike Huckabee to defend him. Moreover, they have gotten conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Philip Klein, who are well known for their dislike of Romney,  are now defending him.

11. Lets not overlook the fact that other GOP candidates, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have refused to join in on these attacks on Romney. They're actually defending Romney.

12. They are helping Mitt Romney in the general election by inoculating the public against attacks on Romney that will surely come from Obama:

Tony Fratto, a former Bush official who now operates his own consulting and communications firm told me, “It’s best for Gov. Romney and the party that . . . [Gingrich] chose New Hampshire to blow up, so there’s no chance of the GOP being saddled with with a Gingrich candidacy. The additional benefit to Romney is that we’ll have the Bain/private equity debate now in January instead of in the late-summer and fall. By the time the Obama campaign tries to raise it, voters will wonder why the president is raising an old issue.”

13. They're helping Mitt Romney make the case that he's the you go to in order to save an organization from economic failure. After all, he's saved many businesses from going under. He rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics. He's turned Massachusetts around. America needs a president who knows how to reduce the size of government by consolidating, restructuring, or eliminating government programs and firing government employees. 

As a result, the attacks on Romney's experience in the private sector has been a total flop. It may not even have any effect on the upcoming South Carolina Republican primary. It is pretty clear that these attacks on Mitt have backfired on them and it will lead to their demise in the South Carolina primaries or beyond if they choose to limp on to the next primary.

My Predictions for the New Hampshire Primary

For New Hampshire, it easy to make a prediction about who will win. Mitt Romney will have done what no candidate has done and that is to win Iowa and New Hampshire. No other presidential candidate has ever done that. The tricky part is whether or not he can win South Carolina. That will be the key hurdle for Romney to overcome. For the other candidates, its a little more difficult to predict but I'm gonna try.

Here are my predictions for Tuesday:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Rick Santorum
3. Jon Huntsman
4. Ron Paul
5. Newt Gingrich
6. Rick Perry

I don't see anybody dropping out. Not until all the candidates see how they perform in South Carolina. Jon Huntsman might drop out if actually comes out in 5th or 6th place. He's adopted the same strategy as Rick Santorum did for Iowa by spending lots of time and energy in New Hampshire. If he doesn't place in the top three, I can see him dropping out. But in all likelyhood, he'll hang by his fingernails until the South Carolina primaries. 

Once we get the South Carolina primaries, expect Perry and Huntsman to drop out. Ron Paul isn't the kind of person to drop out even when all indicators suggest he should. Newt Gingrich will move on to Florida with the hopes of damaging Romney in that state. The problem is that he doesn't have the resources or organizational strength to carry on his war on Romney. At some point, he will tap out of the race. Florida will be the last stand for Newt. Rick Santorum will also stay in the race until Florida and go on to battle Romney in Super Tuesday but will ultimately lose.

Mitt Romney Won The 2012 GOP New Hampshire Debate

For those of you who missed tonight's debate, you didn't miss much. In fact, it was a good thing you didn't watch the debates tonight since Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, the moderators for the debate, were horrible. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both went after the moderators on two separate occasions. 

George Stephanopoulos got ripped by Romney when he asked about whether or not he supports states banning contraception.Watch the clip below: 

George's question is ridiculous for so many reasons. As Mitt Romney pointed out, no state is currently proposing to ban contraception and its not even an issue in this election. It may have been an issue in the 1960s when the United States Supreme Court made its landmark decision upholding individuals having a right to contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut but its not an issue in this election. Liberals like George Stephanopoulos thinks its an issue since a few states wanted to pass laws stating that life begins at conception but these laws were aimed at abortion not contraceptives. The audience rightly applauded Mitt Romney for stating how ridiculous the question was and booing George Stephanopoulos for asking the question. 

Newt Gingrich also went after the moderators on the issue of gay marriage explaining that the media ignores the bigotry towards religion when it comes to issues of marriage, adoption and abortion: 

I just want to raise -- since we’ve spent this much time on these issues -- I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?

The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

The audience loved it. I loved it. He really stood up for all religions who are coerced by our government to provide services it opposes because it contradicts their deeply held religious views. 

You're all probably wondering who I think won tonight's debate. I'll give you the break down:

1. Mitt Romney won the debate hands down. Every news outlet including the post-debate analysis on ABC stated that he won. The reason why he won tonights debate was that most of the candidates didn't attack Romney and when they did, Mitt Romney swatted the attacks away. Mitt Romney began the debates by going after Obama on his failure to create jobs in America. Mitt Romney also gave an exceptional speech about American exceptionalism that sounded very much like the kind of debate speech Ronald Reagan would have given. He also did well in attacking Jon Huntsman over China with regard to trade imbalances, currency manipulation and corporate espionage. 

2. Rick Santorum did a good job tonight but he's in very distant second place. At one point, he tried to attack Romney for using the term "middle class" and called it class warfare rhetoric only to immediately attack wall street after making that comment. Moreover, that attack just came off as desperate and odd to many conservatives in the audience and at home. There were some moments when Rick Santorum did well tonight especially when he talked about how poorly Roe v. Wade was decided and his position on Iran and Afghanistan.  

3. I think tonight was Newt Gingrich's best debate performance. However, it wasn't enough to help him regain old position as a frontrunner in the campaign. The only highlight for me was his defense of traditional marriage and his response about whether or not we should stay in Afghanistan. The worst part for him is when he cited the New York times in his attack on Mitt Romney which is not the newspaper to cite if you're trying to impress a conservative audience. He was also clearly upset with Ron Paul for attacking him on Newt's deferments from the military during the Vietnam war. 

4. This debate was probably Rick Perry's best debate. The best moment for him was when he boldly stated that we should send our troops back into Iraq. I agree with that statement 100%. Rick Perry did a decent job in debating other issues. However, the biggest problem for Rick Perry a lot of people forgot that he was even at the debates until he spoke. That's bad news since Michelle Bachmann had the same problem and eventually dropped out of the race.  

5. Ron Paul was himself as usual. He got asked about his racist newsletters and he dodged the question by saying that Martin Luther King was his hero. However, its worth pointing out that in his own newsletter, they called MLK a philanderer who beat up his paramours and accuses him of seducing underage girls and boys. I also wish to remind people Ron Paul never issued a retraction for any of the racist articles that were published in his names. Yet a few weeks ago, he admitted that he did write in his newsletter but claims that he only wrote about economic issues in his newsletter. Another bad moment for Ron Paul is when he refused to state whether or not he would run a third party candidate in this election. As usual, Ron Paul thinks Iran is not a threat to the security of America or the world community. Ron Paul's only good moment is when he chastised Rick Santorum for interrupting him and going after Newt Gingrich on the issue of his deferments since he ruffled Gingrich's feathers pretty good.  

6. Jon Huntsman has never done well in any debates and I think tonight was his worst performance if you can believe that. Ever position he took was a liberal one whether it was same sex marriage, war or China which won't help him get any votes for Tuesday's New Hampshire Primary election.

Mitt Romney clearly won tonight's debate. Even though Mitt Romney is ahead in New Hampshire by a huge lead, tonight's debate will help him maintain his lead in that state. It will also help him maintain his huge lead in South Carolina. If Mitt Romney keeps up this momentum and wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, he'll wrap up the 2012 nomination early.

Reflecting On Tonight's Iowa Caucus

The most amazing thing about the Iowa Caucus is that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney,  who were initially  not expected to win Iowa, are running neck and neck right now. There are reports that Romney votes are possibly undercounted for Romney in 2 precincts.
Regardless if Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum take first place at the Iowa polls, their success tonight was impressive. Santorum was trailing in the polls badly until the very last minute when all the other candidates had experienced a parabolic rise and fall in support. Mitt Romney wasn't planning on even setting foot in Iowa and then got into the game very late and managed to get perform very well tonight. I cannot substantiate this claim but think Mitt's performance in the Iowa Caucus was better in 2012 than it was four years ago in 2008. 

Although anything can still go on from now until the primary season is over, I think you will see that this race will be a competition between Romney and Santorum from now on. 

I previously thought it would be a race between Newt and Romney but I no longer believe this. Gingrich has vowed to go after Mitt Romney since Romney did a great job neutralizing Newt before the Iowa Primaries. Gingrich has been bitching about how effective Romney's SuperPac was in running ads against him yet he makes no complaint about Ron Paul's attack ads against him. Regardless, Newt Gingrich's own SuperPac is set to go on the attack on Mitt Romney.  As a result, I think Newt knows he will never be in the front runner position again and is now dedicated to hurting Mitt Romney as much as he can before he is forced to withdraw from the campaign.

Other candidates will try to rise to the top again but I doubt it lightning will strike twice for them. They will be stuck in the second or third tier status until they drop out. Rick Perry announced tonight that he will be reassessing his campaign which could mean anything from another shake up in his staff to resigning from the race. However, I think Rick Perry will probably stay in the race and see what happens in the South Carolina primary. Sarah Palin has suggested that Michelle Bachmann drop out and endorse someone else. Jon Huntsman virtually ignored the Iowa caucuses and is putting all of his energies into winning the New Hampshire primary. I find this odd since he knows he will get clobbered in New Hampshire and will either resign or limp on towards South Carolina. 

South Carolina is THE primary to watch this year. All the second and third tier candidates will be making that state their last stand. After South Carolina, I expect everyone to drop out except Mitt, Santorum and Ron Paul.  

My Predictions For The Iowa Caucus

Here are my predictions for who will win the Iowa Caucus tomorrow:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Rick Santorum
3. Ron Paul
4. Newt Gingrich 
5. Rick Perry 
6. Michelle Bachmann 
7. Jon Huntsman 

Even if Ron Paul does manage to win Iowa, he will probably get shut out from getting any of the delegates from that state since the Iowa Caucus. 

After Iowa, New Hampshire is the next Republican primary election. I can't see Jon Huntsman and Michelle Bachmann continuing on in the race once they get the results back from New Hampshire. Jon Huntsman has stated that New Hampshire will determine whether he will stay in the race. Michelle Bachmann will probably not be able to continue on after two straight losses. While Iowa is first in the nation, the real election to watch is South Carolina and Florida. Whoever wins these primaries will have a good momentum going into Super Tuesday.

The other thing to watch is the endorsements of those candidates who drop out of the race. I am predicting that Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman will probably endorse Rick Santorum once they withdraw from the candidacy. Ron Paul has stated that he will probably not endorse anyone when he drops out of the race. If Rick Santorum drops out of the race, I predict he will endorse Mitt Romney since he endorsed him in the 2008 Presidential elections. If Newt Gingrich drops out of the race, he will most likely endorse Mitt Romney.

Rick Perry's Gambling Problem

While people are focusing on Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet, not to many people are focusing on the fact that Rick Perry has double standard when it comes to gambling. When Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry to take that bet, he declined saying "I'm not in the betting business." Really?

In 2010, the State of Texas was facing an $18 billion budget deficit and the state legislature was again considering expanding gambling in the state, in order to make up some of that deficit, according to a news story in the May 12, 2010 edition of the Dallas Morning News.

Nothing major was proposed, such as permitting casinos in the state or legalizing online gambling.

The suggestions, on the contrary, were pretty innocuous by gambling standards, and included such things as legalizing slot machines at existing horse and dog tracks in the state.

But Governor Perry quickly put his foot down and stamped out any possibility of expansion of any kind of gambling in the Lone Star State, announcing during a public appearance in Richardson, Texas: "The Texas Legislature may find that it (a bill expanding gambling) is something they're interested in--I would highly recommend they don't send it to my desk."

Then, earlier this year, when the issue arose again, "Puritanical" Perry again stomped on it.

After the Fort Worth Star-Telegram printed the results of an opinion poll that showed that 45% of Texans favor expanding gambling in the state while just 34% oppose it, Perry told the newspaper in its January 10, 2011 edition: "I have consistently been an opponent to expanding the gambling footprint in Texas and continue to maintain that position."

Perry's anti-gambling position would be easier to stomach if it were pure.

But it's not.

Like most politicians, he's a phony, easily exposed when one follows the money.

In this case, it's campaign money, and the portrait it paints ain't pretty.

According to official campaign documents examined by G911.co Perry in 2007 and 2008 received a total of $793,356 in campaign donations from gambling entities, including horse and dog racing tracks in Texas and Indian tribal casinos in Oklahoma (the tracks want slot machines, the tribes don't want casinos in Texas).

That makes Perry the No. 2 recipient in the state over that time period of donations from gambling interests, behind top recipient David Dewhurst, the state's lieutenant governor, who got $851,350.

So on one hand, Perry disdains any more gambling in the State of Texas.

But on the other hand--or more precisely in the other hand--he's happy to grab all the gambling cash he can.

Not only is Rick Perry hypocritical when it comes to the issue of gambling, but he's very selective about the kind of gambling he supports. Rick Perry supported privatized video gambling and flip flopped on his support for it. You may not be aware of the fact that Rick Perry used funds from the Foundation School Fund to pay lobbyists to promote video gambling in Texas. In fact, Rick Perry called for a special session of the Texas state legislature in 2004 to consider the issue of legalizing video lottery in Texas: 

To consider legislation and amendments to the constitution that authorize and allow the placement and licensing of video lottery terminals at licensed racetracks and certain Indian reservations, providing that the revenue derived from such activity is dedicated to the Educational Excellence Fund, providing that the racetracks and tribes sign a contract with the state. 

A few years later in 2007, Rick Perry urged the Texas Legislature to allow private gambling business to either buy the state's lottery system or lease it.

Rick Perry reminds me of Obama. Obama will speak out against big corporations, support the Occupy Wall Street protesters and villifiy the rich but he'll happily take their campaign donations while mingling with them. Rick Perry does the same thing with the gambling business. Rick Perry may not be a gambling man but he'll take a firm stand against them but he'll gladly accept their campaign donations. 

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.

Rick Perry Would Have Lost Mitt Romney's $10,000 Bet

Much is being made of Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet on last night's Iowa Republican debate. Many people are focusing on the amount Romney put up for the bet and blasting him for being wealthy enough to put up that kind of money while others are criticizing him for making a childish bet. 

The point of the bet was to prove that Rick Perry was being dishonest in his false claim that there are with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book regarding Mitt's position about his own health health care plan. Had Rick Perry accepted that bet, he would have lost. 

The Washington Post fact checked Perry's claim and found that Rick Perry would have lost that bet:

This is when Romney offered to make a $10,000 bet and Perry declined to take it. Smart man, because he would have lost the money.

We explored this issue before when Perry made this claim in a television ad, giving Perry Three Pinocchios. And here is a PDF of the paperback edition showing the pages in question.

Perry is making a phony claim.

It is clear that the hardcover edition was written when Obama’s health-care plan was still a work in progress. For instance, Romney spends some time denouncing the idea of a public option as “government-supplied insurance.” The paperback was published after the health-care law was passed, so the paragraphs on the public option — which had been abandoned by Obama — are dropped.

Romney also must have sensed that GOP anger at Obama’s health-care law might make his own signature legislative achievement less attractive to Republican voters, so he added a few paragraphs emphasizing how the Democratic governor who followed him made changes in the law that he did not approve of. But otherwise the changes are minimal — the standard updating that takes place in paperback nonfiction books.

The non-partisan website PolitiFact.com says Rick Perry's claim is mostly false:

Perry's grievance is with differences between hardcover and paperback editions of Romney's book. We've combed through Chapter 7 of both.

Romney's changes to the book have been explored before, by Boston political journalist David S. Bernstein. He noted in February 2011 that Romney had added harsher language on the national health care law as passed: "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and, "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Romney more clearly explained ways that he disagreed with implementation of the Massachusetts law.

He also changed this line, which came after a paragraph touting the success of the Massachusetts health plan:

Hardcover: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

To:

Paperback: "And it was done without government taking over health care."

The deleted 11 words, "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" are the crux of Perry's argument. His campaign sent e-mail the day after the debate with a link highlighting precisely that change.

It looks suspicious, right? Perhaps Romney did extol every piece of his Massachusetts plan, individual mandate and all, for every state in the union.

But here's the original quote with full context from Page 177 of the hardcover: 

"My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.

"What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It's portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

Romney's not really saying the Massachusetts law "should be the model for the country," the way that Perry describes it. He's in fact presenting a defense of state-level choice. It's like a shout-out to other state leaders: Hey, you can have what Massachusetts has!

And it's consistent with what Romney fired back at Perry in the Sept. 22, 2011 debate: "This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan." And with how he characterized his own book in the most recent debate: "I say, in my view, each state should be able to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens."
Romney did support Massachusetts' individual mandate. But we don't see evidence in his hardcover book that he supported a federal one, much less that he removed such a reference from later editions.

Other news outlets have fact checked Perry's claim and have found that Rick Perry would have lost that bet. However, too many people are focusing on Romney's bet rather than on the fact that Rick Perry has repeatedly made a claim that can be factually to be proven false. The good news is that despite the fact that Rick Perry declined to take that bet, he lost in that exchange because he keeps pushing a claim against Romney that has been debunked before. Rick Perry doesn't care about the truth, he only wants to hurt Mitt Romney. 

This plan will backfire on Rick Perry because voters care more about the truth rather than scoring political points or scaring voters into not voting for that candidate.

Mitt Romney And Rick Perry's "Oops" Moment In The CNBC Debate

Much has been said about Rick Perry's blunder at the CNBC debate last night really damaged his campaign. Rick Perry's inability to mention the three federal agencies will be a small factor for why he will not win the GOP nomination.  Another small factor in his eventual loss in this election is that not only could Rick Perry not remember what his own proposals were, but he looked to a GOP rival, Ron Paul, (of all people) for help in remembering his own position. This doesn't make him look like a leader at all.

The biggest factor why Rick Perry will not get the Republican nomination and go on to campaign against President Obama is that he doesn't know his own policy positions that well. Mat Bai, writing for the Washington Post, explains this point clearly:

There’s nothing more central to Mr. Perry’s campaign than the idea of scaling back the government in Washington — that’s pretty much the whole tamale right there — and what he proved last night, in 60 or so agonizing seconds, is that he hasn’t thought deeply enough about it to even master the basics of his own agenda.

Mitt Romney, sensing a good opportunity to capitalize on this glaring weakness, suggested the EPA to Perry when he was struggling to list the three agencies he's like to get rid of:

Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: "And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what's the third one there? Let's see."

Perry then paused and there was audible laughter in the room. Texas Rep. Ron Paul then chimed in "You need five," to which Perry responded, "Oh, five, OK. So Commerce, Education, and the..."

Romney then suggested, "EPA?" to which Perry responded, "EPA, there you go, no..." with laughter from the candidate and the audience.

Moderator John Harwood from CNBC then asked, "Seriously, is the EPA the one you were talking about?"

"No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government -- the EPA needs to be rebuilt. There's no doubt about that," Perry responded.

Capitalizing on this moment of weakness was a stroke of brilliance for Mitt Romney. Rick Perry's knee jerk rejection of Romney's suggestion led him to make a minor gaffe about the EPA. Rick Perry was so busy dismissing his rival Mitt Romney that he also rejected the EPA as a federal agency until he caught himself and made a quick comment that it ought to be reformed.

Its clear that Rick Perry liked the idea of eliminating the EPA until he turned around to see who suggested the idea and then rejected it once he realized the idea came from Mitt Romney. Watch Rick Perry swat Mitt's suggestion away below:

The significance and brilliance of Mitt Romney's suggestion to Rick Perry is how little Perry knows his own policy position and exposed the fact his positions may not even be his own:  Matt Bai picks up on this subtle point:

The problem is that he didn’t seem to know the basic details of his own proposal. Here he was calling for what would be a truly radical restructuring of the federal government — involving many thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars in federal expenditures — and he didn’t have a grasp on which sprawling departments he would shutter. It seemed the idea was not his own, but rather something he had tried and failed to memorize.

This fact is demonstrated in the YouTube clip I posted above. If you listen carefully, after Rick Perry blunders through his comments on the EPA, he attempts to restate the three agencies that he would like to eliminate and Mitt Romney had to help him with the second agency by telling him it was the commerce department.Its clear that Rick Perry doesn't know his own positions or the positions of his opponents since its also important to mention how badly he botches his attack on Mitt Romney's health care plan in a previous debate. 

Perhaps the most significant point about Rick Perry's inability to state his own plans for which federal departments to eliminate is that it is painfully clear that he dived into the 2012 race without seriously thinking about it or what his positions are. 

In contrast, Mitt Romney done so well in every debate for precisely the reason Rick Perry hasn't. Mitt is solid in articulating his own positions. He's also fairly knowledgeable about the other competitor's positions and has seriously thought through WHY their positions are so flawed.  Mitt Romney's suggestion was a stroke of brilliance because it was a clever way to distinguish himself from Perry in a very powerful way that voters will not forget.

As a result, Mitt Romney is the best person to go up against Barack Obama since he has a firm command of his own positions and the positions of his opponents. Moreover, Mitt Romney has a keen ability to distinguish himself from his competitors either verbally or in the heat of the moment in the debate and he can do that in his debates with Obama. As a result, I'm excited to see Mitt Romney take on Obama in the 2012 Presidential debates.

Rick Perry Can't Remember Which Agency He Would Get Rid Of

Rick Perry has done horribly in every debate he's been in so far. In tonight's debate, Rick Perry couldn't remember which federal agencies he'd like to cut and some of the candidates had to help him out. Watch the cringe worthy video below:

Here's an article that captures the exchange:

Perry was discussing his jobs plan and his flat tax plan when he said: "And I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the... what's the third one there? Let's see."

Perry then paused and there was audible laughter in the room. Texas Rep. Ron Paul then chimed in "You need five," to which Perry responded, "Oh, five, OK. So Commerce, Education, and the..."

Romney then suggested, "EPA?" to which Perry responded, "EPA, there you go, no..." with laughter from the candidate and the audience.

Moderator John Harwood from CNBC then asked, "Seriously, is the EPA the one you were talking about?"

"No, sir, no, sir. We were talking about the agencies of government -- the EPA needs to be rebuilt. There's no doubt about that," Perry responded.

"But you can't name the third one?" Harwood asked.

"The third agency of government I would, I would do away with, the Education, the... Commerce and, let's see," Perry said, as his brain freeze continued.

Finally, Perry gave up, saying:  "I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."  (Watch the whole exchange above at left)

However, a few minutes later in the debate, Perry remembered that the third department was the Energy Department. "By the way that was the Department of Energy I was reaching for a while ago," he said with a chuckle when he was asked another question.

Just for kicks, I'm posting Rick Perry's two of Perry's gaffes from previous debates. Here's Perry struggling to form a coherent attack on Mitt:

Here's Rick Perry telling conservatives that they don't have a heart if they oppose tuition for illegals: 

CNN Debate: Rick Perry Still Won't Repudiate Pastor Robert Jeffress "Mormons Are A Cult" Comment

At the CNN Debate tonight, Rick Perry was given the opportunity to repudiate Pastor Robert Jeffress and he passed on it: 

It was only tonight that the subject came up when the two stood side by side at the CNN debate.

Perry immediately said that he "didn't agree with that individual's statement."

"Our founding fathers truly understood and had an understanding of freedom of religion," Perry said. "We also are a country that is free to express our opinions. That individual expressed an opinion. I didn't agree with it, Mitt, and I said so. But the fact is, Americans understand faith. And what they've lost faith in is the current resident of the White House."

Here is the fully reply from Mitt Romney:

“With regards to the disparaging comments about my faiths, I’ve heard worse.  So I’m not going to lose sleep over that.  Actually, what I found most troubling about the Reverend’s introduction was when he said, “In choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion.  And someone who is a good, moral person is not whom we should select.  Rather, we should elect someone based on their religious beliefs.” 

“That idea – that we should choose them base on their religion for public office — is what I find most troubling. The founders of this country went to great length to make sure – even put it in the Constitution – that we shouldn’t choose people to lead this country based on their religion, that this would be a country that would respect other faiths, where there’s plurality of faith, where there’s tolerance for people of other faiths.  That’s a bedrock principal and it was that principal Governor, that I wanted you to say its wrong.  Rather than say, “Reverend Jeffress, you knocked that out of the park,” I wanted you to say, “Reverend Jeffress, you got that wrong. 

“We should select people not based on their faith.”  And I don’t expect you to distance yourself from your faith any more than I would. But the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think, is a very dangerous and enormous departure from the principles of our Constitution.”

Rick Perry's claim that he didn't agree with Pastor Jeffress' statement is weak. I don't buy it that it was a sincere or honest disavowal of what the pastor said. Even if you believe this is a legitimate repudiation of Robert Jeffress' religiously bigoted statements, its taken him a week to reject those statements. He should have repudiated it immediately. But he didn't.

The reason why Rick Perry avoided repudiating what Pastor Robert Jeffress has said about Mormons being a cult is because he's trying still trying to get as much mileage as he can playing passive agressive with Mitt Romney's faith.

As I wrote in an earlier blog,  Rick Perry will not attack Romney's faith personally but will use surrogates do do his dirty work because its a strategy he's learned from Karl Rove: 

Scott McLean, a political scientist at Quinnipiac University and presidential election analyst, told FoxNews.com that he believes the Perry campaign orchestrated Jeffress’ attack on Romney’s faith “to test the waters.”

“Rick Perry cut his teeth with Karl Rove,” he said, referring to the former senior adviser to President Bush who is now a Fox News analyst. “Rove knows when you go on the attack, make sure a surrogate does it for you. Rick Perry followed that script to the letter.”

McLean said he expects Perry surrogates to launch more under-the-radar attacks on Romney’s faith to make Romney look less attractive.

“Romney’s campaign is premised on ‘I’m the most electable,’” he said. “What they have to do is show that isn’t so.”

Perry supporters have not been shy or secretive about their plans to attack Mitt Romney's faith using surrogates:

Evangelical Perry supporters said one thing that could be done to unseat Mr. Romney from his front-runner spot is to have surrogates plant doubt among Republican primary voters about the former Massachusetts governor’s Mormonism, something that is widely thought to have contributed to his poor showing in the 2008 Republican primaries and caucuses.

“This is not a difficult task, but one that must be done,” Mr. Brinson said. “You can’t have people raising the Mormon issue front and center, but you can raise the question as surrogates about the language of faith that we used successfully against Romney in 2008 when we worked for Mike Huckabee. It is all about semantics.”

The plan to use "semantics" can be clearly seen on how Pastors like Jeffress and Discoll use the word "cult" to attack Romney's faith. To understand how they're playing this semantical game, you'd have to understand the original meaning of the word cult:  

One of the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least eight new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that Evangelical Perry supporters will not use the term in its original meaning nor will they be using it in a positive or neutral manner. While these pastors admit Mormons are not a cult in the cultural or sociological term, they're still a cult nonetheless because that religion is a "theological cult." 

However, its important to note that these different categories of cults is nothing more than a pejorative term that is arbitrary, subjective, capricious and designed to scary people away from that religion. They are intentionally using the term "cult" for manipulative purposes. David French, a Evangelical who runs the website, Evangelical For Mitt, in an article for National Review, points out how manipulative this semantical game they're playing really is:

While it’s hard to know which of these three claims is most explosive, the “cult” claim is certainly the most pejorative. Conjuring up images of robed, chanting, mind-controlled followers of the likes of Charles Manson and David Koresh, the word is far more inflammatory than illuminating. Anyone who is remotely familiar with Mormonism knows that it bears zero resemblance to a “cult” as commonly understood. And Jeffress himself now seems to recognize that, saying this morning on Fox News that Mormonism is a “theological cult,” not a “sociological cult.” But what is a “theological cult?” How does that differ from, say, a “faith”? It appears that Pastor Jeffress is trying to maintain the use of a slur while shifting its definition beyond all recognition.

Once you are aware how some Evangelical Christians and most Counter-Cult Movements(CCM) use this term, you'll see its nothing more than a subjective and arbitrary term because it really depends on the perspective of who is using that term. One person's religion is can be considered by another person to be a "cult".

In fact, given that many different people use the word cult so differently and so often, the term has been rendered meaningless. The website, Religious Tolerance explains why:

We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans, other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.

Yet, to Evangelical supporters of Rick Perry, the original meaning of the word or how meaningless the term has become today will not deter them from going on the offensive against Mitt Romney's religion. Perry supporters will be using more Pastors as surrogates and use semantics to attack Romney's faith. In fact, this plan is already underway as another Pastor has come forward echoing Robert Jeffress' statement that Mormons are a cult: 

Mark Driscoll, pastor of the high-profile Seattle-based Mars Hill Church, has added his voice to the fray -- agreeing that Christians should consider Mormons as members of a "cult" and not "brothers and sisters in a common faith."

Writing on his website Tuesday, Driscoll goes on at length about the various definitions of a cult. He is careful to say that Mormonism has "outgrown" the popular culture and sociological definitions of a cult because of its enormous growth and general acceptance in the nation.

But, Driscoll writes, Mormonism "is most certainly a cult theologically speaking because it deviates substantially from historic Orthodox Christian belief about essential issues related to God, humanity, and salvation." And it's not just that it differs, he says, but also that "it claims Christianity while subtly subverting it in both practice and theology."

The only way to respond to these attacks is to call "the game" by pointing out what they're attempting to do rather than trying to refute the false accusation that Mormons are a cult. 

Once you open people's eyes to what they're doing, the effectiveness of using surrogates to attack Mitt Romney's religion via semantical word games decreases dramatically because people will see the true intent of their attacks, how they are carrying out the attacks and the intended result they hope to have with these assaults on Romney's faith.  

Mitt Romney Advisor Mark DeMoss Believes Rick Perry Is Promoting Anti-Mormon Message

Mark DeMoss, a well known evangelical works as an unpaid consultant to Mitt Romney believes the Rick Perry campaign is intentionally encouraging anti-Mormon messages to be promoted on behalf of his campaign to attract Evangelical voters:

A top evangelical Christian adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Monday he believes Texas Gov. Rick Perry's campaign may be intentionally injecting the issue of Romney's Mormon faith into the Republican presidential primary.

"A week ago I would have said there's no way, I can't conceive of a major candidate's campaign intentionally using such tactics," said Mark DeMoss, an Atlanta-based public relations executive who works primarily with evangelical leaders and is an unpaid adviser to Romney. "It was inconceivable to me that that could be the case, just because I think it's not smart politically."

But Demoss told The Huffington Post that the actions of Texan Baptist Pastor Robert Jefress -- who first thrust the Mormonism issue into the campaign 10 days ago -- have given him "doubt" about whether the Perry campaign is as removed from attacks on Romney's faith as it has tried to appear.

"I would have bet money when Robert Jeffress surfaced there in Washington and then started going on TV programs that somebody would have gotten him to stop doing interviews. And he did them for a couple days," DeMoss said. "That's what made me question it whether they wanted him doing it or not. If they didn't want him doing it, I think they could have stopped him from doing it. I think they would have asked him and said, 'This isn't helping us.'"

In addition, new information came to light Sunday that suggests the Perry campaign has at least been in touch with operatives who are actively promoting the anti-Mormon narrative among voters. David Lane, a Perry backer and political organizer who moves in evangelical circles, wrote an associate in an email that was published by The Daily Beast that "getting out Dr. Jeffress [sic] message, juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false god of Mormonism, is very important in the larger scheme of things." 

Some people are promoting Rick Perry as the man who can save the soul of the country. However, Mark DeMoss disputes that claim: 

"The president cannot 'save the soul of America' -- whatever that even means. No president is capable of saving the soul of America," DeMoss said. "I would argue that only God could save the soul of America. That's not showing any disrespect to Gov. Perry. Billy Graham can't save the soul of America. It's not the president's role or job and no president could do it if it was their job."

When Mark DeMoss was asked whether or not he thinks Mormonism is a form of Christianity, DeMoss explains that that he has theological differences with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but those differences are not relevant in a secular and political matter such as elections:

"I don't care in the context of a presidential election," DeMoss said. "It's a theological distinction and I'm not making a theological decision in the general or primary election. So I don't engage in discussions or debates about Mormon theology or Christian theology in this context, other than to say that what Gov. Romney would say himself, which is that we have different theology in many points, but beyond that it's an unnecessary and, frankly, an unfair distraction. So I don't get into that."

Perry Camp Doubles Down On Religious Bigotry

Rick Perry's campaign stepped into controversy when he was informed that Pastor Robert Jeffress would introduce him at the Value Voters Summit last week. Mitt Romney asked Rick Perry to disavow the statements made by Pastor Jeffress. However, Rick Perry refused to apologize. 

Despite the fact that the Perry campaign is playing passive aggressive with Mitt Romney, Rick Perry's wife makes the jaw dropping claim that the Perry campaign has been brutalized because of their faith:

“It’s been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today,” she said. “We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith. He is the only true conservative – well, there are some conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”

Not surprisingly, Rick Perry didn't disavow what his wife had said by stating that his wife was right.

Its hard to believe Mr. and Mrs. Perry's claim that they are being brutalized because of their faith. They weren't brutalized at all. Perry rode into the race at the top of the polls and remained there for the first three of these debates, only sliding downward after the third debate in Orlando. In an act of desperation,  Rick Perry allowed Pastor Jeffress to spew religious bigotry on his behalf to solidify evangelical support and to rise back up in the polls. Rick Perry will never repudiate the Pastor and will use the religion card to bash Mitt Romney until the bitter end.

What is even more despicable is that the Perry campaign wants to play the victim card despite the fact that they were the ones who were brutalizing Mitt Romney's faith. While they will be playing the victim card, Rick Perry will continue to attack Romney's faith by using proxies and surrogates. In fact, its already happening now:

Evangelical Perry supporters said one thing that could be done to unseat Mr. Romney from his front-runner spot is to have surrogates plant doubt among Republican primary voters about the former Massachusetts governor’s Mormonism, something that is widely thought to have contributed to his poor showing in the 2008 Republican primaries and caucuses.

“This is not a difficult task, but one that must be done,” Mr. Brinson said. “You can’t have people raising the Mormon issue front and center, but you can raise the question as surrogates about the language of faith that we used successfully against Romney in 2008 when we worked for Mike Huckabee. It is all about semantics.”

They know they can't directly attack Mitt Romney's faith. They will have to do it by subtle and indirect means just as they did in the last Presidential election. However, the difference between the 2008 election and the 2012 election is that in the previous election, opponents of Mitt Romney were not openly talking about attacking Mitt's faith as they are now. The fact that using semantics as an indirect way to attack Mitt Romney's faith doesn't make their activities any more acceptable. 

Its clear that Rick Perry and his supporters are using the same old passive aggressive strategies that was effective in the last presidential election. However, it won't work this time because Americans can recognize this strategy now. The fact that Rick Perry's religious supporters are openly discussing ways to attack Mitt Romney's religious doesn't help the Perry campaign either.

Unlike Evangelicals who are struggling to rally around Rick Perry and are determined to use religion to defeat Romney, Mitt Romney hasn't attacked other any other candidate's religion and he enjoys strong evangelical support. Check out the website Evangelicals For Mitt to see why they have been supporting Romney since the 2008 Presidential Election.