The press wants Perry to run against Obama.
Today, the quorum was reached. Obama wants to face Perry.
And he did it with a knife in Romney's heart.
Obama's SuperPAC released a web ad today (total spent putting it up on web sites so far -- $100,000) that effectively blows Romney out of the water with the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses right around the corner.
Here's a transcript of the ad: we open with a series of quotes from people like Shrub's advisor Karl Rove that Obama will lose in 2012. It then shifts into "wired to the eyeballs on espresso" mode. A series of quotes from Romney appear, where he says he is a fan of the Tea Party, his monumentally stupid "corporations are people" line, Chris Wallace from Faux News grilling Romney over Bain Capital laying off workers from companies it bought, and more Romney quotes about his support of Justices Scalia and Thomas, social security privatization, cutting Medicare and Planned Parenthood, and more. It ends with Romney saying, "It's not a very pretty picture."
Some pundits who claim to be veteran political watchers are wondering why Obama is releasing such an ad now instead of saving its ammo. After all, Romney is already flaming out, he's likely to be toast by the time Iowa and New Hampshire roll around. These people need to go back to school. The ad makes Romney a sacrificial lamb to send a message to Perry -- "You know how you said you didn't do any prep before the debates? Start practicing, shit's gonna get real."
It's easy to see why Obama wants to face Perry. Perry has a lot of liabilities and isn't doing any of the proper background work (like prepping for debates) that will make him a credible threat. Obama thinks he could easily paint him any way he likes and win in a walk. This is actually a bad idea. Any time a party "chooses" who their opponent will be, it usually backfires on them. Remember, the R's are in disarray right now. As things come together for Perry, they'll focus. They don't want to repeat the mistakes they made in 2008, they will take this election very very seriously.
Meanwhile, people are now rejecting Herman Cain. Cain is finding the unconventional ads he's run to not be helping him dig out of the sexual harassment scandal. Cain says Perry leaked the docs. I'm not assuming it's Perry, it could be any one of a dozen party officials trying to get their Chosen One on the ballot. I will say this much -- the fact that Cain is more interested in painting himself as a victim instead of trying to clear up what exactly happened during the "incidents" is another mark against him. It makes him look like he has even more to hide. A third woman wants to come forward and talk about what happened. I'd like to see some ID first to make sure this isn't some publicity stunt or attempt to play fast and loose with facts. Others have dug into the lavish spending Cain was doing as head of the National Restaurant Association, causing more problems.
But Peter, some of you may be saying, you positively hate Herman Cain. You should be doing cartwheels right now. What gives? Simple -- once again, the resistance to Cain is not based on any actual rational thought, like the stupidity of 9-9-9 or how he wants all abortion outlawed (even if the life of the mother is in danger. Even the Catholic Church doesn't support that) or the electrified fence or anything that legitimately says, "This guy is a chump and we don't want him in the White House as a tourist, let alone Commander In Chief." It's a bunch of dirty laundry that has shock value, nothing to do with the facts. The results may be what I was hoping for, but the road taken there goes through a very bad neighborhood no one should want to be a part of. Shame on those who justify it. A plague on those who justify it.
Modern politics requires a strong stomach. Both for the candidates and for the voters.