I'm watching World's Dumbest and it occurred to me that Perry should have Rob Delaney stand in for him on the next debate.

A sneak peak at how Democrats would attack Romney

It's basically an "eat the rich" argument for class warfare. Here's my comment on the site:

It would be the same for any of the GOP candidates. None of them support Obama's "jobs" bill. I just heard a Dem spokesman on Fox saying that public sector jobs are still jobs, but it ignores the fact that the jobs we want aren't those created by government, because they don't produce any wealth for the country. They just provide support for a society to let businesses thrive, create wealth and pay taxes. But a nation where nobody produces actual wealth is a dead end, like the Soviet Union. Cops and teachers get paid, but the money they earn comes from taxes generated by the wealth the nation produces, i.e. its economy. Raising taxes to hire more cops and teachers is sort of like drawing blood from one are and re-injecting it in the other.

I posted the following in the comments to this Item at Hotair headlined Brutal New Romney Ad: Perry's a Moron:

The truth is sometimes brutal. Perry is not ready for prime time. The only one who has consistently been prepared and performed well is Romney, as much as I know that drives some people here crazy. The Big Lie is that he's not a real conservative. Keep repeating that. It's what Obama's been saying with his claim that he took Obamacare from Romney. That fact in itself should tell us something about that claim. The truth is that a lot of people proposed an individual mandate clear back in the 1990s when Hillarycare was in play. The reason Obamacare was able to be passed was too many conservatives sulked in 2006 and 2008 and allowed Democrats to gain control of both houses of Congress. Another brutal truth. Too many of us would seemingly rather have another Obama term than support the best performer in the debates. Why I don't know. It's like we're stuck on stupid. After each debate, most people agreed that he won, but Palin didn't run and Christie not only didn't run, he endorsed Romney. Bachmann faded after her Gardasil mistake. Then Perry came in to great acclaim only to do a face plant in the debates. Then it was Herman Cain who doesn't look so great anymore. Now everybody's talking up Gingrich, after complaining that the GOP nominated McCain because it was his turn. So now we should give Newt HIS turn? Gingrich's past will be dug up and used to smear him like a deer hit by a semi. You can't blame Romney for Massachusetts being a liberal enclave any more than Perry can take credit for Texas being conservative. Any governor's record will be affected by the state he governs. That's why all the bragging about jobs created in Texas is pointless. What Perry can take credit for is that he didn't screw it up, which would be hard to do with the Texas legislature. Frankly, all the nonsense being spewed here in the comments makes the commenters look dumb, not Romney. Have you ever heard the line, "My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts." That's what the Anti-Romney folks remind me of.

Romney wouldn't be mixing it up with Perry if Perry hadn't come out of the chute attacking him, but Romney learned last time out that you can't let attacks go unanswered, while Perry ended up tripping over his own spurs.

Pastor Jeffres answers his critics:

I am concerned that these men [Bill Bennett and Jon Huntsman] are attempting to prematurely marginalize religion as a relevant topic in elections.

Evangelical preachers, who are considerably threatened by the fear that their flocks may be proselyted.by Mormons, are still attempting to argue that a religious test is just fine for individuals.

Who won the debate?

Hugh Hewitt says it was a victory for Perry. Ed Morrissey saw it as a victory for Perry too, for managing to get under Romney's skin. But he did so by continuing to talk without letting Romney answer his charges. If you look at these debates as boxing matches, Perry did better than his first four outings, but I don't think he scored enough points to win. There were moments when he looked like he was having trouble keeping up with the arguments. I suppose if you're rooting for him, as Ed obviously is, things are looking up. Seth Leibson names Romney, Santorum and Gingrich the winners. In general Romney has won all of the debates so far, but there seems to be a glass ceiling for him in the primary polls. The fact that it took Perry 5 debates to get on track is not promising. Romney has been consistently presidential throughout, although he became frustrated and annoyed by the refusal of those attacking him to allow him to answer, which I found perfectly understandable. CNN deliberately put Romney and Perry next to each other, obviously hoping the sparks would fly and they did, largely because Perry couldn't shut up when his time was up. When he returned to the charge about Mitt hiring illegals later he got roundly booed. I don't think he won by any means. He's keeps shrinking throughout the debate. He has two main points: 1. don't look at my record on immigration, and 2. drill, baby, drill. I watching it again this morning. Looking for why Santorum and Newt gets so much approval. They're both very good at making his points in terms we can understand, but I still can't see either as President. He may be the next in line to claim the Not-Romney voters, though. Perry seems to think that increasing energy production from domestic sources is his ideas, but Romney's been saying that for a long time. One of the centerpieces of his plan is to make the U.S. energy independent. Santorum makes the point for conservatives that they just refuse to believe Romney's pledge to repeal Obamacare because he crafted the MA health care program. He's been unfairly saddled with the reputation of being the father of Obamacare. Newt acknowledged that, continues to attack Massachusetts, as if the state is a proxy for Romney years after he left office. The flat out hatred of Romney is still a strong current among conservatives, but it may doom the best shot the GOP has for removing Obama. Herman Cain had a pretty good idea on health care, referring to H.R. 3400, proposing an Empowering Patients First Act, a House bill submitted in July, 2009 in answer to the Obamacare bill. It think there's a good deal of support for many of its ideas, and I would expect it to end up in any replacement for Obamacare when it gets repealed. It was impressive when the question was asked about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, Ron Paul's answer invoking state's rights and Romney and Perry both concurred.

Obama now getting clobbered in the media. No wonder he's been so testy lately.

These are Potemkin protesters

Via Instapundit. So when can we expect the Occupy Damascus demonstrations to begin? The Occupy Teheran protests? Occupy Red Square? I have no great admiration for Wall Street Bankers, but as Obama has proven, taking their freedom from them means less freedom for the rest of us as well. Confiscate their property and the rest of us will be next. I suspect that the collective payroll of all the banks in the country wouldn't make a dent in the amounts added to the national debt under Obama, and I don't think it's a coincidence that these demonstrations have started just after Obama has begun his campaigning for reelection. These "protesters" are bought and paid for by unions and leftist groups who are supporting Obama for another 4 years. And it now appears that they were aided by MSM in crafting their message. (Thanks Instapundit, for the link.)