The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Perry jumps to top of another national poll
By Domenico Montanaro, Political Reporter, NBC News

Rick Perry has shot to the top of yet another national poll.

The Texas governor now leads in a new CNN/Opinion Research poll 32%-18% over Mitt Romney.

Rep. Michele Bachmann is third with 12%. No one else cracks double digits. Newt Gingrich pulls in 7%, Rep. Ron Paul 6%, Herman Cain 3%, Gary Johnson 2%, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Thaddeus McCotter all at 1%. Neither Huntsman nor Santorum has been able to break through despite full-fledged, on-the-ground campaigning.

With Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani factored in, Perry still leads by 13 percentage points, 27%-14% over Romney. Palin gets 10%, jumping ahead of Bachmann at 9%. Giuliani also gets 9%.

The poll is a marked shift from earlier this month, just before Perry got in, when Romney led Perry 23%-18%.

Perry's base, according to the poll, appears to be men and voters age 50-64. He also leads by a wide margin among those who identify as Tea Party. Source

If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him in the general election and not while holding my breath.

Right now...he's too plastic.

Perry offers outline of foreign policy platform

From NBC's Carrie Dann:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered the broad outlines of his foreign policy philosophy at an annual gathering of veterans Monday, telling attendees that he opposes "military adventurism" while also advocating for "taking the fight to the enemy" and decrying indecision by "multi-lateral debating societies" at times of international crisis.

"We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home. I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism," he said at the annual convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in San Antonio. "We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened."More

"We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are, before they strike at home. I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism,"

The White House is in "move beyond it" mode following Wednesday's dust-up with House Speaker John Boehner over the date of President Obama's speech to Congress next week.

"We want to focus on the big issues, not the small ones, not the side shows. I think most Americans are probably not paying attention to this. This in terms of the scheduling issue was a Washington thing," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in an interview with CBS Radio.

"We were happy once it became clear Wednesday was not an option. Our focus is on the speech," Carney said.

The spokesman predictably said the controversy won't hurt the long term Obama-Boehner "working relationship." As for the back story, he says the White House wanted the speech as soon as Congress returned from its recess.

Carney insisted "no objection was raised" when the White House called to say "we were making a request for September 7" until Boehner's subsequent letter citing logistical and parliamentary problems.

As for the general message of the speech itself, Carney said Mr. Obama plans to say he wants "action and compromise and sensible solutions."

Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner’s move was unprecedented.

“The Senate Historical Office knows of no instance in which Congress refused the president permission to speak before a joint session of Congress,” Betty K. Koed, associate historian with the Senate, said in an e-mail. “Permission to speak in a joint session is given by resolution of the House and Senate, and arrangements are made through the leadership offices of each chamber.”

White House officials held talks with Mr. Boehner’s office into the night Wednesday. At 9:17 p.m., the White House released a statement to the news media saying it had agreed to change the date to Sept. 8.

A White House official said Mr. Obama and his advisers had chosen Wednesday because it was Congress’s first day back. "The debate was never really an issue," because there are a total of 20 and three this month alone, said the official, who would not allow his name to be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly. "Had Mr. Boehner told us he had a problem with Wednesday this morning," when the White House consulted him, the official said, "we would have done Thursday from the beginning."

The scheduling clash came at a time when public confidence in Washington to move beyond partisan bickering is at historic lows. The fracas also had the potential to rattle already jittery markets.

“If the objective of the White House and Speaker Boehner was to demonstrate to the American people that they have gotten the message from the markets and from voters that our economic straits are so dire that it is time to set petty politics aside, they have failed before they started,” said David Rothkopf, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “This childish gamesmanship regarding timing reconfirms to the world that Washington is a sandbox full of petulant children who don’t play well together.” He called Wednesday’s antics “late-summer silliness.”

My question is: what why were the republicans afraid to have the president on at the same time as yet another republican debate?