Well, it’s official — it’s Rick Perry. At least unless/until Palin gets in, and maybe even then, because they want to win.
As Ed notes, Romney’s big draw was that he understood business and how to create jobs. His big problems are his volte-faces on issues and RomneyCare. He might have been able to surmount them without a strong challenger, but I think that he’s now toast, absent a real Perry implosion. And a lot of Tea Partiers are not going to go along with the traditional Republican “it’s my turn” candidate. Again, they want to win.
Romney is DOA as a candidate because he supported Massholecare, which served as the model for Obamacare.
If Romney is nominated, my vote will really be cast against Obama just like my vote for McCain in 2008. His flip flops over the years would be labeled as “nuanced” if he was a Democrat, but for me it indicates a lack of commitment. Not that I am looking for a candidate with positions that represent rigid arch conservatism, but I want to know that the candidate I choose will stick to his guns when the political battles get messy.
And for the life of me I cannot make the connection between his private equity investment experience and the job creation expertise the media heaps upon him.
Rick Perry will be the republican nominee and in all likelyhood the next president of the United States. We need to start thinking about the implications of this development.
Let’s see, the last Texas governor to become president gave us no child left behind and pills. Both about the same brilliance as cash for clunkers. We need Joe the plumber more than we need Perry. We need somebody that will clean house. Has Perry ever done that?
Texas has jobs because it’s Texas. Perry is just taking advantage. Who the hell is he really? I want a candidate that has stood the fire.
I do not think he’s it.
Perry never saw a campaign contribution he didn’t like. He once signed an executive order making Gardasil a mandatory vaccine for schoolgirls, which caught everyone here by surprise because the religious right in Texas had been campaigning against the vaccine in the belief it would promote promiscuity.
When the legislature accused Perry of exceeding his authority and the press uncovered that the manufacturer had donated to his campaign and his chief of staff’s mother was a paid lobbyist promoting the vaccine, Perry held a press conference where he surrounded himself with women cancer survivors and accused everyone else of playing politics. Now that he’s running for President on the Tea Party banner, he says the Gardasil order was a “mistake.” Go look at the Trans-Texas Corridor mess, too, where he tried to use eminent domain to seize private land to help a foreign company build a massive transportation corridor.
Perry is an excellent campaigner and savvy career politician, who has done quite well for himself financially on his public servant’s salary. He is not a leader, though.
Romney could very well lose to Obama – he doesn’t have the moxie to go after him. And there’s much about Romney that’s facade – just like Obama. Even his recent outburst looks fake to me.
Perry, on the other hand, will go after Obama. It appears to me that he’s not afraid of Obama and will verbally slap him.
I invoke the Buckley method: vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. Is Perry an uber-conservative? No. But he’s good enough, I think. His statement that he wants to make Washington inconsequential to our lives sounds good. I am not sure whether that’s just pap for the masses or if he means it.
But he can beat Obama.
I heard it best on the radio the other day:
Some caller asked, “If you are in a barfight, who do you want to have your back? ”
“Romney?”
“Or Perry?”
The choice is obvious. Because that’s the sort of person who will take on Obama. To beat Obama the candidate can’t give him ANY free passes:
on what he says
on what he did
on what tricks he plays.
…because the press certainly will.
You have to push his face into it and make him squeal about the unfairness of it all.
Then the man child comes out.
Perry is as self-serving as they come. I trust him to do what’s best for him and his campaign contributors, not what’s best for the country. I would rather have Bush back in office than Perry become President. I at least know that Bush meant well and was doing what he thought was best for the nation, even when I thought he had it wrong.
I’m sorry but we don’t need a Faux Conservative/Libertarian such as Perry . As Kugler and Ken said, he will claim/talk one thing and do something else and will hurt the brand such as George Bush did. The media already portrays perry as ultra conservative, while Romney as a moderate. I currently view Perry as Hucklebee part deux with less preacher more cowboy. Heck could argue Perry is Blogavich
We still don’t have the perfect candidate, Bachmann quickly ran out of steam and is too vapid, Paul is dangerous for foreign policy, Gingrich is unelectable, Perry is as detailed above, Romney the flipper.
Though will say Romney in his gaff at least he showed some sense about him. With the whole corporation are people too and his defense of the statement. It showed his thought process and where he comes from, while I don’t have that from Perry.
Of the announced candidates, I believe Perry has the best chance of beating Obama. Not much else matters to me. There are some other good people in the Republican field but IMO they don’t have what it takes to win. Perry is already showing he can get inside of Obama’s OODA loop and his head. A Perry campaign will tie Obama in knots.
Perry is as self-serving as they come.
Politicians are self-serving as a breed – that’s who they are. I’d rather have someone in the White House who devotes more effort to being president than playing golf. Although, to be honest, Obama does less damage to the country when he’s playing golf than he does when he’s playing president.
In terms of space CCDev will be over and NASA will be required to do a crash program for a capsule on EELV to service ISS, then SLS to restore American glory in space.
Perry has plenty of skeletons in his closet, but in an odd sort of way he’s a beneficiary of the increasing transparency in politics mediated by the Internet, among others.
Take the Gardasil thing. For all the bloviating about campaign contributions &ct., what it actually was was a politics-as-usual attempt to placate the Austin moonbats centered around the University, who have the same “freedom to f* and nothing else” agenda the rest of them push. Word got around, the pushback was massive, and it got canceled. The lesson for Perry was/is the same as if Rand designed something for a rocket that blew up — “Hmm. That doesn’t work. Try something else.” Given his background that’s a lesson he can learn, unlike others who might be mentioned.
Regards,
Ric
Governor Perry, like President Obama, goes whatever way the wind blows. When Texas was Democrat he was a Democrat, when it became a red state he became a Republican, now that the Tea Party is the new fad he is Tea Party. And he likes big donations so Old Space and Big Oil will be back in the driver’s seat.
I actually increasingly like Jon Huntsman. He’s got great credentials as a former Ambassador and White House staffer. He was an extremely effective and well-regarded leader in Utah. He’s more concerned with fiscal and foreign policy than the culture wars. He’s adamantly opposed to politicizing science. He doesn’t mind working across the aisle to get the work of governance done. Unfortunately, that means he probably doesn’t stand a chance with the hyper-polarized nature of the primaries.
If Bozo the Clown gets on the ballot as the Republican nominee he’ll get my vote against Obama.
I dunno why everyone rails on Perry about the Texas corridor thing. I mean, last I remember federal and state governments do in fact have constitutional authority to build roads and use eminent domain to clear their way. Plus, I think it was going to be a toll road so it would have been built with a great deal of private money. I just don’t see why the libertarians are getting so up in arms about that. The Gardasil thing was definitely going over the line mandating that it be part of the vaccination panel needed to enroll in school. Should have just been a voucher system that parents could apply for if they wanted their little girl to have it. But at least he admitted a mistake instead of the Obama, “it’s all Bush’s fault” mantra. Or, the Obama pivot into a comedy routine, “I guess those shovel ready jobs weren’t so shovel ready after all” *queue rimshot to mask the sound of a half trillion dollars being flushed down the toilet*.
As as far as his evangelicalism goes. I guess I just don’t get all up in arms about that because as I understand we still have this thing called the separation of church and state that will prevent him from turning this nation into a caliphate. We don’t however have a separation of healthcare and state, or a separation of affordable housing and state. So, it’s in those areas that I tend to focus my energy on in terms of judging how the next candidate is going to fix the Obamacare boondoggle and finally take care of the subprime mortgage ponzi scheme that is still sitting out there as an albatross around our necks.
“Perry never saw a campaign contribution he didn’t like.”
…..you mean like having his campaign set up to recieve untold legion of anonymous overseas, unverified credit card contributions?
…oh wait! That was Hopey-Changey!
I would rather have Bush back in office than Perry become President. I at least know that Bush meant well and was doing what he thought was best for the nation, even when I thought he had it wrong.
So you’d rather have a president that’s doing the wrong thing, as long as he means well. I’m glad you live in Texas. You’re free to vote for whomever you think has the best intentions and aisle-crossing ability. Perry will still carry the state easily.
a separation of affordable housing and state
THAT was outstanding J.
Heh, thnx Curt. Can’t take all the credit though. I sorta borrowed that Ann Coulter.
So you’re saying if Illinois became a Tea Party red state, Obama would become a Tea Party Republican?
I just don’t see it. Perry has demonstrated the ability to adapt to changing conditions on the ground. Obama hasn’t.
I at least know that Bush meant well and was doing what he thought was best for the nation, even when I thought he had it wrong.
Justin, there’s an old saying: It is better to be ruled a scoundrel than a fool, because a scoundrel may, on occasion, take a vacation.
Obama is 100% convinced that everything he does is best for the nation. So, if that’s your top criterion, you already have your candidate.
Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. They left me.”
Perry was a conservative Democrat back when that wasn’t an oxymoron.
I really liked Perry’s suggestion of Texas secession. On that basis, I’d prefer him as governor rather than President. (Or perhaps I should say, President of Texas.)
So, the Troll Matula, who hates the Tea Party and loves the Senate Launch System, says people should vote against Perry because he will betray the Tea Party and support the Senate Launch System?
Does anyone else notice a contradiction in that? 🙂
Heinlein said that if you can’t decide who to vote for, find some well-meaning fool, ask his advice, then do the opposite. If the Troll doesn’t like him, that’s good enough for me. 🙂
I actually increasingly like Jon Huntsman.
Dude, that’s like holding a sign that says, “I’m a moby!”. I’m no fan of Perry, but wheneve a poll comes out for potential GOP candidates, I’ll take all of the above over Huntsman.
Huntsman is a dick.
Josh, the problem was that he was ready and willing to use eminent domain to seize private property to do it. That’s the problem the libertarians had with it. He was trying to screw over the landowners that didn’t want to sell. His evangelicalism is a problem because he’s appointed people to state positions who have actively tried to break down that separation you cite.
Puckett, thinking that Perry is not what this country needs doesn’t mean I want Obama to stay in office. I’m looking for a better option and Perry isn’t it.
Curt, you deliberately took that out of context and ignored the conditionals I set up. I would rather have a President that I think is doing the right thing. If I’m going to disagree with the President, I’d rather have one that I think I can disagree with honestly. The only reason Perry carries the state is because of the stranglehold the GOP has on state politics. The Democrats are weak and the GOP primaries split the opposition.
Edward, I never said that was my top criterion. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Leland, it was an honest post. I have never pretended to be something I’m not. Or are you just looking for an echo chamber here? Based on the criteria I listed, Huntsman looks like he’s got what it takes to run this country, certainly more so than the current occupant of the White House. I’m just not convinced he can survive the GOP primary.
No seriously, when Howard Dean sings your praises as a Republican like Huntsman, you got some serious issues!
Like what, Puckett? Keep in mind that I don’t care about internal party issues, as I’m not a member of any political party and I doubt I ever will be. All I care about in 2012 is finding a challenger to President Obama that I seriously think could do a better job. The Republicans aren’t going to win my vote if they put Perry, Bachmann, or Palin up.
The Republicans aren’t going to win my vote if they put Perry, Bachmann, or Palin up.
Then you are insufficiently appreciative of just what a disaster another four years of Obama would be (particularly for SCOTUS). Though perhaps it wouldn’t matter with a veto-proof Congress…
Governor Perry, like President Obama, goes whatever way the wind blows. When Texas was Democrat he was a Democrat, when it became a red state he became a Republican
Texas changing from Democratic to Republican wasn’t a change in the weather, it was more like a tectonic shift. Every Texas conservative was Democratic for generations until the Great Society and the anti-war movement captured the Democratic party. You might want to read up on the Reconstruction.
“Like what, Puckett?”
Google Howard Dean and John Huntsman.
If that’s what the Republican pitch in 2012 is, Rand, then I’ll write someone in or hold my nose and vote third party. I want better than what we’re getting right now, not a mistake of a different kind.
I did, Puckett. Should Democrats now oppose Obama’s original FY2011 space policy because Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker endorsed it? If Dean thinks Huntsman should switch parties, that means he thinks Huntsman could present a serious challenge to Obama.
Unless Perry starts stepping on baby ducks and running over little old grannies in cross walks, he’ll beat that twerp Obama.
(and I’m using Definition No.4 from the Urban Dictionary for reference here and now)
Okay, that made me laugh, DS. 🙂
Justin Kugler Says:
“I actually increasingly like Jon Huntsman.”
He may be your dreamboat but he cannot beat Obama.
And that is really all that matters, so long as the occupant is fairly conservative. I may not like Perry as much as some other conservative, but he will, I think, make Supreme Court appointments I can live with. Obama won’t – clearly.
If Conservatives hold the House, take the Senate, and Perry has the Presidency, then we are golden because there will be no vetoes of Conservative bills, and no filibusters if the conservatives take enough of the Senate.
Third party is just a false flag operation to elect the wrong guy. The only message sent by voting third party is idiocy. As far as Perry, the media is playing with ya, and along ya go.
Edward,
So what made you turn against Elon Musk and SpaceX? Is he because he didn’t donate any rides for teachers in space?
this is a daft question from someone who doesnt even attempt to understand US politics, but why ISNT tea party an official third party ?
why ISNT tea party an official third party ?
Because it is a movement not a party. If it was a party it would have less ability to accomplish their goals.
US history is replete with mass movements that have affected dramatic social change…some good, some bad. The abolition movement, the temperance movement, etc. Mass movements are a feature of American politics, not a bug.
::Because it is a movement not a party.
ok, the part of calling themselves a party may not be the smartest thing to do, then.
ok, the part of calling themselves a party may not be the smartest thing to do, then.
You might want to read up on the original Boston Tea Party to understand.
If there was one Constitutional amendment I’d add, it would be to ban persons who hold office (elective or appointive) from running for different office.
reader Says:
“ok, the part of calling themselves a party may not be the smartest thing to do, then.”
It simply “happened”. Santelli said we needed a NEW Tea Party and he didn’t mean a political party. And then like minded people got together and sure enough the Tea Party name got applied. It wasn’t a thought out strategic decision.
Which is what the Matulas of the world cannot seem to grasp: It’s not a political party….it’s a group of people who think alike and want to see changes. No member of Congress is a member of the Tea Party…Perry is not a member of the Tea Party.
But Perry and some congrescritters think like some tea party people.
This, mostly this. Nothing else a Pres does so determines the destiny of the nation, whether it retains some resemblance to a republic restrained by federalism or descends into another People’s Democratic Tyranny of the Majority, as this.
The fight goes a lot deeper than SCOTUS, but that is definitely a major reason for getting rid of BHO.
The tea party will get behind the best limited government, lower spending candidate… She hasn’t entered the race yet.
Gregg,
What Tea Party members don’t understand is that RESEARCH Just does not support the myth its a mass movement. Its just the highly vocal Radical Republican Right with a new paint job 🙂
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general
August 16, 2011
Crashing the Tea Party
By DAVID E. CAMPBELL and ROBERT D. PUTNAM
[[[Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.
Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.]]]
Ken,
[[[The tea party will get behind the best limited government, lower spending candidate… She hasn’t entered the race yet.]]]
And never will. She is just milking her followers and the media for all they are worth.
Which is what the Matulas of the world cannot seem to grasp:
Gregg, that’s a little unfair.
Have you actually found something that Matula *IS* able to grasp?
🙂