August 24, 2011
— Ace
That's not the most interesting tidbit here, either.
Perry is a strong contender among key Republican subgroups. Older Republicans and those living in the South show especially strong support for him, at or near 40%. Conservative Republicans strongly favor Perry over Romney, but liberal and moderate Republicans support the two about equally. Perry's support is also above average among religious Republicans.
For a long time I have been contending that candidates must be viewed in respect to two criteria -- and not just one, as the more ideologically-minded thinkers insist.
The first criteria is ideology, of course.
The second criteria is non-ideological attractiveness. Not "squishiness," mind you. But things like practical results in achieving things that are universally -- not ideologically -- valued.
I call this second criteria "neutral goods." If Obama does manage something in Libya (though that's in doubt), that would be a neutral good, because few actively root against American geopolitical victories.
Clinton's surprisingly (and Republican-thwarting) economic record was a neutral good. No one can really argue a hot economy is a bad thing. Oh, people can grouse it got "overheated" and led to a recession, but every hot economy eventually comes to a recession.
You need as many ways to win in an election as possible. You cannot just place all of your chips on ideology. No more than 30% of the country, if that, consists of ideologically-driven pure conservatives. And probably quite a bit fewer than that, when you get into the details of it -- conservatives from farm states argue for continuing tax breaks for ethanol and general government intervention in agriculture. Older conservatives especially are often quite strident (Hi, Vic!) on the notion that a promise to socialistically subsidize older citizens, by taking taxes from younger ones, is as American as cherry pie.
If a candidate has nothing to offer but that ideology, then you've got maybe 30% of the electorate, plus some small percent of the public (10% at most) which, despite being not very ideologically rigorous or motivated, is motivated by ideology enough to disfavor the Democrats... who they also find to be over-much ideological, and in the wrong way besides.
This was my problem with Christine O'Donnell. Sure, ideologically, she was decent. But what had she actually done in her time on earth? What practical results did she achieve? She managed only to be a guest of last resort on cable news shows, and argue for social conservatism... ineptly.
Michelle Bachmann is no Christine O'Donnell, certainly, but I have the same "But what has she actually done?" problem with her. She says she "fought" against the Stimulus and "led the argument" against ObamaCare. As Tim Pawlenty noted -- and this was a more cutting remark than people generally credited as -- that's all well and good, but we also lost on both of those things.
So if the entire resume is about "fighting" and "arguing," and yet there is no positive tangible result to it... well, I fight and argue, too.
The strike against her in my mind, then, is that she appeals on pure ideology, and we are back at the 30% plus some bonus late-breakers, and not enough to get to a majority (barring Obama truly getting no good news and in fact getting worse news on the economy).
She cannot tell a less-ideological voter, "Sure, you may not agree with me on my political positions, but look at these neutral goods I achieved, things that no one can persuasively argue aren't good in their own right, no matter what your political persuasion."
I think ideological people ignore this at their own peril. It is one thing to be almost entirely ideologically motivated oneself -- we all have our motivations, after all. We all have different buttons and different drives.
But it is another thing entirely to insist, contrary to fact, that the majority of voters needed for a winning coalition are similarly driven nearly entirely by on-paper policy statements and ideological affirmations.
They're not. This is a fact. To pretend otherwise is to run away from the real world and retreat to a happy place of pure fantasy.
Nor is it any answer to hear, as I often do, "Well then, we will simply argue our case with such skill and force that we will convert the less-ideologically-driven voters into more-ideologically-driven voters, who more closely resemble ourselves, and share our motivations and drives."
That is no answer. Of course that is a goal.
But -- as Obama and the liberals need to understand, so too do less practically-minded conservatives -- a goal is not the same as a plan.
Of course I'd love a 51% majority for strong conservatism. Hell, I'd like a 60% majority. And why stop there? An 80% majority would be enough to do all we like.
But that isn't the current state of things and it is indulgent and solipsistic to pretend that it is, or is likely to be so in the near term.
So for a long time I have been arguing that we need a candidate who can appeal to these less-ideologically voters.
People often misunderstand this point, and who knows, perhaps sometimes they misunderstand it intentionally.
They often say, "Oh, you want a squish."
No. No matter how many times I have answered "no" to that claim, I still get it.
No, I don't want a squish. I want a fairly strongly conservative candidate. But, in order to persuade voters who do not share my philosophy, I want that candidate to have a record of non-ideological achievements, things that no one can argue aren't good, in addition to his ideology.
That gives you two chances to win a vote, rather than one. The ideological conservatives in a general election will choose, obviously, the more ideologically conservative candidate. Against Barack Obama, it's safe to say we get most of these.
But the less-ideologically motivated voters will not necessarily vote for the more-conservative candidate. They might; then again, they might not.
Having no strong ideological preference for a candidate, they will base their vote, as they always do, on non-ideological factors.
Charisma. "Seems like a regular guy" (which is in fact code for "not super-ideological like many of the professional politicians I, as a disengaged independent, tend not to like"). Experience -- reassurance that when it comes to the non-ideological skills of management, a candidate can actually work the basic functions of an executive office.
And, most important of all, actual positive results of a non-ideological sort.
It's not that I want a "squish." It's that I want a candidate who is strong on the issues, but who can also turn to a voter and say, "Even if you disagree with me, you can't argue I did something in my time in office that made things better, in practical terms."
Anyway, the point of this is, that while Perry beats Romney by a big spread among "conservative" Republican primary voters, Perry only narrowly loses the "liberal/moderate" voters by 17 to 21.
That's not an insignificant spread. But it's also not big. And this is exactly what I'm talking about, then: those liberal/moderate primary voters should, if we were talking about ideology alone, flock to the man considered (or claimed to be) a moderate, Romney, or Huntsman.
But they're not. They're sort of split between the believed-to-be-conservative Perry and the believed-to-be-moderate Romney. (In fairness, note I'm saying "believed to be" -- I do not actually believe Romney is a "RINO.")
Why? Why should the supposedly knuckle-dragging red-meat-throwing Perry have any appeal for them?
I think it's obvious. They're not voting entirely on ideological alignment. They're supporting someone based on non-ideological factors -- charisma, experience, "seems like a regular guy," tangible results.
I'm not saying Romney has none of those; I'm just saying Perry seems to have enough of those to attract supporters who really should be supporting someone else, based on ideology.
Obama did not win the White House by claiming to be the Liberal True Hope. He spoke vaguely about things. He actually ran on a tax cut, which deficit hawk McCain did not.
He won maybe 35% of the voters on ideology. He won 17% more on non-ideological grounds.
That's why his approval level is at 38 or 39%. (39% today.) If people voted for him to be liberal, why, he's been very liberal indeed. So in theory a majority or near-majority should still be supporting him. Minus the super-leftists for whom he has been too goshdarn conservative.
But they don't approve, because that 17% of his coalition wasn't supporting him to be liberal, but to simply change things in practical, tangible ways for the better. Which of course he has not.
At any rate, that is why I am always opposed to narrow-casting ideology-first-and-foremost candidates. It's not that I disagree with them ideologically -- it is simply that I cannot imagine someone who is not ideologically rightist like me seeing anything in them that's attractive.
I don't want squishes; I want ideology plus. Ideology plus some other factor or factors which may plausibly be predicted to attract support even from a non-partisan or non-ideological voter.
Is Rick Perry that kind of candidate? I think he is. I could be wrong; I'm wrong lots of times. But I know I'm right about the criteria for candidate selection. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong about Perry fulfilling my demand for an ideology-plus candidate; I am not wrong that ideology-plus is what is necessary to win an election.
The Two Minute Pitch: Maybe this is the way I think about this:
Can you create a two minute pitch for a candidate which could plausibly persuade a friend or family member who isn't into politics and really could go one way or the other?
And can you construct a such a pitch only mentioning ideology or partisan fights briefly?
Because bear in mind if they were sold on the ideology or partisanship, you wouldn't have to pitch them at all.
If I think about trying to sell, say, my Aunt Jeneane on Michele Bachmann, my pitch seems to be almost entirely ideological stuff she will just shrug at.
Posted by: Ace at
11:19 AM
| Comments (562)
Post contains 1706 words, total size 11 kb.
Ok...but looking at the opposition, Barry's got almost nothing in that column himself, and won in 2008 with nothing in that column.
Having a record of accomplishment won't hurt, but if the Republicans run a competent campaign, the question the electorate will vote on is, "Are you better off now then when we last had a Republican government (2006)?"
Posted by: 18-1 at August 24, 2011 11:24 AM (7BU4a)
Finally, some logic. Spot-on analysis. Is Rick Perry a home run? Nope. But I think he is a solid triple. I think given some support in Congress he could do some great things for this country. And the guy is an unapologetic winner. I love that. Reminds me of..........well.......... me!
Posted by: Lord Humungus Wasteland Teahadi at August 24, 2011 11:25 AM (Yv6gq)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:25 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Lord Humungus Wasteland Teahadi at August 24, 2011 11:26 AM (Yv6gq)
Posted by: lu at August 24, 2011 11:26 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: blaster at August 24, 2011 11:27 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 11:27 AM (0M3AQ)
I agree with the premise here, but we have a unique opportunity right now. If the Rep's PR group would pull their heads out for 3 seconds (fat chance, I know) we can make this a heavily ideological election and force the public to make a choice between a Leftist extremist and a Rightist (who will not be nearly extreme enough for me no matter who it is).
America is sick of the stink of B.O. It's not just wishcasting - the poll numbers bear it out. As long as we choose to fight with ruthlessness, our side will win unless we choose someone really horrible. We can whip Obie. We need to use this opportunity to get somebody who doesn't suck so much ideologically.
NO MORE McCAINS!
Posted by: Reactionary at August 24, 2011 11:28 AM (xUM1Q)
And this is why successful governors make better nominees that Congressmen or Senators.
Them, and war winning generals.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:28 AM (GTbGH)
I agree and I'll go a step further: I don't need them to be out proposing strict conservative solutions to every problem. Be as vague as you can--we already know who the guy is, he has a record.
As much as I'd like someone (Sarah Palin) out proposing conservative solutions, I don't need it from this candidate this year. As Ace has noted, any time you take a strong stand on any damned thing, you lose some voters.
We should be laughing in the faces of Obama's remaining dupes at this point, but polls tell us we have a lot of work ahead. Be as vague as they can get away with. Present no plans no matter what.
Posted by: spongeworthy at August 24, 2011 11:29 AM (rplL3)
That is, you seem too willing (to us) to overlook deep, fatal (to us) ideological flaws.
We don't disagree that someone who is conservative who can also get squishes to vote for him(her) is good. Of course that's good. I didn't realize that was a point of debate.
However, when it comes to "Conservative only" or "Not Conservative but can win," I'll take "Conservative Only" every time. Why? Well, for one thing, if Conservatism can never win for itself (it does, some), then we're screwed anyway. For another, if we consistently vote for Conservative Only over Not Conservative, them maybe we'll start getting some more of that "Conservative-plus" that we're all really wanting.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:30 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at August 24, 2011 11:30 AM (kaOJx)
15 And, most important of all, actual positive results of a non-ideological sort.
And this is why successful governors make better nominees that Congressmen or Senators.
Them, and war winning generals.
You seem to forget the great triumphs accomplished by community organizers.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 11:30 AM (0M3AQ)
Nope. Only "legalized gambling" in the state is the Lotto.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:30 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Tea Party Jihobbitists at August 24, 2011 11:30 AM (326rv)
Perry needs to show us he is a level headed candidate that can focus on the issues. He has stepped up to the plate, now can he hit the ball?
I do not believe that a conservative candidate has to be less conservative to win the independents. I think he just has to be consistent and not make any errors. A promise to balance the budget is going to be powerful this next year.
Posted by: Harry at August 24, 2011 11:31 AM (6Bhpq)
Posted by: Tim "Cutting" Pawlenty at August 24, 2011 11:32 AM (NJMRC)
Posted by: Breaker19 at August 24, 2011 11:32 AM (WCm02)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 11:32 AM (6N9HR)
Posted by: blaster at August 24, 2011 11:32 AM (Fw2Gg)
I'm pretty shocked that either no one has taken a look at his track record, or they just don't care.
I'd never support this clown.
Posted by: Oh, Hi Mark at August 24, 2011 11:33 AM (PQuqv)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:33 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: blaster
Why not? Any brains he may have possesed retired years ago to an undisclosed location.
I hate Biden.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (326rv)
Posted by: barack hussein obama at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (8y9MW)
I don't want squishes; I want ideology plus. Ideology plus some other factor or factors which may plausibly be predicted to attract support even from a non-partisan or non-ideological voter.
That's an excellent point. However, it does sometimes seem as if you are favoring the plus over the ideology. It's a tone thing, on both sides of this, I hasten to add. I think there's a lot of unspoken assumptions going on here. When you, and other of the cob-loggers, focus on electability, it sometimes comes across at times as ignoring the issues of ideology. Those who focus on ideology first and foremost sometimes come across as ignoring the fact that there is an equal 30% who will not vote for a Republican no matter what, meaning that the fight is over the squishy middle.
Look, I am not immune to this myself. I much prefer my world of pure theory to actual reality and hearing from someone whose political positions stem from a less philosophically grounded place wounds me to my core. My initial instinct is to shriek, harpy like, but but but it's the theory that matters and how dare you think otherwise and love me and despair, bitches! The tiny bit saner part of me does recognize that this is not necessarily the most persuasive approach.
Now, I'm farily confident that both sides actually want the same thing - the most conservative possible candidate who can win. It's the getting there that leads to the purity wars and, incidentally, my strong desire to start kicking out the teeth of everyone involved in them. Seriously, can we please stop assuming bad faith on the part of those who are on the same freaking side and start focusing on what a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure Obama is?
Posted by: alexthechick at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (VtjlW)
He was perceived as having them, though. To the extent you can get people to act upon the basis of it, perception is, in fact, reality in this case.
Remember, we've got to put something together that can penetrate the barriers the media/propaganda complex will put in place. Scream and grumble to the contrary though I may, Ace is very right--if the candidate has non-partisan selling points in addition to the ideological package, our odds get much better. We're going to disagree on Romney, but on Perry, well, I've already stated I think he may be our best bet. But there's months to go, so the vetting continues...
Posted by: DarkLord© sez Obama is a stuttering clusterf--- of a miserable failure
Oh, and F--- Nevada! at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (GBXon)
This makes me excited. Don't mess with Rick Perry, or he'll demand an earthquake and a hurricane in DC.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (FnRYN)
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 11:34 AM (nj1bB)
Rick Perry is a racist an insensitive racist boob?
**MSNBC Does It Again**
the muthafuckas at MSDNC pull the race card on Gov Perry, again
Posted by: söthí at August 24, 2011 11:35 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 11:35 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: beedubya at August 24, 2011 11:35 AM (AnTyA)
Hopefully the herd will be culled here within a couple of months. Gingrich has been sliding, Santorum has been doing nothing aside from a slight blip in June, and the bloom is off Cain's rose. That's a combined 10 points that would be up for grabs.
Huntsman never should have gotten in, but he'll stay longer because he'll continue getting money and air time since he's the Democratic nominee for the Republican primaries.
I am stunned that Paul and Bachmann are polling that high.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at August 24, 2011 11:36 AM (JxMoP)
Glad to hear that you finally figured out that Romney is actually a DINO.
Posted by: Bob Saget at August 24, 2011 11:36 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: DriveBy at August 24, 2011 11:36 AM (C9Vc8)
>>>That is, you seem too willing (to us) to overlook deep, fatal (to us) ideological flaws.
Okay, but what if your metric for defining a 'flaw' is itself flawed? Or what if it is based on an unrealistic understanding of what can and/or will be accomplished by a President? Or what if it fails to take into account the effect that Congress has upon the President (massive, absolutely massive) in terms of legislation?
This is why the "purist" arguments always fall so flat: they seem to exist in a world where we have a absolute executive, where the only power in the land is the President (and not the courts of the Congress). And these arguments also seem to exist in a world without politics: we've seen Obama take positions during the campaign trail that he promptly went back on once he got into power...why do you think Republicans don't do the same things? (Hint: they do.) It's called political positioning, and fatuous arguments about how we must be a Republic of Virtue and therefore you won't support a candidate who positions himself squishily for moderate/independent voters, even if he does the right thing in office, simply resonate as childish and unrealistic. Do you want to win or do you want to lose the republic, forever?
Posted by: Jeff B. at August 24, 2011 11:37 AM (TADg9)
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:37 AM (4CSeG)
Barring a clusterfuck of monumental proportions by the Republicans, their nominee will win the general. I'm confident to the point of recklessness on this point.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:37 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at August 24, 2011 11:38 AM (AZGON)
I wonder what big guns other candidates are going to pull out to try and jump ahead - I'm guessing a lot of it's going to come from the debates at the end of the day.
Posted by: Arcade Hero at August 24, 2011 11:38 AM (mmHDH)
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 11:38 AM (OhYCU)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:38 AM (GTbGH)
As long as we choose to fight with ruthlessness, our side will win unless we choose someone really horrible.
Posted by: Reactionary at August 24, 2011 03:28 PM (xUM1Q)
Are we going to start fighting with ruthlessness now? Oh, that'd be a nice change of pace. Unfortunately, Republicans don't want to be ruthless out of fear of scaring off the moderate voters and the independents, but I know you already know this.
This lack of ruthlessness carries over into governing. Even if we get a Republican President and have solid control of the House and the Senate, having the political will to make the ruthless course changes necessary to avoid DOOM just isn't in the Republican's genetic makeup. At that point, everyone will be worried about 2014.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at August 24, 2011 11:38 AM (GKQDR)
As a Perry...bot or whatever stupid name we're going to be called from now on I would like to appeal to other Perry supporters to chill on the antagonizing rhetoric.
Unity people. If it's Romney I'll vote for him.
Posted by: eleven at August 24, 2011 11:38 AM (7DB+a)
I only have a few minutes for break. Can someone provide a 50 word summary ?
Who is polling higher after his initial splash, Perry or Trump?
Posted by: glowing blue meat at August 24, 2011 11:39 AM (K/USr)
If you watched the vid I linked, which you ought to, you'll notice Gov Perry do something that is quite rare with Republicans -- stay on message.
Rick answers the (stupid and irrelevant) question in such a way to navigate seamlessly back to the economy.
Brilliant, really.
But MSNBC doens't put up with that shit. Not one bit. They find the racism and offense -- even if they have to invent it.
Posted by: soothie at August 24, 2011 11:39 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Mike Rotch at August 24, 2011 11:40 AM (B/L/2)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:40 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at August 24, 2011 11:40 AM (NJMRC)
Posted by: Jean at August 24, 2011 11:40 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 24, 2011 11:40 AM (1+CnU)
Maybe one of those spray painted bedsheet banners on the freeway will convince me Ron Leprechaun is the future of America.
na.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:40 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at August 24, 2011 11:41 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: blaster at August 24, 2011 11:41 AM (Fw2Gg)
Perry has broad appeal which is what I suspected would be the case.
As people get more chances to see the guy speak they're only going to like him more.
Posted by: eleven at August 24, 2011 11:41 AM (7DB+a)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at August 24, 2011 11:41 AM (Iaiax)
Posted by: Breaker19 at August 24, 2011 11:41 AM (WCm02)
I think you are all missing why Perry is appealing to so many so fast. They perceive him as agent of positive change and they believe that he can cut through the bullshit to achieve it. Contrast with Willard, he accomplished something by appeasing those around him: sought consensus. Washington thankfully is frozen politically. The pendulum can only be released by (1) a reaffirmation of Sparky and his gang or (2) a complete repudiation of Sparky and his gang. When you are in the repudiation business driving an Oldsmobile is not the same as driving a D-7 bulldozer.
Bulldozer wins this by a mile.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 11:41 AM (0M3AQ)
Why are moderate/independent voters never scared off by the ruthless left?
Posted by: Tami at August 24, 2011 11:42 AM (X6akg)
Did you even read the rest of my comment, or did you stop there? I actually already answered that.
Look, I supported Scott Brown in MA (knowing full well he wouldn't be conservative enough for me). I did not support Mike Castle, because his record showed that he was not at all conservative.
No, I will not vote for an R just because it's an R (normally- 2012, that doesn't apply). If the candidate has a track-record (despite their "personal views") of doing the right thing, I don't have a problem with them. If they don't, however, they're not going to get my vote.
It's not about R vs D. It's about (to steal from Mark Levin) Liberty vs. Tyranny. If my only choice is between a petty tyrant and a major tyrant, I'll choose not to make a choice.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:42 AM (8y9MW)
>>>...after living in Texas for 18 years I've never once thought of Perry as being Presidential material.
I like Christie and support him fully. But the idea of the guy as President seems preposterous. I don't think any of these folks look presidential close up.
>>> Sure, but I can drudge up just as many comments from Obama self-proclaiming his Christianity/religiousness.
Yes, but we all know he doesn't really mean a word of it. Right? It's just boob-bait for the blacks and rednecks, isn't it? None of us intelligentsia actually think he's a real Christian.
Posted by: spongeworthy at August 24, 2011 11:42 AM (rplL3)
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:42 AM (4CSeG)
Wow Ace good write up! You nailed it I love Bachmann , but somethin WAS buggin me and you hit it. Not enough there , there. Not that i don't think she'd be awesome. But as we've seen potus is no place to practice. Should be a fun ride.
Posted by: marine43 at August 24, 2011 11:42 AM (BP/rM)
Posted by: Jean at August 24, 2011 11:43 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Jeb at August 24, 2011 11:43 AM (Xm1aB)
Here's a good article: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/410/
Of particular interest is the section headed "Wobbly General Election Polls".
Thank you for the use of your blog comment section.
Posted by: Ken at August 24, 2011 11:43 AM (3ar4L)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 24, 2011 11:43 AM (ea6Cq)
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 11:44 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 11:44 AM (Xm1aB)
Unity people. If it's Romney I'll vote for him.
Posted by: eleven///
Being from a safe state, I get to vote for whomever I like.
Posted by: SFGoth at August 24, 2011 11:44 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at August 24, 2011 11:44 AM (Z1WKS)
You know, I keep seeing people say that, but I have yet to see an example of it.
Is there really a single person reading this thread who would argue that defeating Obama would be worth it? Our new president could be a dead dog, and the dog would still revoke Obamacare.
I'm tired of this empty rhetoric. I want someone to make a solid case that "winning with a less than purely conservative candidate" is actually somehow a loss, or a 'hollow victory.' That seems more to me like bitching about not getting 100% every single thing you want. Right now we're getting 0%. I'll take any margin over that, and between Romney and Perry the options we're given promise at worst 80% and at best far more.
Posted by: Jeff B. at August 24, 2011 11:44 AM (TADg9)
Liberals are trying desperately to hold Perrys' religion against him. I see it as a bonus. It's mainstream and well defined as opposed to our current Christian (almost) Muslim raised President.
Liberals are trying to make points holding his skepticism about AGW against him. I think most voters wanna hear that Cap and Trade (and all the redistribution that implies) is dead.
I think voters including a lot of independants and liberals who voted for SCOAMF will take anyone if they can visualize it getting them back to a place where simple capitalism (as we knew it, no more, no less) is allowed a chance to prevail and as far from the failed social strategies of Socialism and Communism as they can get. Not a single American voter, even in Obama's election, ever voted FOR Socialism. It wasn't on the ballet and it was denied by all his proponents and the media at the time.
I also think it's time for a grass roots movement to teach the media that their spin and lies will be held against them....but I'll save that for another post.
Posted by: MrObvious at August 24, 2011 11:44 AM (2uovW)
Posted by: izoneguy at August 24, 2011 11:45 AM (i6Neb)
Posted by: SFGoth at August 24, 2011 11:45 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 11:45 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 24, 2011 11:45 AM (ea6Cq)
I simply see a better conservative for my primary vote.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 11:46 AM (519+h)
Posted by: SFGoth at August 24, 2011 11:46 AM (dZ756)
re: no casinos in TX
that's good to hear
because, in my opinion, casinos are a desperate move for lousy management
for instance: Massachusetts
Posted by: soothie at August 24, 2011 11:46 AM (sqkOB)
Because then it's not "ruthless" it's "principled."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:47 AM (8y9MW)
I seem to remember you castigating us about the super-fantastic debt limit fix everything faboo fucking compromise deal of 2011, too.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:47 AM (4CSeG)
...and horse racing.
And dog racing. There's also Bingo, but it's for charity only.
There are casinos in Texas, but they are on the reservations and belong to the Indians...err....natives.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at August 24, 2011 11:47 AM (ignDe)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 03:47 PM (8y9MW)
Well then, they're not moderates or independents.
Posted by: Tami at August 24, 2011 11:48 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: seven come eleven (ty) at August 24, 2011 11:48 AM (hn7Yz)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at August 24, 2011 11:49 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 11:49 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 11:49 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: lu at August 24, 2011 11:49 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: izoneguy at August 24, 2011 11:49 AM (i6Neb)
Posted by: blaster at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 24, 2011 03:40 PM (1+CnU)
Yup. The true polls begin once the actual voting starts. Everything else is just projection and speculation.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (dA2r6)
Most of the time, good enough is good enough.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (TMB3S)
Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots?
Wait, what?
Posted by: Dr. Evil at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (QKKT0)
You know, I keep seeing people say that, but I have yet to see an example of it.
Is there really a single person reading this thread who would argue that defeating Obama would be worth it? Our new president could be a dead dog, and the dog would still revoke Obamacare.
I'm tired of this empty rhetoric. I want someone to make a solid case that "winning with a less than purely conservative candidate" is actually somehow a loss, or a 'hollow victory.' That seems more to me like bitching about not getting 100% every single thing you want. Right now we're getting 0%. I'll take any margin over that, and between Romney and Perry the options we're given promise at worst 80% and at best far more.
Help us Zombie Reagan you're our ONLY hope!!!
Posted by: MrObvious at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (2uovW)
Posted by: joncell at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (RD7QR)
What is this about New Hampshire not buying Perry's story? What is it about Granite Staters?
I remember that the JEF lost to Shrillary in their primary. Wanting to get a look at the phenom, my wife and I drove down to Nashua, NH on the day of the vote, so as to be in the crowd at Nashua South H.S. to see Obama and hear his "yes we can" speech. We sat behind him in the bleachers. I recall they would not let us sit in the center background, and the campaign aides very carefully arranged a rainbow group there for the cameras.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (4sQwu)
To the non-ideological, having Harvard and Yale credentials is, a la Biden, a big fuckin deal.
When a normal person hears Kagan was Dean of Harvard Law. Or Obama was head of Harvard Law Review -- it counts as a big "neutral good" achievement in their mind. The normal person just registers that as, wow, they must be really damn smart. That's impressive.
So we get a constant flood of ultra-left wingers churned out each year with the most impressive possible academic credentials. And they can spend a whole lucrative career bouncing back and forth between academia and foundations, all of which sound super impressive to regular people.
This is another reason the Left has worked so hard to demonize "Big Business" and "Big Oil", etc, etc. That way real world, actual achievements (as opposed to Affirmative Action appointments) get denigrated. Hell, making a fortune in the oil business is probably a net negative to the typical voter. But being an Affirmative Action baby your entire career was turned into a huge positive by Obama.
It sucks. But that's the current situation.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: Will Folkss at August 24, 2011 11:50 AM (NJMRC)
>>> These people do, in fact, have an ideology.
Finally, someone who is in the know! Tell us, Oracle, what is that ideology.
After all these years, finally the Great Quest is over.
Posted by: spongeworthy at August 24, 2011 11:51 AM (rplL3)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 11:51 AM (Xm1aB)
Exactly. I said we should take what we could get given that we controlled 1/2 of 1/3rd of the government, even though it wasn't perfect, and not be the party responsible in the eyes of America for fucking default. (Even then, look at the damage that has been done to the Tea Party brand in the eyes of Americans b/c of the debt ceiling debate -- it's a TOXIC concept now, and you can't simply wave the polls away by crowing about your objective virtue: objective virtue don't mean jack shit if it's violently rejected at the ballot box.) Nothing that has happened subsequently has proven that position wrong, and indeed a great deal has supported it.
And yet you bring it up like UNDERMINES my position rather than bolsters it!
Posted by: Jeff B. at August 24, 2011 11:51 AM (TADg9)
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 11:51 AM (OhYCU)
A few examples will need to be made. Roughly 10% should do the trick.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:52 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: Panicked Green Voter at August 24, 2011 11:52 AM (qvify)
Sorry. I was trying to say that's how it's portrayed.
The "squishy middle" still mostly gets their news from ABC/CBS/NBC (they don't even go to CNN, most of them) in one hour bites each night. So, if all they hear about Republicans is how mean they are, and all they hear about Democrats is how soft and cuddly they are, they're going to align with the Democrats.
What's saving us, there, is that people aren't ignorant of their own circumstances, so when the Media starts singing "Happy Days Are Here Again!" and their situations still suck, they start questioning that maybe, just maybe, the media aren't the neutral third party they claim.
Then a Republican gets in office, largely fixes things, and the squishy middle allows itself to sink back into a stupor.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:52 AM (8y9MW)
It's a LOT of money. And that was 10 years ago.
The only reason we have the lottery is because Dem Ann Richards *spit* told us it was a lottery or a state income tax, our choice. We decided on the idiot tax.
There will be casino gambling in Texas eventually, the Lottery Commission wants it too badly. The legislature will cave some day.
Posted by: mpurinTexas, Evil Conservanatrix, supports Rick Perry, bitch at August 24, 2011 11:53 AM (ignDe)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet
Based upon personal experience, I voted for Castle in the primary, voted for COD the second, and drank heavily throughout.
PS Don't be sorry; your assessment is better than most.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 11:53 AM (326rv)
Posted by: Lace Wigs at August 24, 2011 03:33 PM (IhHdM)
--Obama didn't hold a prayer meeting at a rented stadium in Houston. Perry is primarily a social con, and less so an economic con.
And the problem with the Gallup poll is that it only measures moderate and liberal GOP types, not independents. Perry is going to have to appeal to independents to win.
Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2011 11:53 AM (YwDKF)
Greetings, my loyal subjects and other peons,
I am still very much alive and still the leader of Libya. Right now I'm chillin and eating Hot Pockets with a few close friends.
Anyway, I call upon you to fight the traitors and rats. Do that for your ol Uncle Muamar, eh?
Bye bye, talk to you later.
Posted by: Col Kaddafi at August 24, 2011 11:53 AM (sqkOB)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at August 24, 2011 11:54 AM (qvify)
96 As a Perry fan, and a Palin fan, I've long had a problem with Romney based on trust. But as I've argued against him I have learned he is actually a very smart man whose business successes are quite impressive even to a skeptic. He's not an idiot. He would be a much better president than Obama.
I simply see a better conservative for my primary vote.
I see Romney, Guilliani, Christie and Pawlenty as candidates that likely will not even pull their home states in a general. So why are we talking about them? Of this list, who can easily take their home state, FL, TX, and the rest of the south easily? See the problem they present? If the candidate can't take this block why are they even being considered? Did NY and CA suddenly show a disposition to go Republican in the last two weeks? Duh!!!!
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 11:54 AM (0M3AQ)
Perry held and organized that prayer meeting?! Really?
Posted by: Tami at August 24, 2011 11:54 AM (X6akg)
>>>Maybe that's too conspiratorial. But I have thought it.
>>>Several times.
Obama's due for a nasty surprise if this is the case. All Huntsman will do is provide an acceptable option for disillusioned Democrats to vote against Obama (but not for a 'too extreme' GOP candidate). It will quite literally be the John Anderson phenomenon all over again.
Seriously, I genuinely hope this happens. It would be the rare example of a 3rd party that HELPS Republicans instead of hurting them. There's a reason the guy is polling at 1% in the GOP primary -- he has no base here.
Posted by: Jeff B. at August 24, 2011 11:54 AM (TADg9)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:55 AM (GTbGH)
Fuck that. The Tea party movement is doing fine. Some whiney bitches just don't like that they don't get to lead the parade this time.
Only toxic to people who think it's beneath them and never really believed in it to begin with.
Toxic to Obama's reelection.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:55 AM (4CSeG)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 11:55 AM (QxSug)
Maybe that's too conspiratorial. But I have thought it.
Several times.
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 03:49 PM (nj1bB)
If he wasn't a plant in the beginning, it wouldn't be too high of a jump to think that the light-bulbs in the dem campaign HQ are turning on to this prospect. My thinking is that they'll be sorely disappointed with the results.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 11:55 AM (dA2r6)
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at August 24, 2011 11:55 AM (be5IN)
Ace I read it right. IF Perry can attract GOP moderates and right leaning indies, he's there. Moderate Dems either get to make the choice for 4 more years of Barry or someone with proven executive experience and who is pro business. Starting to see folks on the left who are hardcore moonbats getting disenchanted with the TOTUS.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at August 24, 2011 11:56 AM (kaOJx)
By the way, anyone else getting the feeling that Huntsman is actually an Obama plant in the Republican primary?
Or am I being too conspiratorial?
On paper, Huntsman would be a nifty candidate, if the country's mood called for a RINO. Let us remember that McCain still managed to get 48% last time during a wave election, so being a RINO candidate probably seemed like a pretty good idea earlier this year. Huntsman is playing for the squishy middle of the GOP, but he's finding out that's not where the primary votes will be this year.
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 24, 2011 11:56 AM (1+CnU)
Perry is both ghey and a ladies man, haven't you heard? *sighs*.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 24, 2011 11:56 AM (9hSKh)
Um...yeah? He organized it himself, IIRC.
Posted by: Jeff B. at August 24, 2011 11:56 AM (TADg9)
Two words: Bible Belt.
Not that you're wrong- it'll happen eventually, but I think it's a long, long way off.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:56 AM (8y9MW)
This is pretty much what i've been trying to say about Perry here, he's about 75% business conservative and 25% social conservative, in other words, he should be the type of guy that independents would like but he has just enough social conservative in him to keep that part of the R party happy. But, if the local liberal blogs here in Texas are any indication they're going to be attacking his Christianity hard and painting him as a religious nut, hard to believe they'd do that after Rev. Jerimiah Wright, but that sure looks like their plan.
Posted by: booger at August 24, 2011 11:57 AM (9RFH1)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 11:57 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: kdj0172 at August 24, 2011 11:57 AM (mdGpP)
Always vote for teh crazee over the RINO. If more of us had voted for the crazee in the last governors primary we could have made KBH come in dead last.
Posted by: Bob Saget at August 24, 2011 11:58 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: joncell at August 24, 2011 11:58 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 11:58 AM (Xm1aB)
By both the Rove and Clinton machines. In 2010. I'd say, "yes."
He organized it himself, IIRC.
No. That ultra-right wing, crypto-fascist group, Focus On The Family organized it. They invited him. He invited all the other governors.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (8y9MW)
Um, no, see my previous comment. I've lived in Texas the entire time Perry has been guv.
Posted by: booger at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (9RFH1)
I have wondered if he's not going to run 3rd party to try to help Obama.
Maybe that's too conspiratorial. But I have thought it.
Several times.
Posted by: ace
It's not as if there were real proof that Dmes have ever staged fake 3rd party candidates. Wait one; they have. Several times within the last two years.
And it ain't like they fight like dogs to keep potential 3rd party challengers to themselves off of ballots. Wait one; they have.
Why wouldn't they run this twerp? If nothing else, they get to lament the 'wonderful candidate that the Republuicans could hhave had, had they not been soooooo extreme'.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (326rv)
Once more into the breech dear friends.
Posted by: ralph nader at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 24, 2011 03:56 PM (9hSKh)
It could happen. You know, maybe he only likes lesbians.
Posted by: The New York Times, Watchdog of Democracy and Shit at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (QKKT0)
It is why I shake my head at about 80% of your posts on political strategy.
Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at August 24, 2011 03:44 PM (Z1WKS)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but have you ever met an independent??
A lot of them vote on the beer test, which Ace addressed tangentially, and a lot of them I knew were so close between Bush or Kerry that they could have coin flipped.
Posted by: DailyKos Rat at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (8Zpuz)
>>>Only toxic to people who think it's beneath them and never really believed in it to begin with.
>>>Toxic to Obama's reelection.
You're living in an awesome fantasy world where public opinion doesn't exist. I support the Tea Party, for god's sake, but I'm not dumb enough to realize that it's slightly less popular than streptococcus among the American public right now. Or are Gallup, Rasmussen, PPP, and every other polling company in the nation simply feeding us miserable lies in order to demoralize us? This is literally the Sarah Palin "polls don't matter!" argument shifted to different subject, and we all make fun of how retarded her followers who say that are.
Posted by: Jeff B. at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (TADg9)
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (FnRYN)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (8Zpuz)
Just vote for Obama.
He doesn't pray.
He went to Harvard.
He sucks dick.
He doesn't speak with a Texas accent.
He won't make you feel mean.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (4CSeG)
Jim, you dunce, Gov Patrick in MA has been bragging and bragging about his own slightly-lower-than-national-unemployment rate and his measly job creation.
Is that a myth, too?
Posted by: soothie at August 24, 2011 11:59 AM (sqkOB)
My issue is that she (1) takes credit for some team efforts (e.g., she wasn't the only R vocally against ObamaCare) and (2) has been inconsistent when it comes to such vital issues as entitlement reform. She voted for both the House and RSC budgets, then proceeded not long after to voice concerns about whether they cut Medicare benefits. Now she is supporting an unspecified type of entitlement reform. I'd like some consistency on the issue.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:00 PM (o2lIv)
There's ultimately no such thing as political pragmatism. All real world actions and outcomes must be interpreted and evaluated according to some ideological criteria, even if those criteria are not obvious, consciously chosen or even remotely rational.
Mainstream Media Liberalism is a master at framing things ideologically while concealing its ideological basis. For example, rising stock market prices are automatically considered "good," and they are happily reported on the news tickers as green arrows, while falling prices are reported in red with alarms and whispers of doom. But for every seller who is harmed by a falling stock price, there is a buyer who benefits. Only an ideological preference for one over the other can lead you to conclude that rising stock prices are either good or bad. (This reporting reflects an ideological bias from the perspective of late-career investors who already own relatively large stock market stakes, looking to retire in about 10 years, or in other words, your average upper level news executive.)
The problem, I think, is not with strongly ideological candidates, but with candidates whose ideology is more open and obvious, and less hidden, familiar and routine than the entrenched moderate-liberal ideologues. These outlier candidates routinely fail to displace the existing ideology. Instead of framing strong conservative ideology in positive terms, they are almost always defensive, which only confirms their outsider status, validates the ideological hegemony of the status quo, and thereby signals to the electorate that something about the conservative is amiss, strange, threatening, dangerous, etc.
Posted by: Phinn at August 24, 2011 12:01 PM (5yZsp)
It is because in the general election for president, the ruthless leftie (the JEF, as the perfect example) masks himself expertly as a centrist.
Remember Obama yelling about how he wanted to "change the way Washington works?" He did not say how he would do it, did he?
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at August 24, 2011 12:01 PM (4sQwu)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:02 PM (Xm1aB)
But Huntsman simply had to have known BEFORE getting the primary that he would not appeal to primary voters, right?
I mean, he has to be at least that bright, right?
And if he knew that, then why the hell waste the time?
Huntsman was bright enough to realize that it would be a wide open field for the GOP this year and anything could happen. Like maybe a Romney VP job. Looks like he isn't bright enough to shut up and get into the background before he does damage to himself though.
Posted by: Idaho Spudboy at August 24, 2011 12:02 PM (1+CnU)
Do Dems let socially conservative, fiscally conservative, national security hawks run for the Dem nomination on the platform that the Democratic party has become a party of socialist, traitorous baby-killers who've turned their back God?
Huntsman 2012: Vote for me. I hate Republicans. Especially those conservative ones. Also the libertarian ones. And the jesus-freaks. And the war-mongers, too. Please vote for me to lead this disgustingly racist, wingnut, scumbag party. Thank you!
Posted by: Clubber Lang at August 24, 2011 12:03 PM (QcFbt)
Having a record of accomplishment won't hurt, but if the Republicans run a competent campaign, the question the electorate will vote on is, "Are you better off now then when we last had a Republican government (2006)?"
Posted by: 18-1 at August 24, 2011 03:24 PM (7BU4a)
In case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. That more than made up for him not having anything in that column.
Posted by: kdj0172 at August 24, 2011 12:04 PM (mdGpP)
Ladies and Gentlemen
Texas has created 285,000 jobs in the last two years.
Thank you and good night.
Posted by: Rick Perry's Stump Speech at August 24, 2011 12:04 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Your Prog Brother in Law at August 24, 2011 12:04 PM (K/USr)
Posted by: Ian S. at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (tqwMN)
Posted by: tsj017 at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (4YUWF)
Remember Obama yelling about how he wanted to "change the way Washington works?" He did not say how he would do it, did he?
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at August 24, 2011 04:01 PM (4sQwu)
I know....I don't really believe there are that many people that are truly 'moderate' or 'independent'. As someone said above, people like that just don't vote. Scratch a moderate and you'll find a lefty 98% of the time.
Posted by: Tami at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (X6akg)
Call me crazy, but I never sat in a church with a preacher yelling God Damn America.
Lol.
Or how about, "Yes, I'm a born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ has a plan for all of us, and wishes to show us His Mercy and Grace. I'm told that Barack Obama* believes the same."
* who is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure, of course, but I don't think he'd need to say that part.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (8y9MW)
You're living in an awesome fantasy world where public opinion doesn't exist. I support the Tea Party, for god's sake, but I'm not dumb enough to realize that it's slightly less popular than streptococcus among the American public right now. Or are Gallup, Rasmussen, PPP, and every other polling company in the nation simply feeding us miserable lies in order to demoralize us? This is literally the Sarah Palin "polls don't matter!" argument shifted to different subject, and we all make fun of how retarded her followers who say that are.
Yeah. You support the Tea Party like Code Pink supports the troops.
You and your ilk can look down your noses all you want.
Eat your fucking milk toast and drink your TAB and vote for whoever makes you feel least mean.
Posted by: sifty, Son of LiberTea at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (4CSeG)
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (nj1bB)
Or far term for that matter. It's also why we're DOOMed. We simply do not have enough Right-leaning "ideologues" to dial back the Progressivism that has contaminated the Founders' original design; and we're constantly told that "this isn't the hill to die on" and "don't throw away your vote." We are destined to fail as every government before. At some point, we'll have conceded all the hills and will collapse. Hopefully from the ashes we'll arise... but don't bet on it. The Founders' America was historic.
Sure, I'm a radical and my position will condemn us to lose... so I've been told endlessly. Eh, we'll lose anyway reflexively going milquetoast (and repeating exactly what we've been doing for generations) but at a diminished rate. Yippee. I'd sure like to test the waters and go Tea Party Extremist! just to see if Americans have the guts, but my internal internist says we don't.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 24, 2011 12:05 PM (r4t7/)
(Even then, look at the damage that has been done to the Tea Party brand in the eyes of Americans b/c of the debt ceiling debate -- it's a TOXIC concept now
I don't in any way shape or form accept the liberal spin that the Tea Party is the current incarnations of Neo-Cons or that the Tea Party is toxically Ultra Conservative.
I've talked with many and I've read their literature. Mostly they're moderates and many have a moderate Libertarian perspective. A large majority of them are "smaller govt." fanatics. So what? So were the founding fathers!
We can't win if we keep letting the left set the definitions in the debate people!
Posted by: MrObvious at August 24, 2011 12:06 PM (2uovW)
Posted by: Phinn at August 24, 2011 04:01 PM (5yZsp)
It is an ideology, but the moderates you are talking about (media execs) are different from the moderates considered the "independents" or the "squishy middle" in a presidential election.
The foremost ideology of such people is ignorance, and rather proud ignorance, at that.
"Oh I'm not political," "why can't we all just get along," "McCain is too cranky to be President."
It is the existence of that kind of people that leads political theorists to conclude Kennedy won his election by appearing "presidential," as opposed to ornery and maybe Eeyore-like Nixon.
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at August 24, 2011 12:06 PM (8Zpuz)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at August 24, 2011 12:06 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: tsj017 at August 24, 2011 12:06 PM (4YUWF)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at August 24, 2011 12:07 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 12:08 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure at August 24, 2011 12:08 PM (AZGON)
I know....I don't really believe
there are that many people that are truly 'moderate' or 'independent'.
As someone said above, people like that just don't vote. Scratch a
moderate and you'll find a lefty 98% of the time.
Posted by: Tami at August 24, 2011 04:05 PM (X6akg)
I feel like this is also true, maybe in a slightly less important sense in my experience. Leftism lends itself to schoolyard ideas of how we can all save the world if we just hold hands and believe.
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at August 24, 2011 12:08 PM (8Zpuz)
>>> Them, and war winning generals.
Exactly. Congressmen usually do not win elections because they have few practical achievements, and are considered "too ideological."
People may have forgotten this, but until our politics got more partisan lately, even primary voters shunned the "too ideological" people always arguing in Congress, in favor of the more practical hands-on people in the states who had fewer such arguments.
The situation is a little different now -- Bachmann's ideological position actually HELPS her in the primary, whereas ten years ago it would have hurt her.
But while it may help her in the primary, it will still hurt her in the general.
More people are dropping their party labels. Some of them are Tea Partiers, who are ideological but do not believe in the Republican *Party* itself, but many of them are simply not strong partisans and figure they might as well make it official.
This makes the parties themselves more litmus-test partisan than they had been in years past.
But the general electorate is not changed all that much. It still consists of a liberal wing, a conservative wing, some leaners to either, and a good sized mass of true independents.
Posted by: ace at August 24, 2011 03:44 PM (nj1bB)
that's the conventional wisdom and since nothing ever changes we will always be able to count on it. in fact we should plan our strategy based on it and exclude anything or anyone that tries to tell us different.
good thing nothing ever changes, and nothing, NOTHING is changing now, everyhting is static and will remain so and all our old models are giving us perfectly accurate information, that whole 2010 election thing means that they are on our side now and they will always remain so, which means we can go back to doing whatever we want.
hey where's bob bennet and mike castle? they've always been around here, hmmm, that's weird.
naaa, they're just in the bathroom or something... Let games continue!
Posted by: GOP Grand Poobah's at August 24, 2011 12:08 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 12:08 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Veeshir at August 24, 2011 12:08 PM (7cyKH)
Having a record of accomplishment won't hurt, but if the Republicans run a competent campaign, the question the electorate will vote on is, "Are you better off now then when we last had a Republican government (2006)?"
Posted by: 18-1 at August 24, 2011 03:24 PM (7BU4a)
In case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. That more than made up for him not having anything in that column.
Well it assures him the black vote, but hell the black vote went for President Kerry too. The Dems are the ones that can't abandon him because by doing so they become the traitorous racist party to blacks. Bottom line, black vote doesn't count this time. No one will court it because its not in play. Blacks become merely the verbal shuttlecock of this election - they don't really count in the balance.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 12:09 PM (0M3AQ)
Human nature never changes. Lots of pithy quotes are available on that subject.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 12:10 PM (GTbGH)
**MSNBC Does It Again**
No love for this vid, eh? I thought it was some tasty rare prime rib, myself.
Posted by: soothie at August 24, 2011 12:11 PM (sqkOB)
Posted by: toby928™ waxes philosophical at August 24, 2011 12:11 PM (GTbGH)
In a new florida poll Perry wins Independents by 7 points and beats Obama by 7. Romeny wins independents by 11 points and beats Obama by 10 points. Indies are undersampled in the poll so there is a larger margin of error but democrats are oversampled.
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 12:12 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:12 PM (Xm1aB)
I said something similar the other day. Huntsman doesn't draw from the Republican side. Not really. He's much more likely to draw from the Democrat side.
The part of me that wishes I could give more credit to the Republicans for their Machiavellian scheming thinks that he could be a plant- a republican plant.
Based on actual results of polling, consider this scenario:
* Known Obama Admin official, who has said nice things about SCOAMFOTUS, Jon Huntsman, runs in the Republican primary.
* While doing so, he bashes Conservatives and runs on a generally left-of-center-but-not-quite-so-left-as-Barack-Obama platform.
* Huntsman loses the primaries badly, but stays in long enough to get some additional name recognition.
* Huntsman runs as a 3rd party candidate.
Now, given that scenario, who suffers more from his 3rd party run?
Right.
So if the Republicans were more Machiavellian than they are, I'd consider that they put him up to running.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:12 PM (8y9MW)
I think being a moderate IS an ideology.
...and agnosticism is a religion
------------------------
Political moderates are not politically agnostic. They claim to know, quite clearly, what they think the State ought to do and ought not to do.
Posted by: Phinn at August 24, 2011 12:12 PM (5yZsp)
In case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. That more than made up for him not having anything in that column.
Well it assures him the black vote, but hell the black vote went for President Kerry too. The Dems are the ones that can't abandon him because by doing so they become the traitorous racist party to blacks. Bottom line, black vote doesn't count this time. No one will court it because its not in play. Blacks become merely the verbal shuttlecock of this election - they don't really count in the balance.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 04:09 PM (0M3AQ)
Yes. All of this.
Obama was an outlier to this concept that legislators don't win the Presidency in the last what, fifty years? There's a reason he's an outlier - takes three points to make a trend.
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at August 24, 2011 12:12 PM (8Zpuz)
And the problem with the Gallup poll is that it only measures moderate and liberal GOP types, not independents. Perry is going to have to appeal to independents to win.
Fuck appealing to the independents. We did that in 2008 and look where it got us. I'll say it again. Fuck this self-defeating appeal to the people that call themselves independents. Most of them are just individuals who've gotten disgusted with the repub party because of it's, yes, I'll say it, squishiness.
What Perry is doing is appealing to Americans and that's where his message should stay. Everyone who considers themselves Americans are going to be attracted to a non-European, non-Indonesian, non-Obama platform.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 12:13 PM (dA2r6)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 24, 2011 12:14 PM (2tTzd)
I've never either. In fact, I've even embarrassingly said I don't think Perry should even attempt to have national ambitions because I didn't think he'd have any appeal. Apparently I was dead wrong.
The fact is Perry is not perfect. He's a good governor, that's all. Nothing revolutionary, but compared to Obama, a huge, huge difference in skill level and honesty.
His record wasn't easy to come by, either. It seems very unlikely someone better will turn up. Running a state the size and complexity of Texas with only a minor amount of drama is simply a huge accomplishment.
And in fact I think he's an improvement over Bush. Bush was a pretty skilled administrator who failed in some basic ways, sadly.
I believe real reform will come from the House, and our key worry must be gaining enough Senate power. Perry will not be a roadblock to that. Some GOP choices for president might be (either for lacking coat-tails or for being a RINO when a bill is presented for signature).
What we need from Perry is competent, low hassle leadership. Clarity on basic issues. Confidence. Regulation consistency. A host of simple things like that, and a nice use of the pulpit (as Perry has been doing already).
We don't need him to ram reform through congress. That isn't how it's going to happen, anyway.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 12:14 PM (519+h)
I'd cut her some slack on that.
Get ready for a whole lot of inconsistency and nuance on entitlement reform.
It was bad timing and undercut her insistence that she possesses a titanium spine, but I will give her credit for stating that entitlement reform is necessary. Romney has been reluctant to even say that much.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (o2lIv)
Are they getting enlarged beyond their standard resolution or something?
Posted by: nickless at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (MMC8r)
In a new florida poll Perry wins Independents by 7 points and beats Obama by 7. Romeny wins independents by 11 points and beats Obama by 10 points. Indies are undersampled in the poll so there is a larger margin of error but democrats are oversampled.
Anyone know how long Romney has been a declared candidate versus Rick Perry's week old annoucement? Seems Romney needs to worry his brand has been diluted by a new product in less than a week. Amazing shrinkage. Romney stay out of the water, things will look bigger.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (0M3AQ)
I have to say, if I weren't already voting for Perry, that would convince me.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (Xm1aB)
This lack of ruthlessness carries over into governing. Even if we get a Republican President and have solid control of the House and the Senate, having the political will to make the ruthless course changes necessary to avoid DOOM just isn't in the Republican's genetic makeup. At that point, everyone will be worried about 2014.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at August 24, 2011 03:38 PM (GKQDR)
I won't say you're wrong - but for now I have to act as if you are. Because if this statement is true (it probably is...) the only debate worth having is whether we should act to slow down the crash as best we can, or to accelerate it and plow this sucker into 'reset' mode.
Feel-good Liberalism can't survive a total collapse, and I would rather see the entire world burn than to let the Libtards win outright. If there's no way to pull out of this nose dive we may as well hit the gas.
Posted by: Reactionary at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (xUM1Q)
Did you lose your job after Barry took office? Are you in a better job now? Do you think we should try something different or stick with the same old same old we've had for the last four years?
Posted by: 18-1 at August 24, 2011 12:15 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at August 24, 2011 12:16 PM (NJMRC)
Shouldn't Rick Perry be able to swat away the media assault on his religious views with a single reply....
Call me crazy, but I never sat in a church with a preacher yelling God Damn America.
----------------------
Amen.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky at August 24, 2011 12:16 PM (be5IN)
If Huntsman is a plant, Obama better ask for a refund.
I said something similar the other day. Huntsman doesn't draw from the Republican side. Not really. He's much more likely to draw from the Democrat side.
If he runs as a third pary, then he'd likely draw from the left of the Republican and the right of Obama. If Huntsman splits independants, who have been conditioned by corndogs, crazy eyes and church meetings, then the question becomes; who needs that independant vote more? Obama or the republican? Whose base is bigger, and will turn out?
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 12:16 PM (6rX0K)
I wouldn't read that much into it, just yet. Let the "new" wear off. If he's in the same place in, say, 3 more weeks, then Romney might consider saving himself the money and calling it quits.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:17 PM (8y9MW)
For obvious reasons, wouldn't you agree?
Well, I think that's what I said...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:18 PM (8y9MW)
Anyone know how long Romney has been a declared candidate versus Rick Perry's week old annoucement? Seems Romney needs to worry his brand has been diluted by a new product in less than a week. Amazing shrinkage. Romney stay out of the water, things will look bigger.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 04:15 PM (0M3AQ)
I think you are right about that. I am not sure how many florida voters even know who perry is yet. If he is doing that well this early he should catch up.
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 12:18 PM (MtwBb)
Of course, I could be full of shit.
Posted by: Laughing in Texas at August 24, 2011 12:18 PM (dL9LY)
Posted by: USA at August 24, 2011 12:18 PM (6Cjut)
Nice. Like an Alabama quarterback. We don't expect them to win the game for us, just don't lose it for us. No fumbles, no picks, and let the line and the runningbacks win it.
Posted by: toby928™ waxes philosophical at August 24, 2011 12:18 PM (GTbGH)
I'm voting Paul if he is still in it when the CA primaries come. I'm sick of people telling me he is fringe and a kook.
No candidate represents my views 100% so why not go for the one that fits me best, despite what the media or "pure" Republicans tell me.
Posted by: California Red at August 24, 2011 12:18 PM (7uWb8)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 12:19 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 12:19 PM (F5tJy)
You haven't seen his sex tape? He is hung like a stallion!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at August 24, 2011 12:19 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: President John McCain at August 24, 2011 12:20 PM (FcR7P)
I have a new litmus test for 2012: If Huntsman ends up on the ticket--either spot--the fix is in. Nobody wants this guy except Democrats and the media! BIRM.
I don't see Perry, Bachmann, or even Romney asking him to be on the ticket.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:20 PM (o2lIv)
There's only one pitch that matters - we are spending money that doesn't exist. Rick Perry will try to stop it. Barack Obama thinks if we spend more money that doesn't exist things will get better.
The entire country needs to be able to understand this, or else even if Rick Perry wins, nothing will be done.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 24, 2011 12:20 PM (FkKjr)
I don't remember that
- Joe Namath
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 12:20 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: Zombie Ray Walston at August 24, 2011 12:20 PM (xy9wk)
speaking of the NFL...
Cam Newton has a nice haircut.
“We want to keep no tattoos, no piercings, and I think you’ve got a very nice haircut.”
--owner of the Carolina Panthers
Posted by: soothie at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (Xm1aB)
NOT TRUE. Get a clue. Studies have been done on American voters nationwide since the 1950s. People who identify as 'independents' are less likely to vote, less likely to know much of anything about politics, and less likely to influence others about voting decisions
less than those who identify as R or D. 'Independents' are the onlookers; the followers; the ignorant; the feckless
Many people have chased after or lied about a mythical group of highly-motivated well-informed yada yada yada independents. No one ever found them.
because they don't exist
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (UqKQV)
230 Seems Romney needs to worry his brand has been diluted by a new product in less than a week. Amazing shrinkage.
I wouldn't read that much into it, just yet. Let the "new" wear off. If he's in the same place in, say, 3 more weeks, then Romney might consider saving himself the money and calling it quits.
You are forgetting one thing. Perry doesn't have to prove his mettle to the base, he merely has to court the middle. Willard has to do both and carry MA into the Republican column in a general election. Path of least resistance says cut Willard loose quickly.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 04:19 PM (QxSug)
The first article after his nomination was the Times front page hit piece based on someone saying that his sister's maid's friend's daughter heard online that McShame was banging that lobbyist chick.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (F5tJy)
Posted by: TallDave at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (/s1LA)
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 04:16 PM (qzoN5)
yup fuck em, why would he vote no against that?
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (MtwBb)
Let's get his take on it before we throw him out with the garbage, shall we? He was hardly the only R to vote no- some of those were from very conservative Texas.
It's entirely possible he a) didn't think it was germane to underlying bill or b) didn't like some clause within the amendment.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: joeindc44
That's true enough. But we've already seen hucksters on the Dem side running solely for a payoff. Jackson did it twice and Sharpton lined up once for the VIP treatment. He'll be shabbily handled by the press, but he'll be paid.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 12:21 PM (6rX0K)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 24, 2011 12:22 PM (lbo6/)
Posted by: Bannor at August 24, 2011 12:22 PM (6AXh/)
Are they getting enlarged beyond their standard resolution or something?
Sometimes this blog changes my zoom level for some reason. Try putting it back to 100%
Posted by: eleven at August 24, 2011 12:22 PM (7DB+a)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan. Catching-22 at August 24, 2011 12:22 PM (UqKQV)
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 12:22 PM (OhYCU)
No candidate represents my views 100% so why not go for the one that fits me best, despite what the media or "pure" Republicans tell me.
Because he's a lunatic?
Because he thinks Iran should be allowed to have nukes?
Because he wants to abandon Israel and all other free peoples of the world?
I could keep going...
Posted by: garrett at August 24, 2011 12:23 PM (eiQoK)
The underlying bill is the NDAA. ROE is pretty fucking germane to that.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 12:23 PM (qzoN5)
Human nature never changes. Lots of pithy quotes are available on that subject.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 04:10 PM (GTbGH)
that's true, but something has changed recently, the Ruling Class is losing it's ablity to define the conversation, people are beginning to stop listening to them, stop trusting them and it's organic, it's being driven by the people as they see the government spiral out of control, they don't believe the Press, they don't believe the numbers put out by the agencies, they are ripe for a political sea-change, but our side is stuck on stupid and can't see the forest because they can only focus on one tree.
by accepting their conventional wisdom we prolong their hold on power and increase our own suffering.
Posted by: GOP Grand Poobah's at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (jdOk/)
Somewhere on the East Coast, someone soaked in cat pee is sobbing.
Posted by: Waterhouse at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (O6l28)
Vote for Paul all that you'd to like in CA. Like it matters.
And his own words should tell you that he's a kook.
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (YmPwQ)
I would add to that, however, a record of standing firm on those values; never flip-flopping or changing course as the political winds blow a la Romney. Reagan was very conservative, but was attractive to moderates and conservative Democrats because he was someone who had a solid record of doing what he said he would do, and believing in what he did.
Posted by: Sgt. York at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (gzquD)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (QxSug)
OT - From the unbiased, objective Politico' story "Art sends rare W.H. message on race" : "President Barack Obama as taken a decidedly low-key approach to racial issues since he became AmericaÂ’s first black president two years ago..."
Fourteen more months of this ? Really ?
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (XN5lA)
As a party committeeman, I see the voter rolls, so I know who is registered and how, and whether they voted in this election or that election.
The independents I know come across to me as people who think of themselves as non-partisan, who like to see political compromise, and who might tend to be turned off by highly partisan actions. The would classify themselves as moderates.
Most are low-information voters, if they vote. They are not paying attention to any of this, and will only be tuned into a general election in the last few weeks of the campaign. All their information will be gotten from TV and NPR radio. They do not discuss politics with anyone.
Do they have an ideology? Not really. Not a political one. They are just not tuned in, and they see themselves as a little bit above the fray, looking a little bit askance at those who eat the red meat of partisan politics.
Are they swayed by the MFM? You bet they are. Big time.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at August 24, 2011 12:24 PM (4sQwu)
Oh, I agree completely. I just don't think a single poll from FL just over a week after Perry jumped into the race really says that Romney should jump out.
There are lots of other reasons for that, of course, I just don't think that is one.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:25 PM (8y9MW)
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
"Achievements" in government aren't good. Everything done in it or by it is a net loss/drain/waste to/on/of everything but it. Even RAUN POL! can't do anything good there—because no in-government act is "non-ideological."
"A correctly administered society is possible and/or desirable" is pure ideology. It's progressive* ideology—whose apparent neutrality (or "moderation," or confusion with "competence," or whatever) is a show of its dominance, not a bare fact.
*It's progressive now. It's also been Platonist, Jewish, Catholic, Puritan, Communist, Nazi, Tory, and a bunch of other shit. And it'll be other other shit in the future, because it's the fundamental way people are fucked up.
Posted by: oblig. at August 24, 2011 12:25 PM (xvZW9)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 12:25 PM (TMB3S)
O/T but fuck Paul Ryan. Good thing he backed out.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 04:16 PM (qzoN5)
yup fuck em, why would he vote no against that?
Posted by: robtnot Paul Ryan, but maybe he didn't like the funding bill and didn't want the ROE amendment tacked on to shore up support for a spending bill?
Or maybe he's retarded.
Posted by: imp at August 24, 2011 12:26 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: tsj017 at August 24, 2011 12:26 PM (4YUWF)
I think your screed savvy editorial and the comments which followed shine a light on a common argument that is often just a semantic misunderstanding between the practical political animals ("PPAs") and the conservative, anti-RINOs ("CARs") here at AOSHQ.
As I see it, your PPA position is that you want the Republican candidate to be "electable," which you define (very practically) as someone who will attract the 30% of voters who are ideologically conservative and another 20+% of voters who will vote for the general election candidate they think is more likely (of the two) to achieve positive results on the important issues of the day.
The CARs would probably agree with you, but . . .
(1) They know that the media and the RINOs bestow the "electable" label on the most liberal-leaning of Republicans, so that when they hear a PPA use the term "electable" they flinch and have a predisposition that the PPA is pushing the media/RINO line.
(2) Because Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure when it comes to jobs and the economy, and has only succeeded on national defense issues when he has retained the Bush policies he criticized endlessly during his campaign, the CARs are convinced that a large percentage of general election voters (a) now believe, as they do, that any Republican candidate is likely to achieve more positive results than the SCoaMF, and/or (b) are now persuaded that Obama-style liberalism is an abject failure and so are willing to support someone on opposite-of-Obama ideological grounds.
Based on my conversations with my die-hard Democratic family members, I do not think there is much to be said for point (2)(b). As for point (2)(a), I think that a lot of 52%ers need a "reason to believe" in our 2012 Republican candidate. If we nominate someone who has little or nothing to show in the way of accomplishments within government at a high level (I'm looking at you, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachman, e.g.), then they may just decide that the serious and mature sounding Obama they see on the campaign trail next year has learned from four years in executive office and is likely to do better in his second term.
I don't know if Perry is the man of the hour, but he appears to fit the bill. I see Gingrich, Romney and Christie laying claim to the accomplishment vote, but less so than Perry and with a lot of RINO-claims and other baggage weighing them down. And I see no sense in going with Sarah, Herman, Rick or Michelle to pick up perfect conservative credentials so long as we can nominate a person who is accomplished in government and who each of us believes to be pretty damn conservative in the areas we consider of most importance.
Posted by: Z as in Jersey at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (sXUiz)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (cbyrC)
Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (UU0OF)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (OhYCU)
It is why I shake my head at about 80% of your posts on political strategy.
Posted by: Darel Finkbeiner at August 24, 2011 03:44 PM (Z1WKS)
I know plenty of people who show up to vote without an inkling about politics. They like how a guy talks or they're tired of the last guy. That's not ideology, sorry. and I can't get this post out of italics =/
Posted by: kdj0172 at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (mdGpP)
I'm right here.
Posted by: fluffy, IINO at August 24, 2011 12:27 PM (O6q63)
To win, you gotta do both. Reinforce and activate. Some Dudes discerned this back in th Fifties, and ain't nuthin' done changed.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at August 24, 2011 12:28 PM (UqKQV)
Well... there goes one theory.
There's still the second, of course.
I can see a principled argument for "We don't want congress imposing additional rules on our combat troops." It's Pandora's Box/slippery slope type argument, but it's there.
And it could be that he pooed the scrooch on this one. I'm just saying we should reserve judgment until we know more.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:28 PM (8y9MW)
our side is stuck on stupid and can't see the forest because they can only focus on one tree
That assumes "our side" is not part of the very thing people are revolting against.
Posted by: imp at August 24, 2011 12:28 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 12:29 PM (cbyrC)
Posted by: Pirate Pelf Lucre at August 24, 2011 12:29 PM (wN82N)
Posted by: tsj017 at August 24, 2011 12:30 PM (4YUWF)
I just saw that the vote was back in May. WZ reposted it from somewhere. We're not likely to get an explanation about why.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 12:30 PM (qzoN5)
if you cannot keep the motor running and the vehicle between the lines, the destination is a lot less important than that oak tree in the way.
Now there's an Oak Tree in the Ditch?
Fuck them and their lofty, light-stealing ways!
Posted by: The Maple Trees at August 24, 2011 12:31 PM (eiQoK)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 12:31 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: fluffy, IINO at August 24, 2011 04:27 PM (O6q63)
Whatever you are or aren't, you ain't Them. Maybe you is the Occasional Exception; don't matter. You is statistically insignificant ( as are we all )
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at August 24, 2011 12:31 PM (UqKQV)
I'm voting Paul if he is still in it when the CA primaries come. I'm sick of people telling me he is fringe and a kook.
No candidate represents my views 100% so why not go for the one that fits me best, despite what the media or "pure" Republicans tell me.
In a world where foreign policy did not matter, I would be a hard core Paulian.
But alas, we do not live in that world.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 12:31 PM (ujg0T)
The Obama administration starting touting Huntsman as "the candidate they fear the most" right after Obama took office.
And then the media got on the bandwagon, giving Huntsman coverage and exposure far beyond his level of actual support.
As near as I can tell, there's pretty close to zero interest in Huntsman among GOP voters, even the squishes. No one wants this guy except the Dems and the press.
Yes, he's a ringer.
Posted by: tsj017
This reminds me of a hit piece I saw in Delaware during the Senate race here. The 'impartial press' interviewed Kaufman, the toad that filled in for Biden after he ascended to greatness (VP). he waxed poetic about the extremism of the Republican party in Dealaware, and bemoaned the fate of Castle. A Dem placeholder whining that 'good men like Castle were too extreme for the Republicans'. Cute huh? And they never mentioned the Dem candidate; this was strictly aimed at independants and republicans. This game of division is being played by Dems with varying degrees of skill and success in recent years.
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 12:32 PM (6rX0K)
and i agree with others here, moderates/independents have no ideaology, they are wind-checkers and fence-squatters until the last minute then they chose which ever side looks like it's going to win.
they are followers, they follow the herd where ever it goes.
to get their votes all you have to do is be the driver of the herd.
Posted by: GOP Grand Poobah's at August 24, 2011 12:32 PM (jdOk/)
But gop chicks get slaughtered by the media, so better stick with nominating dudes.
And this electorate is going to be craving a "return to normalcy" AKA President Daddy is back in charge. I really don't think there's going to be a desire to double-down on the historic! change! card. Esp not with, sorry to say it, an even flakier version of Palin in Bachmann. The first female prez is gonna have to come to the campaign arena laden with real accomplishments and an iron personae before a majority will entrust this job to her;
Posted by: nightwitch at August 24, 2011 12:32 PM (11j7G)
No, I don't think that he is a kook as much as his political philosophy is antithetical to a freedom loving nation such as ours.
We have friends in the world who need help. They are our friends precisely because they believe in the same things we do: political, religious and financial freedom. He rejects all foreign aid, but that only hurts those who believe in freedom. That is a logical flaw in strict libertarianism that I simply can't reconcile with any coherent political philosophy.
On second thought...yeah...he is a kook.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at August 24, 2011 12:33 PM (LH6ir)
Oh, I agree completely. I just don't think a single poll from FL just over a week after Perry jumped into the race really says that Romney should jump out.
There are lots of other reasons for that, of course, I just don't think that is one.
Its become a crowded field and likely to become more so. Perry has cut a sharp image to the base and has been rewarded by them quickly. All that Romney can do now is (1) try to appeal the base or (2) diminish Perry to the base. As I said, I doubt Romney would win MA in a general so why let the squish damage our leading candidate? Party's exist for a reason. At some point the party has to take Romney outside and explain reality to him. Path of least resistance also allows us to marhal all resources for a concentrated attack on Obumbles and his asslickers. Wasting time on an also ran with no real base of support is silly.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 12:33 PM (0M3AQ)
I can see a principled argument for "We don't want congress imposing additional rules on our combat troops." It's Pandora's Box/slippery slope type argument, but it's there.
What? You are saying that congress should say it's just fine for the Pres to issue ROE's that endanger their lives. Congress is the only branch of government that can raise and Army and send them to war. I hope the hell they would at least make sure that when they do that the soldiers can shoot back.
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 12:33 PM (MtwBb)
In case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. That more than made up for him not having anything in that column.
True dat. But with all the cries of "raaaaaaaaacism" this early and often, I don't think it's going to help this time. Most of those 52 percenters purged the white guilt by voting for him in 2008. With his stuttering clusterfuck of a record, they won't feel obligated to do so again.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at August 24, 2011 12:34 PM (Oj8ux)
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 04:16 PM (qzoN5)
yup fuck em, why would he vote no against that?
The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Howard McKeon voted no on that as well, as did Adam Kinzinger. Considering all three reps are strongly pro-military, I assumed it was because they felt the Congress should not set the rules, because otherwise it does not really make sense-- especially in light of their voting records.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:34 PM (o2lIv)
I remember some vote that people thought Paul Ryan muffed back some months ago. This may have been it. If it was, and if I'm remembering the other details correctly, it was an "ideology" issue. That is, he disliked something or other in it intensely, and felt safe enough voting against it (it was going to pass anyway) that he wanted "his objection on the record," as it were.
But I could be misremembering.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:34 PM (8y9MW)
LOL. The benediction for his pathetic inauguration - the first friggin day of this un-Constitutional nightmare:
"... help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right."
"Damn whitey!"
That's the "low-key approach to racial issues", I guess. I wonder what that asswipe Holder's statement that America is "a nation of cowards" is "low-key"?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 12:35 PM (F5tJy)
You is statistically insignificant
But, my Mom says I'm special!
But serially, I'm a locked in (R) vote, but refuse to affiliate myself with the party of Lindsey Graham.
Posted by: fluffy, GDI at August 24, 2011 12:35 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Marie at August 24, 2011 12:36 PM (H50jQ)
Then he just starts planning for 2016.
Ace, and most commentators who must continually churn product to keep their blog-hit rates up, might find the horse-race polling data fun and meaningful, but it is not. Not 14 months from the election and not before the Republican candidates have started fighting it out in debates and in the ad wars. None of the organizational and monetary advantages that one candidate has relative to another has had anytime to show itself: yet the far right -- once again trying to out stupid the Kos-kids -- is calling it over.
The way sampling this far out works, at this stage, is that it's too course grained to be indicative of the election outcome. It's use is in showing the relative rank order of the candidates, the trends in time, and how they are preforming as per any demographic, as per any region.
Perry has filled the conservative vacuum, no doubt about it. We didn't need 1200 respondents to tell us what 10 seconds skimming Ace's comment section can tell us.
What hasn't emerged is that he can, demographically, change the electoral map from one which is inline with culture-war type boundaries (ie. 2004, 2006, 2010), to one which is based on the economic axis whereby states like MI, WI, NH, NV are in play. If we turn this into a cultural war, we lose in a high-turn out election like 2012.
It's yet to be determined if Perry, outside of the nominees ultimate fate as a candidate, can have the coattails that a Romney would in many of the Rustbelt and upper-Midwest states. The, admittedly, early data I've been privy to shows he does not.
Posted by: TheInverseAgonist at August 24, 2011 12:36 PM (0lc8C)
Posted by: mpfs,TPT at August 24, 2011 12:36 PM (iYbLN)
Congress doesn't write the rules, but they do write the checks, and that's what this amendment was for - the National Defense Authorization Act for FY12.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 12:38 PM (qzoN5)
The MFM still have the power to make a non-leftie toxic--and They used their evil powers on her. It worked. Real the polls ( polls often mislead but they don't lie )
Suck it up, as the heart surgeons say, and support Perry. Because you know you want to, deep down inside.....................
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at August 24, 2011 12:38 PM (UqKQV)
My question is, will open primaries throw us Romney. Dems voting en masse for the less appealing of the two? My belief is that is exactly how we got McLame.
Posted by: Lady in Black at August 24, 2011 12:38 PM (ycuSb)
The inverse of this argument explains why the Democrats are in such trouble this go-round. It's not <i>just</i> that the economy sucks, it's that the Democrat Party was given control of both the legislature and the executive and <i>completely fucked up</i>. Ramming beside-the-point (the economy) legislation through and declaring ideological victories just pisses people off.
Whomever the next Republican president is, Perry, Romeny or whomever, that person needs to do exactly as Ace says and rack up a series of "neutral goods" before, not after, appointing Robert Bork to the Supreme Court (or doing something equally in-your-face ideological).
Posted by: MTF at August 24, 2011 12:39 PM (Zgu89)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 12:39 PM (TMB3S)
So, the key to GOP victory is to have mass purgings. Repent, ye evil doers, repent!!!
Posted by: formerly known as cherry pi at August 24, 2011 12:40 PM (OhYCU)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 12:40 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 12:41 PM (0FEvE)
I love Sarah, but I think you're right. I don't think she could win, and if she did I think the opposition to anything she tried to do would be 100 times worse than Bush's last two year.
I'm really hoping her big announcement in Iowa this weekend is her endorsement of Perry.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 12:41 PM (qzoN5)
our side is stuck on stupid and can't see the forest because they can only focus on one tree
That assumes "our side" is not part of the very thing people are revolting against.
Posted by: imp at August 24, 2011 04:28 PM (UaxA0)
in this paticular instance by "our" side i meant the GOP, and you have nailed the exact issue of ultimate importance, the enemy within is not just the Dems, it's the progressive Old Guard that controls the Republician Party apparatus, these Teddy Roosevelt-loving, totalitarians want the same thing as the Dem progressives, why? because they are all progressives. It's Progressivism that is the enemy, and progressives control both parties.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 12:41 PM (jdOk/)
BTW, I'm not emotionally engaged in anything here. I'm undecided on Palin. She's aces on the issues, has the balls of Sergeant York and this guy combined, and has been out front on the side of the good guys for months, but she might be a huge flake.
I dunno.
Then again, Palin is the only one I actually know very much about at this point. I am rationally ignorant. I will de-ignorantize myself in a timely fashion before I need to act.
Until then, I am waiting and seeing and ignoring the BS early polls.
Posted by: Ken at August 24, 2011 12:41 PM (3ar4L)
Hmmm... seems I've been seeing some evidence of that strategy, somewhere... can't put my finger on it.
Oh, well. I'm sure it'll come to me.
What? You are saying that congress should say it's just fine for the Pres to issue ROE's that endanger their lives.
No. I'm saying I can see that an argument could be made. I don't know if I'd agree with it, or not.
Consider, however, the possibility (not likely, I'll grant, but not impossible either) that our troops were deployed to Israel to assist there. Now assume an ROE that said "Don't open up if there are civilians, unless you absolutely have to." That makes a little sense to me: these are our actual allies, and we'd prefer their citizens not to get caught in a crossfire.
IIRC, that's actually pretty close to the ROE in urban areas in Iraq. Because killing civilians is something we actively try to avoid.
Now, do you really want Congress over-riding that? Think hard about your position, because I guarantee you that, with enough civilian deaths, AQ would be welcomed as saviors when we left.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:42 PM (8y9MW)
And really, what's in it for him to drop out anyway? When you've spent six years of your life running for President, and you don't get it, you're pretty much out of politics. Nope, it's a race to the finish this cycle.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 12:42 PM (GTbGH)
Here's a good article: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/410/
Posted by: Ken
Um, Ken. Did you even read the article?
"In seven open Republican contests since 1960, the early front-runners held on to win the party nod six times."
85% ? Yeah. Terrible odds that.
"Wobbly General Election Polls
A review of polls conducted in the first quarter of the year preceding the election found many of them forecasting the wrong winner ..."
Aug. 2011 is in the 3rd Quarter of this year.
Posted by: weft cut-loop at August 24, 2011 12:42 PM (DEcmU)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 04:39 PM (TMB3S)
It's not too early for people to suggest it to him, though. He's damaged goods ... by his own hand.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 12:42 PM (F5tJy)
and i agree with others here, moderates/independents have no ideaology, they are wind-checkers and fence-squatters until the last minute then they chose which ever side looks like it's going to win.
they are followers, they follow the herd where ever it goes.
to get their votes all you have to do is be the driver of the herd.
Posted by: GOP Grand Poobah's at August 24, 2011 04:32 PM (jdOk/)
I liked the word someone upthread used to describe independents: Feckless. Absolutely, independents are feckless.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 12:43 PM (dA2r6)
I'm really hoping her big announcement in Iowa this weekend is her endorsement of Perry.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 04:41 PM (qzoN5)
I love her too, man. I love the way she makes every--and I mean every--leftie shit his/her pants and foam at the mouth. No one else does that ( to anywhere near the extent she does )
But like Newt, she's been Toxified by the MFM. It's wrong and sick and terrible and evil, but..........it's done.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at August 24, 2011 12:44 PM (UqKQV)
The amendment was about Congress setting the ROE. It doesn't show (from that link, at least) how he voted on the bill itself.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:44 PM (8y9MW)
If he runs as a third pary, then he'd likely draw from the left of the Republican and the right of Obama. If Huntsman splits independants, who have been conditioned by corndogs, crazy eyes and church meetings, then the question becomes; who needs that independant vote more? Obama or the republican? Whose base is bigger, and will turn out?
Posted by: Blue Hen at August 24, 2011 04:16 PM (6rX0K)
Crap, he'd have trouble drawing his mother's vote. He's nobody NOW, before stabbing his party in the back. The monster in the closet is a more rational fear to have.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:44 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Tami at August 24, 2011 03:42 PM (X6akg)
Exactly This. Every poll says people hate 'dirty political ads' yet why are they still used? Because. They. Work.
Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at August 24, 2011 12:44 PM (UU0OF)
Having a record of accomplishment won't hurt, but if the Republicans run a competent campaign, the question the electorate will vote on is, "Are you better off now then when we last had a Republican government (2006)?"
Posted by: 18-1 at August 24, 2011 03:24 PM (7BU4a)
In case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. That more than made up for him not having anything in that column.
Well it assures him the black vote, but hell the black vote went for President Kerry too. The Dems are the ones that can't abandon him because by doing so they become the traitorous racist party to blacks. Bottom line, black vote doesn't count this time. No one will court it because its not in play. Blacks become merely the verbal shuttlecock of this election - they don't really count in the balance.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 04:09 PM (0M3AQ)
You think the only votes Obama got because he was black were from black people? LOL. White guilt was a huge factor. And you're right, it won't be an issue this election, but it certainly wasn't about the black vote last election.
Posted by: kdj0172 at August 24, 2011 12:45 PM (mdGpP)
He voted for the bill and against Dem amendments. (I would have to go and see what those were.) But I remember thinking at the time that there had to be more to it because of some of the Republicans voting no. It's unlike them.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:45 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 12:45 PM (0FEvE)
My question is, will open primaries throw us Romney. Dems voting en masse for the less appealing of the two? My belief is that is exactly how we got McLame.
Dems are not that smart and they are especially not that disciplined. They can pull this stuff at local elections and have an impact, but on a national stage its less that 1% error noise.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 12:45 PM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:45 PM (Xm1aB)
Minor quibble. Sarah Palin never voluntarily shared a couch with Nancy Pelosi. She was made toxic. Newt poisoned his own well.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:46 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at August 24, 2011 12:46 PM (UU0OF)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 04:39 PM (TMB3S)
Rudi G was winning big in Florida in 2008, until they actually held the primary.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:46 PM (z1N6a)
I'm not real worried how he voted on that bill. Voting against that amendment says enough.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 12:46 PM (qzoN5)
pure media bullshit. this is a problem in that gop bitches hate gop bitches.
I don't hate Bachmann...I am a bitch though
But what are her accomplishments that will win over men and women? Cuz dudes don't really want to vote for the girl either. That's why any female candidate better be someone who the media will not be able to portray as one step away from fainting from a spell of the "vapors"
Posted by: nightwitch at August 24, 2011 12:47 PM (11j7G)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 04:42 PM (F5tJy)
And what amazes me is that he could have repaired the damage of RomneyCare with a simple statement of the difference between states and federal action, and how each state is a little test case for the rest of the country...blah,blah,blah, and how he tried and failed.
But he doubled down on stupid with AGW. Wow.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at August 24, 2011 12:47 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 12:47 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 04:45 PM (0FEvE)
Isn't dropping out Romney's strategy this time around?
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:48 PM (z1N6a)
No, they didn't. White guilt is still as powerful in the US as it ever was. The only change is that Barky is so incredibly inept and stupid and nasty and pathetic that even those hoping the most to like him or respect haven't found themselves able to, no matter how hard they try. The MFM has been writing around this for a long time ... mostly subconsciously, though a few articles have been done an intentional level ... until the author just submerged once again into his white-guilt-ridden, perverted concept of the world.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 12:48 PM (F5tJy)
Okay. I'm ideological. I'm not sure where that puts you on the spectrum.
You don't even care if he had some actual, principled reasoning (a quicky, off-the-top-of-my-head version of which I already shared) for his vote. He casts one vote with which you disagree on a knee-jerk, and you're ready to throw him overboard?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:48 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 12:48 PM (yAor6)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 04:44 PM (8y9MW)
No it wasn't, it just said if you are sending these guys into harms way when YOU write the ROE make sure you do it so they can protect themselves. You would think that wouldn't have to be said but lately it seems it does from what I've heard anyways.
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 12:49 PM (MtwBb)
H.R. 1540 -To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.
Aye
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:49 PM (o2lIv)
Minor quibble. Sarah Palin never voluntarily shared a couch with Nancy Pelosi. She was made toxic. Newt poisoned his own well.
Bingo! If the MFM was motivated enough to destroy Palin, that MUST speak well of her. Meanwhile, the MFM buttered up McLame so long as he was a useful idiot and dupe against Bush.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 12:50 PM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 12:50 PM (0M3AQ)
That last part is the most important. He said the rest in 2008, and then followed up with how much of a success it was.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 12:50 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 12:50 PM (yAor6)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 04:48 PM (F5tJy)
Perhaps, but to get the Unicorns and Skittles crowd back Barky will have to seem safe and cozy and cuddly again. That ship has sailed. The self-flagellating vote will be forced to find someone else.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:51 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at August 24, 2011 12:51 PM (JiW7r)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:51 PM (Xm1aB)
You know what, dogfucker Jim? I sure would hate to be you when SHTF during Perry's first term and the only way through is for him to return this country to its Christian fundamentalist roots.
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 04:27 PM (cbyrC)
--You apparently agree with me that Perry believes in Dominionism. That'll go over well with independents if it gets enough media attention in the next 12-15 months.
Posted by: Jim at August 24, 2011 12:52 PM (YwDKF)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 12:52 PM (yAor6)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 12:52 PM (TMB3S)
I've been "over there." I'm going back. Anybody that tells me I can't shoot some fucker trying to kill me or my guys is no friend of mine. If that's a knee-jerk response, well, I'm sorry. So is returning fire.
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 12:53 PM (qzoN5)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 04:50 PM (0M3AQ)
I'm not really in disagreement with you on Romney's chances, but if the only reason for backing a candidate is to win his home state, there's no point in backing a Texan either. We will win that one anyway. You'd have to back swing staters like Pawlenty or Bachmann.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:54 PM (z1N6a)
Please feel free to inform us then next time you become privy to...information.
Thank you, and good day.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at August 24, 2011 12:54 PM (9CM5J)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 04:47 PM (TMB3S)
My view that Romney should drop out has nothing to do with Perry getting the nomination. I'm a Bachmann supporter.
My point with Romney is that he is just drag. No one really wants him. I like the guy, but I'm just tired of him, already, and his positions aren't getting any better over time. He took no part in any of the public debates when the shit was hitting the fan with the Porkulus and ObamaCare and all that shit. He had ample opportunity to be laying into Barky when so few others were. But, Mitt was nowhere to be found. Those were the real battles. When Barky was running around the world blaming America for everything on his World Traitor Tour, Mitt had nothign to say. About the most repulsive act an American occupying the Oval Office can commit (and un-Constitutional and impeachable cubed, BTW) and Romney had better things to do than go after the Indonesian.
Meh. I wish Romney would just return to wherever he's been for the past 2 1/2 years. Don't call us, Mitt. We'll call you.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 12:54 PM (F5tJy)
Obama didn't hold a prayer meeting at a rented stadium in Houston. Perry is primarily a social con, and less so an economic con."
No Obama held a pagan ritual with fake greek columns in Denver.
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 12:54 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 04:48 PM (yAor6)
Can you try that once more in English, please?
Posted by: Django the bastard at August 24, 2011 12:54 PM (jWF2N)
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 12:54 PM (dA2r6)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at August 24, 2011 12:56 PM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Django the bastard at August 24, 2011 04:54 PM (jWF2N)
yeah I started one way and ended another. basically a little jest to put Bachmann and Romney supporters on suicide watch.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 12:56 PM (yAor6)
I still think I'll wait to see how things play out.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 04:52 PM (TMB3S)
Well, I was shortening it up a bit. Funny that Mitt seems to be wanting to duplicate Rudy's strategy this time around.
And I, too, will wait to see what the actual voters think. But as a proto-Mitt backer last time, I can't see that he's learned from the poor campaign he ran last time around.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:57 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 12:57 PM (TMB3S)
Amendment No. 38—Rep. Mica (R-FL): The amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the rules of engagement applicable to the Armed Forces assigned to duty in a hostile fire area fully protect the service members’ right to bear arms and authorizes the service members to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 12:57 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 04:27 PM (cbyrC)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at August 24, 2011 12:58 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at August 24, 2011 04:56 PM (YmPwQ)
MA will go to Obama even w/ Romney on the ticket. Romney has been saying he wants to be associated w/ New Hampshire more then with Massachusetts. NH though will prob go red w/ Obama's approvals there being lower then in other swing states.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 12:58 PM (yAor6)
Meh. I wish Romney would just return to wherever he's been for the past 2 1/2 years. Don't call us, Mitt. We'll call you.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 04:54 PM (F5tJy)
Sounds quite a bit like the Dems thought about Hillary last time.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 12:58 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 12:59 PM (0FEvE)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 24, 2011 12:59 PM (lbo6/)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 12:59 PM (Xm1aB)
yeah I started one way and ended another. basically a little jest to put Bachmann and Romney supporters on suicide watch.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 04:56 PM (yAor6)
I see. LOL.
I welcome Perry to the race. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat in the general. I just prefer Bachmann.
I'd vote for Mitt in a heartbeat over the Indonesian, too, but I'd feel kinda dirty.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 01:00 PM (F5tJy)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:01 PM (Xm1aB)
Yes, I know that only "Phineas and Ferb" fans will catch the reference, but Rick Perry makes a pretty good "semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action," and Obama makes a better-than-average president of "Evil, Incorporated." If "President Doofenschmirtz" sticks to Obama the way the Killer Rabbit dogged Carter, this election is already over...
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at August 24, 2011 01:01 PM (qO32s)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 05:00 PM (F5tJy)
just a little jest is all. a twinkie is better then Obama
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 01:01 PM (yAor6)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 01:01 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: sonnyspats1 at August 24, 2011 01:02 PM (I/MzF)
I like her rack too!
Although...Perry isn't too shabby either.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at August 24, 2011 01:02 PM (LH6ir)
Please tell me a conscious individual over the age of 15 didn't write this. It physically pains me to try and parse your logic.
The concept of running Romney isn't so we take MA (?!) it's that his private sector economic experiences as well as being a well known corporate turn-around executive that people go to when the situation sucks and we demand results (ie. 2002 Olympics, Baine Capital) plays well in the 2012 environment. Especially in states like Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.
Posted by: TheInverseAgonist at August 24, 2011 01:02 PM (0lc8C)
What the hell is dominionism, in 20 words or less?
I think I know, but am not sure.
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 04:59 PM (Xm1aB)
Since Canada is a Dominion, it must be about Canada.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:03 PM (z1N6a)
They put him on the cover of Time even before he became Speaker, as the Gingrinch Who Stole Christmas.
They don't got no reasons; they don't need no stinkin' reasons
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, Treasure of the Sierra Monkeys at August 24, 2011 01:04 PM (UqKQV)
what "accomplishments" do any of the current crop of canidates have, the ones that have been there are part of the problem no matter what they say now, their "accomplishments" consist of driving the nation to fiscal ruin.
so the arguement that this person or that hasn't sponsored a passed bill only leads me to believe they are offering up bills the progressives don't like.
that's the one i want.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:04 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 01:04 PM (cbyrC)
from what I gather, a dominionist is someone who...it's kinda like manifest destiny meets imperialism meets capitalism.
Posted by: the 5 o'clock lull at August 24, 2011 01:05 PM (sqkOB)
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 04:53 PM (qzoN5)
I agree, Bomber. I had to be in a war zone with almost identical ROE. Fuck 'em. They have no idea of the razor's edge on which soldiers have to live (and die).
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 01:05 PM (dA2r6)
I like her rack too!
Although...Perry isn't too shabby either.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)) at August 24, 2011 05:02 PM (LH6ir)
You bad man! You very very bad man! Me dislike you long time! Ten dollah!
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, Treasure of the Sierra Monkeys at August 24, 2011 01:06 PM (UqKQV)
Posted by: Bomber at August 24, 2011 04:53 PM (qzoN5)
I agree, Bomber. I had to be in a war zone with almost identical ROE. Fuck 'em. They have no idea of the razor's edge on which soldiers have to live (and die).
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 05:05 PM (dA2r6)
Better a war crimes trial than a funeral.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:06 PM (z1N6a)
the two main dominionists are Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry
it's the "it" word right now on the lefty blogs
Posted by: soothsayer at August 24, 2011 01:07 PM (sqkOB)
"I'm not racist! I voted for him the first time!"
That's really the only element that needed to be covered. Because that's how fucking stupid they are.
Posted by Empire of Jeff
Excellent point. Couldn't have said this better myself.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at August 24, 2011 01:07 PM (Oj8ux)
Sadly, I see no help on debt or immigration, but maybe he will surprise me.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 24, 2011 01:07 PM (4nfy2)
I am still very much alive and still the leader of Libya. Right now I'm chillin and eating Hot Pockets with a few close friends.
Anyway, I call upon you to fight the traitors and rats. Do that for your ol Uncle Muamar, eh?
Bye bye, talk to you later.
Posted by: Col Kaddafi at August 24, 2011 03:53 PM (sqkOB)
Dude! Get the Ho-Po's with bacon, they are 'da bomb! Chowin' on one right now with an MGD.
Posted by: Mr. Assad, to you! at August 24, 2011 01:07 PM (ulPNQ)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 04:50 PM (0M3AQ)
I'm not really in disagreement with you on Romney's chances, but if the only reason for backing a candidate is to win his home state, there's no point in backing a Texan either. We will win that one anyway. You'd have to back swing staters like Pawlenty or Bachmann.
You have to have TX, FL the entire south and cut big into the Midwest to win. Pawlenty like Romney has issues taking his home state. Bachman lacks executive experience. We both saw how that turned out. Swing states come to winners. Don't design your campaign on their profile. Hell Perry will probably pull MI if he takes the south, dittos OH, IN, WI, MN, and likely IA. Shoosh. The places he won't take are NY, MA, CA, probably OR and WA and those pansy NE states with their COXIST bumber stickers.
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 01:08 PM (0M3AQ)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 05:01 PM (TMB3S)
Shrillary had it locked until she said that she supported Spitzer's drivers licenses for illegals. That was the end of her primary run. It was also the end of Spitzer, who had 70% approval ratings until then and had them dive to something like 40% right after that debate and the discussion about his idiotic and treasonous policy.
Of course, Shrillary went on to cement her place in world history with one of the dumbest diplomatic moves ever recorded, with the US State department unable to translate one simple word from English into Russian (a language that we've had to do intense spying in and monitoring of for more than half a century) for a formal diplomatic presentation. Shrillary did the slapstick equivalent of the Persian governor killing the Mongol embassy. The "overcharged" button will not be soon forgotten and will provide laughs for thousands of years.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 01:08 PM (F5tJy)
Trying to getting your policy preferences actualized, if they are Christian based. So, Representative Democracy.
15, 15 words.
Posted by: the count at August 24, 2011 01:09 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 01:09 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:10 PM (Xm1aB)
You mean that one Clinton who won twice?
Posted by: Samuel Adams at August 24, 2011 01:10 PM (ulPNQ)
Posted by: Mahon at August 24, 2011 01:10 PM (SATip)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:11 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:11 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: TheInverseAgonist at August 24, 2011 05:02 PM (0lc8C)
Once again its absolutely hilarious to me how Romney's supporters, once only about needing to defend their guy because they just knew he was the inevitable candidate, are absolutely terrified of Perry's entrance. Their inevitable choice going up in a Texas sized puff of smoke.
Posted by: buzzion at August 24, 2011 01:11 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 01:11 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:12 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at August 24, 2011 01:12 PM (kaOJx)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 04:57 PM (o2lIv)
Yeah, but "ensure" to whom?
So it's either Congress de facto setting the ROE, or it's a meaningless amendment that just makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Which is it?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:12 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: t-bird at August 24, 2011 01:13 PM (FcR7P)
Trying to getting your policy preferences actualized, if they are Christian based. So, Representative Democracy.
That's pretty good. So it's like Christian theocracy meets imperialism.
(White imperialism, of course.)
Posted by: soothsayer at August 24, 2011 01:13 PM (sqkOB)
Yeah, but even more so, Pro-Life etc. And it's got a bit of righteous anger mixed in to.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:13 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:13 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez (Perry Guy) at August 24, 2011 01:14 PM (yAor6)
Posted by: Sub-Tard at August 24, 2011 05:08 PM (0M3AQ)
Don't write us off in WA yet although everybody already has. We have a strong candidate for governor and Obama is bleeding support here.
Posted by: robtr at August 24, 2011 01:14 PM (MtwBb)
It's the new Fascism. Another meaningless term for I don't like you, please shut up.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:14 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Mahon at August 24, 2011 05:10 PM (SATip)
two words - open borders.
and the ticket you want is a double-barrel shot of open borders.
no thank you.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:15 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 01:15 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Mahon at August 24, 2011 05:10 PM (SATip)
Rudi has an abortion problem, which might be survivable. He ran the worst candidacy of all when it seemed everyone was competing to run the worst, which is not a good sign.
2001 was a long time ago, go turn NY red.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:15 PM (z1N6a)
Romney will make a fine VP candidate with Perry. Rubio more so.
Perry. He is the One.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at August 24, 2011 05:12 PM (kaOJx)
Leave Rubio in the senate. We will desparately need him there in the next congress.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 01:16 PM (dA2r6)
He is the only real policy intellectual in the game, and every bit as tough in his way as his good friend Rick Perry. In fact, that's the ticket!
The awesome might vaporize the atmosphere.
Posted by: eleven at August 24, 2011 01:16 PM (7DB+a)
On the other hand, it does have its own Wiki page, so it's got that going for it.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:17 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: t-bird at August 24, 2011 05:13 PM (FcR7P)
She's likely to be fair.
Give me someone bitter with scores to settle.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:17 PM (z1N6a)
Actually, yes. He took a lot of flack for that in 2010, as I recall. Or, at least, he made modifications that made businesses happy. He has also been indefatigable in getting companies to move some or all of their operations to Texas.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:17 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 01:17 PM (cbyrC)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at August 24, 2011 01:17 PM (kaOJx)
Posted by: toby928™ craves justice rendered to his enemies at August 24, 2011 01:18 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 05:17 PM (cbyrC)
Last time I went Front Toward Left in my car, I ended up in a ditch.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:18 PM (z1N6a)
I'm still pulling for Fed Chairman Ron Paul.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:18 PM (8y9MW)
So it's either Congress de facto setting the ROE, or it's a meaningless amendment that just makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Which is it?
I don't know. It's maddening that Congress would even have to write such an amendment, but I'm uncertain as to whether Congress has the authority to dictate those terms to DoD. Can they do that?
Unsure as to whether I'll get a reply but I called the DC office.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at August 24, 2011 01:19 PM (o2lIv)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 01:19 PM (QxSug)
Yes, but were the Republicans behind you sipping their Slurpees?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:19 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:19 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at August 24, 2011 05:17 PM (kaOJx)
gimme a minute...
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:20 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 04:47 PM (TMB3S)"
Well I've been looking at Perry's record for over a decade. Seriously.
I don't see how his record could possibly fail to exceed Romney's. Even if he set out today to try to look worse than Romney, it's just not going to happen.
Yes, he ran a more conservative state than Romney, but to be honest, Texas for much of Perry's tenure was much more balanced than MA. Politically, Perry has been pretty good at appealing to democrats. He's had to be in order to survive Texas politics, which are bright red today largely in reaction to 2006+ democrat excesses.
Romney isn't the devil or anything, but his record as governor simply can't compete with Perry's. Nothing in Perry's record is going to compare badly against Romney's inability to be reelected (and yes, he would have lost had he ran).
So what we're left with is Romney's business success, which is considerable but not very ideological.
I really am confused by why anyone in Romney's camp expects to vote for Romney over Perry. Perry is the congenial smart and reasonable executive Romney has been portraying. He's conservative, but Romney's recent professed policies are also conservative. It just seems like Perry is an upgrade if you really liked Romney.
Barring some truly horrible scandal, what reason is there to prefer Romney at this point?
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 01:20 PM (519+h)
In the movie, The Flock, it was described as a bondage franchise, or something.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 01:20 PM (F5tJy)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at August 24, 2011 01:21 PM (QF8uk)
*shakeshakeshake*
Corpratism
Wait. No.
*shakeshakeshake*
Trans-Texas Corridor.
That'll do.
Posted by: RomneyBot 8-Ball at August 24, 2011 01:21 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: t-bird at August 24, 2011 05:13 PM (FcR7P)
She's likely to be fair.
Give me someone bitter with scores to settle.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 05:17 PM (z1N6a)
Limbaugh.
Posted by: buzzion at August 24, 2011 01:21 PM (GULKT)
Posted by: toby928™ craves justice rendered to his enemies at August 24, 2011 01:22 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 05:20 PM (F5tJy)
Wait, wouldn't the libs be for it then?
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:22 PM (z1N6a)
That's probably my biggest beef with Romney, too. The flip-flopping is old news and possibly overstated. His relative disappearing act isn't. Where the hell is he when it matters? There's a chance that he was inadequately covered by the MFM. That's kind of my default position WRT those bastages. But I really don't think that happened with Romney. He really seemed to disappear so as not to draw fire and opted to just let the other side implode on its own (IOW, an exceedingly low-risk political maneuver albeit somewhat cowardly from my perspective).
Say what you will about Palin or Bachmann (and to a lesser extent, Cain), but they assumed rhetorical leadership and drove the debate. How much tangible success? Hard to measure because their actual imposition of control is quite finite, but they did "lead the fight." But where was Romney the Frontrunner? It was almost like a Where's Waldo episode.
Romney just hasn't been the leading voice against Progressivism, and if you can't find it now - under the god-forsaken tragedy this nation is enduring under SCoaMF - then you really don't have the chops to reverse our demise. Or worse, it's not even your intent.
Is Romney better than SCoaMF? An empty chair is better than SCoaMF. That's sort of an endorsement by default. Shouldn't we expect a helluva lot more?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 24, 2011 01:22 PM (r4t7/)
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:23 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 24, 2011 01:23 PM (lbo6/)
just post the url with some spaces to shorten the string.
Posted by: toby928™ craves justice rendered to his enemies at August 24, 2011 01:24 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at August 24, 2011 05:23 PM (lbo6/)
Like Con-Dominiumism
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:24 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: joeindc44 at August 24, 2011 05:19 PM (QxSug)
That's the next scandal the DNC is cooking up. Rick Perry had sex with his wife.
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 01:25 PM (dA2r6)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 01:25 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 01:25 PM (cbyrC)
Barring some truly horrible scandal, what reason is there to prefer Romney at this point?
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 05:20 PM (519+h)
I'm a Perry guy, but let me play Devil's Advocate.
Romney is more book-smart. When you get into the minutia of the Fed and interest rates and that sort of thing, Romney knows that stuff. Perry's decisions won't be any worse, I think, but Romney will know the ins and outs and be able to reassure the wonks that he isn't just acting on ideology.
Romney has true private-sector experience. That's a plus for a lot of Republicans, especially now.
Romney is more careful and has lived in the biased realm that Perry's just entering. The "treason" remark is a gaffelet, but an unforced error.
Maybe you developed an emotional attachment to Romney in 2008. Also, making Mormonism mainstream has got to be a major reason why he's popular among Mormons.
Posted by: AmishDude at August 24, 2011 01:27 PM (T0NGe)
The Houston Chronicle? Really?
Okay- they are a newspaper, and they're to the right of, say, Marx. So I guess that counts (I'm kidding)
Do you have the actual link or URL, though? I bet I've already read the article, and I bet the "concerns" raised therein have already been answered multiple times on this site.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:27 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 01:27 PM (0FEvE)
Posted by: toby928™ craves having his enemies rendered at August 24, 2011 01:28 PM (GTbGH)
I don't have a particular beef with Perry. I don't like his giving illegals instate tuition because I actually do believe in federalism and since what he did in Texas has no affect on me not an issue as I would assume any federalist would say about Romney's healthcare plan. I'm not wild about his giving speeches to La Raza. I don't like the HPV thing and his belief in creationism is goofy. I also don't think his Texas swagger, much as it may be endearing to many, plays all that well on the campaign trail. None of these are deal breakers for me.
I want to win next fall and I am far from convinced Perry is The One as some seem to be. But I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he gets the nomination.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 05:25 PM (TMB3S)
yeah, i'd vote for him too, despite my reservations, but I refuse to vote for Romney.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:28 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:29 PM (Xm1aB)
To me, most of those sounds like reasons to put Mitt in the cabinet. Even if he's right, talking details about interest rates and the Fed is 'eyes glaze over' time for just about everyone.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:30 PM (z1N6a)
Some of these really shouldn't even be mentioned at all, but hey, fair enough.
Does Perry believe in 'creationism'? And what exactly does that mean? Everyone I know who says they believe in creationism also believe in evolution. For some reason the hard left doesn't understand this, but those two things are 100% compatible.
He did work in agriculture so he obviously understand genetics at some level.
Seems like if I were to list out Romney's flaws to this degree, it would be a lot worse. It's good to nitpick and vet these guys, but it's amazing to me anyone is preferring Romney to Perry.
Perry's got that swagger, and hey, there's a reason this country keeps electing guys like that. All those Texans and Clinton, etc. Romney has something else... he's got flip flopping instead of swagger. I don't want to say it in an ugly way, but he's got that John Kerry insincerity that the voters generally dislike.
Romney's mandate is so much more oppressive than Perry's HPV opt out that it's actually disgusting to see them compared. Yes, disgusting. They are not similar.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 01:30 PM (519+h)
Shiftless is one of my favorites, but it's considered to be a bit out of favor nowadays.
It's much better than slacker.
Posted by: toby928™ craves having his enemies rendered at August 24, 2011 01:30 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 05:25 PM (TMB3S)
I don't think Perry's support is of the messiah type. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Perry supporter who thinks he's the second-coming of Reagan. He is: (1) reliably conservative on all of the broad issues, (2) has a record of competent governance, (3) will not shrink from criticism or hard fights (why Pawlenty's out), he doesn't need to be liked by the beltway elites and (4) is an experienced and hard-nosed politician.
In many ways, he's our version of Bill Clinton.
Posted by: AmishDude at August 24, 2011 01:31 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 05:25 PM (cbyrC)
Heh.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 01:31 PM (F5tJy)
Doesn't seem very bad.
Posted by: toby928™ craves having his enemies rendered at August 24, 2011 05:28 PM (GTbGH)
it's a fair article, but it shows that Perry is really an open borders guy who has changed his tune for politcal expediency, as soon as he's in office he'll change back, or pull stunts like the sanctuary city bill, which he knew would never pass.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:31 PM (jdOk/)
Heard the same BS here in 2008. How did it work then? RINOs always end in failure. Lack of principle always means they betray their base. Do we need more Bushes, McCains, Doles, Perrys, Romneys and Pawlentys?
Ace assures us he knows best. SQUISHES RULE!
Posted by: Molon Labe at August 24, 2011 01:32 PM (JyCYK)
Someone posted the YouTube of it Monday, I think. It was in another Perry post.
Posted by: toby928™ craves having his enemies rendered at August 24, 2011 01:32 PM (GTbGH)
I don't see that. Which part bothers you? Maybe I'm willfully blind.
Posted by: toby928™ craves having his enemies rendered at August 24, 2011 01:33 PM (GTbGH)
Heard the same BS here in 2008. How did it work then? RINOs always end in failure. Lack of principle always means they betray their base. Do we need more Bushes, McCains, Doles, Perrys, Romneys and Pawlentys?
Ace assures us he knows best. SQUISHES RULE!
Posted by: Molon Labe at August 24, 2011 05:32 PM (JyCYK)
Hey, that's unfair.
Sometimes they START in failure.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 01:33 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:34 PM (Xm1aB)
He gave political speeches to Hispanic groups in Texas. This is kind of required of a Texas Governor. Unless someone can show me a primary source where he spoke to a specifically La Raza venue- and said things they like- I'm well beyond merely giving him a "pass" on this one.
La Raza does not like Rick Perry one bit. So even if he has spoken to them directly, that should tell you all you need to know about any relationship between them.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:34 PM (8y9MW)
Those could potentially be deal breakers, and since I'm not hearing details about them I am suspicious they are not very serious (but you never know).
I also am with Dave in noting Romney's lapse on mandating insurance makes it much harder for him to fight Obamacare. Just on a basic level. I recognize that Obamacare is more oppressive than Romneycare, but it's the same oppression. I don't like those who want to tell citizens to buy something that is none of their damn business.
I want someone who can argue against Obamacare on the fundamental wrongness. Federalism is an important point, and Romney has been excellent at making that point, but politics requires soundbites these days.
Actually, that soundbite aspect does favor Romney, who has been the best debater so far. I hope Perry can measure up. If he can, I just don't see why Romney fans won't change allegiances.
As nice as Romney is to y'all, you know there are a lot of compromises there you wish you could avoid making.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 01:34 PM (519+h)
Posted by: Soona - Tearorrist at August 24, 2011 01:35 PM (dA2r6)
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 05:30 PM (z1N6a)
I agree. Look, in the next administration, the Treasury Secretary will be THE most important cabinet position. We could do far worse than Treasury Secretary Romney.
Would Perry do that? I don't know. I think if he thinks that it would benefit him and his administration, and that Romney'd be a team player, he'd do it.
We'd have to see how the politics works out and if Perry breezes to the nomination or if the two of them cut a deal. I could guarantee you that Perry wouldn't be in a Romney cabinet.
Posted by: AmishDude at August 24, 2011 01:35 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Dave
I really think that this is what it's going to boil down to. I think most of us here, and a majority of voters in general, are going to vote ABBO. I'm pulling hard for Perry, as I think he's got what it takes, but hell, even if Romney ends up as the nominee, I'll still pull the lever for him. Won't even hold my nose like I did with McLame.
Posted by: Hobbitopoly at August 24, 2011 01:35 PM (Oj8ux)
Posted by: booger at August 24, 2011 01:37 PM (9RFH1)
It shows no such thing. It shows that he signed a bill that started moving through the Legislature while GW was governor. It also says that he thinks that securing the boarder is a Federal Responsibility.
It does hit him on the Arizona Immigration Law, but his real response to that was "It may be right for Arizona, but it's not right for Texas." He then went on to point out some specific things he had against that version of the bill (which AZ changed, btw) specifically regarding when documentation could be required and a couple of other things.
Rick Perry is not open borders. He doesn't care much one way or the other about illegal immigration in-and-of-itself. He does, however, think the border needs to be controlled (if not closed) because of the danger that drugs, drug gangs, human smuggling, and the gun-trade pose to American Citizens.
I heard Rick Perry speaking in Iowa about a week ago calling for troops on the border until it is secured.
He's been saying that for years.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at August 24, 2011 01:39 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: toby928™ is your google monkey at August 24, 2011 01:39 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:39 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 05:27 PM (0FEvE)
They were mild, lukewarm critiques, all of which still assumed that Barky was trying to help America. Mitt never got too honest about any of it.
He still won't. I mean, Mitt is still not part of the debate about anything.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 01:40 PM (F5tJy)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:41 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at August 24, 2011 01:41 PM (j5CHE)
Posted by: toby928™ is your google monkey at August 24, 2011 01:41 PM (GTbGH)
It's a divisive issue, and some are playing it cynically.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 01:43 PM (519+h)
The thing is I could search engine "X criticizes SCoaMF" and the hits would exist. I just plain don't remember Romney making a splash at any point. It's like he was a non-entity except for when, for example, Palin came out with "death panels." Romney was a bit forced to say something there and he appended his position with States' Rights considerations.
I kept up with the news (cable, radio, internet) and Romney just didn't rate. And I don't think I have time to expand my sources. Romney might be saying the right things, but I'll be damned if I can recall much of significance and pretty much anything that didn't have to be drawn out because someone else was stating it first.
Plus, I don't think it can be denied that Romney has been coasting a bit on the frontrunner laurels for quite some time. He's seemed inclined to sit back and just let things happen - as in let Obamination continue apace. It's politically calculated (and possibly wise) but not the performance I prefer in my desire for conservative (anti-progressive) leadership.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 24, 2011 01:43 PM (r4t7/)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:45 PM (Xm1aB)
La Raza is a sick organization and I resent the idea of Perry speaking to it, but I want to know more.
My guess is that Perry is like other major GOP candidates: in support of some kind of border control.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 01:47 PM (519+h)
I don't see that. Which part bothers you? Maybe I'm willfully blind.
Posted by: toby928™ craves having his enemies rendered at August 24, 2011 05:33 PM (GTbGH)
1. the first-year governor of Texas signed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates instead of paying international fees. Supporters of the legislation called it the Texas Dream Act.
2. He called the idea of a border fence "nonsense" and resisted efforts to emulate Arizona's strict approach to illegal immigration.
3. The governor signed this legislation back in 2001(texas dream act), believing that, if a young individual who was brought here through no fault of his or her own is willing to rely on a good education instead of government services, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to pay for a good college education so they can contribute to society,"
when the light was not on he was Mr. Open Borders, but now all of a sudden he's Mr. Secure Border?
i'm not buying it, don't trust him , don't trust any of them.
i rather enjoy the situation Orrin Hatch is in, everyone knows he really would like to be a moderate squish, but he is towing the conservative line right now you betcha, and he's doing it not because he wants to he is doing it because he HAS to if he wants to keep his job, every single one of them needs to have that same fear in their minds at all times.
I don't trust them, I never will again, my goal is to make them do right out of fear, not out of the kindness of their hearts (they don't have any, they sold them to get elected)
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:49 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:49 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: toby928™ is your google monkey at August 24, 2011 01:49 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: polynikes at August 24, 2011 01:50 PM (0FEvE)
We knew it was bullsh!t, but the average person knows Washington is screwed up, doesn't like DC insiders, and will vote for the perceived least DC candidate... Look back on who ran on this basis over past 36 years.... 76-Carter, 80-Reagan, 84-Reagan, 92-Clinton, 00-Bush, 08-Obama...
So who can best sell the story that he/she is outside the beltway, and might actually have a shot at cleaning up the cesspool.... Perry...
Posted by: phreshone at August 24, 2011 01:51 PM (T3vCe)
It's a divisive issue, and some are playing it cynically.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 05:43 PM (519+h)
be careful who you are calling a liar, friendo
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 01:51 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:52 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:53 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 01:54 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 01:55 PM (Xm1aB)
I'll concede it's possible that I "zone out" on Romney as some kind of now forced, subconscious bias, but I don't think I am. I'm really trying to be fair here. Romney to me has become wallpaper. He's around but not really in the room.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 24, 2011 01:56 PM (r4t7/)
However, no amnesty except for innocent adult children of illegals
Sorry, but those are still anchor babies. You aren't about to kick the parents out and leave the kids here, are you?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:00 PM (ujg0T)
I would. We don't let women stay out of prison because they have kids.
I have no heart though.
Posted by: toby928™ at August 24, 2011 02:03 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 02:04 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 05:51 PM (jdOk/)"
Note that I am, actually, being careful about it.
Anyone saying Rick Perry is open borders is, in fact, very dishonest. A Liar. And potentially they themselves don't even give a shit about immigration issues, but recognize its value for manipulation.
I don't think Jack Straw, for example, went nearly that far, so I am not calling him a liar because that would be stupid. Though I still don't get why upset about HPV vaccination will prefer Romney to Perry. Just me, though.
Perry is certainly NOT open borders if he's calling for a secure border.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 02:05 PM (519+h)
A fair point. I am making an assumption that he'll do better than Palin has on this count.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 02:05 PM (519+h)
However, no amnesty except for innocent adult children of illegals
Sorry, but those are still anchor babies. You aren't about to kick the parents out and leave the kids here, are you?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 06:00 PM (ujg0T)
exactly.
the Rule of Law must trump emotionalism or our freedom is forfeit.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:05 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at August 24, 2011 02:07 PM (cbyrC)
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:08 PM (jdOk/)
How can you tell when you are in Mexico when there? The signage is in Spanish, and things look a little more third world. Just a little. And no national chain stores like McDonald's. Oh, there are military-dressed guys with machine guns outside bank entrances. A pig might be walking down the middle of a side street.
That's about it. North of the bridges? Brown faces and black hair, and Espanol spoken everywhere, this, in Brownsville. Anglos a distinct minority, just like in Matamoros.
Go into a McDonald's in the morning for a breakfast burrito and a cup of joe, and everyone there looks between 16 and 22, everyone speaking Spanish. Who is a citizen? Who the fuck knows. There have been Spanish-speaking Texans down there for six or eight generations.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at August 24, 2011 02:09 PM (4sQwu)
But he isn't open borders. You are completely mistaken.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 02:10 PM (519+h)
However, no amnesty except for innocent adult children of illegals
They have citizenships in their Mother countries, already. They don't need another citizenship and no American politicians or government officials have the right to give it to them, as all laws of naturalization must be uniform.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 24, 2011 02:10 PM (F5tJy)
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 06:08 PM (jdOk/)"
And when they support the opposite of it, those claiming they do support something they don't are completely wrong.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 02:10 PM (519+h)
How can you tell when you are in Mexico when there? The signage is in Spanish, and things look a little more third world. Just a little. And no national chain stores like McDonald's. Oh, there are military-dressed guys with machine guns outside bank entrances. A pig might be walking down the middle of a side street.
That's about it. North of the bridges? Brown faces and black hair, and Espanol spoken everywhere, this, in Brownsville. Anglos a distinct minority, just like in Matamoros.
Go into a McDonald's in the morning for a breakfast burrito and a cup of joe, and everyone there looks between 16 and 22, everyone speaking Spanish. Who is a citizen? Who the fuck knows. There have been Spanish-speaking Texans down there for six or eight generations.
Posted by: I'm in a New York state of mind at August 24, 2011 06:09 PM (4sQwu)
so we should just say "screw it, it's hopeless, let everyone in..."?
bullshit, bull-fucking-shit.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:12 PM (jdOk/)
I don't think someone should be a citizen just for going to school here. That's a benefit rather than a sacrifice.
I also don't think someone should be a citizen for being born here.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 02:12 PM (519+h)
That said, shoey, I think I still may become an ardent Perry supporter, because he is the best of the winnable candidates. Ace has a point.
That said, Ace, I think there is more than one meaning of "squish". Take immigration for example. The overwhelming majority of Americans, even Hispanic Americans, want the borders secured and the illegals deported when they demonstrably are (1) on public assistance or net takers thereof, and (2) taking jobs americans *would* take (construction pays reasonably well).
Yet the elites of both parties remain out of touch.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:12 PM (ujg0T)
Posted by: stace at August 24, 2011 02:12 PM (lYlx9)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 02:14 PM (TMB3S)
But he isn't open borders. You are completely mistaken.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 06:10 PM (519+h)
i'm used to being called a racist, an idiot, and a heartless bastard, but i still bristle at being called a liar.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:14 PM (jdOk/)
#517 This is what we call the self-fulfilling prophecy.
See also "We can't alienate the MexAmeican vote (2/3 always votes against to GOP anyway), so we must let more in..." This is also called Compounding. The. Problem.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:15 PM (ujg0T)
Seem to me that all Ace is really saying is that you have to be able to get your "base" out to vote, and also get the independents to swing your way. It should be hard to argue with that, but on first look, it doesn't really explain last time 'round.
The problem is that - with the extensive help of the MFM - Obama was able to pass off quite a few things as "neutral goods", which were no such thing.
1) He was an accomplished "scholar": Probably not as accomplished as advertised (it was never investigated), and that really doesn't translate to executive prowess anyway.
2) He was "black": First of all, he was bi-racial, not even "black" to begin with, and it's ironic how the same people who would preach at you that "color doesn't matter" (and it doesn't) are first in line to advertise Obama's color as mattering - even going so far as to imply you are racist if you don't support him.
3) He's a "moderate": It was an obvious lie to you and me, but there are still people who haven't figured it out, even now.
4) He's "not Bush": Through extensive vitriolic MFM propaganda they managed to pawn this off as a "neutral good". Ironically, the "anti-Bush" candidate would go on to out-Bush Bush on most of this stuff.
So, if I were try to refine Ace's theory, I guess I would make a distinction between an "actual neutral good" and a "percieved neutral good". Heck - you could easily argue that Sarah Palin was the only person on either ticket who had any significant "actual neutral goods", and she was woefully inexperienced. It was pretty pathetic.
Posted by: Optimizer at August 24, 2011 02:17 PM (As94z)
That said, shoey, I think I still may become an ardent Perry supporter, because he is the best of the winnable candidates. Ace has a point.
That said, Ace, I think there is more than one meaning of "squish". Take immigration for example. The overwhelming majority of Americans, even Hispanic Americans, want the borders secured and the illegals deported when they demonstrably are (1) on public assistance or net takers thereof, and (2) taking jobs americans *would* take (construction pays reasonably well).
Yet the elites of both parties remain out of touch.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 06:12 PM (ujg0T)
i would take Perry over Romney, that's for sure.
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:18 PM (jdOk/)
so we should just say "screw it, it's hopeless, let everyone in..."?
bullshit, bull-fucking-shit.
Another way of saying Self. Fulfilling. Prophecy.
The Leftweenies against capital punishment are another example. Of course the death penalty does not deter murder, because said Leftweenies invent or fabricate "innocence projects" and obstruct justice at every turn.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:21 PM (ujg0T)
Yet the elites of both parties remain out of touch.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 06:12 PM (ujg0T)
Well, sure. If they were in touch, they would hardly be elites anymore.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 02:21 PM (z1N6a)
The Leftweenies against capital punishment are another example. Of course the death penalty does not deter murder, because said Leftweenies invent or fabricate "innocence projects" and obstruct justice at every turn.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 06:21 PM (ujg0T)
Of course it does. No one who was executed ever does it again.
Posted by: Oldcat at August 24, 2011 02:23 PM (z1N6a)
so we should just say "screw it, it's hopeless, let everyone in..."?
bullshit, bull-fucking-shit.
Another way of saying Self. Fulfilling. Prophecy.
The Leftweenies against capital punishment are another example. Of course the death penalty does not deter murder, because said Leftweenies invent or fabricate "innocence projects" and obstruct justice at every turn.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 06:21 PM (ujg0T)
the progs are certainly experts at using extreme cases to produce the public reaction they desire, it's maddening to watch it happen over and over again and no matter how many times you say "don't fall for it, they are playing you" everyone just looks at you like you are crazy until it's all over and they realize you were right (then they get mad at you, because how dare you expose their little dreamworld for the lie it is.)
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:26 PM (jdOk/)
Well, sure. If they were in touch, they would hardly be elites anymore.
Perhaps we need a new definition of "squish".
Of course it does. No one who was executed ever does it again.
But of course. Still, if we lived in a world where a gangbanger hoodlum understood there was no chance whatsoever that he would be turned into a civil rights martyr by the Commiecrats....
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:27 PM (ujg0T)
I did not say grant citizenship to innocent adult children of illegals, I said amnesty.
Deport those who came illegally. But the adult children of illegals who have lived here all their lives and this is the only country they have ever known?
Nah, I don't have a problem with granting legal status and offering in-state tuition to such innocents.
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 02:27 PM (HPcQF)
I did not say grant citizenship to innocent adult children of illegals, I said amnesty.
Deport those who came illegally. But the adult children of illegals who have lived here all their lives and this is the only country they have ever known?
Nah, I don't have a problem with granting legal status and offering in-state tuition to such innocents.
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 06:27 PM (HPcQF)
welcome to Obama's Amerika, comrade!
Posted by: Shoey at August 24, 2011 02:29 PM (jdOk/)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 02:34 PM (TMB3S)
Nah, I don't have a problem with granting legal status and offering in-state tuition to such innocents.
So long as we make sure these non-citizens do not vote, that could work. This would also make Hispandering less rewarding.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:38 PM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:40 PM (ujg0T)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 02:44 PM (TMB3S)
You know what?
Rick Perry, for all his faults, never once forced citizens to purchase health insurance with penalties for failure to do so.
Such an action raises far more questions about Romney than anything put forth against Perry thus far.
Pandering to illegals? I haven't watched the linked video which purportedly portrays Perry speaking to La Raza, but if in fact such pandering has occurred then a second look at Perry is in order.
Somehow I doubt Perry so pandered however.
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 02:47 PM (HPcQF)
Posted by: steevy at August 24, 2011 02:47 PM (pV6cO)
My caution is that we went through a similar thing with Fred! last cycle.
If anyone is running the risk of becomeing "Ferd" like, it is Sarah Palin. Rick Perry at least is firmly in.
I really like Herman Cain, but he has never even been dogcatcher. He would make a great Labor / Commerce Secretary.
I really like Michelle Bachmann, but she is just a congresscritter. Governors and Veeps often, Senators rarely, become Prez. And puhleeze don't raise an outlier like Lincoln; It's not 1857.
Romney is a major wuss if Perry is a minor wuss. Romney would be a perfect Treasury Secretary, but he is an administrator, not a leader. (Which is OK, we NEED administrators at times and in the right places).
Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 24, 2011 02:50 PM (ujg0T)
I still maintain the practical party loyalists need to meet the base halfway on some of this. If a candidate with ideology covered but no "neutral goods" is verboten, a candidate with neutral goods covered but no ideology whatsoever should be just as verboten if the base is to be persuaded they're not being played for fools pushing a one way street. (NOT referring to Ace now at all, but some of the apparatchiks who were so quick to diss O'Donnell even after the primary was over, even if it meant depressing her numbers.)
Because, yes, the American system tends to stabilize on two major parties, but which two parties are major can change very rapidly when one or both parties get too far away from a significant portion of the populace. And 30% (or 40% by self-identification) conservatives in the population is large enough to have a seat at the policy table beyond "where else ya gonna go?"
Posted by: Dave R. at August 24, 2011 02:58 PM (MMcXv)
I don't give a flying fuck for or against Texas qua Texas. I am impressed by the jobs and regulatory structure, but much of that is actually legislative. I like the out and proud stance on concealed carry; I don't like the mandatory vaccination. So I'm still waiting for a more substantive argument.
Posted by: Dave R. at August 24, 2011 03:07 PM (MMcXv)
"that would be a neutral good, because few actively root against American geopolitical victories"
W. T. F.
Who do you think voted for Obama?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at August 24, 2011 03:11 PM (wxHHM)
don't give a flying fuck for or against Texas qua Texas. I am impressed by the jobs and regulatory structure, but much of that is actually legislative. I like the out and proud stance on concealed carry; I don't like the mandatory vaccination. So I'm still waiting for a more substantive argument.
Posted by: Dave R. at August 24, 2011 07:07 PM (MMcXv)
Good thing there isn't a mandatory vaccination then huh.
Posted by: buzzion at August 24, 2011 03:12 PM (GULKT)
Yeah, and in his previous 10 elective runs, including 3 for Guv, he was 'never looked at'. Uh huh.
Srsly?
Neither by his opponents or the press.
Do you know anything about Texas politics?
Do you know he was in politics for a decade before Dubya?
Do you know that most major papers are left, esp my own Austin paper?
Do you think the MFM and Dems (BIRM) haven't searched in vain for something to derail Rick?
Do you think the typical Dem skullduggery was never used against him? Hah!
He is also very smart (just like Dubya was). Why do I say that?
Rick F'n Perry commanded a C130 around the world. A USAF Cfucking130.
To do that, one must, in order:
Learn how to fly a plane,
Learn how to fly a plane by instrument,
Learn to fly a multi-engine plane,
Learn how to fly a multi-engine plane by instrument,
Learn to fly a 70-ton C130 with a crew,
Learn how to fly a 70-ton C130 with a crew by instrument,
And then, pass a test to actually, you know Fly.A.C130.
What do you think is harder: SCOAMFOTUS getting the Hahvad Law Review lead, or learning to fly and commanding a C130?
Rick F'n Perry
Posted by: Ducatisti at August 24, 2011 03:32 PM (KYE7u)
...
Posted by: Dave R.
See above, my friend.
Posted by: Ducatisti at August 24, 2011 03:33 PM (KYE7u)
This is true. On a couple of points, Perry did back off. And clearly for political reasons.
That's a shame, because I think his initial position was a winner.
As for the argument pro-Perry some are asking for: he ran a huge state with low drama. That's a major accomplishment. He indeed pressed for cuts and fought against tax increases, deficit spending or eating the rainy day fund. No, he didn't do it alone... but he did it too.
And that's it.
He's a conservative who doesn't think he is the solution to all my problems, so what more could there be? He can't intervene and correct everything if things are running well enough, if he's really conservative. Texas has seen many disasters and Perry's admin has reacted very well to them. And Perry has been a champion on the state on various issues.
We've got a pretty reliable governor, who admittedly is not perfect.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 03:37 PM (519+h)
Posted by: William Barrett Travis at August 24, 2011 03:45 PM (g86v0)
I think you are right. I also think Perry or Romney either one would be a vast improvement over what we have got right now..but we do need someone that can appeal to a broad swath of voters, if not on ideological grounds..then on grounds of competence and achievement.
And no one is going to be perfect anyway, hell Malkin does not have a good word for Perry even though liberals hate the guy.
Posted by: Terrye at August 24, 2011 04:13 PM (UYcqZ)
These frigging polls should include Thad McCotter.
Fox canned him from their debate earlier this month because he hadn't been included in enough polls yet. He's been in the race since friggin' July 2. Include him in the damn polls already!!
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at August 24, 2011 04:45 PM (2AfqM)
He has never lost an election.
.......What's your beef with Perry?
Posted by: Dave at August 24, 2011 05:19 PM (Xm1aB)
There's always a first time.
Posted by: jim at August 24, 2011 05:06 PM (49LlK)
That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.
Posted by: The Most Dangerous Thing AudioBook at August 24, 2011 05:07 PM (Gr44r)
Srsly?
Neither by his opponents or the press.
Do you know anything about Texas politics?
Do you know he was in politics for a decade before Dubya?
Do you know that most major papers are left, esp my own Austin paper?
Do you think the MFM and Dems (BIRM) haven't searched in vain for something to derail Rick?
Do you think the typical Dem skullduggery was never used against him? Hah!
He is also very smart (just like Dubya was). Why do I say that?
Rick F'n Perry commanded a C130 around the world. A USAF Cfucking130.
To do that, one must, in order:
Learn how to fly a plane,
Learn how to fly a plane by instrument,
Learn to fly a multi-engine plane,
Learn how to fly a multi-engine plane by instrument,
Learn to fly a 70-ton C130 with a crew,
Learn how to fly a 70-ton C130 with a crew by instrument,
And then, pass a test to actually, you know Fly.A.C130.
What do you think is harder: SCOAMFOTUS getting the Hahvad Law Review lead, or learning to fly and commanding a C130?
Rick F'n Perry
Posted by: Ducatisti at August 24, 2011 07:32 PM (KYE7u)
How many people are elected editor of the Harvard Law Review (once every year)? How many people can fly and command a C130 (more than that)? Does your momma know you're using her computer in the basement?
Posted by: jim at August 24, 2011 05:07 PM (49LlK)
Posted by: White RB at August 24, 2011 06:11 PM (LrLv1)
Here I come to save the day!
Posted by: nonsequitor man at August 24, 2011 06:29 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: Charles at August 24, 2011 06:51 PM (3+uWu)
Rick Perry did not fly C-130s all over the world just to build his resume for president. He did it because his country needed someone to do it. It's not the most glamorous and prestigious thing I will grant. It's honorable and selfless work, and I think it's probably highly skilled, too.
Rick is the only contender for President who did his duty.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 07:07 PM (519+h)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 24, 2011 07:34 PM (TMB3S)
It's not really your call, and it doesn't sound like you're really up for grabs. You've been a Romney supporter for a very long time, and I admire your loyalty.
But Perry's the guy. Not trying to troll you on this point, and I'm glad you'll be there in the general (as I would be for Romney).
As someone who edited a law review and served in the military, I doubt very much Obama's work at HLR was more challenging than passing flight school or SERE (which I believe is typical for pilots, though perhaps I'm wrong).
Obama never even published anything. He was picked for his skin color. Granted, Harvard is not an easy law school so he must have some brainpower, but there's so little indication of it. We do not get to see his transcripts.
And my guess is that your uncle, who graduated top of his class, was far brighter than Obama (who I realize got honors, but who knows what classes he took). Obama admitted he was a mediocre student on the road towards being a junkie, so we know why Harvard even admitted him... and it wasn't because of Obama's academics.
Anyway, I'd respond to your 'just cargo planes' snort by asking what Mitt Romney did when he was in the military?
Would you pick Mitt Romney for your foxhole? I'd take him over Obama, but I wouldn't be very comfortable.
I think that really narrows down folks' aversion to Romney. He knows how to act right now, to appeal to conservatives. Yet his principles have changed a few times. He's unreliable.
Perry's principles have been tested in office and he did a lot better than Romney.
"So far, a pretty up and down week."
Well, if you're asking Republicans in the USA, looking at polls, you mean up for Perry and down for other candidates.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 08:41 PM (519+h)
Just annoyed someone would say 'just cargo planes' when we're looking at the guy with the best military record of all contenders.
'just cargo planes' compared to what?
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 08:43 PM (519+h)
"The guy who barely made it out of Texas A & Cow." (one of the greatest universities on the fucking planet, actually)
You remind me of Huckabee fans making irrational smears of Mormons. You have a problem with Perry's culture. There's no way to reach you, so your claim you're not reached yet is 100% irrelevant. Might as well ask Rachel Maddow for support.
I think this is basically the level of refusal it will take for a Romney fan to avoid the obviously warranted switch. Texas is an irrelevant weird place! I don't give a shit! Perry's aviation for the military is lame compared to something cooler! Perry is stupid!
Sad to see friendly fire like that. Perry made legitimate policy mistakes. Bashing his military service as though it's somehow inferior, or TAMU as 'cow school', or Texas as a bubble compared to other places... it's really not much different than Huck saying 'Mormons think Jesus and Satan are brothers!'
It's true, on real accomplishments and principles there's no way Romney will beat Perry, and the recent massive shift in polling indicates I don't even need to make the point. But that's no reason to lash out on irrelevant stuff.
I do not think it will matter in the general election, either. Same reason Romney would do OK against Obama and Perry would do great. People are worried about jobs, not coolness. I think America learned her lesson.
Posted by: Dustin at August 24, 2011 09:00 PM (519+h)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at August 24, 2011 09:16 PM (dbYHP)
The trouble is, he's the kind of guy who, so far, looks like he'll end up as another Orren Hatch, not as a Theodore Roosevelt. And that's the trouble with an all-around-perfect candidate. Just as in sports, you can't really win games with those guys. You need serious specialty guys, too. But what you really need is a nearly-great all-arounder--who may be weak in some area, like stamina or overall strength--but makes up for it in heart and that ever-so-elusive quality: leadership.
Leaders have to know where they are going, not just how to get folks to cooperate.
Posted by: K~Bob at August 24, 2011 09:18 PM (9b6FB)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at August 24, 2011 09:19 PM (dbYHP)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at August 24, 2011 09:42 PM (dbYHP)
@Ace
I agree with everything you said above.
Perry has the best record of any of the candidates, declared or 'still thinking about it'. He has the potential of appealing to larger numbers of voters than any of the others.
Some people forget that Reagan wasn't perfect either......and he is the only President to ever grant amnesty to millions of illegals. I don't think that we should worry about Perry doing that. Perry is against amnesty.
What Reagan had.......was charisma. In every Presidential election since Reagan, the most charismatic candidate was the winner. Think back. This is true.
Perry hasn't even been in one of the debates yet....Nor has he ever made a nationwide speech. Just wait. I think that Perry will have both the cajones and the charisma to pull it off, and win over even more support.
If we do not run a candidate that is as charismatic as the SCoaMF...then we will lose, again.
Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at August 24, 2011 09:56 PM (bKt+2)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at August 24, 2011 10:09 PM (dbYHP)
How is replacing a fiendishly sinister but self-interested dictator with a rabble of Sharia loving death-cult fanatics, a geopolitical victory?
The rise of "Islamic Democracy" is a farce because Islam is a denial of Democracy. Its is a medieval political philosophy founded upon religious tyranny. Libya, Egypt and Syria will not emerge as secular societies with a tint of Islam like Turkey or Bosnia, but as totalitarian theocracies like Iran.
The end result will not be peace, freedom and prosperity, but the squandering of countless lives in the inevitable war that the mullahs will wage against Israel.
Want to see how WW-III starts? You've got a front row seat. Enjoy the show.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at August 24, 2011 11:35 PM (zkRoG)
Back to the question of "non-ideological 'plus' factors." I heard Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker interviewed on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday. Rush was out, and his guest host was Milwaukee's own Mark Belling, who is a very good, very funny conservative talk show host here, and for the last few years has often subbed for Rush.
Something Walker said really struck me -- he talked a lot less about the ideology of conservatism and more about "results." His most famous accomplishment to date as Governor (less than a year) was, of course, pushing through a budget bill that both balanced the state budget (changing a two year deficit of $3.6 billion into a surplus of $300 million) and changed the political dynamic of local budgeting by eliminating collective bargaining for public employee benefits. Benefit packages (retirement and health care) have been destroying the budgets of local governments for years, as teachers' unions and public employees' unions have negotiated ever-higher benefits to be paid for by their neighbors' ever-higher taxes. In fact, Wisconsin has been essentially the nation writ small, as fewer and fewer private sector workers pay higher and higher taxes so that a larger and larger number of public sector workers can retire earlier with better benefits than the plebes can ever hope for.
Walker changed that, and there have been almost immediate results. Just one example: for years the teachers' union ran its own insurance company and wrote into local contracts that the health insurance for teachers in particular school districts could only be purchased through the WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council). WEAC, as a monopolist, did what monopolists do -- it jacked up the prices to confiscatory rates. Now, however, school districts are free to get health insurance at any company and (voila!) they are saving millions.
And Walker did all this without raising taxes.
The point is that Walker is not an in-your-face conservative; he's a results-oriented Governor and executive who happens to also be conservative. But he doesn't stress the conservatism, he stresses the results. And he does it with a fairly light touch rhetorically; while the Left in Wisconsin vilifies him in over-the-top protests, he coolly keeps on message about low taxes, balancing the budget, giving local governments the tools they need to balance their budgets, limiting regulations, bringing back jobs to Wisconsin, etc. And he always knows what he's talking about. It's a good model.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at August 25, 2011 06:52 AM (qHCyt)
Similarly, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is not an in-your-face conservative; he comes off as a nice guy, a reasonable guy, because he is, in fact, a nice guy and a reasonable guy. He also always knows what he's talking about with regard to the federal budget -- that's why Obama really really didn't want to have him run for President, because he knew he couldnt' debate him. Ryan simply sticks on message: low taxes, low regulations, reducing the size and intrusiveness of government, balancing the budget, reforming entitlements. It's not ideological, or at least it's not overtly ideological. As much as I hate the word, and hate the connotations of elitist social engineering, Ryan, like Walker, is essentially a technocrat. He's talking about doing real things to get real results. He's not talking about impossible dreams of a suddenly conservative utopia in America.
Why does Wisconsin produce conservatives like Walker and Ryan who are results-oriented rather than purely ideological, and who are nice guys who exude reasonableness and competence? I think the reason has a good deal to do with how split Wisconsin is as a state politically. We are a 50-50 state with extraordinarily close elections every four years for President. (We might have had a recount in 2000 and 2004 if it had come to that.) We had a recount just this year in a Supreme Court race (the Prosser-Kloppenburg fiasco). It's a very, very evenly divided state, so Republicans who want to win and govern end up having to appeal, not just to conservatives (as they might be able to get away with in Utah, or Nebraska, or Oklahoma, or Alabama, or Kentucky), but also to independents who, while not thinking very much or very deeply about politics, will invariably vote for whomever they think can make their lives better, i.e., for tangible results.
Ace's point that we need candidates who are, not just conservative, but also "regular guys," experienced, and with proven results, is exactly what Republicans like Walker give you. He's a "regular guy" -- he actually lives in my hometown of Wauwatosa. He's got real experience as an executive -- he was Milwaukee County Executive for eight years before becoming Governor. And he is producing tangible results.
Call it "the Wisconsin Way." National Republicans should take note.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at August 25, 2011 06:55 AM (qHCyt)
Posted by: ErisGuy at August 26, 2011 02:34 AM (WI0i9)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3344 seconds, 690 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
in b4 dildo!
Posted by: söthí at August 24, 2011 11:20 AM (sqkOB)