« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Perry is not a friend of mine.

By: barleycorn (Diary)  |  September 23rd, 2011 at 05:06 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I don’t know Rick Perry, he’s not a friend of mine and from what I’ve observed of him he’s no Ronald Reagan. But I think conservatives who are so crashingly disappointed in Perry today really need to chill out and gain some historic perspective.

The wails of anguish emanating from various conservatives today is disconcerting for many reasons but primarily because I fear there is no antidote. People who have the ability to inspire friends and disarm enemies with wisdom and good judgement, don’t grow on trees.

Unfortunately “Ronald Reagan” is not a hardy perennial that can be planted each spring in odd numbered years for a bountiful harvest in the fall of even numbered years.

A look back over the group of men who attained the presidency, reveals very few Ronald Reagans. That is because Ronald Reagans are very rare. Perhaps they should be on the endangered species list. Think of this for  a moment. How many Ronald Reagans have there been in the 220 or so years since we started keeping score?

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Rooesvelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan. Any others? Can we even agree on those six? I mean to be blunt Ike was sort of a squish sometimes and TR was a bit of a compassionate conservative diva (assuming you didn’t have antlers). Abe had a squeaky voice and don’t get me started on Jefferson’s bimbo eruptions and perpetual indebtedness.

Conservatives might be well served to cut Rick Perry (and all of our other candidates for that matter) some slack when holding him up to a template that few men (or women) have ever fit. Being inarticulate is not a character flaw.   Lack of affinity for a superficial exercise that has virtually nothing to do with performing in the crucible of the presidency should not disqualify a candidate.

Barack Obama is so bad and so destructive and the need to replace him is so exigent, that conservatives have developed a collective case of the yips. We crave a candidate who is so wonderful that we can finally relax and look forward to the end of this nightmare. It is not going to happen. There are no Ronald Reagans ripe for the picking in 2012 so we had best concentrate our efforts on insuring the election of some lesser mortal with an R after their name, flawed though they may be.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • barleycorn

    “The ability to lead involves the ability to persuade, and that oftentimes requires articulate confidence. Perry has not demonstrated ANY of this yet, to my mind.”

    I realize you are referring to the “debates” but I would urge everyone to consider that Gov. Perry has in fact demonstrated the ability to lead and persuade in real life.

    Debates/forums have become such dog and pony shows that I think candidates should start refusing to take part unless they are restructured as true debates with lengthy answers allowed.

    The current quiz show format is garbage.

    • HaroldHutchison

      But we have to deal with the debates as they are, not how we’d like them to be.

      If Perry cannot shape up in his debate performances, he does us no favors.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      on the basis that such debates were, quote, “Kids stuff”. And there is truth in this. Nixon won a popular vote landslide percentage that likely never will be duplicated. Yes, the high-production values and quiz-show glam-o-rama of the recent debates are embarrassingly puerile.

      But, even going back as far as the Kennedy/Nixon debates, television has warped traditional political debates in much the same way MTV warped popular perceptions of music. They are what they are, sadly. But, I will say this: Political leadership often depends upon on-they-fly conveyance of deeply-held first principles, especially in a national office. Modern debates are a dim reflection of this reality, and the last thing conservatives need again is an inarticulate stumblebum charged with defending our deeply held beliefs.

      And yes: ten years does count for something: Rick Perry is a standout governor. John Dingell has been a congressman for a millennium (seemingly). And Shelly Long was great for half a decade on Cheers– but vanished from the big screen. So what? Rick Perry must convince 120 million potential voters that he will be a preferred candidate for President, and so far, has fumbled badly in his first broad attempts.

      Not only has Governor Perry defended his beliefs poorly, his beliefs themselves are an anathema to many conservatives. That’s two strikes…

      • barleycorn

        My primary intent was to push back a bit against the anguish that Perry is not an uber-smooth debater.

        I agree with you that his seeming inability to defend himself, even in halting sentences, is a problem. Potentially a major problem.

        On the other hand I believe its early in the game. The vast majority of Americans have no idea who did what in these debates.

        My only goal is defeating Barack Obama whether its Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich doesn’t matter much.

        What makes me cringe is to see conservatives savaging each other so virulently that there is lasting damage into the general in 2012. There is a line that historically few Republicans have crossed during primary season. In my opinion both Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney have crossed it and I think that is bad for the GOP.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          especially the lack of cicumspection toward Perry about being politically bought off (Bachmann) or wanting to throw Granny off a cliff (Romney). Both arguments seem like liberal straw-men to me. I think all three are damaged now.

  • Archer

    “How many Ronald Reagans have there been in the 220 or so years since we started keeping score? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan. Any others? Can we even agree on those six?”

    Heck, no, we can’t agree on that list.

    Lincoln ran on a platform of raising tariffs on manufactured goods. Those tariffs were the chief source of revenue for the government and had been a major problem in north-south relations for decades. The north manufactured most of the goods which northerners used so by-and-large tariffs weren’t paid by citizens in the north.

    Those northern goods weren’t widely distributed in the south due to lack of railroads to move them. Instead the south, with its extensive coastline, imported goods mostly from abroad. So much of the expense of running the national government were paid for by the citizens of the south (and who were on average much less wealthy than their northern counterparts).

    Was Reagan a leader who wanted to raise protective tariffs to protect manufacturing companies? No. Was Reagan in favor of taxing certain geographic portions of the country (not coincidentally taxing heavily the regions which least supported him) while taxing other other portions of the country (where his political base lived) much more lightly? No.

    Lincoln, inside the Union, repeatedly violated the constitution while pursuing the war. He closed newspapers critical of him, illegally jailed and/or deported American citizens who were newspaper editors who were critical of him, took over the city of Chicago from its elected officials because the government placed a prisoner of war camp (Camp Douglas) nearby and the city was allowing private citizens to provide food and other relief to the prisoners. Prisoners were being denied food rations, clothing, and blankets as a deliberate policy to make them too weak to attempt escape.

    Would Ronald Reagan have put a civil war camp in Chicago then in the winter make the guards go through the camp, confiscate the blankets, and stop feeding the prisoners? Lincoln did. And for someone who might try to argue that Lincoln didn’t know, Lincoln was informed of it as it was happening and refused to reverse the policy.

    That’s not allegations from confederate prisoners but records from the US government.

    Union prisoners in the confederate states didn’t have adequate food and clothing because the south was poor and didn’t have food and clothing adequate even for their own soldiers.

    Confederate prisoners in the northern prisoner of war camps died by the thousands from exposure, preventable diseases, and malnutrition because Lincoln’s government chose not to provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter even though it was available.

    Is that the kind of guy Reagan was? I should hope every Republican would come out with a resounding “NO!”

  • rkcon

    I’m very conservative. I know Perry well. The problem is that he doesn’t measure up well even with Romney from a conservative perspective, let alone Reagan.

    Perry plays conservative identity politics. He’s great for that % of conservative voters who idolized Bush Jr. and listen to Levin et all. He’s from Texas. Swagger. He talks loud. He throws red meat. He prays. He shoots guns. He throws more red meat. He’s loud. He says things that “conservative” talk-show hosts also say. He should really be conservative.

    Except he isn’t. He hasn’t really changed much from the guy who was supporting Blue Dog Dems. He’s a Texan who got along with Texas’ ideological movement throughout the years.

    I read the other day someone (a NR writer?) calling Perry’s ideology “Texas Gaullism”. Some sort of right-wing pro-business statism – like De Gaulle in France. Pro-business, not pro-free market. It’s an incredibly fit description.

    Perry wouldn’t govern the US as a conservative. He’d do it as Bush and Obama.
    ———————————————

    That was the ideological problem. Other than that: I hate to say I told you so but I did. Perry is a paper tiger. He struggles mighty with nuance and complexity. Obama and Sunday show hosts would wipe the floor with him. He frequently looks like a fool except when he’s reading from a teleprompter or doing his type of retail politics that are of a type that will only appeal to southern conservatives and nobody else. In Texas he was able to just bully his opponents: in debates he’d just go on personal and ad hominem attacks when he was in trouble. But that works in Texas, for the Texas electorate (part of it, many people hate Perry and he was never a powerhouse with some segments of the electorate the GOP candidate will need to win nationwide in 2012).

    • Scope

      perhaps a pickled herring in sour cream? LOL

      • acat

        Why would you do that to good sour cream?

        And no, this isn’t really worthy of a recipe, it’s just a bunch of the usual noise.

        I note, by the way, that rkcon’s writing style changed halfway through his diatribe. Perhaps he copied and pasted and tried to give credit to NR (New Republic, perhaps?) .. poorly. (Note to rkcon, a link is appropriate)

        I’ve not the time nor the inclination to try to find the original author on NR, whatever it is, and see if rkcon has permission to repost, or if what was copied is small enough that it may qualify under fair use. There’s no need, I can tear this apart without extending a single claw.

        Fact 1. Bush didn’t use a teleprompter, they made him worse than when he spoke from memory. Go look at his post-9/11 and post-Katrina addresses. When Bush goes off script, we get words like strategery.

        Fact 2. Obama can’t even talk to a small group without his teleprompter. Documented. Not debatable. When Obama goes “off script”, we get statements like “bitter, clinging to bibles and guns”.

        Fact 3. Perry is not doing well in the debates. He needs to go with his gut, not with his coaches.

        Fact 4. Blue Dog Democrat means conservative. Even a black cat knows that much. Yes, they’re likely more economically liberal than an equivalent GOPer, but .. strong national defense and strong family values are what set the Blue Dogs (sometimes Dixiecrats) against the northeastern branch of the Dems.

        Fact 5. “Texas Gaullism” makes more economic sense – France did quite well under General De Gaulle – than Obama’s socialistic “spreading it around” chic.

        See? No need for a recipe here. Suggest that if you’re hungry you order pizza.

        (cheshire grin)

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          but I think he may be on to something here….

          I mean the choice is clear for conservatives…

          1. A gun-toting, red meat eating, core conservative that gets the talk radio crowd…

          or

          2. A mamby-pamby north easterner, that “likes to shoot at varmints” with a pistol… but only when he’s talking to an NRA crowd.

          Who’s the one playing identity politics here? I’m confused… hey you got another recipe… i’ve got to reset my brain.

          • acat

            Okay, here’s a summer favourite. I tend to keep the first couple ingredients in the freezer, ready to assemble on short notice.

            The prep for this takes a while, but it’s worth it!

            Teriyaki kabobs.

            1 lb boneless chicken breasts
            1 lb flank steak or similar
            1 lb white mushrooms (optional)
            1/2 lb firm tofu
            1 red bell pepper
            1 green bell pepper
            1 vidalia sweet onion
            1 cup soy sauce
            1/2 cup lime juice
            1/2 cup brown sugar
            2 cloves of garlic

            Marinate prep:

            Mince garlic very finely. Crushing is good. Food processor is also good.
            Mix soy sauce, brown sugar, lime juice, and garlic.

            Divide into 3 equal portions and place each portion in a 1 gallon ziploc bag.

            Protien prep:

            Cut the steak, tofu, and chicken into roughly 1″ cubes.

            Add steak to one bag, “burp” the air out, place in the refrigerator overnight.
            Repeat for chicken and tofu.

            Next morning, drain off the tofu cubes and place them in the freezer.

            Veggie prep:

            (note – do this after the soy is freezing)

            Cut the stems off the peppers, remove seeds and whatnot.
            Cut into 1″ squares.

            Remove the outer layer from the onion, cut off the top and bottom.
            Cut the onion into quarters so that the outside edge pieces are roughly 2″ square. Separate the layers of the onion, then cut each layer down as needed.

            If using mushrooms, clean and remove stems. (nobody likes stems)

            Assembly:

            Assemble on a bamboo skewer, starting and ending with a veggie, and randomizing the order.

            Cooking:

            Grill for 5 minutes on a side.

            Enjoy!

          • Scope

            Geeeez that sounds yummy. Do I have to buy one of them their fancy food processors? LOL Actually I am on my way out now to the grocery store for real. Talk at you later. What the heck is tufo? LOL

          • acat

            Don’t need a food processor nor one of those fancy garlic presses. Just lay the peeled clove of garlic on a cutting board, put the flat of a heavy knife – a cleaver, for example – over it, and whack the opposite side with your hand. Of course, ya gotta be careful to not hit the sharp edge! Mince the resulting mush.

            You can get the same effect with a cast iron skillet, but it means washing an extra dish.

            Mew

          • Scope

            You’ve already made more great points in one post than the one above has made in 20. As I said elsewhere, no need to punch down, as our Moe would say.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            “A greater man would do the honorable thing and end your humiliation; lucky for you I’m just a good man… well sorta”

            -Malcolm Reynolds

            (I’m paraphrasing…too lazy to look it up)

          • pttx333

            the #2 crowd. And they don’t necessarily have to come from the northeast, though they are particularly bad. I’m still laughing about “Jon Carry” standing in that little dinghy wearing his blazer and trying to appear like just a “common man.” Or when he walked into a gun store and wanted to buy a “huntin’ license and some of them bullets.” That is what he and his ilk truly think of we the people, the unwashed masses doncha know.

            I’ll just take #1 – a straight-talking MAN who may flub it up once in a while but who is all-American to the core. Period. There is no other choice for me.

            Great comment!

        • Scope

          I asked for a recipe that would repulse most everyone.

          Speaking of teleprompters- Obama won’t be bringing a teleprompter to a debate. Yes, when he goes off script, his inner Marxist comes through clearly. And, that is along with all the ummmms ohhhs ahhhhhs, that was evident again in his bridge speech the other day. He was full of repeated I’s that day. I I I I told those Republicans……..etc. Even Perry can debate with that.

        • rkcon

          Perrybots behave pretty much like his master. No arguments? No problem! Insult and innuendo will do!

          NR is National Review but it could have been somewhere else. As I said, I don’t remember. It should be noted that when you read NR you assume it’s The New Republic and not National Review. Quite entertaining.

          Fact 1. Bush didn’t use a teleprompter? Learn to read. I was talking about Perry.

          Fact 2. Agreed.

          Fact 3 . This is who Perry is. He was ALWAYS like this.. Stop blaming his coaches. In fact, I remember reading here that a great thing about Perry was that he didn’t have political consultants. LOL.

          Fact 4. Blue Dog Democrats are socialists who go to the church and like guns. A socialist is a socialist is a socialist. I’m not surprised you think that Blue Dog Democrats are conservatives too.

          Fact 5. Socialism is socialism is socialism. Perry being marginally better than Obama, as Bush was, doesn’t make him a conservative or a good solution.

          Yawn. I don’t know why I’m losing my time. Perry won’t be the nominee. He lacks the talent.

          • acat

            Take a break from your anti-Perry for a moment and talk up whoever you like.

            Mew

          • rkcon

            I don’t like anyone in the current field. I think Santorum would do the better job but he decided to go crazy and start talking about gays and dogs – instead of sticking to entitlement reform as he used to – so he’s now unelectable. I’d probably support Romney because the others are crazy or irrelevant and at least Romney has a good chance of beating Obama and would run an efficient and moderately right leaning administration. But Romney is pretty abominable himself so I’ll never declare my support for him till the moment of voting anyway (in the primary, then I’ll go all out for whoever ins the nominee). I hope it won’t come to that. I don’t think it will.

            So, no need to hurry. Entertain yourself reading the New Republic while we wait; I’ll stick to the National Review. ;)

          • acat

            And for the record, Santorum’s always been about gays and dogs. Social issues are his wheelhouse.

            I’ll stick to reading 2600, thank you very much.

            Mew

          • rkcon

            Santorum was always a social conservative, but his bread and butter were economic issues, especially entitlement reform and process stuff. That’s how he beat Walgren and Wofford, it wasn’t emphasizing social issues. Then after 2000 he decided to become more of a firebrand social conservative and he lost by 16 points.

            LOL at the transparent frustration because your “I can’t refute his arguments about Perry so I’ll just tear down whoever she supports” usual strategy failed. Pathetic.

          • acat

            And if that’s what Pennsylvania wanted, perhaps they’d have re-elected him.

            My self-appointed role isn’t to defend Perry, it’s to point out false arguments. You’re right, he’s a lousy debater, always has been. I further agree that his speechifying is one of his strengths. I’ll note that neither he nor Bush need a teleprompter, both can work a crowd.

            I’m not sure where you’re getting your definition of a blue dog. Zell Miller isn’t a socialist, for example, and is a decent example of the breed. I’ll take Zell over Obama. Is it pure distilled Reaganite conservatism? No… but Reagan’s dead.

            I like that Perry stood up to the Texas legislature over the Amazon tax – hitting his own party in the process. We’re going to need a POTUS who can keep the RINO instincts in the Senate on a short, strong leash. That ain’t Santorum’s wheelhouse, and I expect Mitt would roll over for McConnell as well.

            I do think Perry has made some mistakes, and he’s doing terribly in the debates thus far. That, in part, is because he’s got a handful of folks who will be footnotes at best going after him on issues that will be footnotes in the general.

            So. Keep on going after Perry. Just do it with facts.

            Frustration? You ain’t caused any yet.

            Mew

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            It lost French Indochina despite our best efforts, and became perennially slogged down in Algeria. They devalued their currency. And Ike had to save his bacon continually, from D-Day right through Kennedy’s funeral.

            And, he was a horses Patoot. Much of our post-war problems were a direct result of our weird obsession with this Parisian Ichabod Crane. We gave them veto-power at the UN that they continually club us with, we tried to save their flea-bitten empire, and much of our Marshall Plan subsidies went to the politically well-connected.

            But, the Kabobs look yummy. How would some rubbed sage do in the baggies overnight?

          • acat

            your taste buds may vary.

            Regarding De Galle, everything you cite is from a US-centric perspective. The better question – and the angle I was after – was what the French thought of that period of their history.

            Seems to me that De Galle getting us to reward his cronies, prop up their empire, and give the French an illusion of power retained via the UNSC .. from a French point of view, looks pretty good.

            Mew

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            EVERTHING looks good from the French point of view. It would to you, too, if you were awash in Bordeaux, sonobulently enjoying your two-day work week in le Midi.

          • rkcon

            because he installed the New Deal and ended the Great Depression (not really).

            Plus, I’m not saying Perry’s Texas Gaullism is such a terrible thing. It’s just not conservatism in any way, shape or form.

            Zell Miller was actually fairly conservative on economic issues too (not always, but he evolved since the mid90s, as he did with cultural issues). The typical Blue Dog/New Deal Conservadem is different. Those guys, like the Big Government Bush conservatives, aren’t productive and they shouldn’t be seen as reliable allies or long-term partners. Let alone allowed to call themselves “conservatives”: like Bush Jr. they’ll do nothing but damage the brand.

          • acat

            Make it a hypothetical. You cast the deciding vote. Whoever you write down wins. Who do you want running the country, leading the free world?

            No need to limit yourself to current candidates.

            Mew

          • rkcon

            Not that I’d want him to run, he’s completely unelectable.

            But there are a few other guys I wouldn’t mind to see there.

            I just don’t see the relevance for the issue at hand. I mean, you’re obsessed to make personal attacks on people who criticize Perry or tear down the candidates they support. Advise for someone who’s been around for a lot more time than you: not a good strategy. Not very endearing.

          • acat

            And I have no problem with legitimate criticisms. There’s a lot of half-truths being recirculated with the specific intent of knocking Perry off the stage.

            If Perry legitimately isn’t the one, that’s fine, but let’s decide it on facts, like the fact that Perry’s a lousy debator, or the fact that the Gardacil decision was wrong-headed, rather than on lies insisting the Texas Dream Act is the same amnesty package as Reid’s DREAM act, or that the Gardasil decision was driven by cronyism.

            You, on the other paw, need to grow a thicker pelt.

            Mew

          • rkcon

            simply point out what were the illegitimate criticism or the half-truths I’ve engaged on. None? Okay, that’s what I thought.

            Btw, I don’t need a thicker pelt. I don’t like uncivil forms of conversation – it’s a matter of education, not of pelt – and I’ll let people know. Deal with it.

          • acat

            Perry plays conservative identity politics. He

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            As the question is hypothetical, does the occupant have to be human? How ’bout living or dead? A wax dummy? What are the rules to determining something that is indeterminate?

          • acat

            Why not horses? Too predictable, always vote neigh.

            Mew

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            I quit.

          • aesthete

            and helped the Bush administration with political strategery on it: Bush’s SS reform in 2004. Yep, the one that was dropped like a hot potato about a month into his second term, and never spoken of again. It’s nice that Santorum supported a good idea, but it was a) by no means the bulk of his effort, b) clearly not an effort that succeeded (or even came close to same, and c) doesn’t come close to making up for his critical role in supporting Medicare Pt D, or his support of all manner of governmental nonsense that the Bush Administration perpetrated. Of all the problematic entitlements, SS is the easiest one to save: heck, even Obama has forwarded a couple of suggestions for how to do it, suggestions which carried absolutely no weight or seriousness (this is Obama we’re talking about, after all). Medicare and Medicaid (both of which Santorum supports expanding) are much more problematic.

          • rkcon

            Pre-2000 Santorum was big on fiscal issues and entitlement reform at large.

            As I’ve said, he then converted himself to Bush conservatism and became a culture warrior willing to support stuff like the Medicare expansion bribe.

          • acat

            I do not recall Santorum ever being a fiscal guy.

            Mew

          • Archer

            Santorum got into the Senate in 1994 and was as deeply involved in the Clinton-era welfare reform as a fairly new senator could be.

            I’m thinking Santorum was chairman of the Senate sub-committee on Social Security and was on the Senate Banking committee so he had plenty of opportunities over the years to speak on fiscal issues. He was for a major overhaul of the Social Security system but he lost re-election just before Bush came on-board and started pushing for it too.

            And while Santorum was chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, he seemed to be tapped to be the party’s spokesman very frequently when it came to economic issues. I don’t know how much you can read into that since someone who is the party’s spokesman is going to be towing the party line regardless of his true feelings.

            Santorum has gotten ratings of A’s and B’s from the National Taxpayer’s Union just the same as Bachmann and Gringrich have received.

            By the way, Ron Paul got straight A’s.

          • rkcon

            till 2000.

            Actually, that played a big role in his loss. PA can vote for very extreme fiscal conservatives or fairly liberal democrats but they don’t like too much noise or extremism on social issues from both sides.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            This notion that you have to line up behind Perry right now or lose is just crap.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            But was that insult or innuendo regarding Perry’s talent?

          • rkcon

            I don’t even know how to answer that. Buy a dictionary, maybe?

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            n/t.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Calvin Coolidge. Also, perhaps, Rutherford Hayes.

    I would settle, tho’, for a William Howard Taft, a Warren Harding, or a James Monroe.

    But, remember: The ability to lead involves the ability to persuade, and that oftentimes requires articulate confidence. Perry has not demonstrated ANY of this yet, to my mind. So far, I’ve heard shibboleths, vague allusions, and a lot of claiming credit on the part of Governor Perry for things that I don’t believe he ought to be claiming.

    And finally, Reagan wasn’t Reagan, either, in September of 1979. He was an old, dottering, washed-up B-movie actor with no foreign policy experience. I saw several Reagans-in-waiting on the stage last night.

    But, I LOVE your “yips” reference. It is perfect!

  • HaroldHutchison

    When someone is hurt, the first step is to stop the bleeding and stabilize the patient. To me, that means defeating Obama in 2012 and getting someone better in there. Just about anyone on the GOP field, aside from Ron Paul and Gary Johnson would do so (and Paul and Johnson are off my list on foreign policy/national security grounds).

    Right now, after the first three debates post-Ames, I have doubts that Rick Perry can do so. If Perry can turn it around, great, but if he can’t, he’s not doing me as a conservative any favors. I, for one, think he handled the in-state tuition question stupidly, and insulted the base of the GOP. If at the debates, he performs as he did, too many folks will go with the devil they know (Obama) rather than take a risk with Rick Perry.

    Mitt Romney increasingly looks like he can at least look like a reasonable, competent alternative to Obama in the debates. Applying the Buckley rule as things stands after these debates, I have to lean to Mitt at this point.

    As a bonus, the Tea Party will still be motivated to keep his feet to the fire. I’d rather see the Tea Party stay active, rather than get complacent after 2012.

  • LiveStronger

    speech. I can’t wait to attend President Romney’s inauguration.

    Romney’s coat-tails will help Republican senators oust incumbents in states like Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Montana, Missouri, and Wisconsin (technically an open seat).

    With control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency, we can ensure that the Supreme Court returns to a more originalist interpretation of the Constitution. States’ rights will replace federal dominance. Individual rights will replace big government nanny-state-ism. Taxes will drop. We will return to real prosperity, not artificial “bubble prosperity”.