All through 2010 we were told to vote our consciences and stick to our principles. We were told to rise up against the establishment and rock the boat, even if the results provided someone who was relatively unelectable to the rest of the body of voters.
The call to shake things up was correct one. The result a record number of freshman, many who have never held office, were elected to do the people's bidding in Congress.
Fast forward to this year's Republican presidential primary season. We are being given a set of choices once more. A set of alternative futures if you will. With the field sill in flux most of us are still mulling over who we may support.
Should people again stick by their convictions and vote for whomever they wish, or should people be "smart" about their vote?
If we apply last year's standar then people should vote for whomever without much thought of the over all implications of where their vote may lead to winning. That was me in 2008. I was one of the 3100 votes for Fred Thompson.
Of course John McCain went forward to win the nomination after the Missouri primary. It could be argued that those of us who voted for Guiliani, Thompson and Ron Paul could have voted for Romney or Huckabee then. In fact I was told by a number of people I wasted my vote because Thompson already closed up shop.
Perhaps, but it was a vote I am proud of and would not change.
Which brings us today. My esteemed colleague and friend Erick Erickson wrote an interesting column regarding the possible entry of Rick Perry into the presidential race.
In the piece, Erick proposes that if Perry were to enter the race it might further dilute the consevative vote - giving Romney a sizeable (and potentially insurmountable) lead.
If we grant Erick's proposal then it begs a whole series of questions revolving around who conservatives might line rally to and if that person would be the right candidate in the first place.
If we were to take more conservative candidates - Bachman, Cain, Pawlenty, Santorm and throw Perry into the mix I would ask which is best qualified and can speak to the issues?
The truth is there is only one way to find out, and that is to run a primary.
The other unspoken truth is that the race can and will change radically over the next few months. If memory servers me correctly Guiliani was leading the race at this time in 2008 with Fred Thompson right on his heals.
As a result when I am asked to give up a potential candidate I have been following since the summer of 2009 before they even set foot into the arena I become a bit skeptical.
Yes, the logic is sound. Its just the historical reference and gut check which doesnt ring true.
In all honesty, Republicans are still searching for their voices and a leader. Of the voices I've heard only two make the stand up and pay attention. Of those two, only one has executive experience and a proven record at producing jobs and beating back this economy with freedom and liberty which we cherrish.
That leader is Rick Perry. It is why if he were to jump into the race I could not abandon him. I would be abandoning my self.
Of course first things first. Rick Perry would need to announce.