What does Rick Perry’s probable candidacy tell us about the current state of the GOP, and will the entire party UNITE behind a REAL conservative nominee? Has THAT much changed in less than a year?

By: gawken (Diary) | July 3rd, 2011 at 10:26 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

Up front, I don’t know that much about Rick Perry. Most of what I’ve read, I tend to like, but figure I’ll wait until he officially announces before starting to do my homework. However, there is ONE aspect to his candidacy that confuses me, and I wonder what, if anything, it portends for our nominee, whoever it is, in 2012.

Normally, when I write a diary, I have a perspective, a position, an opinion that I’m advancing. Here, this time, it’s none of those. I also don’t know that much about internal Texas politics either, so I’m hoping for some input here.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a reasonbly popular Senator ( though viewed as somewhat of a RINO by most on the right), forgo a chance at re-election in 2012 to run against Perry for governor last year. Had she ran for the Senate, she’d have considerable seniority, and would have been in the majority. She offered herself as a “moderate” alternative to Perry. For me, it makes no sense to believe that she she felt that she had a better chance challenging Perry in a primary rather than defending herself against a primary opponent two years later.

So, in August, 2009 she announced that she was challenging Perry for Texas governor. Early polls showed her wthe a fairly substantial lead. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT EARLY ON, AT THAT TIME, NO ONE REALLY FORESAW THE UPCOMING GOP SURGE THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE MASSIVE 2010 ACROSS THE BOARD VICTORY. So possibly she just had really, really bad timing.

But she was soon endorsed by Bush, Cheney, Baker, and a whole slew of GOP establishment types. They were more than willing to toss aside a two term, apparently conservative governor. Why?

Hutchinson’s support quickly evaporated. Possibly due to her reneging on her intital promise to resign her Senate seat to run for governor. She lost to Perry, 53% to 31%.

BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANT, DEBORAH MEDINA, A VIRTUAL UNKNOWN, RUNNING WITH THE TEA PARTY CACHET, GOT 19% OF THE VOTE.

And now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, in the last few months, Perry springs into the national consciousness. In most polls, he’s near the top, and everyone is talking about him favorably. Most conservatives, most Tea party types, have a positive view.

YET LESS THAN A YEAR AGO, AS A SITTING TWO TERM GOVERNOR, HE BARELY MANAGED A PLURALITY IN THE GOP PRIMARY. MUCH, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, HE WAS OPPOSED BY CANDIDATES POSITIONED TO BOTH HIS LEFT AND HIS RIGHT. AND HE HAD CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION WITHIN THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT.

And now, a few months later, hey..everything’s great..it’s all good. I just don’t get it. Perry’s the one..perhaps? I don’t know what it means, what it says about the GOP nationally. I’m, well..confused. Maybe it’s just Texas politics…maybe someone can explain it to me.

Again, just to be clear…I’m not opposed to Perry. This is NOT about him. Indeed, I like most of what I’ve read. In the baker’s dozen of GOP candidates to date, he’s one of several I’d happily support.

But I just don’t understand this near spontaneous evoltion of him as a viable candidate.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

rbdwiggins

for the next “Reagan,” or our first “Lady Thacher,” as the case may be.

Whomever grabs the mantle, and they’ve all fallen woefully short so far, will enjoy the full embrace of the conservative movement and earn the privilege of defeating Obama in a Reagan-like landslide.

Right now, it’s Perry’s turn…
kripto

Its the younger generation who do not truly understand what it means to be conservative. There are many similarities between Romney and Reagan (and some difference).

So, if you are truly Conservative, time to get behind Romney.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

There is nothing about Mitt Warmly that is “conservative”. Nothing. Especially in today’s world.

1. His private sector experience is not only not applicable to what is needed today, it’s counter productive. Mitt was successful in the private sector because he could tell people to do things and they got done. Doesn’t happen in politics.

2. He’s very proud of the things he “accomplished” in Massachusetts working with the Democrats, especially Teddy Kennedy.

3. In Massachusetts all he did was make the trains to the camps run on time. He make delivery of government services a little more efficient so that Democrats could find new things to spend money on.

4. RomneyCare is a disaster and he’s proud of it.

5. Mitt has never found a problem that couldn’t – or shouldn’t – be solved by government intervention at some level.

6. If Mitt really wanted to be a Governor and make a difference he should have gone back to Michigan.

He may well be the nominee. He’ll certainly fare better in the general than at least one non-candidate I can think of, but if elected he’s not the guy to fix the problems we’ve got now. After four years every department currently in government will still be there, maybe running cheaper, but not gone. No thanks.
rbdwiggins

if he becomes the Republican nominee.

His similarities with Reagan are minimal. Otherwise, he would enjoy a commanding lead with only token opposition from the fringe.

Note: Conservative first, and foremost. Conservatism embodies the constitutional principles and God-given rights of our Founding. What it means to be American is defined by the culture at any given point in time.

wrightdjohn

I think most conservatives will but a sizable percentage of evangelicals won’t. He can’t afford to lose those in the general. I’m talking 5% but that will be too many. I know a lot of these evangelicals and they aren’t kidding when they say they can’t vote for Romney.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

It’s a bug that’s being fixed, but right now it will drive some people crazy.
acat

sure seem to be lining up to meet-and-greet with Perry.

Tina Korbe, over at Hot Air, has some interesting notes here: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/05/leaders-of-the-christian-right-find-their-preferred-candidate-in-rick-perry

In summary, Hagee, Perkins, and others are courting Perry rather than getting behind Bachmann, Pawlenty, or Santorum .. all of whom these leaders should have a natural affinity for. Korbe’s conclusion is that it’s about “electability” .. but I don’t find it convincing for any of the three other than Santorum, who’s gotten no traction.

What makes me nervous is that these are the same guys who backed Bush 2.0, and .. he wasn’t a very three-legged stool. That they’re backing Perry, with Bachmann and Pawlenty in the race, especially with Perry’s previous wobbles on executive restraint … well, it seems an odd coincidence.

Mew

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Whether or not Perry gets the support of Christian conservatives and social conservatives will have little to do with who the Christian “leadership” line up behind. The leaders mentioned are good men so don’t get me wrong. But social conservatives do not blindly follow any type of leadership. Their endorsement means very little to me, except for its educational value – i.e. if it is indicative of what a candidate stands for on the issues.

Social conservatives will go for Perry if they see him as a three-pronged conservative: social, fiscal, and strong defense. It is not simply enough to be a Christian or to have the endorsement of “leadership.” Otherwise, Huckabee would be their nominee.

As to electability, the term is basically meaningless at this point. Four years ago pundits claimed Romney was unelectable because he was a Mormon and a psuedo-conservative. Many of those same pundits have now branded him the front-runner – although he is still a Mormon and a psuedo-conservative.

Do fiscal conservatives and strong defense conservatives have leadership or is it only the social conservatives?
rightwingmom52

both as a Christian and a conservative. I seek information on the candidates from a variety of sources, but in the end, I listen to my conscience and make up my own mind. Always have and always will.
acat

explaining to those (admittedly few, on Red State) on the outside just how much of a weight Perkins is as a source? What are their criteria in all of this?

Korbe seems to think it’s “electability”, and that Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, Santorum, etc don’t have it. Their backing is obviously more complex than just “back the guy who I agree with” .. Santorum has great conservative cred, Pawlenty has – from what I can see of results, good cred. Bachmann and Cain are harder to figure because they’re not governors, but .. they sure look conservative…

I’m trying to figure out what it is about Perry that they like, and – more importantly – what their critera are. That is, they also backed Bush 2.0, and he was not a three-legged conservative. Good man, good president, did great on the social and defense fronts, not much on the fiscal front.

I want to know Perry isn’t going to be missing a leg, and if Perkins or Hagee use a metric I can understand, then I know what this means to my own – as you and I have previously said – litmus tests, I’ve got this new test but I need you to help me read it.

Mew
aesthete

SoCon cred, maybe, but general conservative cred? In what universe? Not picking on you, acat, but Santorum is just terrible on spending and general conservative governmental issues.
acat

Lack of sleep.

Would like to know what you make of these .. men of the church .. seeming to prefer Perry, though.

Mew
aesthete

I was wondering about that. Personally, I think that Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and many others are much authentically and responsibly socially conservative than Santorum, but I totally understand and agree with where you’re coming from now.

I’m honestly not sure whether the assertion made by the story’s lead is correct — Pat Robertson and many of the other big names have made no comment one way or another, and as with many political news stories, there is a lot of second-hand information and “sources say” speak which tends to make me doubtful. However, I would not be surprised to find many social conservatives pleased by and supportive of a Perry presidency. I think that regionalism and familiarity have something to do with the specific supporters mentioned (John Hagee, David Barton and Tony Perkins). Of the three mentioned, Hagee and Barton live and work primarily in Texas. I don’t follow Hagee at all, but I do know that Barton has worked with Perry’s Texas Education Agency appointees in revising curriculum as relates to history, and that it was a positive working relationship. Tony Perkins is a former Congressman from Louisiana. From the information given, it seems to me that a more accurate title would have been “Local social conservatives support Perry presidential bid”.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Santorum is GWB without the good parts. His “unforgivable” for me was campaigning for Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. Should Santorum get the nomination (Ron Paul has a better chance) I write in the Dead White Cat.
rightwingmom52

If the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, or any other Christian coalition puts out a “guide” that outlines the issues they think are important and their view of the candidates’ positions on those issues, I’ll read it and give it about as much weight as I would to a guide put out by any fiscal group or foreign policy expert. I am most likely in the minority among Christian voters here because as I have pointed out in other comments, the church of Christ (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ of the Rev. Wright variety) has no centralized leadership, e.g., the Southern Baptists. In the first century, churches operated under the ultimate oversight of inspired apostles, and congregations were independent. Instructions were given in I Tim 3 for each church to appoint elders, so that is what we do, believing that in the area of doctrine, we are subject to the law of Christ as directly given through the Bible. As such, we don’t really look to any group in Christendom for advice on what we should or shouldn’t believe because we go directly to the source. As to how that relates to politics, I typically look at their voting guides mostly to see how a candidate responds on abortion and traditional marriage, but I really have no idea what their criteria is – I just know what mine is. For the record, I didn’t even recall who Hagee was until I read the article you linked because I am just not familiar with the “religious leaders” of the day since they’re not my leaders. Also, for the record, my current order of preference is Bachmann/Cain or Pawlenty/Cain, then Perry/Cain.

Hope I answered your question and that this makes sense.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

RWM52 sums it up pretty good. I would agree with all except her order of preference.
rightwingmom52

We really are on the same page. And my order is not set in stone. I’d be thrilled with any combination of any of the 3 – it’s just that Perry is my 3rd choice in any of those combos.

Have you noted your choices yet or have I just overlooked them?
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Too funny!

I have not made my choices as of yet. I want to wait and see how they all handle the rigors of the campaign and the MSM. I want to make sure they stand firm and don’t go all wobbly on us.

I like Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, and Perry. As a Texan, Perry is a favorite but that does not guarantee my vote. I do not like Romney or Newt.
acat

Every movement has its’ leaders, and its’ followers. Yes, social conservatives don’t *in general* act as a flock of sheep, led by a shepherd, ironically enough.

Some in every group, however, do just follow – their commitment is to take the voters guide, go to the booth, and fill in the appropriate ovals. (or pull the lever or punch out the chad, whatever)

This is true of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, strong-defense conservatives, libertarians, and even liberals… although the liberal ratio of free-thinkers appears much smaller.

As for “electability”, I disagree with the idea that Santorum has a prayer, let alone a wing…. His sure looks to be an ego run, and .. if you don’t want to call it “electability”, you can call it “not waiting for the ego to land”.

What I’m not sure about is why these men in positions of both some authority and influence (reasonably summed up in the word “leader”) are seeking out someone who isn’t running. It strikes me as odd, especially as Perry hasn’t been nearly as well vetted thus far as Bachmann or Cain or Pawlenty.

I’m very glad you have your independence – and I’ll give you kudos and mad props and even sing your praises – but .. even if you’re the norm in your congregation.. there are pure followers out there. I’ve talked to some who backed Bush and not McCain on, among other things, Hagee’s word.

I’m on the outside looking in here, kipling. What I’m questioning is, I suppose, whether Hagee and the others are really looking for a three-prong. I don’t get how their minds work, what they value, so .. am in need of your insights here.

Would this gruop of leaders tolerate a Perry over a Pawlenty because Perry is a better candidate even though Pawlenty sure looks like a three-pronged conservative?

Would they prefer a Perry over a Bachmann because they know some of their membership won’t support a woman?

Insights appreciated.

Mew
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

It would be mere speculation on my part to speak for Hagee, Barton, or Perkins. I am not close enough or familiar enough with them or their organizations to answer your questions reliably.

Hagee and Barton are Texans who are familiar with Perry and his record. To them Perry has already been vetted for more than a decade in Texas politics. Perkins is from Louisiana and is also familiar with Perry. So it may simply be a case of comfort level and prior knowledge.

My main point is that none of these three really hold sway as a national leader of the social conservatives. All have respect from among a large swath of social conservatives but none command a national position in the way Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Dr. Kennedy, or James Dobson once did. Hagee has a large congregation and a tv audience but little in the area of grass roots. Barton works behind the scenes most of the time. And, Perkins is more of a resource guy for social conservative activists. Please note that these are just my impressions and will be disputed by others. I am not sure social conservatives have leaders of national stature anymore.

My guess is that all three will back a three-pronged conservative. The great fear among social conservatives is that the just-fiscal conservatives and the libertarians will push a two-pronged candidate that ignores or compromises on social issues. That is why Mitch Daniels raised so much ire with his truce comments. Most social conservatives are more than single-prong voters but social issues matter most because we see morality as the crux of the whole problem.

Many of us could not in good conscious vote for someone who was solid on fiscal issues and defense but promoted abortion, gay marriage, or drug legalization. On the other hand, it is not enough for most of us if the candidate is only solid on the social conservative issues, which might be why Santorum is not gaining any traction. I am fine with Bachman. The trouble I have with Romney and TPaw has to do with fiscal issues and government power. In that regard, I think I am a typical social conservative.
rightwingmom52

especially your last paragraph.

I do get email updates and material from AFA and FRC, but couldn’t have said who their leaders were (Don Wildmon & Tony Perkins) without looking it up. I am a little more familiar with Focus on the Family because Dobson’s column used to run in the local newspaper. While I may use all of these groups as a source, they have no more influence on my vote than any other group.
aesthete

because I used to listen to Adventures in Odyssey as a kid — true story.
aesthete

of where the social conservative movement stands right now. I agree with you that Hagee, Barton et al are probably supporting Perry out of familiarity as much as anything else, and that they don’t command the following of those figures you mentioned. For the most part, I would say that social conservatism is not monolithic or particularly focused on central leadership; many of the more successful advocacy orgs are more clearinghouses for legal talent and other forms of human capital than trend-setters or leaders, persay.

“The great fear among social conservatives is that the just-fiscal conservatives and the libertarians will push a two-pronged candidate that ignores or compromises on social issues.” I believe that this is an accurate characterization of the social conservative state of mind, but as a non-social conservative I find that fear to be overblown. There’s no way that any Republican who seeks outright capitulation on those issues would ever be nominated. In the unlikely event that one were nominated, I imagine that we would see a base revolt akin to the one that we saw over border security. I would also note that the same general neuroses and paranoia exist on the fiscal/small government side, as well — though arguably with more reason, given the complete cowardice on fiscal issues expressed by Republicans, and capitulation to “compassionate conservatism” merely two years ago.

“[...]it is not enough for most of us if the candidate is only solid on the social conservative issues, which might be why Santorum is not gaining any traction.” This is partly valid — most social conservatives, if well-informed and given a choice, would choose a three-pronged conservative over an incomplete one. However, many social conservatives are either abysmally unaware of the deficiencies of their leadership, delude themselves into believing something other than the unvarnished truth regarding these deficiencies, or don’t really have fiscal issues high on their list of priorities.

In part due to new priorities on the part of its traditional membership and in part due to reduced influence within the Republican party, I believe that social conservative organizations (the successful ones, anyways) will work mostly on ensuring that previous gains remain solid or restored (PBA, Mexico City Policy, etc), and on some defunding of social conservative bugaboos. My personal hope is that social conservatives will trend more libertarian in the future — focusing more on homeschooling/vouchers, abortion, religious freedom, and the many other issues where they can find common ground with right-libertarians.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

The actual threat of a two-pronged candidate may be overblown but the rhetoric from libertarians and single-prong fiscal conservatives does raise concern among social conservatives. The libertarians and potential candidates like Mitch Daniels have directly called for a truce or even an abandonment of social conservative issues. Substantial gains have been made in a number of areas and social conservatives do not want to unilaterally disarm or abandon the fight. The libertarians sold us out on the gay marriage vote in New York. Why should we then trust them on any other issues? Social conservatives are routinely denounced on the Big sites of Andrew Breitbart and Pajamas Media. Our own side shoots at us and then wants our vote.

Bush was a disappointment to social conservatives on a number of levels. Compassionate Conservatism does not equal social conservatism. The Meirs nomination is a good example of the social conservatives breaking with the administration.
aesthete

If one hasn’t noticed a NY Republican selling out on a given issue important to conservatives (or libertarians, for that matter), one either hasn’t been looking hard enough, or the NY Reps in question haven’t been diligent enough

If Mitch Daniels was to be the boogeyman, then yes, the fear was overblown. Not to refight this one, but the man has one of the best, if not the best, record of anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage bills of any governor, and a truce implies at least the maintenance of the status quo (meaning no betrayals and reversals on PBA or other gains). In fairness, the fits of hysteria that social libertines or some libertarians are prone to whenever words like “God” or “prayer” come out of a politicians’ mouth can be equally, if not more, ridiculous and overblown.

I agree that so-called “compassionate conservatism” was a travesty and not representative of traditional three-pronged conservatism, but social conservatives made very little noise when “deficits don’t matter” (a factually true, but revealing, statement from Cheney), prime-pumping, etc happened. In fact, the only issues where social conservatives showed any gumption during the Bush administration were the Meirs nomination (thank God!), the immigration fight (again, thank God!), and Schiavo. You say that Bush was a disappointment to social conservatives. If so, they have a funny way of showing it.

Sorry, but I call them like I see them — there was no real attempt made by supposed social conservatives en masse to reconcile the Bush administration to responsible spending and smaller government, as they did on issues like border security and judges, and his promises to dramatically expand government were ignored by enthusiastic social conservatives who pushed him over the edge in both his Presidential elections. I have no problem cutting social conservatives some slack on that one, but let’s be honest here and admit that a) social conservatives were, at best, asleep at the wheel, and that b) social conservatives (and some defense conservatives, to be fair) have given other members of the broad conservative coalition more reason to worry than the other way around.

I don’t care about that so long as going forward, social conservatives are more wary of Bush-like candidates, but social conservatives have a persecution complex within their own stomping grounds that’s tough to justify, especially when they tend to castigate marginal groups (like libertarians) for their own flaws and failings as a movement, or invent chimeric enemies out of thin air (like the broader fiscally conservative/small government movement). Sorry, but snide comments on PJ Media or Breitbart, both of which have social conservatives on staff and writing/making movies, are thing compared to actual policy that affects the lives of each and every one of us that is completely opposed to small government values.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Social conservatives made as much noise about Bush and his fiscal indiscretions as did the fiscal conservatives. Perhaps the social conservative issue groups did not but most of the social conservatives rank and file did. Who exactly were the leading fiscal conservatives who bucked the administration? I don’t recall many of them dying in the breach.

Mitch Daniels was not the boogyman. I never said he was. Daniels is however an example of the willingness of the Republican establishment to abandon social conservative issues but still ask for their votes. He called for a truce. He never promised to hold the ground. He never specified what he would do if the social liberals broke the truce. In essence, he called for unilateral disarmament. Any speculation on what Daniels really meant or would do is all speculation because he never clarified, even when given the chance to do so.
aesthete

who were fighting tooth and nail to stop Bush’s agenda: Dick Armey and the FreedomWorks folks come to mind, Milton Friedman gave it a shot (gave up when it was clear that that wasn’t the direction the party was going), and quite a few others. Again, if the socially conservative rank and file was *that* concerned, then it could have done something akin to what it did with McCain-Kennedy and Harriet Meirs. Sorry, but it’s not speculative fiction that social conservatives were asleep at the wheel: maybe you weren’t, and if that’s the case, then I salute you. However, fiscal issues simply weren’t a priority for most social conservatives relative to other issues during the Bush administration, and those few fiscal conservatives were given the full Cassandra treatment by social conservatives (and not a few DefCons) for daring to note that government spending was skyrocketing.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

It doesn’t look it to me.
aesthete

I’ve made several, some which could feasibly be falsified, others which are take-it-or-leave-it assertions. Could you clarify?
Aaron Gardner

nt
aesthete

My basis for that claim is as follows:

1) FACT: Social conservatives were very active from 2001-07.

2) FACT: Social conservative activism prevented the Meirs nomination, McCain-Kennedy and was the primary force behind making Schiavo a major issue at the federal level.

3) FACT: Similar levels of activism were not extant when Republicans passed NCLB, Medicare Pt D, and a whole litany of spending abuses.

4) ASSERTION: Social conservatives were asleep at the wheel.
4a) Other possibilities exist, but are either too uncharitable to social conservatives or attribute malice where none exists (i.e., that social conservatives favor big government/fiscal profligacy), or do not seem to correspond with my knowledge of the movement.

“Social conservatives” in all of the following is an aggregate of the social conservative movement, not an indictment of literally everyone who would characterize themselves as socially conservative, of course.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Sounds subjective to me.

Especially given how link-free your whole argument is. How are you quantifying levels of activism to make comparisons?
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

In regards to the Breitbart sites and PJ Media, I am not referring to snide comments. I am referring to articles written by contributors that attack and smear social conservatives. A good example is GOProud. On several occasions these sites provided a forum for GOProud to attack not just social conservatives but traditional three-pronged conservatives like the Heritage Foundation. They took GOProud’s statements at face value and did not attempt to provide balance or perspective in the larger conservative movement.
aesthete

at both Breitbart and PJ who sympathized with the social conservatives (Alonzo @ PJTV comes to mind). IMO, it’s a completely unwarranted persecution complex that is entirely unhealthy. (Again, I’ll note that the parallel phenomena among some libertarians is also entirely un-productive.)
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

I concede that their are other writers. Nor am I condemning those sites entirely. Your argument is that social conservative have an “unwarranted persecution complex.” I have shown that Mitch Daniels, a potential nominee with strong backing in many quarters, called for a truce on social issues. I have also shown that two popular website platforms also regularly feature articles attacking social conservatives and their issues.

I have no problem with the battle of ideas. What I do have a problem with is those people spitting on me and then calling it rain when they need my vote, my time, and my active support.
aesthete

but also seems like a complaint that is readily applicable to the many politicians and writers who will mouth the popular lines and then do nothing (or actively work against you) when it counts: at least the libertarians/social moderates/whathaveyou are upfront about their lack of intent to help you unless it coincides with their beliefs. For my part, and as something of a right-libertarian on social and fiscal issues alike, I’m just jealous that you can get them to spit on you
rightwingmom52

that many social conservatives do not pay enough attention to fiscal issues and certainly don’t make as much noise about them. And I’ve read some good articles at Breitbart & PJ supporting social issues. But the attacks and smears kipling references are not just a difference of opinion, and our side shouldn’t endorse or validate them. I’m hoping you can appreciate that for most of us (socons), these attacks (not criticism which I can certainly take) strike at the very core of who we are, what we believe, what we stand for, what we try to live every day. It’s one thing to disagree, but quite another to be told that everything you’ve believed your entire life is not just wrong, but idiotic, racist, unimportant, intolerant, or whatever perjorative might be thrown out. Yes, I’m concerned about the overspending which I think is outright theft, and I’m fearful for our nation’s security, but I’m not going to apologize for believing that if we, as a country, do not turn back to God and a decent sense of morality (saving unborn babies and traditional marriage as a start), we are headed off a cliff. Out of control spending, debt, illegal immigration, etc. will no doubt provide the push, but God didn’t destroy Sodom & Gomorrah because taxes were too high.

And for the record, I raged against Bush’s spending and my senator’s pork projects (Shelby – AL) pretty regularly.
aesthete

simply that participants a) not whine and take their ball home when they don’t get what they want (a lot of which tends to happen on both sides of the social conservative/libertarian divide), b) be honest about the state of affairs in the Republican party, and one’s subgroup within that, and c) mutually respect their compatriots within the party: i.e., no calling libertarians Godless libertines who would just as soon smoke their mothers’ ashes as bury them, and no calling social conservatives theocratic monsters who leave no joyful activity unpunished.

IMO, both sides could stand to learn from one another: as a Christian I agree with a lot of what social conservatives see as problematic in society, and it would be nice to have a good chunk of people who seek non-coercive remedies to these problems. On the other hand, I do wish that more social conservatives would see that non-coercive solutions tend to have more sticking power and are better long term for society than attempting to have a legislature solve one’s problems. In lieu of that, at least an acknowledgement of the debt owed to libertarians for the intellectual groundwork that they’ve put into defending and advocating for areas of mutual agreement, like education and freedom of religion, would go a long way.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

If the conservative movement is a coalition of several sub-groups – the individual prong of the three-prongs – then each member of the coalition can expect to have at least some of their goals advanced by the entire groups. The problem is that some libertarians and establishment Republicans want to ignore completely social conservative issues.

Why would I want to be part of a coalition that did not advance some of my goals? Would you be in a conservative coalition that decided to call a truce on fiscal issues so that we could deal with the moral and social problems facing the United States? Or would you take your ball and go home?
aesthete

in the Bush administration, if not worse, considering that, far from maintaining the status quo, the Bush administration was enthusiastic about coming up with new and exciting ways to spend “our” money. Not a few people did just what you described — they took their ball, and they went home. Personally, I think that was a mistake: in a two party system, you’re only ever going to get some of what you want, and you’ll get none of what you want by leaving. I got virtually none of what I wanted during Bush’s presidency — I would argue that the same holds true for many fiscal conservatives. I believe that better results would have been obtained had fiscal conservatives asserted themselves more strongly during the Bush administration — maybe we could have averted the catastrophe that we’re in right now. And yes, I think that it would be incredibly stupid for social conservatives to abandon ship in the case of a temporary truce to advance issues that, per you, they care deeply about. FWIW, if repealing Roe v Wade meant having to downplay our small government leanings in order to get a legislative majority, I would have no problem with that.

I know of basically no libertarians who would be entirely disadvantageous for social conservatives — pretty much all libertarians are pro-2nd Am, homeschooling rights, vouchers, and are for freedom of religion, and there’s a pretty good chunk of libertarians who agree with social conservatives on abortion and gay marriage (or who are at least willing to split the difference). If social conservatives are really for small government in arenas not having to do with drugs or traditional social bugaboos, they can’t have a better ally than libertarians. That is part of why I find the argument that libertarians seek to eliminate socon issues a bit hard to swallow: a good chunk of the social conservative agenda *originated* with libertarians. Establishment Republicans are a different kettle of fish, but the term is, IMO, too broad to be useful: I would consider Rick Perry to be as establishment as they come, yet he seems pretty genuinely socially conservative to me. (Moderates, too, are a different kettle of fish.)

You’ll always need 50+% percent to win: I’d rather find as many of those 50+% as I can in potential coalition partners who agree with me on 70-80%, than have to go out looking for Joe Independent’s vote, who agrees with me maybe 40% of the time and who I’m going to have to draw in by betraying more of my principles.
rightwingmom52

so he could focus on social issues? And then socials took their toys and went home? I’m either missing something here or misunderstanding you because that doesn’t make sense to me.

While I agree Bush’s spending was out of control, I wouldn’t say it was because he was focusing on social issues. If anything, I’d argue that he had his hands full with national security, so how about we blame that leg? We got the ban on embryonic stem cell funding, the reinstatement of the Mexico City policy (which were also fiscal issues) and the support for DOMA and PBA. Granted those were big items, but the first 2 were pretty much done with the stroke of a pen. The appointments of Roberts & Alito certainly affect social issues, but I would presume the other 2 legs as well. What have I left out?

I agree as well that we should all work together whenever possible, and I’m right beside you on the fiscal issues – wholeheartedly, which is much more enthusiastic than your support for repealing Roe v. Wade. Not trying to pick a fight here, but I can’t imagine ever staying home or voting third party any more than I see myself giving in to a truce.
acat

He did very well on the “strong families” leg of the stool, as far as I can see, and as far as his limitations and those of his office would permit.

He did well on the “strong defense” leg of the stool – the armed services loved him, and with good reason. He “got it”. Remember the surprise visit to Iraq?

He did .. poorly .. on the “strong economy” leg. Asthete’s already covered the list, but .. from this cat’s perspective, Bush needed to publically criticize some of the big-government and big-spending tendencies of the 2003-2005-era GOP.

Regarding Roe v. Wade, you and I agree that it’s a bad finding from the judiciary, both as an example of bad science (life begins at conception, obviously) and as a judicial overreach. Where I think we part company is that I don’t believe it will be overturned before it is rendered moot, or nearly so, by local-level and State-level work.

Pennsylvania and Virginia have actually reduced the number of abortions taking place by actually treating a facility that performs an invasive medical procedure as such.. and the doors closed.

Active-minded folks in southern States have, through exercising their constitutional rights to not associate with (in the form of refusing to do business with or rent to or sell to) abortion clinic owners and employees that it’s not possible to make money performing abortions – and so the doors closed.

And no, also not looking for a fight. Looking for more information on Perry – and whether he’s got all three legs on straight.

Mew
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

In many ways Bush and Roe used federal power and money to try and shape the Republican Party of the future. Bush was conservative but politics often outweighed ideology – immigration, bailouts, etc. It would have been hard for him to speak out against spending because in many ways he led it.

My impression of Perry is that he supports and understands all three prongs. Texas is the first state to actually reduce its budget in over 50 years. He deserves a lot of credit for holding the line. He also understands energy policy and the need for the federal government to unchain our energy sector. He has countersued the EPA and fought them tooth and nail on new regulation. He is solid as a social conservative and is willing to take flack for his faith – prayer conference in Houston. The liberals here hate him so that is always a good sign.

Perry is going to have to find a way of introducing himself to the American people. I think his books Fed Up and On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts are Worth Fighting For are a good start.
acat

Rove and Bush didn’t “shape the GOP” alone, they had lots of help in the House and Senate from “good GOP leaders” like Hastert whose “grand idea” was to do exactly what the Dems do – “buy” the loyalty of districts with pork.

I don’t blame Bush nearly as much as I do the GOP folks in the House who had, less than ten years earlier, watched Gingrich take control using conservative principles. There’s no excusing that failure of leadership.

Books are a good start, but far fewer people read than used to. One reason I think Palin’s decision to make what amounts to either an apologia or a “campaign movie” is an interesting direction to take the old “campaign book” idea.

Perry’s going to have to find a way to reach out – doing a reply to the State of the Union would be .. dynamite.

Mew
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Yes, we must not forget Hastert and the other GOP leadership. Good call.

I notice you have a lot of caveats when responding to me. You may want to have a doctor check that out. : )
rightwingmom52

Bush gets a big high five from me on defense (excluding the immigration issue), a big zero on fiscal issues and somewhere in the middle on social issues. I may have inferred too much from aesthete’s comments, but it seemed he was implying that Bush more or less abandoned fiscal issues in order to focus on social issues, and I disagree as already stated.

I like what I see of Perry, but the last thing I want is a wobbly stool. I don’t like cat fights either.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Bush had to be pushed hard on some of the social conservative issues. His stance on abortion amounted almost to a truce – at least he held a truce.

I am all for areas in which we can work together. Most social conservatives will have your back on fiscal issues because most of us are fiscally conservative as well.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

on social issues that he didn’t do? He reinstated all administrative sanctions on abortion that didn’t require specific legislation (which would NOT have passed) and he nominated two great SCOTUS justices.

There’s really not much more the president can do.
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

I applaud him for reinstating the administrative sanctions on abortion. Bush was supportive of the pro-life movement but he never championed it or attempted to lead with the issue. He essentially declared his truce in the debates when he deflected the question with – we may all not agree on abortion but we can all agree to make them rare by encouraging alternatives. (I paraphrase.) If you recall, he had to be pushed to pull the Meirs nomination and nominate a SCOTUS justice someone with a conservative legal track record.

Bush could have championed the issue and used the bully pulpit to advance the pro-life cause. He largely remained silent unless pushed on the issue. He could have pushed to have the issue returned to the states. He could have cracked down on Planned Parenthood and the marketing of abortion with federal tax dollars. He could have made the administrative sanctions law by pushing a bill through Congress. He was clearly not a tool of social conservatives.
acat

but if you reflect on his presidency, especially in comparison to Obama and Clinton, the number of major public speeches by Bush – except around 9/11 and Katrina – were .. fewer.

I respect George W, and am very happy that he won in 2000 and in 2004. I do not, however, confuse him with an effective communicator… and to use the bully pulpit, one must have that particular gift. See Clinton. See also Reagan.

That said, while I’ll accept that Bush wasn’t a “tool of social conservatives”, he was most certainly elected by social conservatives more than any other group… so it is somewhat confusing to see those who were his biggest supporters now saying he wasn’t yours…

Mew
http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

He is a good man but he is not a political fighter.

Bush was elected by conservatives and Republicans. What was our alternative? Gore? McCain? Kerry?

Which fiscal conservatives voted for the aforementioned three?
JSobieski

Doesn’t make either of those two candidates particularly conservative. Nobody is saying that we had a particular better alternative than GWB in 2000 or 2004, but we are trying to come to grips with how we ended up in the political outhouse in 2008.

GWB is a big part of that recipe. After Katrina, GWB was on defense domestically. In an effort to keep up support for Iraq, he pretty much stayed docile domestically. The D’s in Congress held GWB hostage through funding the Iraq war. After the 2006 elections, domestic spending was lumped in with money for the troups and so GWB could barely slow down the domestic spending train. The fact that he didn’t try much to do so before 2006 made the post-2006 GWB that much worse.

I think history will show that GWB gave away too much to the libs to keep the Iraq war effort intact. We couldn’t do squat with Iran because we needed to protect our efforts in Iraq. In my mind, that is the very definition of the tail wagging the dog. Moreover, the D’s had the R’s on defense after the aborted SS reform and Katrina.

One can’t argue that GWB established his priorities and led from that perspective. In that sense GWB was a leader. Unfortunately, his priorities were not very conservative after Katrina. He was and is a truly decent man. The irony of the modern era is that the Bush family has shown itself to be absolutely free of scandels, and yet the Bush family doesn’t get much credit even for that. When you think about all of the politicians who have very public moral failings, the Bush family shows a remarkable amount of class.

One thing that one has to admit is that GHWB may have been a more successful father than RR.
rightwingmom52

I’ll admit I was a big supporter of Bush 41 and 43 in the beginning of their terms, plus a big fan of Laura’s. I initially support Alan Keyes over Bush 41, but I favored Bush 43 over the rest of the field in 2000.

The first time I watched Bush 41 give a speech, I thought to myself that he could be a great president. I was disappointed. When I saw Bush 43 after 9/11, I thought the same thing. I was an earnest supporter in 2004 because of it, but despite my eternal gratitude for his handling of that situation, I became deeply disappointed in him, mostly because of the fiscal issues. Having been an ardent admirer of Laura Bush’s grace and dignity as First Lady, I felt betrayed when she announced she was pro choice. I don’t see how anyone could call Clinton a “good guy” and want to hang out with him, particularly any woman, so I have no use for Babs after she made her remarks about Palin who, as far as I know, hasn’t cheated on her husband or lied to a grand jury or sexually molested anyone.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Before 911, he used his pulpit to promote – in conjunction with Teddy Kennedy – the expansion of the DoE. After 911, there was no other subject for at least two years. Then, as is noted here, came Katrina. With the frontal attack of the anti-US Democrats on the war, Katrina put a stake through Bush. He was MIA for the last 5 years of his Administration. We were just lucky that the Ds nominated the one guy who everybody hated a whole lot more than GWB at the time.

Realistically, there’s no way any of your wish list (which I have no particular problem with) could be addressed by GWB.
zooboy

read up on these items, for starters.
1. “Trans-Texas Corridor”- private property rights out the window.
2. HPV to all schoolgirls by executive order- parents rights out window.
3. Social conservative? He was Guiliani’s 2008 Texas Campaign Chairman:
Guiliani favors homosexual marriage and abortion.
4. In eight years, he has done nothing of substance in stanching the flow of illegal immigration across the Texas-Mexico border. Forget about his enforcing federal laws regarding illegals.

I can’t fathom how anyone calling themselves “conservative” or “Christian” could even CONSIDER Perry as a candidate for president.

And especially when they have a choice of Bachmann, Cain, Palin, or Santorum as options this cycle.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

It’s like you think we haven’t heard these silly arguments before, and laughed at them already.

Nobody cares about whacked out NAU Superhighway theories.

renny

They are not twitterpated enough not to realize another 4 years of oabmanation and they’ll be lucky not to have Shi’ria law in their midst.

And I will vote for my dog’s left foot if it’s nominated. I like Perry because 49% of the jobs o created and/or saved come from TX, TX has countersued the EPA for changing its rules on permitting as soon as o became president, any TX gov. is going to know about energy, and a gov. of the Republic of TX has already been in the position of a pres. since the state was once a nation.

He is not likely God or the Messiah, but I want a winnning Rep. candidate. Not an apotheosis.

gekster

And the only similarities between Romney and Reagan are,
1. They are both men.
2. They are both Republican.
3. They are both Americans.
That’s all I can think of.

http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

we can add:
4. both had relatively dark hair.
5. both are former state governors.
6. both had female mothers and male fathers.
7. both are heterosexuals.
8. both had a first and/or last name that begins with “R.”
Gee, I didn’t realize I had so much in common with both men (with the exception of the governor thing). /sarcasm off.

No, Reagan and Romney have VERY, VERY little in common. I have much more in common with Reagan than Romney does.

gekster

and no one would come up with “conservatism”.

http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

Please note the /sarcasm off tag. Don’t get me wrong, I like Mitt Romney (as a person), but he is nowhere near the definition of “conservatism,” and he is NOT the candidate that I want facing off against the 0 next year. The last thing we need is another McWimp nominee.

BigRedConservative

“There are many similarities between Romney and Reagan (and some differences)”.

Correction: There are one or two similarities between Romney and Reagan, and a whole host of differences.

And the main similarity, of course, is that their surnames begin with the same letter. Other than that…nope.

williamjameson

and are from the west and they care about social issues. Both men like pick up trucks.

Both men want to help protect Israel, end terrorism and lower the price of oil. They have more in common in foreign policy than domestic.

renny

1) help provide for 49% of all US job creation in the last 2.5 years would be tossed aside as not “cons. enough”

2) why someone with really good knowledge of oil proudction and the energy sector is not “cons. enough”

3) why someone who is counter suing the EPA to keep it from shutting down oil refineries in the state wouldn’t be “cons. enough”

4) why someone with three-terms’ exp. would not be “cons. enough”

5) why because he is a Southern and TX gov. he is not “cons. enough”

I do not like another Souther/.TX gov. either in the abstract, but if he runs, he would fulfill most of what the right wants in a pres. candidate.

Last time, I worked for Guiliani to start because of his 9/11 bona fides and his fiscal cons. success in NYC, and then I supported Mac whom I had preferred over Bush in 2000.

If I got to choose, I would add Cain to any ticket as a counter balance to little o’s race card playing and the MSM’s resort to “racism” whenever o is criticized or found wanting, which to me is all of the time.

wrightdjohn

I think anyone who supported Mac at any point in the process prior to the general cannot really be considered an authority on what conservatism is or is not.

Mac didn’t have a snowballs chance of beating snoopy in the general. He depressed the base and failed to capture any of the middle. The worst Republican candidate for president in a hundred years.

http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

Dole, GHW Bush both times, & Gerry Ford were all worse.

But the all time champion was Barry Goldwater.

aesthete

First of all, I have absolutely no doubt that the numbers were goosed on the Dem side in that election to a huge extent — LBJ was a d***ed crook, even moreso than JFK and co. Second, JFK had just been shot — Satan Q Lucifer could have been JFK’s VP, and been elected in a walk after the assassination. Third, LBJ campaigned dirty: by any standard the infamous “Daisy” ad was a complete and utter lie, and negative TV ads much, if any, play until that election. It is perhaps unsurprising that a criminal like LBJ would have been the midwife for the mud-slinging ads that we see today, but unlike today’s more cynical audience, the American public was more susceptible to taking as gospel truth what appeared on television — not because they were stupid, but because they concluded that the FCC and authorities in general wouldn’t let something horrendously untrue make it to primetime. (In fact, a concern among LBJ’s campaign staff was that the ad might backfire on them due to *TV stations* refusing to air future campaign ads if this one was proved to be as untrue as it was.) Fourth, there were deep fissures between the liberal-moderate and conservative wings of the party — wounds that would have existed for a conservative and a moderate candidate alike.

In short, 1964 was a perfect storm in which any Republican, I am convinced, would have lost to any Democrat. What other candidate would have done better? Stassen was a complete joke, Rockefeller was an a** with loads of money and a bad habit of repeatedly losing Republican Presidential primaries despite boatloads of cash (remind you of anyone?), and I can’t even remember the other candidates in the running. Goldwater was expecting to face off against personal friend (but political adversary) JFK, a young, weakened incumbent whose missteps in the Bay of Pigs and government activism made him unpopular to the American people. Would Goldwater have won in such a match-up? I don’t know for sure, but I think there was a strong possibility of a Republican win under Goldwater that was not extant with Stassen or Rockefeller as our nominee. Goldwater wasn’t the most polished of candidates, but I think it’s a bit unfair to pin on him full responsibility for the factors above that were outside of his control.

aesthete

and as proof of how far we’ve come in terms of media fairness, the CBS news’ reportage of Goldwater’s campaigning for the general began by one of its reporters alleging that Goldwater was kicking off his campaign in Bavaria, “center of Germany’s right wing”, and that he planned to unite “right-wing extremists” in “Hitler’s old stomping grounds”. This, despite the fact that no meeting had ever been in the works, and that no such speech was ever delivered, publicly or privately. That is not even the most scandalous example of the media openly rooting for LBJ and against Goldwater; merely the one that I remember. IMO, stuff like this shows how truly one-of-a-kind Reagan and the circumstances which allowed him to become President truly were; for all that Palin, Gingrich, et al whine about the media, it is today much more tamed than before, and counterbalanced by the presence of the online right and Fox News. The media openly lying about a supposed meeting of fascists in Germany without correcting itself and without rebuttal is far worse than anything that any modern politico on the right has had to face (though it’s about on par with what Reagan had to put up with). IMO, the shrubs we have right now wouldn’t survive a political contest against Dems in the 60s for two seconds.
acat

1964 was what, 20 years after V-E Day? Figure a soldier who served a four year hitch in the European theatre during WWII would have been in his 40s? 50s? Likely with some vivid memories of the time?

The media hasn’t gotten any more fair or balanced, they’ve just gotten more subtle.

Mew
aesthete

The media could lie to your face in the 60s, and you wouldn’t find out about it until twenty years later. (See, for example, coverage of the USSR and the Vietnam War during that period.) Today, misrepresentations are usually caught within 24 hours, and the sources for information are much more varied. Again, I don’t think any of those conservatives today whining about “media bias” today would have lasted 5 minutes in the 60s.
acat

And while I agree that the current crop of whiners wouldn’t last against the ’60s media, not being in posession of Goldwater-level intellect or tenacity, I do not accept that bias has disappeared from the media.

Mew
aesthete

I care about accuracy. The membership of almost all journalistic communities tends to be hard left; the extent to which they can discard all sense of journalistic integrity is based on different factors. RatherGate and other media stumbles of that sort were noted within weeks; the shameful reporting on the Tet Offensive was only widely-known a decade after it occurred. Media bias is extant and affects reportage and what issues can be covered, but outright lies are much rarer than they were when media was an ossified institution. IMO, the existence of the internet and Fox News has done much to mitigate the terribly biased reporting of the 60s.

izoneguy

The GOP establishment used her (much to her dismay) to see where Rick Perry stood. The GOP has had feelers out for Perry for years. The GOP establishment wanted to see if a popular moderate Senator could knock him off. Of course if that did happen and we had KBH as the Governor of Texas (or forbid Bill White as governor) then Rick Perry’s hope & chance of running for President would have been gone – thus clearing the deck for Romney. Well the GOP establishment failed and now they will have Rick Perry to contend with.

I think Rick can move Americans to support him in even larger numbers then Obama had in 2008. Of course the GOP establishment will pay the price and that is a good thing.
onemovoter

I actually really like and could easily support.

Reagan developed his stances on issues over time. He was actually an FDR Democrat up through the 40′s. It took dealing with the Screen Actors Guild, a union back then, to see much of what he believed while growing up was wrong. Reagan did his homework and through trial and error became the man idolize today. I’ve read Reagan in His Own Hand and have come to the conclusion that the man was of genius level in reading and communication concepts. He also developed a leadership style that usually lead him to right answers when needed. He would often let people argue on topics in front of him while listening, and would then finally speak up and give a decision.

I see basically the same now in a seasoned Perry. It’s not enough that someone has certain stances on issues, for they much also be able to communicate their ideals to where people will say “damn strait that’s right!”.

Right now I’m torn between Perry and Cain, as both show much promise. However, as with all of us, all of the candidates will have to earn our support and respect in the end. I look forward to the horse race.
http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

If he does not announce soon, then when will he?

izoneguy

2 Republicans Open Door to Increases in Revenue

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/us/politics/04budget.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Revenue is not the problem – Big government is.

Let’s cut the EPA and as Rick Perry has suggested the Dept’s of Education & Energy as well.

I think Washington D.C. is giving Rick Perry all the ammo he needs to launch an
assault on big government.
acat

..when does he have to declare to be in for the hawkeye caucai?

My thought on Perry is that he’s learned from Palin (and, to a lesser extent, McCain’s) experience, or maybe with recent developements in technology** and entertainment** and is going to “loiter with intent” until the last possible moment.

The “exploratory committee” can do all the footwork to get him ready for the caucuses without him actually declaring, so .. why not remain a private citizen?

* No offense intended, Ames, but .. when you can bus people in from anywhere to participate, the game goes to whoever thinks winning it is worth renting a fleet of school busses and picking up every supporter in the region….

** the segway, the transmeta chip, the movie Super8 .. none gave away exactly what the narrative was until the last possible moment, generating huge buzz….

izoneguy

In the overall scheme of things Iowa & NH don’t mean a thing.

acat

NH and IA do give candidates a chance to implode… Howard Dean demonstrated this.

They’re sort of a “smoke test” of the candidates’ ability to organize and run a campaign machine. “Turn it on, see if smoke comes out…”

Mew

izoneguy

That is why Mitt Romney is skipping Iowa
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

would be there with bells on.

And don’t read this as an “anti-Mormon” comment. Iowa – and all caucuses – are designed to pull in very committed single-issue voter who want to “make a point”. Like the RTL crowd who showed up for Huckabee in 08 knowing absolutely nothing about him but is so-called RTL creds.

Personally, I wish the Party would ban caucuses and move to regional primaries. If I never hear about the importance of New Hampshire again it’ll be too soon.
acat

Less of a touchy issue, and showed up just as impressively for the Huckster.

Otherwise, agree.

Mew
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

I forgot the FTers. I’m not being critical of the people who showed up for the caucuses. They just got used. My problem is with the caucus. It’s designed to be a single issue voter haven, especially in a place like Iowa where the weather is absolutely guaranteed to look like winter in Stalingrad so you’ve got to be really wanting to make a statement to go out in the cold.
Ann_W

Because Mitt was ‘pro-choice’ at one point my brother will never vote for him. I’m mostly decided on Cain, Mitt’s about 3rd for me right now. Conversations among my Mormon friends reveal that they aren’t as monolithic as you suggest. FYI.
http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

minuscule. All a candidate needs to be competitive is a small motivated block of voters, ala Huckabee in Iowa in 08. I wasn’t implying that Mormons are monolithic, but hey are certainly a well defined and close knit group and they are very well organized. Romney could pull (relatively) huge numbers if they were a real presence in Iowa, even though the actual numbers were small and even small in proportion to the Mormon population.

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Perry is a consistent three-pronged conservative. He has had an occasional lapse on some issues but has nowhere near the baggage of Romneycare or TPaw’s previous support of cap and trade.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson suffered for three reasons. First, she challenged Perry seemingly out of a personal desire to be governor and nothing else. Second, in attacking Perry she attacked those who had supported Perry and built a conservative track record in Texas. Third, she presented herself as a moderate in a conservative GOP state. The support of the Bushies actually hurt her appeal. The Bush and Co. endorsements came across all wrong. Texans do not like to be dictated to by anyone.

Medina has strong connections with Ron Paul and the libertarians. That support only carried her so far.

In short, Perry was not challenged by both the left and the right. KBH did represent the moderate GOP but Medina only represented the libertarian / Ron Paul right. Most conservatives lined up behind Perry.
williamjameson

opinion of Rick Perry isn’t relevant enough for me to care. Bush caved into dem bills way too often and he didn’t fight banking reform hard enough.

Both Bush’s have that northeastern republican mentality that’s different from southern and western Americans. Some of the northeastern reps have more dem lite in them as well they tend to focus on social issues too much while letting fiscal issues be too bipartisan. We needed cuts during the last 8 years and need them even more now. Bush who is what I say when the Bushbots try to slow down Rick Perry.

A 3 term governor is bound to make a few enemies on both sides but the progress is Texas has outperformed 48 other states with PA coming in second. I haven’t seen enough Perry negatives to change my stance that Perry is a better choice than Romney. The last poll I saw put Perry in second place and third in another. Early polls don’t mean much but the man rose up quick did he not? And hasn’t taken a firm stance on running either. The nation likes what they see thus far.

Hell I think Obama’s half brother could beat him if he were qualified to run. ROFL

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What does Rick Perry’s probable candidacy tell us about the current state of the GOP, and will the entire party UNITE behind a REAL conservative nominee? Has THAT much changed in less than a year?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL