Posted on 09/15/2011 11:04:30 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Somewhat of a hard question to gauge. Perry is more vibrant, a better fighter, but I also think he’ll get the full Palinized wrath of the media, who will hammer in on a few things with a vengeance. And seeing Perry for years (including up close), he does sometimes lend himself to a somewhat hokey “Fred Flintstone” quality, which I have a feeling might not wear too well over the long haul, especially outside the south/west.
Romney is so plastic, bland and incapable of connecting, I think he’ll more likely do himself in, as opposed to being on the end of a relentless media assault. The media will go after him a bit, but they’ll still consider him ‘one of them.’ It will be his empty blandness that will probably resuscitate Obama as some kind of media-contrived “Comeback Kid.”
Eh, so it looks like a bit of a wash to me. Always ‘better’ to have a fighter though, regardless. Bush, McCain, Dole, etc., we haven’t really had any all-out fighters in a while. And it is really imperative in these new media times. I still have a great admiration for the assymetrical approach Palin takes, driving the media in circles. I really hope she gets in for just that reason.
Obama cannot win period. He is toast done stick a fork in him. So we should elect the most conservative candidate and not worry about it. If you do the electoral math he cannot win period.
In a word, yes.
Romney's record has been exposed on FR for the last 4 years. Yet it only took a few months staring in early 2007 for conservatives to conclude that Romney is a phony and fraud and to reject his candidacy. Willard has never embraced conservatism. Nothing but rhetorical lip service for the dumbbells to gravitate to. For Romney expediency has always trumped principle.
Romney ran for the US Senate in 1994 as a liberal Republican and was rejected by Massachusetts voters. In 2002 Romney ran as a liberal Republican and was elected Governor of Massachusetts. Romney came in third behind McCain and Huckabee in 2008 to be the GOP nominee. And now in 2011 Romney has turned up again with another attempt to hoodwink conservatives into supporting him
Perry is not the ideal conservative candidate but his record indicates he is a pretty solid conservative. Perry's Achilles heal is the immigration issue. While Texans have accepted Perry's opposition to a full border fence/wall and his support for in-state tuition for children of illegals. The big question is, will conservatives nationally reject Perry for his immigration stance.
Matt says he opposed Perry last year in his primary? Wonder who he supported?
I’d agree with Mattino’s main premise, though - Perry is more electable than Romney and is far more likely to secure the GOP nomination next year, “objectively” speaking.
[excerpt from tomorrow’s Time’s cover story issue on Perry]
Q:You were attacked by your Republican rivals in Monday’s debate for making in-state college tuition available to some illegal immigrants. What is your assessment of the immigration debate in this country?
Perry:The issue of education and in-state tuition is a state issue. It’s not a federal issue, and it shouldn’t be a federal issue. If you don’t like that in Arizona, if you don’t like that in Massachusetts, that’s your call. But in the state of Texas, we made the decision that on in-state tuition for young people — and frankly we don’t care what the sound of their last name is — we’re going to help them to become contributing members of society.
The bigger issue is that you’re never going to have a conversation that is anything more than an intellectual exercise about immigration until you secure the border. That is what we must focus on as a country. I do not agree that building a 1,800-mile barrier is thoughtful. It’s an easy answer. I think it’s a cop out for anyone who’s actually been on the border. It’s like building a wall from Bangor, Maine to Miami, Florida. What does work is strategic fencing in your metropolitan areas, having the boots on the ground. We are woefully understaffed on that border.
We have the technology. Predator drones are being flown in United States air space as we speak. Why not fly those from Brownsville, Texas, to El Paso and to Tijuana and back and use that real-time information for local law enforcement, our state law enforcement and our federal counterparts? That’s how you thoughtfully secure that border, and then you can have a discussion about what type of immigration reform we want to consider as a country. But not until then. Too many times, we’ve been told, if we’ll just pass this immigration reform then we’ll secure the border. And it hasn’t happened.
It had to be Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (helped by the Bushes, Cheney and Rove).
Yes, they both are. Write-in campaigns are rarely successful.
I thought so - pretty sure it wasn’t Bill White.
In retrospect, maybe it was good for Perry to have the GOP establishment try to unseat him like that - gives him the proper “outsider” credentials.
Only a socialists thinks a governor and/or a government create jobs. The government has no money until they take it from someone else.
I suggest to you that is shorthand for having a friendly business environment so employers will come and people feel confident to invest their money - by reducing regulations, litigation and taxation.
I agree. The in-state tuition is a state issue and falls under federalism as outlined by the Reagan EO#12612. The fact that all but 4 Texas lawmakers voted against it should be a strong message to all conservatives.
More BP agents and TNG troops along with plenty of high tech hardware is part of the answer. Personally, I still want to see a fence/wall covering the full border with Mexico. And I want it paid for by the federal govt. Not by the states.
The "boots" ought to be kicking down the doors of your crony capitalists who hire illegals. But they're the ones financing your campaign, aren't they, Slick Rick? That's the real reason you oppose eVerify, you con artist.
Romney's stand on anything is a roll of the dice from one year to the next.
Write-in campaign, eh?
What about debates, between, say Perry and Palin?
The person who wins the nomination will be the candidate who best promises to get government out of the way of citizens and business. Romney has two huge chinks in his armor in that respect with his refusal to criticize Romneycare and his support for AGW. Perry may be somewhat deficient on immigration issues, but unlike Romney, he does not come off as another slick, east coast RINO. Perry just looks and sounds more conservative. Obviously, either would be a huge improvement over Obama, but I get the feeling conservatives believe Perry would be the person who will be more likely to destroy Obamanomics than Romney.
If Perry gets the nomination, I very much hope he beats Obama. I’m sure he would put up a good political fight.
But what if somebody like Soros or whoever gets to him, behind the scenes, and offers him some sort of immense payoff to lose? Like in boxing.
How can I be assured that Governor Perry has the fire in his belly—not the fire to win but the fire to fight corruption if this scenario were to take place?
From what I’ve seen, there’s only one contender who would walk away from such an offer. And it’s not Perry.
"The fact that all but 4 Texas lawmakers voted for it against it should be a strong message to all conservatives.
The Perrybots want us to choose Slick Rick because he is "better than Romney" and "better than 0bama." To hell with that nonsense. That "better than" crap and "he's electable" crap is what gave us Gerald Ford, the Bushes, Bob Dole, and John McCain.
And that is EXACTLY what he has said: That a wall is not going to keep them out, that conservative ascendancy will -- that all the liberal social engineer programs that support them here (and allows them to send money back in many cases) will keep bringing people here.
And I will point out to you that since the states cannot ask if a student is in the country legally by the time they've graduated from high school (min 3 years in Texas public school and graduated to be considered) it is prudent to allow THEM to PAY instate tuition to attend college if they can and have a better educated Texan (as they do apply for citizenship). Many of these children that are brought by their families are basically without a country.
There is no way around this until the border is sealed. This is a matter of geography that most other states DO NOT have to deal with (I am speaking about the 1250 mile border -- where there is crime and that Texans are spending about $100 Million a year from our state budget to patrol as much as we can).
There is nothing to "spin out of" on Gardasil.
There is nothing to "spin out of" on instate tuition.
There is nothing to "spin out of" on the "Islamic lobby."
Amil Imani Governor Perry's Islam Connection ………”No matter how I tried, I couldn't reach the conclusion that this inclusion promotes Islam or is pro-Sharia. It seems that the mere fact that Islam is included in the curriculum represents supporting it. And with regard to the concern that the education curriculum Perry promoted is pro-Arab and against Israel, the evidence is exactly the opposite. The lesson on Israel reads: …”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.