Posted on 12/10/2014 2:02:33 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
The man who could be president is ambling through the Texas governor’s mansion on his own, whistling “Frosty the Snowman” as he approaches the parlor to greet a reporter.
Gov. Rick Perry (R) leads a tour and points out a historically inaccurate depiction of frontiersman Davy Crockett in an oil painting in the foyer (“His coonskin cap — that’s a myth”). In Sam Houston’s bedroom upstairs, Perry lifts an antique upholstered settee, a gift from the French, to read an engraving signifying Texas’s early-1800s ties to France. He shows off a Civil War-era saber that belonged to a Union general and mentions having just read a thesis on race in America that his friend’s black father wrote in 1970.
Rick Perry is trying to show that he is not the Rick Perry you remember.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is a significant part of it.
Obama is a failure because he's an anti-American Communist, not because he has no executive experience.
And when we talk about "executive experience", what are we really talking about? Decision-making ability...exercising good judgment in a timely fashion. That and "management skills" -- which is effectively limited to hiring the right people for his immediate staff and cabinet. Finally, there's the gossamer area called "leadership" -- which separates the great presidents from the merely good ones. Can he inspire people to follow him?
And, justifiably, we are marking down veteran Senators because they don't learn or practice these skills in their job -- which consists of negotiation toward consensus. That is, veteran Senators run committees as opposed to making decisions.
However, Ted Cruz isn't a "veteran Senator". And there's all the evidence in the world that he's capable of making tough decisions and of leading the way. He managed to win 19 of 21 cases, I believe it is, that he brought to SCOTUS because he made good decisions and hired a capable staff. Success is a pretty good measure of a manager's mojo.
Thus, I suggest that, rather than rely on "executive experience", we define what we mean by that term: good decision-making and leadership.
Accordingly, Cruz should be in every conservatives mix of candidates. Not necessarily the favorite, but in the mix.
Jeb has the brains and the drive...
...
Jeb has blue blood and a general dislike for anyone who threatens the Ruling Class. I’ve never been impressed by his brains or drive. He does have his crony donors lined up, though.
Indeed. Their whole agenda is to keep us from coalescing around a conservative so the more confusion they can spread, the more effectively they do their jobs.
Any lurkers or newer freepers must simply ask themselves why the people are pulling this crap and pushing candidates with proven liberal records. If in fact the posters and their preferred candidates have records that support conservatism or records that support liberalism. Not what people ‘say’...what people do.
Then treat those in question accordingly. There is a hell of a difference between candidates that may occasionally disagree with us and candidates that disagree with core beliefs of conservatism and constitutional governance.
It’s real basic stuff the frauds love to direct attention away from. Rick or Rand or any of these other Cheshires can talk till they’re blue. As can their supporters. But words mean things to conservatives. When those words support liberalism then we have a clear duty as conservatives and as Americans.
Do I ‘question the patriotism’ of people backing frauds like Perry? Damn straight. This isn’t a game. The guy supports illegals over Americans and it’s on record. His supporters are no better. that support has cost millions of dollars and impacted the lives of actual Americans. People need to think about that. And there are many more things as bad.
I find it interesting you see purity as bad. Something to be mocked. That implies it’s opposite is preferable. Because thats how the whole bad/good thing works. So do you prefer corruption to purity? Please clarify. And then find one single Freeper that ever demanded ‘purity’. Otherwise thats yet another strawman pushed by the Freeper Left. You complain about us wanting purity. Prove it.
I don’t know much about what he supported, but I do know that kids are having sex at earlier ages - sad, but true, and yes, even school age kids. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You've just made a pretty good argument against Perry as he is not anything close to what you just described.
Yes he does. And his band of faithful followers continue to idolize him in spite of his many failings. I have even seen them defend my tagline. And this man is supposed to be the conservatives' choice for 2016? I don't think so.
Go away, La Raza Rick.
” Perry’s 2008 debate sneer-—slapping down voters as “heartless” for not wanting to subsidize illegals-— was his self-serving notion that he was better than voters-—but it exposed his political self-destruction. “
Buh bye, Perry.
well, so much for my unifying conservatives theory.
I find your lack of reading comprehension uninteresting.
Maybe you should try again, until you can figure out the difference between “fighting each other over which candidate is the purest of them all” and “purity is bad”.
I’ll give you a hint. The first describes a real-world scenario where conservatives can’t agree on what “purest” means, but are each certain that the candidate they support is more pure than all the other candidates, and therefore must be supported no matter what. This leads to conservatives splitting their vote between multiple candidates, each considered by their supporters to be the true “pure” conservative. And then the establishment candidate wins by plurality.
The second would be some fiction you have created where someone who is concerned about conservatives splitting their vote is really saying they hate purity, and wish to mock it.
Where they really might just want to mock those who think that there is some objective measure of “purity” that all conservatives would agree with, that can be used to pick “the purest candidate”. Which would be a lovely thing, but doesn’t reflect a reality that exists.
But tell you what. Why don’t you post a thread telling us all which is the most pure candidate, and then we can all vote for that person. If you truly believe there is such a thing as absolute purity, it should be simple enough for you to name the candidate and have the entire conservative world join you in getting that person elected.
It is a lot easier to attack candidates for not meeting a measure of purity, than it is to put forward the one true candidate who is perfectly pure.
Which current eligible person in this country are you putting forth as the winner of the purity contest? It would sure be nice to know who we should all vote for.
Because in 2012, this site went through conservatives like they were shrimp on the all-you-can-eat buffet. If one wanted to take the advice of the “conservatives” here so we’d all vote for the “right” candidate, it was an impossible task.
I’m not a purist. But I am happy to vote for the candidate of the purists, because I do want to win the election with some conservative candidate. But if history is any guide, even the top-20 self-professed conservatives here at FR won’t be able to agree on that one candidate.
On the other hand, I will make one absolute statement, that I imagine not all the conservatives here could agree with — I do NOT want another democrat in the white house in 2016. I’m tired of democrats in the white house who can rule as kings and who will get to shape the courts for decades to come. So while I am not pushing a candidate, and I’m praying for a conservative to win, I am most definitely a NO VOTE on “let’s put a democrat in the white house”.
As I always say, Dems will coalesce around 80% agreement and conservatives will shred each other over the last 5% of conflict. Conservatives are also prone to totally writing off somebody even with 95% agreement. I wouldn't want Ben Carson as POTUS but there are probably a half dozen cabinet posts he'd be really good at.
It’s not like I thought Perry was the best person we could pick in 2012. It was just that for a moment, he was polling well enough that he COULD have been the nominee, and he wasn’t Mitt Romney or John McCain.
But who is the pure candidate? Sarah Palin, who endorsed a democrat for Governor in Alaska? Rick Santorum, a big-spending social conservative? Ben Carson, kind of pro-racist and with no record to be judged?
But I illustrate the point there — it is easy to point out flaws in candidates, much harder to defend a candidate, especially since most “argument” consists of name-calling (not the candidate, but the people who support the candidate).
Another flaw I see is that we tend to run the last election rather than the next one. We’ll be fighting over which candidate best overcomes the issues we had in 2012, rather than finding a candidate that is our best hope against the problems of 2016.
Maybe I’m just being pessimistic. But given what we are watching the house do now, I think not. It almost seems like we would have gotten a better budget deal now if we had NOT won the senate, like the act of becoming the majority has scared the GOP to death.
You can tell if I'll vote for a candidate by that list.
I don't go on personal preference, like some liberals here. I go on principle.
And that ain't about purity.
Mitt was pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, gun-control, socialized medicine, big government liberal.
That's not impure, it' outright liberal.
You are the one that wants a favorite, and won't stand on principle.
/johnny
He endorsed Dewhurst (the GOP liberal favorite) for Senate, and later for Governor.
Dewhurst lost.
/johnny
But you would be happy with a liberal republican? No thanks. I don't want any liberal in the White House, but you seem dead set on getting one. Here is a hint. Liberal republicans lose the presidency.
/johnny
Since no-one has announced yet, it's way to early to be endorsing. Only a liberal republican divider would want that at this point.
/johnny
Jack Fellure has announced already, and Rick Santorum has publicly said he will have a formal announcement.
Ben Carson has not quite committed to making a formal announcement yet.
But yes, let us wait until all the candidates have announced before we try to figure out which one is conservative. It sure is easier than actually identifying your politics ahead of time. After all, it is a simple and gutless matter to wait around and then bemoan the fact that NONE of the announced candidates meet your exacting standards, than it would be to tell us who we should be encouraging to run by setting up draft committees and providing donations.
Because the establishment isn’t sitting around waiting. When their candidate is announced, they will already have a huge organization, buzz, money, and supporters. But sure, let’s hamstring our conservative by sitting on the sidelines waiting around for the perfect candidate to announce.
I remember 2012, how some here played that game, refusing to tell us which candidate running would be acceptable, instead holding out for Sarah Palin to announce.
I wonder who the “player to be named later” will be this year.
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.