[sklar]

I just do not understand the continued hype for Perry. Doesn't make sense.

IMO, the thinking is: "Perry seems like he can beat Obama, therefor vote for Perry."

That's how we wound up with Bush. Bush grew the Debt and the Federal Govt MASSIVELY.

The reasoning for McCain was "The media likes McCain, and will treat him fair, therefor vote for McCain." How'd that work out for us?

People aren't looking at Perry as a LEADER, they're just calculating who could maybe beat Obama.

Sarah said it right: the question is not just to replace Obama, (that's a given) but what to replace him with.

[so_real]

the question is not just to replace Obama, (that's a given) but what to replace him with

Bingo ... There is NOT a candidate on that stage who would fail to beat Obama. Even Huntsman would beat Obama -- the democrats would rather vote for Huntsman than their own candidate. So why don't we give a genuine conservative a shot this time around and see what happens with that. For once, perhaps the only time in our lifetimes, we don't have to settle. I'd sure hate to see this opportunity tossed away by people afraid of being beaten by a failed Obama.

[Finny]

People aren't looking at Perry as a LEADER, they're just calculating who could maybe beat Obama. Sarah said it right: the question is not just to replace Obama, (that's a given) but what to replace him with.

Yep. As Rush has often pointed out, it's a mistake to play not to lose. Better to play to WIN.

I really wish more people with the "anybody but _____" (insert name of Democrat nightmare du jour) would realize that when they approach selecting candidates that way, they are leaving the GOP wide open to manipulation by the Democrats.

When we start assessing candidates based on OUR terms, instead of the Democrats' terms, that's when we will start playing to win and deflect manipulation.