We're Not Electing a Messiah

American Thinker ^ | November 25, 2011 | R. Clayton Strang

[Tredegar]

Yes, he does Cindie. A very good point. I didn’t mean to belittle or underestimate Cain’s achievements as a CEO, I was just pointing out that in this so-called ‘terrible field of candidates’ we do actually have a stack of ex-governors with executive political experience.

And then, to my shame, I totally forgot about Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer. You know, sometimes I’m as bad as the media that I attack so often!

[Gaffer]

Actually, I like him too. The in-state tuition thing is a real deal breaker for me, though. While the Fed is responsible for policing the borders and ousting illegals, providing STATE incentives exacerbates the problem - which is why I will not vote for him. That, and the fact that the MSM and the collective liberal masses will not allow another Texan in the White House for a couple of generations or so.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

A problem with writing off Perry because of the in state tuition issue is that none of the others have been put to the same test. Considering the issue passed in the TX legislature with a vote of nearly 170-4 means it was not controversial there. Many other states have adopted similar legislation, including some rather conservative states.

It's easy to use the issue against Perry but the truth is some of the others may have voted for similar legislation or have not been asked how they would have voted.

It's easy to now say they would not have voted for it. I am not saying I agree with the legislation because I don't but I'm pointing our it was a non-con in TX at the time.

[Gaffer]

I guess I can appreciate the circumstances of the vote. My position, though, is that “heart” and exigency do not comport with the rule of law; in this regard, the FED is responsible because the law on illegal aliens supercedes state law - it is supremacy. If Texas chooses to entice illegals via their own laws, it still doesn’t negate superior law, even if the FED refuses to enforce it. If individuals are “illegal,” they do not deserve preferential consideration, period.

This isn’t a Texas-only thing; Texas’ position on this affects us all because it bolsters progressives’ arguments on legalization. Which, in fact, will come most assuredly.

[plsjr]

I've long said (though not necessarily on FR) we need statesmen, not politicians.

THAT is part of our problem; we accept what should be unacceptable.

[Vanders9]

They are the people who are supposed to serve us!

Fair enough, but in that case shouldn't they look the part? If they represent us, then surely they should represent the best part of us, not so?