Posted on 05/26/2011 1:23:12 PM PDT by mnehring
A problem is he will stir old feelings of white male envy and resentment when contrasted with the affirmative action teleprompter reader married to a linebacker. It will be a slap for a white man to toss Barky from his perch. Perry is going to need either a woman or Hispanic VP to reclaim some crossover voters. This election will be decided by the fickle political middle, not conservatives vs. communists.
And he does have good hair :^)
Since you are familiar with Perry, can you give us a heads up on his speaking ability.
IMHO, the next president is going to have to do the same thing Reagan did—go over the head of the congress directly to the American people. Regan had to deal with a democraticly controlled congress that didn’t want to implement his policies.
The next president will have to deal with a congress dominated by a combination of democrats and RINOs that will not want to make the hard choices that are going to be required.
I’m confident that both Palin and Cain have that ability. I don’t think anyone else in the race does (Bush I definitly did NOT have that it, for example).
Have you ever noticed how Mike Reagan has tried to make himself out as the "Official Anointer Of Reagan-Like Politicians?"
I find it more than simply irritating; it's downright disgusting, and an insult to his father's memory.
Lots of political figures like to wave the Reagan name around like a magic wand. Mike Reagan does that too, and more....
I’ve got to admit it...Perry definitely interests me.
I was posting about him months ago. The electoral math is definitely in his favor. Texas + the south + most of the southwest + lots of the mideast.
That equals electoral victory.
He has to be the man most feared by obama. Therefore, expect him to get trashed soon whether he enters the race or not.
He’s strong pro-life, pro-family, pro-America, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-gun. As I understand it, it took him a bit to find a realistic position on the border, but he has the best around: pro-fence, pro-security, and only afterwards is there a discussion about work permits. He prefers naturalization to amnesty, iirc. And that is a constitutional perspective.
1) Mike Reagan has a thing about trying to anoint his father's political heirs. He wants to be out front on it, so that he can take credit if they do well. I think he sees Palin's star as having set, and yet he still wants to seem influential.
2) He's read the political tea leaves and sees a "draft somebody" movement in the making among the GOP powers that be; and he wants to be out front on that, too. I can easily understand why he sees Perry as the one most likely to be a "draft candidate." I don't see it the same way, just because Perry's so close to GW Bush, and there's still political hay to be made by the left on that connection.
>>>>>I was posting about him months ago. The electoral math is definitely in his favor. Texas + the south + most of the southwest + lots of the mideast.
I agree with your electoral theory, but almost any Republican will win most of that anyway. Especially Texas. That state’s a slam dunk already.
I don’t see a big problem with the TTC. It is essentially a modern version of the interstate system AND it was to have a large percentage of private investors.
It hasn’t passed, so far as I know, so it’s hard to fault a guy for what was an idea that hasn’t caught on.
So far as Nafta and NAU, there is already an NAU whether we like it or not. It’s been a reality for decades.
I’m a native Texan.
Until Palin says she is out, the rest of these people are sideshows.
Perry is a political opportunist who is currently leaning to the right. I know he would be better than Pawlenty and most certainly better than that disaster Romney. But DC would turn him into another squishy “go along to get along” pubbie.
We need a committed Conservative that understands this nation needs a drastic course correction. Perry saw the writing on the wall and changed parties in the late 80s. The Dems were dead in Texas after Ann Richards. I do not believe he radically changed his true values, only his label. Although a Conservative Democrat is much better than the liberal alternative.
The prosperity of Texas reflects the values of the state and its legacy of limiting Austin (gov/taxes) and unions (right to work). Perry gets some praise as leader, but he is hardly the one responsible for it - although I’m sure he would take credit for it in a Presidential campaign.
If it came down to Obama and Perry, I would of course pick Perry.
I agree about Texas, but I don’t agree that any conservative will win those other areas almost by default. I think most of the current crop of pretenders to the conservative crown will NOT win those states: Romney, Giuliani, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Daniels, Christy, etc.
I agree that Palin is the wild card in the deck. Herman Cain is trying that same strategy.
I also agree that I CAN support Perry.
I want to support the conservative who can WIN.
I agree that Palin is the wild card in the deck. Herman Cain is trying that same strategy.
I also agree that I CAN support Perry.
I want to support the conservative who can WIN.
“He has had a few good moments. Mainly his talk of secession. But that was just talk.”
I believe he signed legislation allowing in-state tuition for illegals.
I do not live in Texas, but I have written on the Perry-KBH race a bit - and your description of Perry is exactly what I have gleaned from others in that state.
Texas is successful because of a lot of things Perry has nothing to do with, but of course would take credit for in an election - and would be a go along get along guy once elected (like the last Texas governor in the WH).
But yes, much better than Obama.
Perry is a good speaker, but I am not sure how fast he is on his feet. He does not have the Reagan charisma, principally because he is a much younger man that Reagan was when he came on the national political scene. Reagan had a sort of “seasoned familiarity” that Perry lacks, although Perry has his own form of charisma that I could only describe as a more eloquent Bush.
A lot Texans are cool on Perry; naturally the Austin liberal political establishment hates him as do teachers and most state public servants. I personally see this is a good thing, but recognize that their circumstances are not a result of Perry’s political/economic conservatism, rather the state’s political culture (ie. balanced budget, right to work, no public sector collective bargaining, business friendly etc.) that existed well before Perry or Bush, for that matter, sniffed the governorship.
Being Texas governor is probably a pretty easy gig for someone who can take the plaudits for adhering to the status quo; Perry has shown on occasion that there is more to him that that though. He does have enemies, skeletons and detractors but nothing that I know would be fatal for him as a presidential nominee.
What was Mike thinking? Maybe next time, he'll ask for your permission before he talks about HIS dad.
Michael Reagan is as conscientious as anyone in defending his father's legacy and I think that your outrage is horribly misguided. Mellow out, a bit. Go after the other Reagan son if you want to blast someone for insulting his father's name.
Will Mike's "endorsement" of Rick Perry influence me? No but I'm not disinterested, either. Can you tell me who would have a more informed assessment on the comparison of Governor Perry to President Reagan than Michael Reagan?
Yeah, well, maybe Mike needs to learn that his dad's reputation does not belong to him. And maybe you do, too.
Now he needs to give the details of being a down to earth conservatve/Constitutionalist. Could be a winner and have several excellent options available to help out.
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.