(Vanity) Thoughts on Perry

grey_whiskers | Aug. 16, 2011 | grey_whiskers

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, he voted the wrong way according to our conservative standards. The fact remains that his was the last pro-life Democratic presidential campaign. His votes and ACU ratings don’t change that.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Sorry, but that three year average is an acurate representation of where he was living politically speaking.

I understand that you believe that, but his position on a single amendment to abortion funding in D.C. in 1986 doesn't reflect that he ran his 1988 campaign as a pro-lifer.

I think your understanding of Gore's political position during that time frame is a little flawed.

Likewise. You apply today's conservative logic to a Southern Democrat in 1988. It doesn't work. Gore was not conservative by our standards. He was conservative by Democratic standards. And that is entirely the point. Perry was a Democrat at that time and supported Gore because Gore was the most conservative Democrat in the primary in 1988. Pointing to a conservative interpretation of Gore's votes on individual bills in 1986, 1987, and 1988 doesn't change that basic fact.

[BuckeyeTexan]

At this point, we’re arguing over how to interpret data. I didn’t want to go there. My only purpose in posting information to this thread was to present balanced information for FReepers to consider. It wasn’t my intent to sway your opinion one way or the other or to convince you to agree with me. You’ve reviewed the information and reached a conclusion. I’d like to leave it there.

[TBP]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/08/ten-things-about-rick-perry-that-may-worry-some-conservatives/

[SoConPubbie]

I understand that you believe that, but his position on a single amendment to abortion funding in D.C. in 1986 doesn't reflect that he ran his 1988 campaign as a pro-lifer.

Do you have any links that would support that?

The one link that talked about this at all talked about his campaign manager basically saying they were denying all Pro-Life votes.

It did not sound like they were running on a Pro-Life message.

[nathanbedford]

(What would your namesake have felt about Perry?)

What's not to like, they were both for seseesh. :-)

As to our exchange, our differences are matters of subjectivity, how much weight do we put on the implications of his actions? There is not much profit in arguing about how important or how insignificant a subjective judgment is. That is probably why we see so many of these arguments degenerate into the ad hominem on these threads when it comes down to a subjective judgment which is not subject to proof.

All we are trying to do is determine whether we are going to nominate a bona fide conservative in Perry or are we going to go back into da bushes?

By way of example in this context, I think Perry's role in mandating this drug is revealing but I'm not sure that we learn much more by arguing about whether it is a procedural or substantive difference in the manner of the parents' opt out. Even so, I'm not terribly distressed and do not put much weight on the mandate because it contains an opt out, however cumbersome. My subjective judgment tells me the governor who thinks he's dealing with cancer gets a certain amount of leeway over a governor whose mandating health insurance without any opt out and certainly more leeway than a president whose mandating health insurance on the federal level without any opt out.

As for Palin, we know we would get a bona fide conservative but we fear she cannot get elected. My subjective conclusion is that her disadvantages concerning electability are more to be feared than Perry's defections from orthodox conservatism. I weigh the likelihood of the two and the degree of harm from the two and come up with a subjective judgment: if we lose the election we lose everything (and that includes our whole experiment in democracy) but if we get Perry, we get almost everything.

I fully understand a subjective judgment that says we have got into this mess because we had 12 years of Rinos, 8 of them out of Texas, and we don't need anymore. In other words, if we win the election with Perry, we won't get much of anything.

All the best and thanks for a great vanity.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

They weren't according to Real Clear Politics -- but they were right *before* the declaration, and T-Paw dropping out.

Correct, the other RCP polls were at least a week old. This movie is just starting....

[Lakeshark]

I appreciated your links, I read them much like soconpubbie did, Gore was no longer pro-life nor conservative by the time his 1988 campaign happened, he was tacking hard left for several years.

Like I said earlier, Perry's support for Gore is not a game changer for me, but it gives me a bit of the creeps, as it should give to any conservative.

I'll be more interested in Perry's pronouncements on illegals as we go forward, I worry about that part of his past more than any other issue. I really don't want a stealth dream act GOP president.

There is something to be said about electing the most conservative person who can win, but I'm waiting to see how the race shakes out, and what comes out as we proceed.

It's barely begun.

Thanks for the back and forth, it was a spirited, intelligent and worthwhile discussion.

[Lakeshark]

Thanks for the input.

We don't know if Palin will get in the race, I gather we'll know by early September.

I would say one thing about the "unelectable" charge. My own belief is if there is one person capable of overcoming her so called negatives, it's her. Reagan did it, he was 35 points behind Carter in the middle of the primary campaign, with high negatives. She has great instincts, and if she runs I believe she will have a harder time in the GOP primaries than in the general.

The reason I am saying that is simple. She has great opposition from within the GOP, and in order to win she will have to persuade the GOP voters she can indeed stand up and beat Obama. With GOP voters overwhelmingly wanting to beat Obama, this will be her hardest sell, the whispering that she is unelectable will be a huge mountain to climb. Mitt will whisper it, heck, Ed Rollins and the Bachmann minions already started it, and Perry will do the same. If she runs and overcomes that tide, there is no question she will be able to win over the so called "independents" in the general.

Honestly, do you think they will go back to Obama after all he's done to turn them off? He has a record (a horrendous record), and she'll go after that record like a pit bull.

[Servant of the Cross]

Thank you for your analysis NathanB. IMHO, each time you post, the IQ of FR goes up several notches. And in this time of regular 'degeneration into the ad hominem on these threads', your reasoned posts are a breath of fresh air.

I agree with the question you pose as the central issue here:

All we are trying to do is determine whether we are going to nominate a bona fide conservative in Perry or are we going to go back into da bushes?

While we disagree about 43 (I think history will be much kinder to him than you are), I also agree your overall conclusion (with Gov. Perry we get almost everything).

FReeregards.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Do you have any links that would support that? The one link that talked about this at all talked about his campaign manager basically saying they were denying all Pro-Life votes. It did not sound like they were running on a Pro-Life message.

Yes, I do have a couple of links. I'll look for them. It took me a while to find them the first time. When I first looked into this, I ran across some 1988 Gore campaign materials and an article by someone who worked for his campaign that said Gore's 1988 campaign "was the last pro-life Democratic presidential campaign." For now, you can review Wikipedia if you want. The wiki page for his 1988 campaign states that he ran opposed to federal funds being used for abortion. While that may not indicate "pro-life" to you, it is an important position to many pro-life advocates.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Excellent analysis! It is my hope that we can discuss the issues during primary season without slinging mud. I support Perry. (And Sarah.) I don’t need to convince FReepers to agree with my analysis or reach the same conclusion I did. My goal is to raise the level of discourse by presenting multiple perspectives.

[nathanbedford]

My goal is to raise the level of discourse by presenting multiple perspectives.

And I think you have done so to your very great credit respecting Gov. Perry. Thank you for that. I think we all should ask ourselves before we mash on the reply button: how will this elevate the discourse, what value added do I bring to Free Republic with this post?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Wow. I am very flattered. Thank you for the encouragement. I wasn’t sure I had accomplished what I intended on this thread.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Perry did well in the recent Gallup and PPP polls. That doesn’t mean that he won’t go down later, of course.

It will be interesting to see if Dems will vote for their “favorites” in the GOP primaries this time.

[grey_whiskers]

There are some liberals who believe their own propaganda that Sarah is unelectable.

It'd be great if they turned out in droves in New Hampshire etc. to support her.

Cheers!