I share your (to me) valid concern that Newt is a "big government" guy, a font of big, sweeping ideas.
But I don't want another "big government guy." I want Washington's scope and intervention into our lives to SHRINK, not grow. Newt proffers "expert answers" to everything, while I just want to leave as much to the states and the people as possible, so as not to have our lives run by "experts" — no matter how "'brilliant" — out of Washington.
Newt is a Washington insider par excellence. Perry is not — indeed he is quite the reverse. If power is ever to be devolved out of Washington, it'll take a man like Perry to get that ball rolling.
The two men are so unalike I can't even see them on the same ticket. Their respective temperaments, values, and basic political philosophies seem to be totally mutually opposed.
I thought this was very well said, dear wmfight:
If we can get back some of our rights from fedzilla we may not always agree with what happens in a state we reside in, but we will have the option to move to a state that better represents our values. IOW, we will be free and the govt will be subject to our will.I so agree! Washington is all about top-down expert technocratic answers to every problem in life uniformly imposed on all "from above." Either we stuff Leviathan back into his cage (where he belongs), or we will absolutely, positively lose all our personal liberties before too long.
Perry looked to me like the only potential "Leviathan tamer" in the room last night. For openers, he distinctly does not have a knee-jerk, in-built, pro-Washington bias.
[FWIW, the other big "constitutionalist" in the field, Ron Paul, is a thoroughly indoctrinated crackpot who probably hasn't had a fresh idea in decades. He just cycles all data through the filter of his doctrine, which (to me) is the flattest, most reductionist view of the Constitution imaginable. Given his views on foreign policy, I wonder what planet exactly he lives on. His grasp on Realism seems quite slight to me. JMHO]
The long and the short of it is: I just like Perry — he's "my guy." I hope I'll get the chance to vote for him.
We'll just have to wait and see if that can happen....
Thank you ever so much for writing!
I feel the same way. I like where he's at on the role of govt and where power should reside. I think he is steadily improving in the debates. Also, I think the slippage Gingrich is experiencing is an indication of how important organization and dollars are.
If Perry doesn't end up with the nomination I wonder if any of the other candidates can beat obama. Here's my thinking.
Romney loses 20% of the Pub base and enthusiasm is down because of his pro-abortion support as Gov and Romneycare. obama is able to paint Romney as the evil wall street capitalist who's out of touch with people. Obama wins.
Gingrich is a great orator and beats the pants off of obama in debates. However, married women with children are not strong supporters of a confessed adulterer. Also, obama plays up the inside DC influence peddling of Gingrich especially representing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then the out of touch with the "working man" argument is cemented with the Tiffany's credit line. The race is probably a toss up.
Paul loses because he's out of his mind on foreign policy.
Perry beats obama big because he is the opposite of obama. He is a successful executive of the 2nd most populous state in the country and the 13th largest economy in the world. He wants govt brought under control and his history is that of a guy who gets things done. Also, his life story of growing up in rural America, going to a non-Ivy league school and serving in the military resonates with America.