Don’t Settle: Rick Perry for President.

RedState ^ | December 19, 2011 | Dan McLaughlin (Diary)

[Chasaway]

"If this website has a purpose – if any conservative website or publication has a purpose – it must begin with electing conservatives to significant public offices. We have the chance to nominate a conservative for president and win the White House in 2012. We can fumble that chance away by settling for a nominee we can’t trust to pursue conservative policies in office, or we can make a stand for the best, most conservative potential president in the field. That’s Rick Perry, and we enthusiastically endorse him to be the 45th President of the United States."

[runninglips]

Actually, the smartest guy, is not necessarily the best. I don’t like Romney, or Newt. Give me a ballot with Santorum, or Bachmann on it, and then I would scratch my head. I probably would go for Santorum, but it would be close.

[Norseman]

>>Give me a ballot with Santorum, or Bachmann on it, and then I would scratch my head. I probably would go for Santorum, but it would be close.<<

And how about if the three names on your ballot were Romney, Gingrich, and Perry? Just curious.

[betty boop]

Great observations, Norseman.

What is so aggravating to me is that when a Left Progressive intones the word "bipartisan," Republicans don't instantly go looking for the trap. LPs never offer good-faith proposals, only ways to co-opt their opponents at some imagined date in the not-too-distant future. If the Pubbies don't play along, then they simply stall, and stall some more — and then blame the Pubbies for the lack of "progress."

RE: President Bush's second term, when he had Republican majorities in both Houses, I so agree with you — "Better we should have had a few “political corpses”, even if they were Republican, during that era."

Because NOW, our Gangsta President is having a field-day casting ALL blame on such types — Bush and his "coterie" — for ALL the miseries we suffer today....

The Republican corpses would hopefully have included the Right Progressives — the oxymoronic "big-government 'conservatives.'" But they have not been "purged." On the contrary, the GOP tried to run one of them for president, in 2008....

And I daresay the RNC is trying to run another "big-government 'conservative'" — i.e., a Right Progressive — this election cycle....

I dunno. I just think this is nutz.

Meanwhile, I wish Gov. Perry Godspeed!

Thank you so much for writing!

[Norseman]

>>What is so aggravating to me is that when a Left Progressive intones the word “bipartisan,” Republicans don’t instantly go looking for the trap.<<

Yes, when Leftist blame the Right for failing to be bipartisan, you can bet that what they are offering is anything but bipartisan.

And thanks....

[shield]

Perry Ping....

IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.

IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************

[ichabod1]

Moreover, he’s an A&M grad. I’d vote for him just for not being an Ivy Leaguer.

[normy]

If you have that settled then WORK! You know this is much more than just a vote. You can work for your guy whether on FR or at work. Make and effort. Close the gap in the polls. Motivate others.

The last 2 customers I talked politics with were Christian women who loved Perry but lost heart and were just disinterested. After I encouraged them they were excited again. You can always work.

Perry is still working his butt off to earn the votes.

[normy]

Doers rarely go to IVY League schools. many never even attend college because close minded professors tell them what they can't do instead of what they can do.

[david1313]

I am from Texas and I am not sure Perry could deliver Texas. He is a poor candidate. Newt is much better.

[PapaNew]

I dunno. Perry doesn't come across to me like Bush, I think he's more of a genuine conservative, but Perry still has that "shoot from the hip" feel about him somehow. It makes me feel like he's a lightweight.

This is another weird race with at least two striking similarities to the last race:

1) Both GOP primaries had conservative darlings that bailed (Thompson and Palin (2012 had the bonus of Cain dropping also).

2) The 2012 GOP nominee may very well be another white-haired wrinkly white dude going up against The One who is smooth, svelte, and black.

Right now the appearance of the GOP looks to me:

Gingrich - Seems the most substantive but also a mixed bag.
Romney - Has the "presidential" look. Hard to know who he really is and what he really stands for. Hard to trust him.
Perry - Sometimes looks like the "undercard" boxer in the primarily bout before the Main Event. May be the best in the substantive issues.
Paul - A true economic libertarian who seems to understand the problems with the FED and a bloated cabinet. Seems he would really downsize government. All that is good. But he seems to be a nut case when it comes to foreign policy and caustic about American interests at home and abroad IMO.
Bachmann - Sometimes comes across as mean-spirited and small in her constant attacks on the other candidates. Even though I think she takes a conservative stand on most issues she hasn't distinguished herself in my mind from the other candidates.
The rest - Not too impressed.

[PapaNew]

I don’t trust Newt as far as I can throw him.

I think it's, "I trust him as far as I can throw him."

[PapaNew]

I don’t know - “Shoot-from-the-Hip” Perry. How’s he going to shake that image, if that’s all it is, and come across like a heavyweight, but thoughtful, candidate?

[trisham]

I think it's, "I trust him as far as I can throw him."

**************************

I think you are correct. :)

[PapaNew]

I think the main argument against Paul is his batty ideas on foreign policy. I wish he weren’t so batty on this stuff because he’s actually pretty good on the other stuff.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks shield.

[Norseman]

>>I think the main argument against Paul is his batty ideas on foreign policy. I wish he weren’t so batty on this stuff because he’s actually pretty good on the other stuff.<<

Ron Paul will be 77 years old by election day 2012. There’s a better than 4 percent chance (according to actuarial tables) that he won’t even make it to the election. There’s about a 25% chance that his VP will have to finish out his term due to his passing, and (guessing now) probably about a 50% chance that he’ll at least be unable to perform his duties by the end of his term due to some form of incapacity, whether it be due to Alzheimers, falling and breaking a hip and not recovering, a stroke, etc.

Why do I persist in pointing this out? Because it’s insane to think that he’ll ever win election to the post of President of the United States at that age. Won’t happen. No matter how good he is. Won’t happen.

Survey women over 50. Ask them what they think of putting a 77-year-old man in the White House. Get ready for the eye roll, because they pretty much know how that would work out. For those of you in your 20’s and 30’s, here’s a clue. Men wear out, they absolutely wear out, in their 70’s. For women, it’s maybe the 80’s, but for men, sorry, it’s the 70’s. Paul’s doing better than most, but he’s up against the clock.

Again, age alone will keep him from winning the election, no matter how good his policies or his presentation of those policies. Find another horse, because a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. At a minimum, no one should consider voting for him until he’s announced his VP, because there’s an excellent chance that his VP will be in charge by 2016. (And if he’s not, there’s a decent chance that he should be.)

Have we become so PC-conscious that no one dares address this? It amazes me that his age is rarely discussed in the context of his ability to carry out the required duties of President for four entire years. Absolutely amazes me.

Okay, diatribe aside, the age issue is Paul’s weakness and can be utilized by the right candidate to shift some Paul votes to themselves. To do so, I’d guess an emphasis on limited government combined with a reasonable approach to changing our current catastrophic drug policies would be the direction to go, though the drug issue would have to be handled very carefully. Perhaps an emphasis on the lives ruined, not by marijuana usage itself, but by the severe punishment we mete out to those who are just doing what many of us did ourselves 30 or 40 years ago? I’m not sure of the answer, and maybe it’s too politically dangerous to tread there, but Paul’s courage in doing so is responsible for a lot of his support among younger voters, I suspect.

[PapaNew]

I didn’t know he was 77. Actually looks in pretty good shape for that age, but yes, that could be another reason to not vote for him I suppose. However, the foreign policy thing is my main gripe but I must say that he sometimes seems a little off his rocker, especially when he gets into the foreign affairs stuff. I don’t take him seriously as a candidate, really. However, the rest of our field is a fairly motley crew - gadzooks, it feels a little like 2008 when the unbelievable was unfolding.

[runninglips]

Probably Perry, Newt I wouldn’t want as mayor, Romney is “guy smiley” the used car salesman. I’ll take an “aw shucks” bumpkin, over the other two.

[larryleo]

I understand wanting the more conservative candidate, but the problem with that is that the more conservative they are, the more they are away from the mainsteam of the electorate. The candidate that fits more in with the profile of the country is either Newt or Mitt - Center Right. That’s why they are leading in the national poll.

[CatherineofAragon]

“I think it’s, “I trust him as far as I can throw him.”

Works for me. Either way, you get the idea. :)