I liked what Perot was saying at the time he was in the picture, but I also understood the third-party dynamic and its consequences of the one LEAST supported as the one winning. At the time, I was too gullible and credulous to perceive that Perot was also very likely deliberately deceitful in his true intentions; today, in spite of the words he spoke, wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, much the same way as I regard Trump. I admire him, I like some of what he says, but am older and wiser and regard his political motivations with extreme suspicion.
If you would be so kind, please detail where you draw the line between reasonable and "purist" with regard to someone you think a voter who traditionally votes Republican would stand. What issue(s) would make him/her a purist, in your book? And what issue(s) could make him/her NOT a purist?
(FYI: I have voted straight Republican ticket for 35 years, and only in the past five or six have finally figured out that by doing that, I am responsible in big part for how left this nation has gone in its politics because I have knowingily voted for and validated politicians who went AGAINST me 30 to 60 percent of the time, sometimes even more, as in the case of Schwarzenegger -- that was a real eye opener. What kind of idiot votes for someone he disagrees with 30 to 60 percent? I was that kind of idiot for decades, but have since wised up.)
Reagan said it's better to vote for someone you agree with 80 percent of the time, maybe 75 percent, than to insist on someone you agree with 100 percent of the time. Palin hits the 80 pecent mark, and so does Bachmann. You may be one of those who self-gratifyingly assumes that anyone who likes Palin therefore thinks of her as a messiah or as perfect. If so, I hope you will be honest enough with yourself to admit that you need to throw that template out the window as it accomplishes zero and is also wildly wrong.
DeMint, Romney, Newt, Huckabee, Trump, any at their best only hit 60 percent for me, considerably less in the case of Romney and Huck. I plan on sticking to Reagan's 75-80 percent rule. Limited government, drill-here-drill-now relate to the top four philsophical make-or-breakers for me -- government meddling in health insurance (misnamed health care), abortion, 2nd amendment, and ENVIRONMENTALISM, the ludicrous and extrordinarily dangerous "cap and trade" global ploy for power.
If the GOP candidate supports government-controlled health insurance/care, abortion, gun control, and is ignorant and gullible enough to be duped by environmentalist alarmism (Newt? You reading?), then MY VOTE WILL GO ELSEWHERE, and I will be folllowing the WISE advice of Reagan in doing so. Had I applied that rule sooner, had many of we limited government conservatives applied that rule sooner, the GOP would have maintainted a more rightward course and the nation would have been better off.
In spite of what you or anyone else says of Palin, I know she is the best bet we have for bringing this country right again and connecting with real, everyday people. You may equate that with thinking she's "perfect" and being a "purist," but that's your problem.
A wise saying I once heard says: If you compromise your principles, even when you win, you lose.
If this nation elects a Republican Romney or Huck or anyone else who is fundamentally big-government enough to think the government should have any part in my and your relationship with our health insurance companies and doctors; if that Republican is anti-gun, anti-human (which is pro environmentalist), and doesn't seek to see Roe v. Wade overturned at the very least, then even if that Republican wins, we lose.
I voted for Perot because he clearly represented me. After listening to Trump speak, I realize that he represents me too, so I’ll be voting for him because of that. To hell with the consequences. I have yet to hear Sarah Palin say or do anything that convinces me that she represents me. She stands in front of the podium and attacks Obama and the crowd loves it (as do I)so much that she doesn’t really have to discuss policy details. She’s another cheerleader, not a nation leader. Furthermore, she already helped us lose once and it’s clear she will repeat that 2008 performance in 2012. I see no reason to give her the chance but you go right ahead if you feel differently. Incidentally, Perot ran as a third party. Trump is running as a Republican. BIG difference there.