Single issue litmus tests will get us a candidate who will lose or no candidate at all.
We get it: You want Sarah Palin to run. It's all you've thought about for the last three years. She loves the attention, but in the end she's not running because she knows she can't win the nomination, let alone the presidency. Polls indicate that more voters prefer “anyone but Palin” to even “anyone but Obama.” When she gets the a nomination, I would have no problem voting for her, and even think she would do a fine job as president. In the mean time, she would look great padding her resume for 2020 in someone like Perry's cabinet.
See posts 8 & 15
Single issues? Corruption is a ‘single issue’? Was the ‘greatest conservative president’ corrupt?
Well Reagan actually signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, which allowed for abortion only in rare cases — such as rape or incest, or "where pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother". That's far from the abortion-on-demand laws we have now. In any case, he didn't lobby of the passage of the bill and admits he didn't know much about abortion and didn't give much thought when he signed the bill, and came to regret it long before he ran for President. And what exactly does this have to do with Rick Perry?
>> Single issue litmus tests will get us a candidate who will lose or no candidate at all. <<
Straw man arguments. You Rick Perry fans keep insisting we're demanding "perfect" candidates and are against Perry because of a "single issue" when not ONE poster has said that. I have been one of the most outspoken posters on FR AGAINST the small minority of freepers who want to crusify solid conservatives because they don't do their bidding 100% of the time. Perry is not being critizing because he didn't do what we want on "one" bill. He is being criticized because he is a mediocre career politician who only "wins" by plurality because he is an ultra-safe Republican state and he has pathetic "opponents". Perry has never had to face a credible & tough opponent in a state where the GOP wasn't guranteed to win. Numerous other Republicans running for President have. Perry is a poor choice who would have very little chance of winning when he has to run in other 49 states against the full force of the Obama Chicago machine & liberal media.
>> We get it: You want Sarah Palin to run. It's all you've thought about for the last three years. She loves the attention, but in the end she's not running because she knows she can't win the nomination, let alone the presidency. <<
Obviously you DON'T get it presidio, because at NO time in my posting history on FR have I claimed Sarah Palin MUST run and she is the ONLY acceptable choice. More straw man arguments! In fact, I've said that since she resigned as Governor I believe it's possible she could win over swing voters but I'm not seeing it happen. Like Perry, I think she'd have a hard time winning nationwide. I don't want another lame establishment Republican who talks like a tea party conservative but governs like a center-right big government "compassionate conservative" to jump into the presidential primary contest when he has nothing special to offer. Perry is simply a hybred of Pawlenty and Romney, minus the ablity to get elected in states that aren't ultra-Republican. The Dems would love to have him as the GOP nominee, the same reason the GOP loved having "electable" John Kerry as the RAT nominee. He was just another Massachuttes liberal from the Dukasis mold and Perry is another GWB Republican from Texas. These kinds of candidates don't play well in middle America. If Perry gets in the GOP primary, he'll compete with Pawlenty, Cain, and Bachmann for the same conservative voters and make it easier from Romney to win the nomination. If Perry somehow wins in the nomination, he increases Obama's chances of getting re-elected in November. Either way, his presence in presidential primaries would NOT be helpful. More dead weight with another lousy candidate.
>> Polls indicate that more voters prefer “anyone but Palin” to even “anyone but Obama.” When she gets the a nomination, I would have no problem voting for her, and even think she would do a fine job as president. In the mean time, she would look great padding her resume for 2020 in someone like Perry's cabinet. <<
Polls indicate half of Texas Republicans can't stand Rick Perry, and the primary election results every time he runs for re-election reflect that. Do you think the thousands of Texan conservatives who claim that Perry is NOT a principled conservative are all single-issue purists? There seems to be considerable evidence that he's alienated tons of Texas Republicans. When half your home state's base can't stand you, I don't think it bodes well for a Presidential bid. Did half of all California Republicans say Reagan was RINO scum? I doubt it.
>> See posts 8 & 15 <<
Insert the name "George W. Bush" into those posts and it's a lame rehash of all the reasons Bush would supposedly be a fantastic leader back in 2000. Al Gore nearly stole that election and we won by 1 electoral vote. Do you really want to try that again in 2012 against an incumbent RAT that the mainstream media will be working 24-7 to re-elect?