Perry dominates in South Carolina (PPP Poll has Perry up by 23 pts.)

Public Policy Polling ^ | 8/30/11 | PPP

[Magic Fingers]

“I’ve addressed his own record. If the information bothers you, reconsider your options.”

You can hide behind this line ad nauseum but it doesn’t address your duplicitous criticsm of those who cite Demo polls regarding Perry’s lead, while blithely ignoring those who cite Demo criticsm of Perry to support their anti-Perry agenda.

Perry’s record doesn’t bother me enough to vote for Obama.

[arrogantsob]

Sounds like the anti-Perry folks from what I have seen.

While I have never thought she had a chance I won’t waste my time attacking her. She is clearly a good woman and at some point could be a serious candidate but not yet.

[DoughtyOne]

All the babies that were allowed to live during the 8 years of the Bush presidency don't think he was a "moderate".

I have said that Bush did some good things too, but this is the level of desparation folks will go to, to dismiss any valid criticim of the man.  He popped up with $70 million in 1999, and that was the end of it.

And since when do people who claim to be true conservatives spend their time denigrating great men and war heroes like Bob Dole?

Let me tell you about your great man Bob Dole.

Newt Gingrich and the Republicans had taken the brunt of the blame in the media for Clinton refusing to sign the budget.   The government had 'as they referred to it' been shut down.  After a period of time, when the tide was beginning to go in the Republican's direction, the news media started reporting one Friday morning that the Clinton White House was going to spend the weekend devising a way to get the bill signed and end the stalemate.  Press reports were running with the idea that the Clinton administration had blinked.  Newt had pulled it off.

Clinton blinking, would mean that the Clinton White House was on record recognizing they couldn't control Congress by public opinion.  The Republicans would have had a much easier time of getting sound legislation approved and signed.

About 3:30pm Pacific time, Bob Dole waltzed out to a bank of microphones in front of the Congress building, and made a short statement to this affect.

"It is appearant to me and many others that this shut down cannot continue, and that both sides need to come together and devise a way to resolve this issue.  This must end now."

In one short thirty second sound-bite, Bob Dole handed Clinton a way out.

Wars are not only fought on the battle-field.  At times they are fought in the halls of Congress, and more pointedly, the sidewalks out front of it.  Dole surrendered that day, and Newt Gingrich and the nation's fate was sealed.

He is not a moderate. He's a statesman. His life story is made up incredible bravery and generosity. And his voting record is solidly conservative.

Okay then you are not savvy enough to understand that you can have a 100% Conservative voting record, and still have done great harm to our nation.  John McCain touts his voting record too.  Then he goes out and makes deals with Soros, Kennedy, Kerry...

None of the snarky, self-satisfied computer-bangers who mince around FR dismissing people who actually achieved something as RINOs, are worthy to carry either the Bush or Dole jock strap.

Yes Deb, you're understanding of the First Amendment is stellar as usual.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I hope this isn’t a shock to your system, but I’ve been reading your posts and I’m with you on this one. Keep up the good work.

[DoughtyOne]

Well for arguments sake, I was referencing what I am seeing here. I do appreciate the mention.

[FreeReign]

None of the snarky, self-satisfied computer-bangers who mince around FR dismissing people who actually achieved something as RINOs, are worthy to carry either the Bush or Dole jock strap.

RINO label or not, Bush isn't above criticism and there are certainly some major items to criticize him on.

[FreeReign]

Perry tops with 36% to Mitt Romney’s 16%, Michele Bachmann’s 13%, Herman Cain’s 9%, Newt Gingrich’s 8%, Ron Paul’s 5%, Rick Santorum’s 4%, and Jon Huntsman’s 2%. This is a sea change from when PPP last polled the race in June, with Perry not included. Romney led with 30% to Cain’s and Gingrich’s 15%, Bachmann’s 13%, and Paul’s 10%. If Sarah Palin joins the fray, it has no impact on Perry’s dominance but a lot on Bachmann’s standing. Palin would place third at 10% behind Perry still at 36%, Romney at 13%, followed by Cain’s 9%, and Bachmann and Gingrich tied at 7%.

Bizarre.

Perry gets 36% without Palin in the race and Perry gets 36% with Palin in the race.

Think about it.

[wmfights]

My support for Perry grows every day as he is out there taking the brunt of the MSM smears.

Me too!

There is a full fontal assault of Perry, particularly in regard to his Christian Family Values.

I think the Rats know he is the toughest candidate to beat. He has experience. His State has done very well economically and he is decisive. IOW, he is everything obama isn't.

Palin has not, to my knowledge come to the defense of either Bachmann or Perry on these attacks.

I know you and Xzins like her but I'm hoping she does not run. I don't think she can win.

[DoughtyOne]

How did you get the idea that I believe the country was pining for a conservative in 2000?  Nah, nobody wanted to return to the Reagan days after Clinton did they.  Come on, fess up.

It wasn’t, Bush was as conservative as could have been elected and, as you note, barely was.  That's actually rather funny.  Your premise is that the nation would not have wanted to return to the Reagan years, vs the Clinton years and the lying scumbag's hand picked insider.

And the truth is had the RATS thrown out the lying weasel Clinton and run Gore as an incumbent Bush would have lost the election.  Okay I get it.  It's your premise that the Unibomber candidate couldn't be beaten by a more Conservative man than Bush. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

After 911 just about everything Bush did was to increase his abilities to fight the wars which we had to fight.  After 09/11, the Democrat party would have been completely destroyed if it had tried to stand up to Bush and thwart the war effort in mass.  Later on they became more bold, but the war effort wasn't going to be abandoned, and the public supported it.

He tried to bribe his domestic enemies.  Okay, then it seems your premise is that Bush doubled the budget of the Department of Education in his first term, only to keep support for the war effort.  When he passed Medicare Part D, it was another attempt to buy Leftist support for the war.  Nice try, but I'm not buying this in any way shape or form. Either.  When McCain/Kennedy introduced the border resolution bill, it was the fulfillment of Bush's dreams concerning the matter.  Did Bush do this too, to gain Democrats support for the war?  Look, who controled the House and the Senate in those days?  Bush didn't need any Democrat support at all.

My only major criticism of Bush is he did not fight the RAT media and allowed himself to be attacked unjustly by it. This poisoned the peoples’ minds which is easy enough to do.  I'm going to agree with you here.  I will take it futher, which probably won't surprise you, but I wish he had been a better advocate for sound Conservative principles in public.  The guy not only didn't defend himself, he did a miserable job of defending his policies and Conservatism in general.

And “no” the so called announcement of a war chest did not stop anyone from running. It did announce that he would be a formidable force who had done his preparation to run a winning campaign.  Thanks for confirming what I stated.

Just as Perry made sure he had the financial backing to run a real campaign rather than a slapdash, ad hoc one.  That still doesn't make the guy a sound candiate to represent Conservatism.

You are going to compare RR’s political history with Bachmann or Cain? Seriously? Where did I miss a lifetime in politics for either? Was either the president of a major union? Was either a two term governor of the most populous state in the Union? Or a former candidate? Only in the parallel universe not this one.  In 2008 we ran a guy with no executive experience.  Then it was okay because he had a near 30 year history in the U.S. Senate.   Nevermind that he had one of the worst records I've ever seen for a man trying to take the leadership of our party.  Here is part of his record:  http://www.hotr.us/mccain/mccainagain.html  Now we get another person with no executive experience, only they have stellar Conservative credentials, and all of a sudden executive experience matters.  LOL

Cain (or anyone with political ambitions) might receive some consideration if he wins a political office somewhere. Unless that happens he goes nowhere. Michelle must win a statewide office to get much consideration. These seem to be the rules which must be followed to become president. Unless either decides to become a victorious general.  McCain?

Another thing about Reagan is that he was a welcome presence in American homes for more than three decades as the host of popular tv shows. We grew up with Reagan as a familiar and kindly grandfather figure hardly a threat nor a political figure at all.  Nice try, but going into the fall of 1999, Reagan's negatives were larger than his favorables.  What you said is true, but it accounted for nothing in the oveall scheme of things.

This made it impossible for the RATmedia to easily demonize him and was why he was called the “Teflon” President since the slime did not stick. There is NO similar politician in our history. Without that mastery of the media and ability to thwart it Reagan probably would never have been elected. It would have Goldwatered him.  Actually, Clinton deflected ten times the grime that Reagan had to.  It was of his own devising, but the guy pulled it off.  Dole ran one of the worst campaigns in U.S. history, but Clinton did pull it off.

Reagan wasn't called the Teflon President until deep into his first term, if not later.

[DoughtyOne]

I reference Reagan based on policy. I have addressed McCain when it comes to being the nominee without executive experience.

[DoughtyOne]

“I’ve addressed his own record. If the information bothers you, reconsider your options.”

[South40]

And how would Mitt Perry rate on the issues if they were to include his pro-ILLEGAL alien history in the ratings, which they clearly do not? They don't mention, nor do they factor in the fact that he favors a path to citizenship for ILLEGAL aleiens, or that he advocated for instate tuition for ILLEGAL aliens, or that he opposed the border fence and that he opposed Arizona's SB1070. They are not listed.

Until OTI factors in Perry's entire record, his rating there is a falsehood.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t really know what to make of it. It wasn’t specifically timed to anything other than the approximate time before the Ames Straw pole and the Perry announcement. Make of that what you will.

I’m not attributing it to anyone at this point.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks TwelveOfTwenty, but I will reserve your front row seat when I address the negative press corp later. LOL

Glad this has made sense to you. I appreciate the mention.

[Quicksilver]

Perry tops with 36% to Mitt Romney’s 16%, Michele Bachmann’s 13%, Herman Cain’s 9%, Newt Gingrich’s 8%, Ron Paul’s 5%, Rick Santorum’s 4%, and Jon Huntsman’s 2%. This is a sea change from when PPP last polled the race in June, with Perry not included. Romney led with 30% to Cain’s and Gingrich’s 15%, Bachmann’s 13%, and Paul’s 10%. If Sarah Palin joins the fray, it has no impact on Perry’s dominance but a lot on Bachmann’s standing. Palin would place third at 10% behind Perry still at 36%, Romney at 13%, followed by Cain’s 9%, and Bachmann and Gingrich tied at 7%.

Bizarre.

Perry gets 36% without Palin in the race and Perry gets 36% with Palin in the race.

Think about it.

There's no need to think about it. The answer is in the part that you quoted:

Sarah Paliin 10% = 6% from Bachmann, 3% from Romney, and 1% from Gingrich.

[DoughtyOne]

South40, it seems to me that that Perry supporters have adopted the Obama doctrine. Question not, support Hope and Change.

“Whaaaat, you oppose Perry? Don’t you support Hope and Change?”

Actually, I support change if it means we’re going to support another Conservative, not another RINO.

[Lakeshark]

Romney actively ran for senate and then for governor to the left of Teddy Kennedy. He furiously disavowed Reagan's principles multiple times in debates all the way until he was governor, and surprisingly found himself after he mandates Obamacare Romney care in Mass.

He was fervently pro-abort, fervently pro universal health care, and fervently leftist.

That is, until he decided to run nationally.

I'm sorry, McCain isn't even half that bad.

I'm not defending McCain, but he simply was never as unprincipled and bad as Romney.

[ohioWfan]

And I'm not defending Romney, but he simply was never as unprincipled and bad as McCain. :)

Fortunately neither of them is going to be our nominee in 2012, and we're going to get an evil Marxist out of our White House.

[South40]

South40, it seems to me that that Perry supporters have adopted the Obama doctrine. Question not, support Hope and Change.

Yes, they pollute the pages of this conservative forum with propaganda favoring their favorite RINO candidate and we're, apparently, supposed to accept it w/o question. I don't think so.

Actually, I support change if it means we’re going to support another Conservative, not another RINO.

As do I. While both sides are passionate there is one obvious difference, that being those not advocating for RINO Rick are defending conservatism...those advocating for RINO Rick are advocating for anything but.

I'll stick with the side of conservatism every time; it's called not selling out, something you must do if you are going to defend RINO Rick's pro-ILLEGAL alien record.

[Lakeshark]

We’ll call it a draw then.......