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

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

[CA Conservative]

Raleigh, N.C. – If there was any question that Rick Perry is the new Republican presidential frontrunner before now, PPP’s latest poll of South Carolina confirms it. A week ago, PPP showed Perry jumping to a narrow lead in first-caucus Iowa. Now, he has a double-digit lead in what will likely be the third-voting state. 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%.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

If I won’t support Perry, what would make you think I would support Romney?

Nothing. I was just trying to wind you up.

A FReeper once asked me if it were possible for me to stop being an insufferable ass. I told him I had to do what I was good at.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s flat out embarrassing to watch you folks stoop to this.

Not necessarily. Bachmann and Cain lack major financial backing or experience. Santorum hasn't held office in awhile.

Ronald Reagan had a tough time in the 1979-80 time frame.  His fundraising didn't really kick in until he had wone a couple of primaries.  It's my take that it's our duty to help get these folks the backing they need, that will carry them far enough along where their campaigns will sustain themselves.  That's truly what Reagan had to do.

Palin is the only credible candidate further right than Perry who could win the nomination and even that is debatable.

Look folks, we're trying to nominate someone to our own party.  We're not trying to spring them on Democrats right now.  We talk a good game for three years, then we wilt when it comes to getting the real deals the nomination.  We are defeating ourselves.  We are defeating our own expressed goals.

Perry has his flaws but he also has a trump card in his deck which is Texas' robust job growth in the face of a national recession.

Folks from Texas will have to explain to me if Perry took some major action or not, that wound up saving hundreds of thousands of jobs in his state, single-handedly.

He took over from Bush, and the state was evidently in fairly sound condition then.  Has he really been the reason jobs have remained in Texas, or is it the fact that Texas had some decent laws that pretty much supported a decent economy without too much tweaking?

I think a lot of FReepers see that he's the most practical choice to beat Obama even if he's not the full slate. He's further right than Dubya and FR was full-bore pro-Bush for at least six years.

I appreciate the mention, but I'm not totally convinced that he is further right than Bush was.  From what I've been looking at, he has some definite Leftist tendencies.

If Palin jumps in, I'm happy with Palin or Perry but the last thing any of us wants is for them to cancel each other out and give us Romney.

I don't want Romney either, but I'm not convinced Romney is as strong as everyone seems to think.  When people start reviewing what these candidates have stood for in the past, I think they're going to be a lot less enthused with then, and see them as moderates.

I give some people credit for being pragmatic in the face of four years or Obama.

And I'm not necessarily a die hard rejector of pragmatic behavior at some point, if we don't sell out our full goals before we've actually taken one step in the race.

That's exactly what some folks are doing here.  The first primary is over four months away, and we already have the declared winner.  Ah no we don't.

I understand where you are coming from.  You stated your case well and I appreciate it.   Take care.

[BlackElk]

It took you long enough to come up with that question. It has taken even longer for you to come up with an actual resume of your political ACCOMPLISHMENTS (other than keyboard warrior), if any (not likely or we would be hearing about it by now). Get back to me when you have published it here.

BTW, truth is a defense to slander charges, the printed word is libel not slander but truth is still a complete defense. If Nancyboy wants to file lawsuits, he will be subject to discovery procedures which pretty well guarantees that he will file no such suit.

[GlockThe Vote]

Would vote for Casey Anthony or OJ over Obama at this point.

[GlockThe Vote]

for me, it’s GOP 2012 no matter what!

[BlackElk]

John Lindsay ran for NYC mayor against a conservative Democrat Mario Proccacino who was infinitely preferable. Lowell Weicker's execrable career was ended by Joe Lieberman who is not perfect but is a LOT more perfect than that trust fund baby slimebag Weicker. No "Republican" of Kirk's proclivities deserves election. If we simply must have moral defectives in public office then let the Demonrats be identified as the moral defectives and let the Kirks posing as Republicans be destroyed. There is a substantial litany of evil creatures who have gained nominations and even office as "Republicans." Fortunately, they are mostly gone now and we can pick off the stragglers at some leisure. When the GOP is rid of the Kirks and his ilk, we will have a lot easier job wasting the remains of the Demonrats. May not help your trust fund but that is a rather picayune and insignificant problem compared to the demise of Western Civilization urged on by phonies and perverts posing as "Republicans." Too bad for Muffy and Skipper!!!

Anyone who would vote for Nancyboy is "simple stuff", at least between the ears.

[DoughtyOne]

All your remarks fall when faced with the simple fact that there was NO more conservative governor in the nation than W. None, zero, nada.  Bush wasn't a Conservative then, and never became one.

Americans barely elected him after he had been painted as the reincarnation of Genghis Khan.  The problem you had then, is the same one you've got now.  Conservatives and independents are not impressed by people who claim to be one thing, when their records reflect otherwise.

No, Americans would not have wanted to return to the Reagan years WITHOUT Reagan. We had NO Reagan. Bush was as close as we could get. There was NO alternative.  Hogwash.

Where is this “more conservative” than Bush phantom you keep bringing up? He didn’t exist.  Speaking of not existing, the Conservative Bush didn't either.  Sorry bud, I don't have to dig them up for you.  We have always had some shining stars in our midst.  They aren't all gifted with a $70 million dollar war chest, but they're out there.

Yes, I hate to shock you with the idea of political deals but they happen. I know living in Illinois we are just used to having RAT deals shoved down our throats but they do exist.  You live in Illinois.  You're used to having Rat deals shoved down your throat.  To you this proves that Bush didn't act as Liberal when he passed Leftist legislation.  Okay, I'm comfortable with you believing anything you like.

Bush mouthed all the conservative principles you could hope for but his style had never been as a strident advocate. He took the most important aspect of the presidency - protecting this nation from its enemies - as seriously as any president. For this I will always appreciate him.  I will apprecaite his actions related to the War on Terrorism too.  I know he took good actions on abor.tion, and I aplaud that.  What else did Bush have on his agenda?  That doesn not explain away his doubling of the budget of a department he should have disolved, rather than supported.  It doesn't explain away Medicare Part D.  It doesn't explain away his advocacy for the illegal immigrant.  The International Criminal Court wasn't ratified until something like September of 2001, and by that time he still hadn't rescinded Clinton's signature, and urged our allies to reject it.  This man simply didn't grasp Conservative issues.  List the Leftist policies he rolled back.

This man had a Repbulican House and Senate for six years.

Did he defund NPR?
Did he defund PBS?
Did he defund massive Leftist NGOs across the board?
Did he put the brakes on the environmental movement, the U.N. Biosphere's program?
Did he put an end to providing government funds to land conservancies that take over large plots of land and run them by liberal green policies?
Did he excellearate domestic energy production?
Did he put the brakes on funding China's growing threat?
Did he keep spending under control, outside of our war effort?
Did he get our border under control?
Did he repatriate illegal immigrants across the board?
Did he make it possible for business owners to easily eheck identifications so they could tell if they were hiring illegal immigrants?
Did he direct his justice department to inforce the immigration laws on our books?
Did his administration raid large numbers of businesses known to be illegal immigrant offenders?
Did he take measures to decrease the perks that draw illegal immigrants here?
Did he restore the two theater level of military preparedness?
Did he put an end to the reduction of our Navy, or restore the ships cut under the Clinton administration?
Did he order his justice department to take a long hard look at the Clinton's criminal behavior.
Did he order them to review Vernan Jordan's and Richardson's witness tampering?

Sorry, this and more lead me to think this guy just didn't get it.

[Mears]

“Sorry, this and more lead me to think this guy just didn’t get it.”

‘’’’

Remarkable post,thanks.

[DoughtyOne]

Wind away... ;^)

When folks ask questions like that of us, it’s a lot more effective to take ownership. It baffles them? What can you say to that? Sure takes the wind out of their sails.

Have a good night.

[arrogantsob]

You are laboring under the delusion that Bush was a free agent and did not have to deal with a media anxious to distort his every move.

But none of that matters since there WAS NO alternative conservative who would have been better. He did NOT exist outside your mind.

Look at his opponents in the primary. Was Cheney going to beat him, or Rumsfeld or Keyes? You know they weren’t. And my guess is NO ONE would have been acceptable to you.

He was as conservative as the nation was going to accept.

THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there. So forget this stupid argument.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Mears. I appreciate it.

[Oceander]

[DoughtyOne]

You are laboring under the delusion that Bush was a free agent and did not have to deal with a media anxious to distort his every move.  Well gee then, I'm sure glad Reagan never had to deal with this.

But none of that matters since there WAS NO alternative conservative who would have been better. (1)  He did NOT exist outside your mind. (2)

Look at his opponents in the primary. Was Cheney going to beat him, or Rumsfeld or Keyes? You know they weren’t. And my guess is NO ONE would have been acceptable to you.

He was as conservative as the nation was going to accept. (3)

THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there. (4) So forget this stupid argument. (5)

Wow, those are five very powerful arguments.  You almost won me over with them.

Sadly, it take at least 14 such powerful arguments to win me over.

Here, let me help.

06. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
07. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
08. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
09. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
10. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
11. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
12. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
13. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.
14. THERE WAS NO REAGAN out there.

There.  Wait a minute... wait a minute... wait a minute...

You know, this just doesn't seem to be working.  Sorry, I tried.

You stated that nobody was looking for another Reagan in 2000.  I disputed that.  I never said we had to have another one.  I would have liked to see a Conservative placed into office from our side.  Our side is the only one that will, but every four years, we have a bunch of people who flood the forum with another RINO, sucking all the oxygen out of the Consevative movement.

Why do you folks come here, if you don't give a fig about Conseervatism?

Why waste your time coming here talking about issues you never intend to back at the ballot box?

[OrangeHoof]

I've lived in Texas throughout both Bush's gubernatorial terms and Perry's. I used to call Bush "The Great Compromiser" (a play on Reagan's "Great Communicator") because he would take a very conservative stand at first then allow the bills to get watered down until he had very weak bills he could sign to say "I gave you xxx".

I was alarmed at his growing friendship with Bob Bullock, a true snake of a Democrat. Bush did exceed my expectations of him as president but I think that was largely because 9-11 had a profound effect on him.

Perry is not Bush. Perry is more dogmatic. He is less likely to back down from his positions. He's probably benefited from a more conservative legislature but he has signed some laws that ought to make most conservatives, especially social conservatives, very happy.

It's possible Perry will make the same mistake as Bush, believing that governing in Washington will be like governing in Austin. I worry he'll be too cavalier with his words and have a "macaca" moment that he could skate through in Texas, but not in DC.

I worry about ethical lapses with him more than I do moral lapses (i.e. infidelity).

I understand where you are coming from and I'm not ready to anoint Perry either. I want to see how the next six months shake out but I don't think he'll be as bad as some of the critics fear.

I do think if he is elected, particularly with a mandate to end ObamaCare, that the economy will get the boost that Obama refuses to give it. A lot of money on the sidelines will go back into investment. Probably most Republicans will have that same effect but Perry's pro-business credentials are unquestioned.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry look good and can contend for my vote. Herman Cain and Rick Santorum are fine fellows but not likely to be nominees. <<<

Sarah is not running (not yet, but hopefully she does).

Michelle is okay, but Perry is damaged goods (eventually, if not already).

Herman Cain is a class act. A truly talented patriot. But his race will keep many in the “Party of Lincoln” away. That is sad. He is one bright and talented individual.

Rick Santorum endorsed and supported Arlen Specter for Senate in PA, so you can scratch him.

>>>Newt Gingrich is a better guy than most will concede but reality is reality. He won’t be nominated. Newt would make a great idea man for the next administration so long as he understands that global warming and similar issues are beyond the pale. <<<

I believed like you at one time. But Newt has proved over the years to be more the opportunist than the statesman, as is Rick Perry.

>>>Romney and Huntsman are useless RINOs who have no business seeking the nomination.<<<

Romney had only one real purpose in life: to defeat John McCain in the 2008 primary. But he failed.

>>>Ron Paul should have the sense to be embarrassed by his own looney tunes track record and Neville Chamberlain foreign policy and persistent lying about being on the right side of social issues when he simply refuses to have the fedgov correct the fedcourt created evils of abortion and gay everything posing as normality.<<<

How can Ron Paul, as a House member, make the federal government stop abortion? Answer that question and you will be an instant American Hero!

BTW, Neville Chamberlain had almost no military to back him up in his negotiations with Hitler. Ron Paul has thousands of Nukes at his disposal, if elected. He can “negotiate” from a position of strength, like, “I’m gonna make an offer you can’t refuse”.

>>>We don’t have to be fighting each other over the three quality candidates (Palin, Bachmann, Perry).<<<

Palin hasn’t entered the race (not yet, but my wife and I have Palin 2012 bumper stickers on our cars — yes, you can order them).

That leaves Michele Bachmann, who is a good patriot with a sharp mind. A little weak on rhetoric, but I would vote for her.

Rick Perry is damaged goods, if not now then in the future.

>>>We will have to choose a candidate among them to unite behind to thwart the RINOs and destroy Obozo.<<<

Then scratch Perry from your list. He is a first class RINO.

Let’s hope Sarah runs. And let’s hope she is everything her words say she is. But if not, Ron Paul is our only hope to stop this train wreck.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>I’m not for Perry yet but I certainly don’t rule him out.<<<

He’s a RINO. He recently tried to steal Ron Paul’s position on the Federal Reserve, but it won’t work.

[jla]

"Mom, can we go now?
You promised we'd watch the Rick Perry speech together!"

[newzjunkey]

This only demonstrates the vast and deep enthusiasm vacuum that exists despite months or years of campaigning by Romney, Bachmann and others.

[wolfcreek]

A lot of this has to do with the overall weakness of the GOP field when we desperately need a strong candidate and a concerted effort to counter the Obama machine.

Also instead of *selling* a particular candidate, this has become an *attack and destroy* the other guy's candidate (see Reagan's rule on attacking other Repubs)

I realize many of you must of been caught off guard by Perry's announcement (especially those waiting for Palin) but, there's a group out there who was attacking Perry before that point.

He's been my Governor for over 10 years and there's been times we've had to just say NO and keep him on a leash. I believe this is totally understandable for any elected official. Sometimes they make mistakes and they must be reigned in by the voters.

Perry listens to the voters every time we demanded it. I consider that a wonderful trait in a politician and something that is far from status quo.

All I personally ask from potential Republican voters is to weigh the good with the bad concerning Gov. Perry vs the rest of the field rather than listen to all the negative/one issue hype, rumor, and innuendo. If you haven;'t read this, please do: http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

[subterfuge]

Agreed.