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%.

[wolfcreek]

After the current session (which meets ever 2 years) our budget was balanced (as required by Texas law) and we still have $4 billion or so in our Rainy Day fund.

I don't have the quote but, I understand there were some things kicked down the road to the next session and necessary cuts were made this time around.

Hopefully an improving economy will help address any shortfalls coming down the road. If not, we'll still be in a better position than other states. IMHO

[stephenjohnbanker]

Great post D1 !!

Save this!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments. I can’t shake this ‘another failed election opportunity’ impression. It’s the same one I had when Bush was foisted off on us.

We are better than this. We can do better than this. Bush, Bush, McCain, now Perry. At what point do we come to our senses and say, we cannot continue with this the status quo, that sees us slip further Left continuously, before we demand a real Conservative?

I’m not saying this to give you a hard time. I appreciate what you had to say.

[OrangeHoof]

If anything should give you comfort, it’s that the Bush team tried to knock Perry off in his last bid for governor and failed. That tells me that we’re unlikely to see the Karl Roves, Scott McClellans and Colin Powells that made Bush look so weak. This will be a different group that will be more like Texas and less like Yale.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm not hoping that Sarah enters the race.  She has failed to impress me like she has many others.  I don't see her as a Conservative and wouldn't support her.

As governor she urged her state senators to push acceptance of the Law of the Sea Treaty.  That treaty basically gave all management rights for the world's oceans to the United Nations.  This signalled to me that Sarah didn't have a clue when it came to the problems associated with that orgranization, how that could impact negatively on the U.S., and how that might relate to evidencing a vaccum of knowledge concerning globalist matters.  Her early promting of action on Libya further caused me to degrade her on international matters.  Her support for McCain and his policies, and her advocacy for registering illegals in the U.S. so they could stay here and work, ended it for me.  Over time her voice has come to sound like fingernails on a chalk-board to me.  That high pitched shrill screech, is virtually intollerable for me to listen to.   I know this is counter to the convential wisdom here, but this is how I see her.

Michelle is more than okay with me.  Over the years I have never heard her voice an opinion that was counter to the Conservative ideal.  Has she misqued before?  Perhaps so, but her core is filled with Conservative instincts.  That alone would cause me to support her.  She most closely matches what I support here on Free Republic.  Why would I come here and belch about issues day after day, year after year, decade after decade, if I wasn't prepared to vote for someone who would most closely represent my vision for the United States?  Anything other than supporting her would be a betrayal of my stated values, and coming up with excuse after excuse why she couldn't win, would not change that.  At some point we have to quit settling on RINOs and go for the real deal.  By shying away from a person like Bachmann, perhaps Cain too, we are in effect saying:

1. I tell folks I prefer Conservatism to anything else, but I won't vote to put someone into office that agrees with my stated views.
2. I prefer Conservatism, but I am so doubtful about it's appeal, that I can't pull the trigger on lofting a good Conservative to sell it to the nation.
3. Leftist dogma, is much more appealing to our citizens, than sound Conservative principles
4. I like Conservatism, I'm not a racist or a misogynist, but I don't think some Republicans would vote for a Bachmann/Cain ticket.  (no personal dig intended here, it's a legitimate issue to address for all of us)

I agree that Cain is a class act.  I do need to know more about him, but I could easily see him as a V.P. selection.  I might in time be able to see him as the presidential choice, once I know more about him.  I am saddened to see you state that you think his race would cost him Republican votes.  Why are you buying into that silly notion?  We have black mayors, black governors, and black leaders across this nation.  He has worked for a number of top corporations, and it's my take most of them probably had a white majority board, most likely tilting toward the Republican party.  What's more, there is a real advantage to lofting a man like Cain.  It would demonstrate once and for all that Republicans were not racists, it would loft a man back youth would be well to emulate, and his business instincts would be a real asset to him, or his president.  And ultimately, a Bachmann/Cain ticket, would kill two birds with one stone.

Republicans don't think women should be barefoot and belong in the kitchen.  Republicans will easily vote for a capable black man espousing their principles, something we have said for decades, while the Left labeled us racists at every turn.

I'm not saying the Santorum support for Specter for Senate in PA, would totally end it for me, but it's another stupid assed thing for a Conservative to do.  It would most certainly become part of the decision making process.  It's a huge negative for me.

As for Newt, you're right on target IMO.  He has moments of absolute brilliance, and then completely destroys himself in close proximity.  It's sad but true.

Romney and Huntsman are useless.  At this point there's no need to restate the Romney record.  We know it.  I knew nothing about Huntsman until I saw him in that last debate.  Here was a guy with a clean slate, a real opportunity to impress me.  It took him (much) less than two hours to destroy himself.  Why is this guy a Republican?  That's what I kept asking myself as he regurgitated from behind that lecturn.  Next...
<>I'm going to have to agree with BlackElk when it comes to Ron Paul.  There was a time when I thought Paul was very sharp.  In some ways he still is.  His achilles heel for me, is his foreign policy.  On that subject, the man strikes me as very dangerous.  There's no way I would vote to put that man in charge of our national security.  NEVER!  As for abortion, you are correct that he could not change things on his own.  Presidents can sway opinion.  Thus it is very important for them to have the right opinion, to sway the public towards.  On the courts homosexual and abortioin related agendas, I don't think Paul gets it.  In fact, I don't think Paul is even in the same neck of the woods to get it.  As for nukes, Paul's stance on our military would cause me to wonder if he wouldn't push to reduce them to near zero.  I may be off base there, so I'll admit that up front, but his views on our military are such that I don't trust this guy at all in these related matters.

I too believe Perry is damaged goods.  There's far too much for him to explain away.  Sorry, give me someone who doesn't have to explain away things I would never have done in my own life, even at times when I didn't understand Conservatism on a level even close to what I do today.  Perry's probably about as old as I am today.  I'm 60.  My early teens were spent watching the anti-Vietnam crowd grow more shrill to the point of advocating total anarchy.  It was clearly Marxist driven, even to me in those days.  At fifteen years old, this was already wearing thin for me.  By eighteen there was absolutely no way I was going to register as a Democrat and vote for the party of McGovern.  Rick not only could, but later became Al Gore's campaign manager in Texas.  I only mentioning the already known, to express how impossible that would have been for me experiencing roughly the same exposure to history playing out before us.  This guy does not share my internal workings, and I know that because I could never have followed his path.  It would have been morally impossible.  It wasn't not just NOT morally impossible for him, he was comfortable being in a promotional position for the Democrat party.  For crying out loud, this is a man that grasps our values system?  Ha ha ha...  Look, it didn't stop there.  He's still clueless.  He talks a good game.  He schmoozes well.  He's a populist, but he's only fooling some of the people.  People with a solid core can spot this guy a mile away.

In conclusion I'll have to take exception to your hopes.  Sorry, but Sarah isn't my cup of tea.  If she can endorse McCain's agenda during his bid for re-election, she's not who she is trying to convince folks she is.  As for Paul, I want you to do some research regarding Paul's stance on our military, when to use it, and when not to.

[DoughtyOne]

WolfCreek, I believe you have good motives here.  I appreciate your point of view, but I do differ with you, and yet I don't take pleasure in that.  Here I am having to take an adversarial stance of sorts to your comments, when I really wish I didn't feel compelled to.

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. 

IMO, Obama has destroyed himself.  Yes there are going to be die-hard supporters, but all but the die-hard supporters are pealing away in mass.  This emperor is naked.  He has created an opening similar to the one created by Jimmy Carter, another man who destroyed himself.  Our only job right now, is to pick the very best rock solid Conservative as our nominee.  Whoever our nominee is, stands a compelling opportunity to be elected to the Presidency of the United States.  Folks tried hope and change.  They saw what a true Leftist was prepared to do.  Who better to contrast that idiot with, than a true Conservative.  Who worse?  A moderate, another open borders ninp-compoop, that has more concern for the citizens of a another nation, that the people who hold jobs here that they are displacing?

It's way past time for us to put our foot down, and say, "I'm not going one inch further with idiots that can't grasp what sovereignty is, can't grasp who they should be representing, and who their loyalties were sworn to."  I don't know about you, but this is one Conservative that is not okay with destroying our health care system, to give services to illegals for free.  I am not okay with destroying our school systems so that the children of illegal aliens can sap up class-time learning English, and displaying pure hatred for the children of U.S. Citizens, a situation my children had to face first hand during grade school.  They spent half the day reading, while the other classmates were taught rudimentary English.  They spent other parts of their time being bullied on the school playground because they were white.  We lived in a decent area too.  It's just that white flight from the schools, had left hardly any white kids behind.  After a week of this, we rejoined them.

I have no tollerence whatsoevery for RINOs.  They are the kiss of death.

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)

If we recite what a particular candidate's record is, we're supposed to be breaking Reagan's rule.  Then I guess it really doesn't matter what any of our candiates believe, or what they have done.  If they've got an (R), they're good enough for our vote.  How has that been working out for us?  It got us McCain back in Washington, D.C. for six more years.  Nobody wanted to listen to what his record was.  He was returned to Washington to short circuit Conservatism for another six years.  And now we are looking like we're ready to place another person in Washington that can short circuit it for up to eight years.   Why don't we just hit ourselves in the face with a shovel?  It would be just as productive.

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. 

Palin will be waiting as long as Perry will, for any support from me.  Not interested.  Perry's record has been out there for decades.  It's no surprise someone might find fault with him ahead of his announcement.  Kudos to those who did.

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.

Please explain to me how you reign in your president.  Once he's elected he has the party backing for eight years.  His V.P. will have it for another eight, if he is elected.  If Perry is elected, real Conservatism will be placed on hold for another twelve years.  Does that sound like it's worth the gamble to you?  It sure doesn't to me.

You acknolwedge that you had to reign him in, but you still seem to claim he is a Conservative.  No, if he's having to be reigned in, that should tell you something.  He's not a Conservative at his core.

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.

This is such an overused thing to say, but here goes anyway... OMG.  Perry introduced the Trans-Texas Corridor in roughly 2001.  Last year he acknowledge the project was dead.  You tell me, did he listen to the voters?  He was prepared to ram that through over every objection.  To this day, I don't think he has ever acknowledged that it was a bad idea.  This guy has demonstrated a wonderful trait?  It only took him six to eight years to drop the thing, but that impresses you as wonderful?  He appologized for the Gardasil Executive Order too, but at some point we as constituents HAVE TO acknowledge that there are some things you just shouldn't do, and no amount of "Oops, sorry..." is going to make up for it.  This guy is a political lepper to me.  NO!

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/

Now let me see.  I have candiates that have expressed my views during their whole political life.  They don't have to explain away anything.  On the other hand, there's a candidate out there that openly differs with me on a number of issues right now, that has had to explain away a multitude of things he has done in the past.

Gosh, let me see, hmmm, who should I support?

Aren't you Texans embarrassed enough after Bush?  Now you want a do-over?  Gag me.  What part of hell no do you folks not get?

Sorry WolfCreek, I honestly do like you.  I am very sorry we have to agree to disagree on this one.

I could never vote for a man that was so stupid he would take the position of Al Gore's campaign manager for Texas in 1988.  I lived during those years.  I know what the Democrat party was like in those days.  I know what Reagan had to put up with to deal with them.  I cannot fathom for the life of me, anyone remaining a Democrat and trying to make sure Reagan's V.P. was defeated, so Al Gore could take over.  Theres no explaining away that level of outer space between the ears.

[DoughtyOne]

Stuff was kicked down the road? Wait just a minute there. I’ve been told for weeks now that Texas was running smoothly, better than any other state. Now you’re telling me things had to be kicked down the road? That just doesn’t computer.

As to whether you’ll be better off than other states, it still doesn’t seem to gel with the image that folks have been trying to pass off here.

I’m not looking to send someone to Washington that is comfortable kicking things on down the road. Boy, have I had a belly full of that.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks SJB.

[DoughtyOne]

If anything should give you comfort, it’s that the Bush team tried to knock Perry off in his last bid for governor and failed. That tells me that we’re unlikely to see the Karl Roves, Scott McClellans and Colin Powells that made Bush look so weak. This will be a different group that will be more like Texas and less like Yale.

I can understand the reason for you saying that, and it does make a certain sense for you to have said it.  I don't necessarily disagree.  Those folks may not be involved, but that doesn't mean that a new set of individuals causing heart-burn to Conservatives wouldn't be appointed.

For me it's something like this.  Perry is not an Edsil like Bush.  He's a Rambler.  Well, actually I had wanted a Cadillac all along.

Folks could very easily see my comments here and think I hate the Bushes.  What I actually object to, is the poor quality control that sees a bad cog fall into the gap, rather than the sound cog that should have been seated and prevented problems down the road.  When I see Bush lauded here, it's like reading someone's comments that the Chevrolet Vega was an excellent car.  You don't want to see other folks hoodwinked, so you speak up.

I thought GHW Bush had the best resume of any president we've ever had.  CIA director, Congressman, Senator, Ambassador to the U.N., as well as China.  Tutored at the knee of President Reagan, what more could the guy have been subjected to, to give him a more well-rounded preparation?

His execution of the Gulf War was masterful.  He got Europe on board.  He got the go-ahead from Russia.  He got acceptance from the players in the Middle-East.  His diplomatic skills were excellent.  His military leaders did well by him.  The effort lasted only a few days, after the long preparation.

Then he announced the New World Odor, and it all came crashing down for me.  His campaign in 1992 was pitiful.  It looked like even he wanted Clinton to be president.  Jusgt PITIFUL.  After the fact, he didn't even have the class to put it on the record what a disgusting lout Clinton was.

George Bush was never a favorite of mine.  It was obvious from the get-go, he wasn't the Conservative his home state folks were telling us he was.  Several issues were key for me.  His stated plans to grant an amnesty for illegal aliens, saw this nation literally flooded with new illegal immigrants.  Large regions of our nation saw white middle-class family displaced by illegals.  Van Nuys boulevard, featured in American Grafiti, and about as 'middle-class home town" as any metropolitain area could be due to the nature of the family dwellings dominating the vicinity, was quickly turned into something more akin to Tijuana than Van Nuys.  In less than one generation this region had been turned from apple of the eye middle-class with a thriving youth population, to a place where major department store's signage was in Spanish. Places where middle-class whites used to travel 20, 30, or 40 miles to purchase merchandies, were turned into areas you mustn't show up at night, or a gang would make quick work of you.  Seriously!  All the while ole jokin George was moaning about the plight of those poor illegal aliens.  MS-13 slipped in on his watch.  Eh, who cares.  If we could only legalize those illegals, everything would be better.

This is why I wretch at the mere mention of the words "Jeb Bush".  Spare me.

Do you begin to see how this relates to Perry, who holds some of the identical view to Bush on certain matters.  Of course he's cleaned it up a bit, but he doesn't see it any different than Bush.  Not really.

I like Laura.  Which some of her views were different too, but I do think she's a nice person.  For that matter I think Bush is a decent sort.  I wish them, the daughter, and the rest of the Bush clan well, just don't ever come to me and suggest running one of them for public office ever again.

I'm just not interested.  That goes for Perry too.

[DoughtyOne]

Corrections:

I had thought GHW Bush had spent time in the U.S. Senate. He didn’t.

I stated that he was the Ambassador to China, but he was the Chief Liason Officer to China before we had formal relations. He fulfilled the role of an Ambassador without the official title for over a year.

[wolfcreek]

Here some info that posted on the Texas board today. See for yourself.

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

[arrogantsob]

We are here to defeat Obama and not so delusional as to think that a tiny wing of conservatism can win the votes to do it. Or that there is some “Super Conservative” who can do it. Reagan was a unique individual at a specific time. He cannot be cloned or resurrected so stop scouring the bush and looking under every rock for his double.

We will have to accept a candidate who will NOT be Reagan and there is no one available who would be better than Palin or Perry. And there was no one available in 2000 better than W.

When a person represents 70-80% of the views of the majority of Republicans s/he is not a “RINO”. Most of the people you attack have views entirely in keeping with the party. It is your views which are outside the fence. Republicans are not like Nazis who slavishly follow the views of one leader.

Of course, we whom you disparage all came here years ago specifically to push Palin and Perry on the hapless GOP. Lord.

[wolfcreek]

Did you read the link I sent you and the link of Perry positives within that link?

If you did and still feel the same way, who would you suggest for POTUS?

[DoughtyOne]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470232177476242.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

[lentulusgracchus]

15000 Dow, 5% economic growth, unemployment 6% and falling fast! Borders secured! Iran nuclear weapons program dead in the water! On and on and on! DAMN what a mess that would be!

I think you'd be really disappointed with the results, if Perry got elected President. After rising markets, falling interest rates and falling wages, his backers have a very short laundry-list.

In fact, beyond "Make all the checks out to me!, I doubt they think very often at all about Iran, terrorism, nuclear weapons, or anything else.

It's David Stockman's old "Pigs at the Trough" faction again, eager to belly up once more and get well like they did under Poppy Bush.

Rick Perry works for those guys. He doesn't work for you. Come on -- common sense!

[lentulusgracchus]

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

Why? They're the same thing, really -- character.

Rick Perry works for other people for money, money he ought not to take. He's a renter.

[Bigun]

You are entitled to your opinions LG. In this case I don’t happen to share them and won’t until I see so actual PROOF! Not opinions and smears based on half truths and outright lies propagated by the MSM!

[DoughtyOne]

We are here to defeat Obama and not so delusional as to think that a tiny wing of conservatism can win the votes to do it.

"Oh me oh my, we can't expect a Conservative to beat Obama.  Conservatism just doesn't appeal to the public.  Honest...  If we nominate one, they'll fail to appeal to the public, and most certainly not get elected!"  What mindless blather.

Or that there is some “Super Conservative” who can do it.

I'm not asking for a Super-Conservative.  An actual Conservative would work just fine.

Reagan was a unique individual at a specific time.

Him being a Conservative, it's your opinion that Reagan was totally unique?  Who voted for the guy?  Who worked on his staff?  Who became state officials working for him.  Who organized for him?  Who canvased their neighborhoods for the guy?

It was another 'Time for Choosing'.  LINK  It was actually very similar to this 'Time for Choosing'.  Change a few numbers, tweak a few timely issues, you're there.

Carter had destroyed himself.  Obama has destroyed himself.  Why do I have to explain this to a professed Conservative?

He cannot be cloned or resurrected so stop scouring the bush and looking under every rock for his double.

Nope, there's no Conservatives around today.  Hmmm, perhaps you can explain how Free Republican stays afloat then.  What are you doing here, since Conservatives no longer exist?

We will have to accept a candidate who will NOT be Reagan and there is no one available who would be better than Palin or Perry. And there was no one available in 2000 better than W.

Are you suffering from some sort of disorder I should be aware of?  You keep repeating nonsense.  It hasn't worked up until now, but you're still hoping for a different outcome.  I'm just wondering if I'm involving myself with someone I shouldn't take the chance of harming by engaging with them any longer.

When a person represents 70-80% of the views of the majority of Republicans s/he is not a “RINO”. Most of the people you attack have views entirely in keeping with the party. It is your views which are outside the fence. Republicans are not like Nazis who slavishly follow the views of one leader.

Okay, then it's your expressed opinion that I'm a NAZI. Here you are expressing views that conform to the tactics of the Democrat Party, the nation's leading Marxists/Communists/Faschists/Socialists in defense of Ricardo Perry, and I'm supposed to be the bad guy.  Wow.  Here, hit the "Time for Choosing" LINK one more time.  You obviously need a double dose.

As for being Republicans, most of us here have determined long ago that if we wait for the Republcan party to get things done for us, those things will never get done.  It's not a real powerful argument to claim that most Republicans share Perry's views.  You actually make my case for me.  Thank you.  We're butting our heads up against the party on most issues, and here you are siding with the party.  Wow.  You're really up to speed here aren't you.

Of course, we whom you disparage all came here years ago specifically to push Palin and Perry on the hapless GOP. Lord.

You came here years ago to spout what you obviously believe to be nonsense, since you simply refuse to vote for any of it at the polls.  Look at what you stated there.  "When a person represents even 70% of the views of the majority of Republcans, they are not a RINO."

So let me ask you this.  At what percent do they become a RINO?  Would that be 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, 1%?  And what would this person be termed to be 100% of the time, they enact Leftist policy?  A real deal Conservative?  Your introduction of the word "Lord" there was quite timely.  You need to pray for some enlightenment.

[wolfcreek]

That’s a lot of info...what are you pointing to?

[DoughtyOne]

I absolutely hate it when folks come here and post links to things supporting Perry. Inside the document you linked me to was an article linked from the Wall Street Journal.

In that article, it made great pig pot-holes in the document you linked me to.

Some guy starts off saying I really didn’t like Perry, so I decided to trash him, but then I found that I was totally wrong and he’s really been great. Like I’ve never seen this tactic used before.

Really, WolfCreek, what am I supposed to say to you?

I’ve made it quite clear what type of individual I am seeking to support this year. I’ve actually mentioned names. I’m not 100% set on anyone yet, so I’m not anxious to name people. I have, but it’s still tentative.

We may new people pop up. We may learn still more about the candidates. I’m sorry, but it is what it is.

Perry is NOT someone I’m interested in.

I’ve give personal reasons why. They are credible reasons.