One common theme that I see on this website is overuse of the term “Rino”. Just because a candidate does not square with our each and every policy decision does not make them a Rino. It is counter-productive. Heck, even Reagan did things (Amnesty in ‘87) that could be considered “Rinoish”.
To me, I want to see the most Conservative person get elected. I have my preferences for a candidate, and yes Sarah is closest to my own stated beliefs with her policy positions, and I do like her alot. BUT, I also think that a majority of the voting public would wrongly consider her to be an “experiment”. And right now, with the state of the economy and general conditions in this country, most voters are going to be risk averse. Right or wrong, it may be the worst time for Sarah to run.
Perry has an edge when it comes to the risk averse voter. He does have a substantial record to run on. Now, I don’t agree with all of his alleged policy stances, but are Palin, Paul, or Romney supporters really going to allege that he would be worse than Obama? Actually, would any Republican be that bad? No they may not be ideal,and I am not a Romney supporter, but I would hold my nose and vote for him.
I don’t see Romney winning because many people see him as similar to Obama. GOP voters and many Independents will not go for him.
Paul does not and never will have widespread support. While most of his economic policies are pretty sound, he is crazier than a rat in a tin sh-t house when it comes to foreign policy. Flame away, but that is how I see him. This is not 1820, we can’t bury our heads in the sand and hope against hope that the bad people will be nice and leave us alone.
I really believe, for better or worse, Perry will be the nominee. I love Sarah, but as my very conservative Mother says, “Now is not the time for more uncertainty”. And in many people’s eyes, right or wrong, Sarah is not a proven commodity. The fact that she can draw big crowds may actually work against her, as many Conservative and Independent voters will sourly remember the last time we allowed a “cult of personality” to choose the leader of the free world.
Just my humble opinion. If Sarah were to win the nomination, I would actively and enthusiastically support her. I am not counting on it.
Great! Gotta love inflexible “ideological purity!” Yet those people will be the first to whine when the Marxist wins re-election because those with all of those “pure” thoughts stayed home or voted for a candidate that cannot win. We will spend another four years on this forum reading about how revolution and collapse are just “around the corner”.
I remember what happened with Bush and Amnesty. He caved when Conservatives brought pressure to bear. So would Perry and just about any other GOP President. Add a Conservative House and Senate to the mix and I don’t see it as much of a worry. Do you think that would matter under Obama? Let’s continue to be inflexible and find out!
The primaries are one thing, and the general election is another. Vote for your candidate all day in the primary. But, if you refuse to back the GOP nominee, no mater who it is, against Obama, then that is a bigger problem than Perry’s, or whomever the candidate may be, alleged policy shortfalls are. We KNOW Obama is poison for this country. Perry, or even Romney, given a conservative Congress and Senate, may actually be able to be forced to do some good. At least some of the conservative agenda would have a chance to be enacted. With Obama, none of it would, PERIOD.
I am not in favor of Amnesty in any form. But if given the choice between the Commie or Perry, I would surely vote for Perry. Are you saying you would not? Or that you would stay home? That, quite frankly, is a huge problem. Let’s flush the country because we want to take our ball and go home if we don’t get the candidate we want!
I think you bring up a very good point. The electorate right now will likely gravitate to someone who they see as a mature and safe leader who can sort out this mess we are in versus an “orator” or cable news personality which is sort of where I see Palin and a large portion of the GOP field at the moment.
The primary weakness of Obama (besides being a socialist) is that he flat out isn’t a leader. He doesn’t have that gene in him. I wasn’t very high on Perry when he announced a month ago, but have gradually started to view him as a safe pick due to the fact he does have some pretty good leadership qualities. Being a Governor of a very successful State the last ten years carries with it a certain legitimacy very few of these people have.
I am going to watch Perry closely in these three debates over the next two weeks to see if the hype is real. If he performs well, he could seal the deal.