Projection.
Not an accurate depiction.
Blind worship is when Perry supporters say that Palin is just showing up to declare her support for him.
Even after she said she wasn't satisfied with any of the currently declared candidates.
Blind worship is when Perry supporters routinely bring up irrelevancies in his record as though they make a hill of beans' worth of difference, like his being a C-130 pilot and an Eagle Scout.
They're nice in their own way but they don't qualify him for the Presidency.
Blind worship is when Perry supporters attack Sarah Palin and her supporters with unfounded accusation and rumor ("she's just in it for the money" or "she hasn't run a *real* state") while dismissing holes in Perry's record by making fun of the people pointing them out ("Gardasil, Trans Texas Corridor, Dream Act" blah blah) when the holes have not been acknowledged or dealt with adequately.
I'm glad from your post that YOU don't worship Perry.
But he's too much of a finger in the wind RINO squish with a questionable past for me.
(I note you didn't copy or answer the remainder of my post which listed his policy commonalities with Obaama).
Cheers!
"Blind worship is when...", in the context you're using, has no apparent meaning other than "I don't agree with it when..."
It's just not fair or intellectually honest to assert that people you disagree with are religious zealots in blind worship of a random politician who only went national like a month ago.
Perry's in his fourth term in office, 11+ years as governor, 10-0 electoral record, undefeated at 61 years of age, running a state in considerably better shape than the rest of the Union.
That's not blind worship. It's chiseled-in-stone fact.
To say that he's not qualified to be President compared to, say, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, GHWB, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter ... well, I don't know how far back you'd have to go before you found someone who's more qualified. He seems to be either ahead of or equal to the pack so far.
Perry's pro-life, pro-gun and pro-business, but he's also got a number of things in his long record that are bad. The only people that don't have bad things in their records are people with short ones. While that may seem an attractive route, remember that America just blew 4 years of our life on Barack Hussien OmyGod-this-guy-has-no-idea-what-he's-doing-what-were-we-thinking-hiring-him-as-President?! They're not going to do that again twice in a row. Like it or not, Obama's now the 'safe bet' compared to, say, Herman Cain, as far as independents are concerned. At least he's experienced.
While it might be a big deal in our corner of the blogosphere, the fact that Perry supported a toll road that never got built isn't even going to move the needle on 95% of the electorate's 'give a crap' meter. Neither is most of the 'similarities to Obama' that you posted. He's weak on immigration, insofar as he's pretty much the same as any other Republican, just more exposed to the problem by virtue of his location. Otherwise, he's categorically better than Obama in any quantifiable way.
Bush had his problems, but he gave us Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Obama gave us the quasi-commie appointees of Sotomayor and Kagan. The next President will probably get two more, which will change the face of the nation for decades. That alone makes defeating Obama non-negotiable.
So, between a relatively sure thing in a so-so Perry, a longshot in awesome Palin, or certain doom in meta-awful Obama, it's no contest. First down over Hail Mary. That's not blind worship. It's just business.