[smoothsailing]

I can only tell you what this all looks like to some of us

I have a very hard time understanding how professed Conservatives could be on fire for him.

I hear ya, and I can tell you what it looks like to me. The product of a vivid imagination, and it's silly. No need to take that personal, it may not apply to you.

I can assure you I'm not on fire for anybody.

As I've said before to others in one fashion or another, I'm not involved in any cause, Perry is a candidate I'm interested in, and one I believe may be able to garner the funds necessary to take on Obama and appeal to a broad base.

Personally, I don't much like or trust politicians. I'm a basic kind of person. I want a President who loves my country and will defend it, will promote it here and around the world, will get and keep government off our backs, and will make sure the military is properly manned, funded, and respected. I think Perry may be able to handle that.

I have four that I'm looking at. Palin, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann, and I'm thinking about getting rid of Bachmann and cutting my roster to three.

I'll leave all the esoteric and philosophical navel gazing to others.

[DoughtyOne]

Not a bad reply, really.  I naturally have some different toughts on this, so I'll relate what they are.

I hear ya, and I can tell you what it looks like to me. The product of a vivid imagination, and it's silly. No need to take that personal, it may not apply to you.

Do you know how many times I've heard this type of comment this year?  It explains away nothing.  It mearly casts folks who have severe concerns over this guy, as being irrational.  I appreciate you mitigating the comment by trying not to make it personal.  None the less, there are things I could not have done, that he did.

I had this same problem when George Bush was foisted off on us.  People said the same thing then.  And of course good old George did some good things, and squandered six fricken years with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.  The list of things we could have fixed is very very long.  We undid NONE of it.

I don't want to see this happen again.  If that makes me candidate for Kook for the Week, I'll wear the crown gladly.

I could not travel to Mexico and use terminology directly addressing open borders.  I don't care how innocent it may have been, it shows a lack of sensitivity on this issue that is massive.  We have the citizens of Mexico pouring into our nation, we have people dying just about every day because of it, we have women and children getting sexually abused, the resultant crime is rampant, it's been a massive problem for decades, we have between 20 and 35 million illegals here, and he talks about open borders?  Wow.  That was a mistake.  It caused folks to wonder just where his loyalties were.  Was he going to take the border problem seriously?

The citizen land owners in his state could have seen a new highway system proposed that would merely enhance the current highways where they could be, and belt-ways to go around larger metropolitain areas where they couldn't.  This would have saved most of the land rights for most of the citizens of Texas.  Instead this guy plans a massive new highway system that will by necessity take over 70,000 more acres of land from private land-owners, and leave the previous highways where they were too.  Here you have a plan that will cause the most possible disruption and land confiscation.  There isn't a chance I would have signed off on that plan.  Nobody else would either.  He got it totally wrong.

When it came to backing Al Gore in 1988, the choices were to back Bush and continue the Reagan legacy, or back Al Gore and try to get a Democrat controlled House, Senate, and White House.  He opted to take the most destructive path related to Reagan's legacy.  I couldn't have done that.  You couldn't have done that.

These and other personal and public policy decisions, cause me to realize this guy isn't instinctively a Conservative.  He talks a good game.  He maneuvers himself to look good.  His supporters do their best, but you simply cannot explain it all away.  I do not want a third Bush term.  That is what this guy wreaks of.

I can assure you I'm not on fire for anybody.  Okay, great.

As I've said before to others in one fashion or another, I'm not involved in any cause, Perry is a candidate I'm interested in, and one I believe may be able to garner the funds necessary to take on Obama and appeal to a broad base.  I would urge you to quit trying to maneuver for 2012.  My brother's pet Chihuahua would look good compared to Obama in November 2012, and probably raise more money.  Later on in your comments here, you mention other good people.  With elevated status, comes plenty of money.  Nobody is going to lack for funds in 2012.  Well, I take that back.  I think Obama is going to find himself in one hell of a mess.

Personally, I don't much like or trust politicians. I'm a basic kind of person. I want a President who loves my country and will defend it, will promote it here and around the world, will get and keep government off our backs, and will make sure the military is properly manned, funded, and respected. I think Perry may be able to handle that.  Look, Bush loved this country.  I firmly believe that.  Was he the president we needed?  No.  Folks settled on Bush fairly early on, and it was over.  Did I want Gore?  Of course not, but we folded in the primaries way too early.  Bush announced in the fall of 1999, that he had $70 million in a campaign war chest.  That scared the crap out of most folks who might have gotten in.  It actually made me angry.  It telegraphed who the nominee was going to be from the word go.  And it was clear to me that the guy who wanted to grant amnesty wasn't going to be a U. S. First type of guy.  He was always going to worry first about how something would look to the rest of the world.

I have four that I'm looking at. Palin, Perry, Cain, and Bachmann, and I'm thinking about getting rid of Bachmann and cutting my roster to three.  When Palin first agreed to come on the ticket with McCain, I liked the idea because I saw her as a moderating force.  When she backed him for return to his Senate seat, it became clear to me that she actually liked his agenda.  That was the end of her for me right there.  It didn't help that she had supported the LOST Treaty, a U. N. management of the high seas, placing all nations in an subservient role.  She did so because she wanted certain oil rights to the Arctic Ocean.  While that may have worked out well for her, the U. N.'s total control of the seas would have had the potention to cost the U. S. terribly in times of conflict.  It also gave the U. N. an independent income stream for the first time, and quite a healthy one at that.  Her comments on registering illegals so they could stay here and work, didn't help either.

I've addressed Perry.  We've both been less than thrilled with Bachmann this last week, and that pretty much leaves Herman Cain.  I'm still not totally discounting Bachmann, but I will tell you she is on a short leash at this time.  I hope that Cain comes along and develops into a first rate leader.

I say this because I think it would be a great object lesson for Blacks, to see the difference between what Obama and his communist/socialist/marxist/fascist ideology could provide for them, and what Cain and sound Capitalist Free Enterprise System could provide for them.  We could put this whole black vs white, Leftist vs Conservative thing to bed once and for all.

It would also help young Black men to see an excellent role model with top notch moral fiber, doing the right thing.

I'll leave all the esoteric and philosophical navel gazing to others.

Good luck with that.  I agree it would be nice to be able to glide along and take things as they came, but there is a concerted effort to force another RINO off on us, and we simply cannot afford to let our guard down one minute.

I made that mistake in 1999.  Never again!