Posted on 09/21/2011 2:07:46 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
SAN ANTONIO -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry remains one of the front-runners for the Republican Presidential Nomination, and depending on who you ask, many think he'll get it.
John Sharp, the recently confirmed Chancellor of Texas A&M University who ran against Perry in the 1998 general election for Lieutenant Governor, gave his take on the race while visiting Texas A&M- San Antonio on Tuesday.
"It's a full time deal running against Rick Perry, and anybody who sells him short is an idiot, because it will be a tough campaign," Sharp said.
Sharp has known Perry since his college days, where the two served in the same outfit in the Corp Cadets. "We were really good friends until we ran against each other," Sharp said.
Sharp, a Democrat, lost to Perry with 48% of the vote, during the 1998 election. During that race, the polls were tied as voters got ready to cast their ballots. Then came the flood of 1998.
"In October of 1998 or late September, this huge flood came through the area, from San Marcos and down to Victoria," Sharp said. "That was my old senate district, (I'm from Victoria) and so I'm trying to get people to get out and vote, and they're out in boat, trying to rescue their furniture and things like that."
Sharp says his loss was partly due to Perry's good timing and good luck, and believes Perry will win the Republican nomination, but stopped short of saying he will be the next president.
A certain host has long mentioned FR on air (not as much as he used to).
I cannot take credit for that. It’s how I heard of FR actually, back in the 90’s sometime. I would check in on it from time to time before finally joining last year.
Look, if you are obsessed with length of time on FR, then you and I have nothing more to discuss. Our relative times on FR proves nothing and will not help or harm 300 million Americans. The Presidential race means a lot and will help or harm 300 million Americans.
I am sticking to the issues. And if you read carefully enough, you’ll recognize enough similiarities in the logic that you can connect the dots.
It’s amazing how people have this fantasy that their politicians will somehow “change” for the better simply because they want them to. I was here 8 years ago in the battle royale for Ah-nold in California. I was viscerally opposed to him, cited those “harsh” comments about him and how horrible a Governor he would be, and had some of the most vicious and personal attacks thrown in my face. Well guess what ? Every thing I made claim to about him came true and then some. He ain’t the only one, either. I don’t need to watch debates, commercials, talking points, I just look at the person and their record. That’s how I know. Some folks apparently can’t stand that. It’s not my problem. But it is my problem if I fail to raise awareness of it. I did the same thing 3 years ago with keeping Slick Willard’s record and deceit on view so that he’d be stopped. Thank heavens he was.
I’m not talking about “change” in the internal come to Jesus change - I’m talking about the kind of change even Bill Clinton went through. Given the Newt led congress of 95-96, he actually governed far more conservatively than did GWB on most issues and the result was good governing.
I have given up trying to change Washington’s morals. I simply want a result of conservative governing, and if it takes pragmatic realities, so be it. Any of those in the GOP field plus a congress that say, has another 25-30 tea party members in the House and a handful more in the Senate will give us a far superior product to what we have now.
And whatever goes on in the hearts and minds of some of those in Washington will be irrelevant to our lives, which is really the only true measurement of good versus bad government.
And for good measure, I will say this. Too many on our side seem to fully believe it when a conservative “grows in office” and becomes liberal or moderate. (Lindsay Graham).
But somehow, we say when a guy becomes more conservative, he is a flip flopper. It’s like we refuse to believe that we can ever convert one to our side from the dark side. I invite being skeptical, but it’s intellectually dishonest not to think it can happen.
My candidate became governor by knocking off the incumbent in the primary, and then knocking off his immediate predecessor in the general election. This against two seasoned veterans, which she was not. This before she became the phenomenon she has since become, in fact, before anybody much south of Juneau knew who she was. And this in a down year for the Republican Party. So good for Mr. Sharp that he’s impressed with his old Aggie buddy’s competitive drive. I’m kind of impressed with my candidate, too.
Bubba got caught with his pants down with respect to his first two years. But did he REALLY change ? I believe then as I do now that he was a Socialist and most likely committed acts of treason in office that were never allowed to be fully investigated (hence the emphasis on the sex vs. selling of secrets — one can be “maneuvered” with a certain deftness, the other can’t). But Bubba was not stupid, and he utilized triangulation to keep his office (not helping was Bob Dole’s desultory opposition) and took credit for an agenda he didn’t believe in simply because it was popular. This is where Zero differs. He remains militantly committed to his failed agenda.
However, on the issue of flipflopping, I can apply that to a switch either way. The question is whether the switch is an earnest one or if it is blatantly opportunistic. Clinton’s attempt at moderation was no earnest one. You and I know that had he maintained a Democrat majority in 1994, he wouldn’t have changed course one iota.
You mention Lindsey Graham. The question is what motivates him ? He plays both sides and is not honest with his constituency. It doesn’t benefit him electorally to do what he does. Were he in a more liberal state, it might. Me personally, I think it may be a combo of being seduced by the political establishment, which is made up of both parties and oppose substantial change, and that he may have skeletons in his closet (as the AM would have me say — we have not 100% proof, but merely the “appearance” of something not quite being right). I think there was also some collusion from higher-up to sandbag his primary opponent in 2008 (again... the “appearance”).
But back to Perry, I simply don’t find him to be honest. I think he utilized the GOP as a vehicle at a time that the TX Democrats collapsed. I think he is clearly on the side of that bi-partisan, pro-big government establishment and is blatantly not a reformist. I’ve followed him with interest since the ‘90s and he just reminds me of so many of the same slick Southern politicians that were so overwhelming in the Democrat party and now attempting to hijack the opposition. Many states have similar pols like him, and so he’s not the only one I vigorously oppose.
In rare few instances, I almost never support pro-establishment figures. The only instance where I last issued a de facto endorsement of Perry was in the ‘10 primary. This wasn’t because I approved of him, only because he drew no actual Conservative opposition for which he could’ve been vigorously challenged on. His opponents were a RINO establishment Senator who has been in DC too long and a Paulbot 9/11 Truther dingbat. As I said, the opposition has to be pretty horrid for me to even take a “no contest” role with respect to a man I feel should not be occupying his office.
I LOVE this Perry for President ad! It is AWESOME!
And it’s just the icing on the cake that Tim Pawlenty’s old campaign ad producer has done this for Rick Perry.
Amazing work and very potent.
Here is the link to see it on youtube:
Thanks casinva — it’s better each time I see it.
Bump!
And that same flood of idiots seemed to somehow manage to find their way onto this thread as well!
So says Bill White.
Now this is amazing. That was a calm and well reasoned analysis. I don’t agree with all of it, but there were some valid points. As for Bubba changing? No, he didn’t change. But I don’t care so much about that. He signed bills that made positive change, even if he didn’t like them.
I want a tea party congress that will send government reducing, bureaucrat reducing, liberty increasing life changing bills and a President who will sign them into law.
Would I prefer a President who really believes in them and champions them? SURE. But at the end of the day, that doesn’t matter in my life as much as government getting out of my way.
“They’re the same worship threads we saw with Slick Willard. No dissent and no truth-telling on the candidate is allowed.”
A large percentage of the replies on Perry threads are anti-Perry. Some are informative (like some of yours) most are hateful spite. “Not allowed” would be like a caucus thread. I support Perry but if anyone moved to caucus threads about him here I would personally be against that.
The problem is when you elect a leader who isn’t apt to believe in it, he/she is probably apt not to do it (except in cases of immediate expediency). That was a huge problem with Giuliani’s Presidential candidacy. At least he didn’t audaciously switch positions across the board, but he did expect us to believe that he’d support causes, goals and appointees that ran counter to what he believed in. I mean, let me ask you, would you appoint people and support causes and bills that you personally oppose ? I wouldn’t. I know of few politicians that would, except for those of exceptionally low moral stature (the “I personally oppose abortion but...” types). Perry’s support and endorsement of Giuliani for President dovetails with that “trust” issue, or lack thereof.
I’ll add, too, that there are VERY few pro-small government Republicans in action. Too many go to DC or to a lesser office intending to get government out of our lives (or at least start the shrinking process) and they get assimilated into the bigger bureaucracy mindset. One big argument for term limits, although that would only result (with respect to Congress) in the staffers holding the reigns of power. If I thought Perry had that impetus within him, I’d be less tough on him, but everything about him tells me he’s just going to be another big-government manager. Another variation of Dubya. I think the media will paint him as such if he gets the nomination, and it will be difficult to refute. Just saying, “He’s better than Zero” isn’t enough. A ficus plant is better than Zero, but we won’t elect one.
I remember all the folks gung-ho last year about the “Tea Partier” in Nevada, Sharron Angle. Folks got mad at me because I told them she’d be the only candidate who would manage the impossible — to lose to the unpopular Harry Reid. I pointed out in the primary she rubbed folks the wrong way, that she pissed off the wrong people in the state, and she had losses under her belt and made a claim of fraud against now-Sen. Dean Heller that almost cost us a safe House seat. I got called the same kinds of names, that I was working for Reid, pro-establishment and the like, but it didn’t matter. I was proven right. I did the same thing in 2006 with Katherine Harris when I warned she was the most divisive politician in the state of Florida and would lose in a landslide. Same attacks, same nonsense. I was right again. When you’ve been through the wars day after day and you build up the kind of credibility, it’s why I’m confident in making my claims when it comes to politicians. Even when they may stand for most of what we want (as Angle and Harris did), sometimes some are, for some reason or another, the right person to pick up the banner. Again, another reason why I oppose Perry.
Some are, some aren’t. It depends if it’s worth mixing it up or not. I’m only one person, I can’t cover them all. But when they tend to be more pro-, we start seeing some of the worship stuff that really is ridiculous and should have nothing to do with a candidate’s qualifications. I support Palin, but you’d never catch me writing such rot that “because she’s hot/MILFy, et al” that’s a big reason why I want her President. I’m not electing a Playboy Playmate, I’m voting for a President.
Sure, to some people, “attractiveness” physically is a factor (go figure the loons who thought Bubba was like Young Elvis back in ‘92 - what ?!? I’m sorry Elvis wasn’t around to repudiate him), but ultimately it has to be the record. No “talk” and “hotness” can make up for what they actually support and what their record is.
As for closed threads, that would probably not benefit a vigorous discussion or vetting of the candidates.
Reagan was once upon a time a pro-abortion democrat.
Perry has always been pro-life, but was a democrat.
Reagan gave citizenship to (reportedly) 1,000,000 illegal aliens with his amnesty program.
Perry has fought to have the central federal government do its job and protect the American borders.
These are facts. I don’t care about hair. I care about what they’ve done.
Now - Reagan realized what was going on, and the love of a good woman changed him to be a pro-life conservative. Perry was a ‘blue-dog’ democrat, who as Reagan would say “I didn’t so much leave the Democrat party, as it left me”.
Interesting points. Seems folks on our side have a hard time - as do I sometimes - with the concept of flip flop versus simply learning and changing for the better. Not every change of heart is a calculated “flip flop” - and yet some certainly are.
I have not always been pro life, but I have now for a couple decades. I actually came to that position from a science stand point before I became a man of faith. I didn’t flip flop. I had a change of mind first, then a change of heart that reinforced it.
And then there’s the reverse flip flop: in other words - there are realities about winning elections in Mass and Texas that may have brought out the flip flop position FIRST - and the position now (abortion, border, etc) is the real position. Just a theory and a question. I don’t claim to know.
You do claim to know the RINOs.
Their flip flop shows no conservatism — in any sense.
And Gov. Palin’s record is a heck of an improvement
over the Rove-derived RINOs Mitt and Rick.
>> You do claim to know the RINOs. Their flip flop shows no conservatism — in any sense. And Gov. Palin’s record is a heck of an improvement
over the Rove-derived RINOs Mitt and Rick. >>
I only claim to know what the original intent of the term was - and it was more directed at Republicans who trashed other Republicans. Now by definition, that means it would be the more liberal Republicans - but it was their social climbing with the media by way of trashing their own party that was the definitive trait.
And flip flops are one thing - true change of hearts and minds is another - and I admitted to not knowing which was which all the time and I think you are on thin ice if you deign to always know. I admit, sometimes it is obvious.
And Palin’s record versus Rove and Mitt and Rick is very good indeed. But those three folks cannot stand each other and lumping them together is not politically accurate. I would call Rove an establishment Republican and a soul less opportunist more than a RINO though he has RINO traits. I would call Mitt hard to pin down and a flawed and unreliable conservative, but he rarely trashes the base or other Republicans. Perry is a conservative with flaws and red flags, but IMO not a RINO either.
Not everyone not named Sarah Palin or Jesus is a RINO. They can just be flawed. And FTR, Palin’s stance on unions is left of all of the three folks above. It’s about my only problem with her.
Good posts!
Good points!
Good day on FR!
Thank you so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.