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.
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.