IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Posted on 12/18/2011 12:57:06 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
But isn’t Jindal a RINO? /sarc
Seriously, he could help Perry a lot with his endorsement as both the endorsement and Jindal’s excellent performance in Louisiana become better known during the campaign.
Jindal probably appreciates more than most the effect a poor television performance can have on a potential campaign, given the way he was panned after one of his own national appearances. (I forget the circumstances.)
And, given that, he’s a testament to the error of relying upon a television impression to make one’s judgement on what sort of leader a person will be. I believe that when Jindal was re-elected he received a majority vote in all 64 parishes in LA, and as a Republican.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
There's an ancient phrase applicable to this: "Esse quam videri." To be rather than to seem. To be good rather than to seem good. That's the only thing that really matters. Perry and Jindal both understand that.
>>To be rather than to seem.<<
Jindal is an excellent example. I swear, in that tv appearance he reminded me of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman. He looked awful and his presentation wasn’t much either. But, clearly, the voters of LA like him a lot, which I find very encouraging. Maybe television no longer rules the world now that internet competition has arrived.
If it doesn’t, and Perry can get past his early debate performance, the Iowa caucuses could get interesting.
Great news that Jindal will be stumping with Perry.
He is a great conservative and very popular.
They’re probably much better than that now.
If Free Republic is a true indicator, Perry has made huge gains.
It seems that the Gingrich supporters are more of the school that they think he has a better chance of winning than of really loving Gingrich.
Things will change dramatically if Perry has a good showing in the first couple of primaries.
>>If Free Republic is a true indicator, Perry has made huge gains.<<
Care to elaborate on why you said that? Less people picking on him? More attention to Perry threads? What?
I’m just curious, not being critical.
Thank you, Governor ! I’m hoping there will be many more endorsements and heavier stumping.
I see less venom and I see more names popping up with good things to say all the time.
Example:
When it came out Friday that Perry was drawing his retirement, I thought for sure it would become a HUGE lighting rod issue on FR.
I was stunned to find that the majority of FReepers defended him rather than use it as a wedge issue to attack him.
I think that shows progress.
>>I see less venom and I see more names popping up with good things to say all the time.<<
Interesting, but couldn’t the “less venom” part be due to the fact that he’s now not considered one of the leading candidates.
Cain, for example, had plenty of venom spewed at him in her as little as three weeks ago. Now none, for an obvious reason; he’s not a contender anymore.
For example, I will suspect that if he starts to get serious traction in Iowa, we’ll soon be reading in here about “open borders” Perry once again....
I hope you are correct. I would prefer Perry over Gringrich, but I will take either over Romney. Well, I won’t take Romney at all.
I seriously doubt your claim about dramatic changes.
If Perry finishes in single digits in Iowa, Nevada, and NH, is anyone backing him going to stop claiming he has unseen momentum? Will there be dramatic changes then?
“Just wait until Texas!” will be the battle cry.
The Newt ping list is filled with people who previously supported a candidate, but are committed to stopping Mitt Romney. Perry has invested more in Iowa than Romney, and the polling isn’t showing significant gains. Gingrich has barely spent anything, and he leads. I’m just not seeing Perry’s path to victory anymore.
The real question is: If Perry finishes fourth in Iowa, will any Perry backers join the stop Romney movement? I’m just not getting that vibe - I am seeing Perry backers as more like Paul backers in that they seem to be in this thing for one candidate, damn the consequences. I hope I’m wrong.
I cannot overstate how important it is to stop Mitt Romney from winning this nomination.
Awesome! I would love to see this!
Jindal seems OK because we’ve known so much worse here in Louisiana; however, though I have voted for him and supported him, he has a long ways to go to really impress me.
Absolutely, me too. Would prefer either over Romney but I am definitely for Perry over Gingrich until I can go no further.
It’s possible.
But if people start that open borders stuff, I will point the finger squarely at Newt.
I don’t give a rats *** about Romney.
It’s Obama we need to stop.
>>though I have voted for him and supported him, he has a long ways to go to really impress me.<<
Yes, the warts always show when you’re up close, don’t they?
It sounds like you’ve at least got the direction right now. I don’t recall the details but I recently read where Louisiana had moved way, way, up the ladder when it comes to being a favorable or unfavorable business environment. That generally happens only with effective governance, or vice versa (witness IL and California).
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.