Replies

Some good points there, but some bad ones. Okay, lets see.

For example: You bring up Perry's 1988 support of Al Gore. This isn't nothing, but it ain't much, either, considering the political changes between 1988 and this century. In 1988, Perry was a "southern Democrat" and already rather conservative. Al Gore specifically ran as a conservative, DLC-type anti-abortion, pro-Israel Democrat (which is why he lost the nomination to a liberal). By the time Al Gore had been VP for 8 years, of course (in 2000), Al Gore had gone far left, whereas Perry had become a Republican, like millions of other conservative southern Democrats have done.

To me this has been the boiler plate response to someone backing Gore in 1988. It doesn't sell. "Oh Gore was rather Conservative back then." If so, why wasn't Gore running as a Republican? I'm told he ran as a Conservative in 1988, tried to win the South by scoring big on the new Super Tuesday event, and yet, the South was almost a solid lock for Republicans by this point. The Democrats weren't wining the south by the late 1980s. If Gore truly was a Conservative, why wasn't he a Republican? The fact is, Gore was not a Conservatve.

Gore's environmental polices had already take shape by this time. If Gore was a Conservative, why wouldn't he get behing George Bush?

I remember very well the Left vs the Right during the Reagan years. Probably very few times had Left vs Right been as clearly defined as they were during the Reagan years. The real question when Reagan left office was, "Should we continue the Reagan legacy, or should we move back toward failed Leftist policies?" Al Gore was so enamoured with Conservatism during these years, that he actually thought it was best to run against Bush. He distanced himself from the Demcrats on the Republicans to advance his own candidacy.

Was Gore's voting record more like leading Conservatives of the day, or more like Ted Kennedy? My take is more like Ted Kennedy.

Perry didn't know this stuff in 1988?

I think these are hugely important qualifiers, yet you appear to imply that Perry's support in 1988 was for a lunatic leftist like Gore has since become. Gore was a devout Leftist in 1988. He was registered in a party that skewered Reagan with each passing day. This didn't bother Gore at all. He was a Democraty loyalist during those days. There's no ambiguity here. Perry joined his team to get him elected as the follow-up to Reagan. How can anyone construe that as the actions of a Conservative.

What I notice you don't bring up is a much more recent endorsement of a leftist, namely Santorum's 2004 support for Benedict Arlen. At the very least, I expected Santorum -- now that Arlen has not only fully betrayed the GOP but also been sent out to pasture -- to issue an explanation (and a rebuke of Arlen), but to my knowledge, Santorum hasn't done that. I'd say a 2004 endorsement of Arlen Specter is at least as much of a negative for Santorum as is Perry's 1988 support for Gore. So what you're saying is that you actually wish the Republicans had lost the Senate in 2004, rather than 2006? Okay. Interesting, but okay. I'm not a Specter fan. I do not think that support for a Sentoral candidate is comparable with supporting a Presidential Candidate, particularly when the President is not moderated by 99 other individuals in his branch of the government. In all truth, I seriously doubt the person Specter was runing against was a figure or comparable to a figure that had served admirably at the side of Ronald Reagan. George Bush was such an individual.

I have other issues with Santorum, primarily that he "hasn't ever run anything" other than his Senate office and campaigns, whereas Perry has extensive executive experience (albeit, unfortunately, none in the private sector).

If Perry had taken on a state in a dire situation and turned things around, I might be more sympathetic to your argument here. I'm not all that impressed by Perry's leadership. From what I've head from Santorum, I am impressed by his grasp of Conservatism. He truly gets it.

During the last week or so I saw some Perry folks post things that Santorum had voted for over the years. It was a shameful display of character assassination. You can find contemptable things to say every Senator or Congressman voted for, because bills are loaded with a myriad of things you have to vote for if you wish to support the main emphasis of the bill. This is an old tactic that politicians use when they're desperate. It didn't reflect well on Perry and his team when they tried this.

I'm just not impressed by Perry. I have developed a healthy case of contempt for him.

Thanks for the comments. BTW check out these ACU ratings for Gore in 1988. Al Gore / Tennessee = 9, Alan Simpson / Wyoming 92. Check out some of the other players too. LINK

Most of your comments are given in good faith (thanks), even though I still disagree with many of them (to the extent I can read them; your use of gray and blue text makes your posts hard to read).

But this? Not so much:

So what you're saying is that you actually wish the Republicans had lost the Senate in 2004, rather than 2006?

No. I prefer that Toomey had been nominated over Arlen Specter, and I suspect you know perfectly well that is what I mean -- and further, that I believe Toomey could and would have won.

I deeply resent your insinuation that I wanted one less Republican in the Senate. (If you are simply badly misunderstood -- in stating that I wanted a Democrat to win in 2004, when it's rather plain that I wanted a more-conservative-than-Specter REPUBLICAN to win, then I apologize. But I do not take kindly to accusations like the one you seem to make here.)

You also avoided my critique that Santorum's got no organizational leadership experience outside of his political office. But thank you for your comments that were in good faith. Have a care about accusing me as you did, however.