And, you know—for reasons better than “he’s neither that creepy guy with the hair helmet nor that other creepy guy who’s got all those government solutions in search of a problem.”
Though they have all done things lately that have upset me—Perry included.
But what would really upset me would be to see Barack Obama in the White House as a lame duck, taking the white gloves off.
And the other potential candidates are carrying heavy luggage. This time, we have to get across the finish line. Have to.
AllahP’s got a selection of the current Perry-speculation/Perry endorsements up at Hot Air. The latter encompass Ace, and some of the pivotal bloggers at Redstate. (One of whom, in the context of the current Administration, came up with the phrase “shovel-ready rhetoric,” which truly left me in awe.) So go read AllahP if you want the appetizer plate.
The Red State partial-group-endorsement takes a systematic survey of Perry’s record, and this may be the best summary of why a conservative would want to vote for Perry.
But it’s Ace at the HQ and Mike Flynn at Big Government who provide the most compelling arguments in favor of Rick Perry.
In the end, one of these candidates is very likely to end up as President and will have to govern. With the exception of Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry is the only candidate with a successful record of governing. That and, more importantly, what he has accomplished in governing make him the clear choice for President.
Supporters of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have to face one inconvenient truth; they both failed when given the chance to govern. Gingrich rode an historic GOP wave into the Speakership in 1994 only to be ousted by his fellow Republicans just four years later. It was one of the more spectacular flame-outs in political history. Hastert and Pelosi lost the Speaker’s gavel when the voters rejected them and their parties. Newt lost his when his GOP colleagues rejected him. He was given an unprecedented opportunity to reform entitlements and reverse our nation’s fiscal rot and…he blinked. His subsequent “consulting” for Freddie Mac, support for the largest expansion of entitlements since LBJ, an individual health insurance mandate and TARP, among other things, only further disqualifies him. I’m not at all certain that he has the core conservative convictions or beliefs that could withstand the daily dramas of the Presidency.
Mitt Romney only served one term as Governor of Massachusetts because he wasn’t going to win reelection. Keep in mind that Romney’s term followed twelve years of GOP rule on Beacon Hill. Massachusetts voters were in something of a habit, since 1990, of voting for Republicans for Governor. That streak ended with Mitt. And, there were fewer Republican state legislators when he left office than when he entered it.
Worse, though, is what he did in that one term; RomneyCare. I lobbied against RomneyCare. It is, fundamentally, the blueprint for much of ObamaCare. It is already far more expensive than lawmakers promised and is negatively effecting the health care market in Massachusetts. And, Romney is STILL proud of it. His official portrait for Governor even features Romney sitting next to a copy of the bill! He continues to defend a state-level individual mandate and even promises to retain the “good parts” of ObamaCare. I, frankly, didn’t know there were “good parts”.
Its hard to judge Romney on the other issues, because he’s had every position on just about all of them over the years.
Ouch.
And, here’s Ace, weaving together two related points about low-information voters and how easy it is for us to forget just how treacherous the media are:
There are two main sorts of primary voters: Those who know too little, and those who know too much. As for the former — there’s not much I can do about them. They don’t read this site, or probably too much of any political source.
Maybe they read Time. Bless their hearts.
The online community consists mainly of the latter — we know a lot about the candidates, and are each making complicated decisions about trade-offs between electability and agenda (and likelihood of advancing that agenda).
My belief is that we know so much that the secondary and tertiary level things we know are crowding out the primary things we know. That is, that we know a bunch of second- and third- order things and knowing so much is crowding out consideration of the top-level, major bullet-point, controlling facts.
I am in favor of Rick Perry because, while I am informed about the second- and third- orders of information, I remain focused on the first order stuff.
First, biographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits.
Rick Perry did not marry his high school sweetheart. He married his grade school sweetheart. He has never been divorced as as far as I know there haven’t been any rocky patches in his relationship.
Those who discount the importance of that, especially to women voters, are making an error, I think.
I can only say so often that the swing voters in the center of the country are among the least-informed voters on the planet. Every survey demonstrates that, despite their claims to be all about “the substance” and “the issues,” they know less about the substance and the issues than partisans on either side of the aisle.
Being apolitical, they’re not very interested in politics. Stands to reason. This means, then, that they don’t read much about politics.
Their decision-making is very superficial. Although I do not think that Newt Gingrich’s affairs/divorces history is a disqualifier, I think it cannot be entirely discounted.
Some people think that because the media stressed Obama’s intellect in the last election, they will do so again, and thus it is important to have an intellectual like Gingrich as our standard-bearer.
You don’t the media very well if you accuse them of consistency. Let me suggest to you that if Gingrich is the nominee, the media will not be stressing intellect and brainpower (as, in their estimation, it’s a draw).
No. They will be stressing Obama’s faithfulness to his wife and their two beautiful children.
The media stresses whatever attribute the Democratic candidate trumps the Republican one in. In 1992 and 1996, the media ignored the virtue of military service in Republican nominees George Bush (the elder) and Bob Dole, and suggested it was relatively unimportant, championing the greater intellect and ideological flexibility of one William Jefferson Clinton, who, as you might remember, dodged the draft, using political connections to secure a higher draft number.
And yet in 2000, Al Gore was sold as a “veteran” of Vietnam, while George W. Bush was portrayed as a draft-evader, and the same in 2004, when John Forbes Kerry announced that he was “reporting for duty.”
Dan Rather did a story about Bush’s supposed failure to “report for duty” at the Texas Air National Guard.
I would suggest that we should not get too hung up on fighting the last war, because the media will simply change the rules of engagement.
And, this:
General election voters — especially swing voters — do not have strong opinions about such matters. Otherwise they would be partisans for one camp or another. They tend to be pragmatic, rather than abstract, thinkers. They do not have any prevailing theory of governance, which is what gives them the flexibility to vote for George W. Bush in 2004 and then an all-but-declared socialist four years later.
They care almost entirely about results, because they have no underlying theory that might explain away failures (as Obama’s endless theories explain away his failures, at least to his partisans).
I remember that, by the third debate, people were complaining that they were sick of hearing about Texas producing 45% of all jobs created in America the last two years, and sick of hearing that Texas has created one million jobs while America has lost two million plus in the last ten years.
I understand that High Information Voters, who knew this before Rick Perry announced it, might be “sick” of hearing about it.
But the fact of the matter is: That should have been said more, not less.
My endorsement goes to whoever our nominee happens to be. But I do think we nominate Mr. Baggage or Mr. Soft Support at our peril.
I actually recommend reading the entire Ace piece, because there’s a lot in there.
UPDATE 0: More from Jimmie Bise.
* * *
UPDATE 1: Oh, and—Ace’s endorsement is also signed by “John E., Andy, rdbrewer, Ben, Gabriel Malor, lauraw, Slublog and Dave In Texas.”
So, one girl—LauraW—was invited into the Perry Endorsement Treehouse. Good for her.
“They didn’t ask me,” I told my husband. “So I’m going to build my own treehouse. I might paint it pink. And I’ll have a little refrigerator in it, so it’ll be better.”
“Which one of those guys is going to do the wiring for you?” he asked.
Which, fine. I’m working on a sign that reads “NO HUSBANDZ ALOUD.”
UPDATE II, in which we get all “inside blogball” with the annoying metablogging: Well, I guess my joke about the notion that some of the others colluded on this latest wave of Perry-boosterism just did not quite “take.”
At least, not for Jeff, whose blog I can’t comment on for what are probably technical reasons. (When I signed in, it took me to a landing page, and when I tried to get off of that—to, you know, comment—it told me I wasn’t authorized. After which I gave up. On commenting, but not on the “real cliqueish power” I never even knew I had, but promise to use responsibly.)
And here’s Mac.
- Excited
- Angry
- Not as Angry
- Bored
- Indifferent
- Sad
What’s that then? RedState and Ace are all in for Perry? Well, that settles it then! Cancel the primaries lest those loathsome peasant votes in their utter foolishness vote for someone else!
/sarcasm off
I could care less what RedState and Ace say. Which puts me in line with 100% of the voters next year.
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
Thomas Sowell, who I believe carries a wee bit more gravitas than Ace et al, prefers Gingrich ( http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48239 ).
‘Nuff said.
That was more than enough said, actually.
“Gravitas”!
Thomas Sowell? Maybe you should watch this:
http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/98376#nogo
Start at segment 5 around 35:00 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing (although you should, because it’s Sowell).
“What I most like about him (Perry) is that he says you can’t be all things to all people.” And he describes that he likes this, and how it’s like Reagan.
‘Nuff said. Gravitas, indeed.
(Note that he doesn’t even discuss Newt; it’s quite curious that an alleged Newt supporter would not even mention him!)
I have no endorsements. I’m of the syphilitic camel party.
So whatever. Wake me in November.
Vote Zeeba!
Why I’m not supporting Perry yet…
Because his clothes are too clean . . . oh, Mac. Is this a time to focus on trifles?
No, because they’re offering us a manufactured image rather than a real person. Look at the pictures of Reagan and Bush, look at Cowboy Bob. Which more convinces you of the man’s substantiality?
If there’s a there there, let us see it. Show us Perry signing a jobs bill and tell us what he did to bring that bill about. Show us Rick Perry in front of a Hercules and get quotes from the men and/or women who flew with him. Don’t show us the man playing dress up for the Single Action Shooting Society’s End of the Trail meet and expect us to be impressed.
As I said, as it stands I COULD vote for Perry if pressed which is more than I can say for Mitt Gingrich. But I would dearly love to be given some concrete reasons why.
Looking on the bright side? My feelings of doomed hopelessness were 100% accurate.
So there’s that sense of validation …
What do you care? You’ll be voting for Bob Barr anyway . . .
Yes, but mainly because he’s Barr’s stealth life partner.
Ssshhhhhh!!! Andrew Breitbart might hear you!
If he does he’ll just ask Stacy for another mustache ride.
“So I’m going to build my own treehouse. I might paint it pink. And I’ll have a little refrigerator in it, so it’ll be better.”
Will it have, like, an E-Z-Bake Oven too?
They’ll be known as the E-Z-Bake Coven.
Gerard: I’m cut to the quick! It’s a teensy microwave, if you must know.
Dan: Thread winner. (Of course, one cannot help but think of American Movie, and how Mark Borchardt insisted on pronouncing “coven” to rhyme with “oven.” Plus–a Wisconsin connex!)
Wow, that’s true. Haven’t thought about that movie in a long time, but I’ll have to give it a watch over the hols.
I meant, of course, that he insisted on not pronouncing it that way, because he didn’t like the sound. He styled it “co-ven.”
I haven’t seen that movie in years; there was something awfully charming about it.
I’m thinking ezbakecoven.com
Well I’m sure that one of us #perrygirls should be able to wire that treehouse if you let us be members. How about a little wine fridge to store the champagne in? I’ll bring it and a bottle of champagne, plus instructions from my hubby on how to wire that treehouse : )
Thanks for a great blog.
Thank you, ma’am. In a pinch, I can just use my handy-dandy indoor/outdoor extension cord.
Perry for the win. More jobs than all other states put together. The best policy plans out there. And now he’s won at least a few debates in a row. It’s an obvious choice.
If you have Lauraw, you don’t need any more girlz.
True, dat.
Anybody but Mitt. (Even Meep’s syphilitic Camel!)
As I keep saying, even Joe Biden would be better than Obama. I’d prefer the lesser of several evils to the lesser of just two evils, but pretty much anyone will be an improvement. Even the Camel!
Thank God for Ace, Red State and Big Government and their speaking up and support for Gov. Rick Perry. I am honored to also give my full support to Rick Perry.
As a blogger I have backed Rick Perry since the beginning, since the day he entered the race. One big reason is his record of achievement. We have to have an actual record to beat the Obama charm offensive. He also has a very strong fiscal and social conservative background.
In this election we must put a candidate up against Obama with a record to contrast Obama. If we put up Newt or Mitt there is no real reason to vote for those two, but Perry actually can say “I created jobs in Texas while Obama lost jobs and this is how I did it and this is how I will do it.”
Obama cannot debate, he needs a teleprompter just to talk to 6th graders. I think this election is far more serious than just wanting to see Obama verbally shredded in the debates. I want to elect someone who will honestly shred his EO’s and policies because he fundamentally understands why they are so bad for the survival of this country.
Perry has been fighting Obama where it matters, in the courts, working hard to get solid fiscal conservative Republican governors and fighting for the 10th amendment. Perry is a hard-edged conservative and a ferocious defender of 10th Amendments rights. Perry accuses the federal government, especially the Obama administration, of illegal overreach.
Newt on the other hand has enriched himself mightily at the government teat pushing big government policies. He’s taken in millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to push progressive policies. That should be a RED Flag to every voter about Newt!
Perry passed Tort Reform. Pro Gun, the list is huge the things about him I agree with.
Perry led the battle to pass the country’s most sweeping lawsuit reforms, closing the door on junk lawsuits that had been making trial lawyers rich while driving countless doctors either out of the state or the profession all together. Since Texas voters approved these reforms, malpractice claims and premiums have fallen and access to healthcare is increasing across the state as doctors have applied in droves to practice in Texas.
In 2005, Perry signed a historic $15.7 billion property tax cut for homeowners and businesses that also included new taxpayer protections against appraisal increases. In 2009, Gov. Perry secured a tax cut for approximately 40,000 small businesses in Texas and protected the Rainy Day Fund for future challenges.
Perry is a Veteran, he is from a place where eight seconds separates the men from the boys. He is for a strong Military (will not apologize to foreign governments). He will make an awesome CIC and will never treat our troops like pawns on a chess board like Obama does.
Let’s put the best candidate with the best record and the best plan to get DC off our back and restore our greatness. Not some has been insider like Newt who ran to promote his brand and not Mitt who ran to complete his resume but Perry who ran because this country is in deep shit and he saw all his parents and grandparents had worked for, his and America’s heritage being sold in DC!
Anyway this is just a few of the things why I support Rick Perry.
I just can’t wait for the election to be over so people on the internets can be assholes about something ELSE, preferably toward libs rather than other conservatives for a change. (2007 called, they want their lame blog snark back!)
Thanks for the roundup, Joy.
Perry 2012!
The real enemy–the People’s Front of Judea!!!!
Splitters!
Yup. They hate the People’s Front of Judy!
The anti-gay, let’s turn the clock-back to 1950 Rick Perry, who is too clueless to avoid the Brokeback-Mountain parody parade, is smart enough to be the US President. (How Many Supreme Court Justices are there again? 8?)
Let’s pretend that people can’t pray anytime they want to in public schools because we can’t force all of those heathens and infidels to pray the way WE WANT them to pray. (Religious Freedom was never meant to apply to “those people.” It is our inalienable right to force our point-of-view down their throats.)
Fine nominate Perry. I won’t vote for Obama, but I won’t vote for Perry either.
And, as they say, I am not alone. He managed to piss off more than few “conservatives” -that is fiscal conservatives- with his appeal to the bigot-vote. I guess that doesn’t count for anything among those on the inside. Too bad the smoke-filled-room is gone and the plebes in places like Iowa and New Hampshire actually get to have a say.
Is Obama bad for this country? Yes. Is Perry any better? No. He is hurtful in other ways.
Ah yes, the bitch whine and moan branch of the “conservative party” is like the voice of the turtle heard throughout the land. Nobody and nothing ever quite good enough.
Well, you know–if I actually believed that Perry was sincere in all of this anti-gay stuff, I’d probably be a lot more squeamish about him than I am. And I am NOT pleased by his recent pandering in that regard.
But we are fast running out of options, and I’m queasy about Gingrich. And I don’t really trust Romney.
So I appreciate the concern, and I share it to some degree.
If I thought that a President Perry might really roll back the clock to DADT, or Federalize marriage (in either direction, frankly–I don’t want the Feds to tilt either for or against gay marriage, because I want both freedom of religion AND freedom of association/contracts) . . . well, I might toggle over to Romney more willingly (rather than under a sort of duress, which may be what it comes to).
But I think Perry is pandering a bit, just to stay in the race.
I think he’s well right of center on economics, but not as hard-core a SoCon as he’s advertising himself to be.
(My readers will say they want a hard-core SoCon. No, you don’t–you’re just pushing really hard against the extreme secularism that’s being promoted in the media, but most of you would have a thing or two to say about it if you were being told how to worship.)
if I actually believed that Perry was sincere in all of this anti-gay stuff…If I thought that a President Perry might really roll back the clock to DADT, or Federalize marriage
This sounds a lot like the Andi Sullivan/Progressive “Even though Obama says he’s against gay marriage I know he secretly supports it and would veto any law against it”-type rationalization.
That’s always a danger. But whoever gets into the White House in 2013 will have his hands full with the economy. With the obvious exception of life issues (which the President isn’t involved with, but can support by using the bully pulpit to affirm states’ efforts to set limits on abortions), the focus will have to be on fostering job creation.
You could have said the same thing about President Zero in ’09 and then he went and dicked around with his social engineering agenda, blowing whatever little mandate he had going into office.
I’m not saying your wrong or that Perry would pull something like that but that I see a lot of rationalizing and over-thinking. I guess this where I somewhat agree with Ace–IMO, whichever lever most, if not all, voters pull in the voting booth is more often determined by the gut than the head.
I am a Texan…very much for my governor…Perry will leave gay marriage up to the states…where it is suppose to be. He is big on the Tenth Amendment period. As for DADT…it is what the military needs. Obama should have never reversed Clinton’s smart decision anyway. Those in the combat zones simply do not want to know they have any that are gay having to pile together to stay warm in very cold conditions especially when they cannot build fires to give the position away. Also when even the cracks of butts have to be examined for parasites that crawl there in those heavily wooded areas and such. What guy wants to know a gay is probbing around on him when surely it is bad enough to endure a guy even touching the stuff? This bit of information brought to me by an active combat soldier when I asked him about the repeal of DADT and what difference it made.
As for prayer in schools…well when and I say when…not if…because I know my governor….he gets er done! When Perry gives education back to the communities…then the communities will say if they want prayer in schools or not. As parents and schools can more actively work together as it was in my day…PTA was very much the interest of all parents to attend the meetings…because the Parent/Teacher relationship had merit…it mattered. Schools taught…they did not just babysit our children.
Let me say that Texas is not all conservative. WE have many more liberals today with the fact that schools churn them out as well as the over a thousand a day new implants from other states seeking opportunity. The liberals even get along in Texas and with Perry…why?…because when opportunity and freedom’s abound…all wants that. Perry is indeed a Presidential candidate for all of we the people. I know…he is for all the we the people in Texas.
This entire nation would do best to fall behind the only candidate who has been elected three times governor, let alone every election he won as a representative…bull dog conservative Dem at that too…which Perry began laying the ground work of conservatism in the state. Then as AG commissioner, Perry began creating jobs…as Lt. Governor under GW Bush…Perry carried the load…and as Governor he strengthened the office and has kept to the highly conservative principles…cut, cut, cut spending and after promising to not raise taxes…low and behold…he has not. Our taxes are very low. Let me also say, Texas has a nasty habit of not re-electing an incumbent. If not for the election fraud the Dem opponent pulled in Houston and other places in this last election…Perry would have won by a landslide. Texans, under Perry have learned to take care of their government…stay informed and Texas is the most transparent for us to do that too.
He has opened up the silicone valley of Texas as well as the cutting edge medical field. Our insurance, even under the treat of obama care is so low that I afford Bl Cross/Bl. Shield with dental and eye…at a very low rate, for my grandson, my spouse and I. These are only a few more things that we can attribute to Perry…he knows how to win…and he will! Obama does not even want to see Perry come out at him. Perry has before face to face met obama and laid the Texas mandates down to obama. This administration trys to find every way possible to punish or make Texas look bad…but that ends up back at obama…Perry won’t let it happen.
There were 8 judges that ruled against the particular law: There are 8 judges and one that didn’t. The ruling was 8:1.
Get it?
Posted in the wrong place.
There were 8 judges that ruled against this law, which is what Perry. ONE didn’t. The ruling was 8:1….= 9 judges in all.
Get it?
Oh I wouldn’t worry about Jeff G who is always fretting, feeling that nobody loves him, and threatening to eat worms.
When you read “my own feeble (and largely ignored) “endorsement” ” all you need to know about his unfortunate personality flaw is his compulsion to include that parenthetical statement in many many items. He’s like the kid brother born ten years after the middle brother. Always unsure of attention but always needing.
As for “support for the strong military” – bully for Perry. How many troops do we have stationed in Germany, France (not so many) Italy and the UK to fend off the imminent invasion by the Warsaw Pact? Why are we paying to defend South Korea? They are one of the preeminent economies of SE Asia. They could easily defend against the North – if we sold them the weapons to do it. They can afford it, we buy stuff from them. In case you haven’t noticed, we CAN’T afford it. The government is broke. The “strong military” doesn’t mean we have to be everything to everyone. Why can’t those (10s of thousands) of troops in Europe guard our southern border?
Being for a strong military shouldn’t mean signing a blank check. For more submarines, for another nuclear-powered carrier group. For protecting countries who should damn-well have to pay their own freight. Or at least part of the bill.
Well, I agree with you in a sense: there are sooooo many things that we take the lead in, and yet get little credit/respect for. It includes being everyone’s military backup–beyond what makes sense in terms of just keeping our technological secrets–but it also encompasses a lot of prosaic stuff like the fact that we run the CDC.
Now, the CDC does a lot of stuff that kind of branches out from its core mission, and it gets a bit far afield when it starts researching “gun violence” (puh-lease), but it is also a de facto international organization that tracks dieases all over the world–but for which the U.S. pays the bills.
In the international game of guns and butter, I tend to prefer guns–but there are a lot of areas wherein we could be reducing our footprint, and that DOES include some of the military stuff. (Though I’d stay in South Korea.)
OK. I’ll concede. Perry is better than either Joe Biden or the syphilitic Camel. (Go, Zeeba!)
He may even be better than Hillary.
If I’ve got to hold my nose and vote for him, I can do it. But I can hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul, Joe Biden, Hillary, or Zeeba, too.
Anything is better than what we have now. Anything!
And yes. Rick Perry is probably somewhat preferable to Zeeba, and reasonably better than Joe Biden or Hillary. I’m still sorting out the relative negatives between him and Ron Paul, and I’ve got a way to go to figure out which of them would worry me more. Do I want to be overrun by illegal Mexicans, or by illegal Arabs??????
Meh. I’ll go with Perry, I suspect. But I’ll have to hold my nose a good bit to do so, should it come to him.
Can we still get Sarah Palin to run? Please!!!!
Somebody? Anybody?
Well, there is the problem of us not having found any decent candidates. Which means we need to get more good people into politics–and retake some of the other institutions that the lefties made their “long march” through.
Including–most importantly–the media. If we held more of it, fewer of our folks might be scared off from running, because we could push back harder against some of these distorted narratives they push.
Like, for instance, the one that ran Sarah Palin off.