Why I am supporting Rick Perry

[Reaganfan]

I've tried to always keep an open mind as to who I'd support for President during an election. In 2006, following George Allen's gaffe and subsequent defeat, I threw my support behind Senator John McCain, even though I found myself more conservative on the issues. I felt McCain had the experience to be Commander-in-Chief. I held firm in my support of McCain in the pre-exploratory stage, then during the hard times of the McCain campaign in 2007, all the way to his nomination and eventual defeat.

This time around I truly was stumped as to who to support. Romney has a record of flip-flopping, but seems strong on economics. However, his position on health care while Governor of Massachusetts is a massive turnoff. Rick Santorum is a strong conservative and spent over a decade as a Senator from an electoral-rich state, but is prone to controversy and at least during the initial process, has little national recognition beyond politicos. Newt Gingrich faltered, Jon Huntsman did as well and is clearly just dipping into the process for a possible 2016 run, and Tim Pawlenty just doesn't have the fire in the belly to win a national election, in my view.

Why Michele Bachmann is running I really don't know. I mean, I don't mind her but the way she suddenly entered this race and has enthusiastic support surprised me. I don't really know what she ever really did to suddenly have the gravitas to jump in.

Ron Paul, to me, is a non-contender. He isn't a conservative, will not win the nomination, and why he got in again is beyond me. His position on the issues is so far from even the more liberal Republican base that it's like a member of PETA applying for a job at a slaughterhouse. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Herman Cain has no elected experience. He is a great speaker and trumpets conservative principles, but he doesn't have a real shot either.

So who should I support? In all honesty, when the list looked like that, Santorum looked best, as did Pawlenty or Romney but the support was lukewarm. I don't want this to be a Kerry 2004 type of deal where it's just "Anybody but Obama" type of language. I want to be excited for the prospect of a new Presidency and excited for a candidate, not just excited at seeing Barack Obama concede in a year.

Then I turned to Governor Perry. I am very excited about the prospect of a Perry candidacy. First, Rick Perry is an incumbent Governor of a large and prosperous state of which he has been for a decade. Second, he is a solid conservative. He can attract support from tea party people as well as the mainstream Republicans (me) and from swing voters who will be voting in a little over 14 months on the economy. Third, whether his doing or not, he can and will campaign on the fact that all Americans see Texas as this growing, booming, prosperous state while Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are in an economic recession that continues to deepen. I highly doubt people will care about whether or not Perry is the 100% reason for Texas' booming economy or whether or not Obama is the 100% reason for worsening economic recession. They will vote on the records. Governor Perry can and will tout that record, and it sure is an appealing one. Remember, I live in Ohio which is a swing state that went for Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. When I bring up Perry with people I work with that leads to conversations about Texas. "Oh yeah, my sister just moved there she loves it there, ect ect ect". Texas has become sort of dreamy in many American's eyes. The cover of the New York Times even, "Want a job? Move to Texas." Whether just or unjust, Texas' appeal can indeed out-perform Obama-mania part deux.

That record is the third reason. Fourth, he has charisma, charm and is tall, and attractive for a candidate. Those who vote on style over substance may be more persuaded by Rick Perry than even Barack Obama.

Number five, Perry will bring our evangelicals in enormous numbers, possibly bigger than in 2004. These will solidify "Bush states", make the prospects of victory in places like North Carolina, Missouri and our west much more likely, and even make a popular vote victory seem more plausible.

That leads me to reason number six...electability. I understand the media will be bias against Rick Perry. I already saw Chris Matthews showing his dislike for Perry and Texas, and I saw Juan Williams pressing how many of the jobs in Texas were minimum wage jobs, and Mr. Mustache himself Axelrod trying to begin the smear campaign against Perry. They will talk about "secession" and make the George Bush comparisons, and say he is too folksy for the mainstream. Just remember, three years ago, a Nebraska electoral vote went for an African American Senator who was a liberal Democrat. Anything can happen in politics. Does that mean Perry can win California? Doubtful, of course. How about a state like Pennsylvania? Don't doubt it.

All that aside, it seems every time Republicans nominate someone very conservative and who most question their electability...we win. When we nominate "safe" or "mainstream" candidates (Dole, McCain, Romney-types) we lose, often badly.

Rick Perry can do what John McCain was unable to, which is solidify the "Bush" states and focus on swing states.

In my opinion, the GOP's best shot at winning the Presidency next year, is to win just a few states, and solidify what is already red.

McCain had rallies in Tennessee in the closing days for goodness sakes...and lost Indiana and North Carolina. Rick Perry could solidify Tennessee and Indiana and North Carolina behind his campaign much better than McCain or a Romney would be able to do. When polls closed on election night in 2008, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi were all too close to call. That equated to an 8pm electoral count of 82 Obama, 39 McCain. Someone like Perry could solidify those states to where next year's 8pm electoral count is 75 Obama, 64 Perry or something to that effect. Basically, keeping it at least close if not over-topping early on. Indeed, a Perry ticket, if strong, could make the 9pm electoral map (even if Obama wins) look something like this:

Perry: 162
Obama: 108

Obama could still win the election, of course...but that's a hell of a lot better than McCain's 9pm total of 100 electoral votes and Obama's 175.

All of these factors and more excite me about the prospect of electing Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, our next President. That's why I am supporting him.

[Mr. Morden]

I wish I could find the Sam Spade post where he observed "The average Republican primary voter thinks like M!ke N@$0."

[I've edited the quote, to respect Reaganfan's secret identity.    ]

[Reaganfan]

I wish I could find the Sam Spade post where he observed "The average Republican primary voter thinks like M!ke N@$0."

[I've edited the quote, to respect Reaganfan's secret identity.    ]

I wish more would do that. Perhaps changing the title of a certain comedy thread in Forum Community, ect.

[Thomas D]

Well you clearly put a lot of thought into this and I respect that.

BTW, If Perry is the nominee I think Michigan will be called at 9 PM. But I could be wrong.

[rwoy]

I think Rick Perry should approach the campaign the same way he proposes solving the economy ... no action but prayer.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

For the millionth time, Rick Perry's terrible record will be his downfall. He won't be Generic R for long. (and why is Oklahoma a toss-up?)

[ZuWo]

For the millionth time, Rick Perry's terrible record will be his downfall. He won't be Generic R for long. (and why is Oklahoma a toss-up?)

What's so horrible about Perry's record? Texas appears to be economically successful, and in 2012 the economy will be the decisive issue so I don't see why that would hurt Rick Perry (even if Perry probably isn't responsible for the state of the economy in Texas).

[Zarn]

Ron Paul is not conservative?

Rick Perry is?

From what alternate universe do you hail?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've tried to always keep an open mind

Must be hard failing all the time.

[Eraserhead]

Sorry but there is no reason at all to believe that Rick Perry would magically turn North Carolina solidly Republican.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Great candidate or the greatest candidate?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

For the millionth time, Rick Perry's terrible record will be his downfall. He won't be Generic R for long. (and why is Oklahoma a toss-up?)

What's so horrible about Perry's record? Texas appears to be economically successful, and in 2012 the economy will be the decisive issue so I don't see why that would hurt Rick Perry (even if Perry probably isn't responsible for the state of the economy in Texas).

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

[useful idiot]

I'd choose Perry over Romney, and I think that's basically the choice we're faced with if we've already put aside voting for Obama or a third party.

I'd prefer Pawlenty because I think he's less dogmatically conservative economically than Perry and less flakey than Romney, but I don't see a path for him. He's as close to generic R as the Republicans are going to get, but the primary voters don't want generic. I would also take Huntsman over Romney, but that's going nowhere.

Perry, however, is probably the only candidate that can be described as mainstream that won't cause the Tea Party types to go apesh*t, and won't drive away people en masse like Bachmann would.

Maybe TPaw will win the straw poll and find his footing, maybe Hunstsman will have a great debate performance and make his case to the non-grassroots. For now though I'm with you, Perry it is...

[John Dibble]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I like Perry, he is my second choice behind Paul (who wont win the primaries anyway , though he will make a mark). I know Paul and Perry have been critical of eachother, but I like Perry. I am glad he carries the States Rights banner.

[CatoMinor]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

Not as much as a guy from last year who was executed for being with a guy who shot a store clerk while the actual shooter only got life imprison. It was recommended that the guy's sentence be commuted (something rare in Texas I believe) yet Perry had to look tough on crime for his primary so refused to do so.

[krazen1211]

Solid website.

http://www.rickperry.org/

[krazen1211]

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

It's amusing to see liberals spout that class warfare statement given Obama's own record on 'income inequality' as you put it.

[krazen1211]

Solid website.

http://www.rickperry.org/

I checked it out.

How come it doesn't mention the atrocious high school drop out rate or the even more atrocious teen pregnancy rate in Texas?

It didn't mention why Texas leads in number of minimum wage jobs.  Neither did it touch on the $27 billion deficit Perry saddled Texas with.

Maybe he'll update the site.

Maybe you should update your facts. That $27 billion deficit no longer exists.

[King]

Solid website.

http://www.rickperry.org/

I checked it out.

How come it doesn't mention the atrocious high school drop out rate or the even more atrocious teen pregnancy rate in Texas?

It didn't mention why Texas leads in number of minimum wage jobs.  Neither did it touch on the $27 billion deficit Perry saddled Texas with.

Maybe he'll update the site.

Maybe you should update your facts. That $27 billion deficit no longer exists.

He got rid of it, but he also created it.

Also, a .org is a bad choice for a President candidate.  I bet he's working on purchasing the .com from the swindler who owns it.

[krazen1211]

[quote author=krazen1211 link=topic=139500.msg2989708#msg2989708 date=1313266683

He got rid of it, but he also created it.

Also, a .org is a bad choice for a President candidate.  I bet he's working on purchasing the .com from the swindler who owns it.

Certainly. Now, liberals don't like the methods he used. That's why we have campaigns.

I wonder how many more jobs he can take from California in the next year.

http://www.statesman.com/business/ea-sports-expanding-austin-presence-bringing-300-jobs-1618774.html

[King]

Governor of Texas is a fun position.  The Texas state constitution allocates most of the administrative responsibilities to the Lt. Governor and the State Legislature, far more than any other state in the union.  Most Texas Governors are nothing more than figureheads.  Dewhurst is a rather weak Lt. Gov who Perry controlled like Putin controls Medvedev, but Perry probably had more of a direct influence on the state when Bush was Governor than he did when was Governor.

[krazen1211]

Perry is using the same Romney stealth tax strategy.  It will all come out.  Just like Romney he is inventing and raising all kinds of "fees."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yawn. Even that's a lot better than places like California, where of course tuition has tripled, along with the regular tax hikes that have been put in place.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

It's amusing to see liberals spout that class warfare statement given Obama's own record on 'income inequality' as you put it.

Which is atrocious. Right.

Unfortunately, for leftists, American politics is increasingly a game of less-bad options.

[Simfan34]

Governor of Texas is a fun position.  The Texas state constitution allocates most of the administrative responsibilities to the Lt. Governor and the State Legislature, far more than any other state in the union.  Most Texas Governors are nothing more than figureheads.  Dewhurst is a rather weak Lt. Gov who Perry controlled like Putin controls Medvedev, but Perry probably had more of a direct influence on the state when Bush was Governor than he did when was Governor.

I... did not know that.