GOP may have a contender in the wings
Despite the trouble President Obama has brought upon himself in the course of his first term, it is very likely he will be reelected in 2012. Election results from the last three generations bear this out.
George W. Bush served two terms in spite of being bogged down in Iraq and delivering painfully embarrassing debate performances. Of course, John Kerry was a godsend for him.
Bill Clinton went two terms despite a stream of scandals. Granted, he had Bob Dole campaigning for him.
The elder Bush went down after just one term in 1992. But he didn’t really want to win, and Ross Perot’s candidacy allowed Clinton to squeak in with less than majority support.
Ronald Reagan won his’84 landslide with an economy trembling toward recovery. But Walter Mondale’s youth and inexperience helped.
Look what it took to unseat Jimmy Carter. Runaway inflation and through-the-roof interest rates, gas shortages, hostages in Iran, people burning our embassies around the world, and a challenge from within his own party by Ted Kennedy. But even given all that, he still might have won had it not been for the “Debacle in the Desert,” his failed attempt to rescue the 53 American hostages in Tehran. It also took a master campaigner (”Let’s make America great again,” “There he goes again”) to dislodge him.
It took the fallout from Watergate to defeat Gerald Ford, including his pardon of Richard Nixon.
Speaking of Nixon, he won reelection in the midst of Vietnam . . . and big time! George McGovern and his 3 a.m. convention acceptance speech is not enough to explain the win.
Lyndon Johnson declined to run for a second complete term.
John F. Kennedy? It’s too sad to mention.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: two terms. No problem.
So, barring hyperinflation brought on by wildly reckless government spending, which we should pray will not happen, we can expect a second term for Barack Obama.
But if there is someone on the GOP side who can beat him, it may be Texas Gov. Rick Perry. It did not take much to generate wide excitement last week over a possible Perry run. Asked whether he might seek the Republican nomination after the end of this state legislative session, the governor responded, “Yes sir, I’m going to think about it. But I think about a lot of things.”
Perry is strong with the Tea Party folks on account of his active defense of the 10th Amendment in the face of Obamacare’s encroachments and his record as a budget-cutter.
In a field of candidates crowded with governors, Perry’s executive experience is in one of the largest states in the union. He has shown that he can win—an unprecedented three terms with a strong victory in 2010—and in a growing state with a large Hispanic population.
He also passes the Katie Couric test. He reads. And he reads the right stuff. In a Wall Street Journal interview not long ago, he highlighted Friedrich Hayek’s classic of political and economic liberty, The Road to Serfdom, and The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, her account of how Franklin D. Roosevelt’s interventionist policies actually deepened and lengthened the Depression. “Amity’s book is very eye-opening—scary—for me,” he said. You can judge a man by what scares him.
Shelby Steele says the problem for any candidate facing Barack Obama is that he or she must run against not only Obama the man, but also Obama the icon. This means that whoever leads the Republican ticket has to be somehow larger than life. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is a good man with good principles, but he’s a man of quite human proportions. Others in the race are all-too-human. At the South Carolina debate, I saw men who were trying hard to convince us that they belong on the stage. Sarah Palin was not there, though she seems made for the stage. But one wonders what kind of stage. Like everything in Texas, Rick Perry seems be a large enough character to fill any stage, even one he would share with a sitting president, perhaps even an iconic sitting president.
It’s still early and I’m skeptical. Political leaders are rarely as good as they seem, if they seem good at all. It is, after all, their business to seem better than they are. But I’m watching.
Perry may decide to serve out his third term as governor, which has only just begun, and then hit the campaign trail for 2016. But he knows that by that time the damage to the country may run so deep that what we have always known as America may be unsalvageable.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top114 Comments to “GOP may have a contender in the wings”
Mexicans, terrorists, and socialism?
Report comment to moderator
Wow, how profoundly disappointing, World an DC Innes!
So glad I checked before retweeting…
Most unchristian and uncharitable is your mocking and belittling of Sarah Palin.
Goodness, don’t you take seriously the Biblical truth that a) we will answer for every word that we speak/type? and b) let every word that comes out be for encouragement and edification?
Palin reads and reads a lot. You, sir, apparently do not. She has quoted Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Paine, etc.
The fact that you let Katie Couric set your narrative is profoundly disappointing for a paid writer at World magazine.
And that you think that Rick Perry (please study how weak the Governor of Texas is as an executive position (one of the weakest in the U.S.) versus how strong the Governor of Alaska is (one of the strongest in the U.S.) is more well-read and/or has accomplished more than Sarah Palin shows that you know as much about Palin as Couric does.
If you wanna’ shill for Rick Perry, fine. He’s great on the 10th amendment. But please check out his mandatory-HPV-vaccine-for-teenage-girls program if you want to talk about limited government conservatives.
And please don’t gratuitously bash Palin to make your case for Perry.
Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, I see very limited mention of Palin–and justified, really.
This is one conservative who will vote third party (first time ever) if Palin is the nominee.
Report comment to moderator
Rick Perry? The guy who a couple of years ago said that Texas will secede from the Union if it wants to? Good luck with THAT!
Report comment to moderator
“In a field of candidates crowded with governors, Perry’s executive experience is in one of the largest states in the union.”
Well golly gee whiz. So is Alaska, and what’s that get Palin?
More hatemail I guess.
What’s your beef with Palin, Cheryl?
Report comment to moderator
The “stage” Sarah Palin will be on is yet to be seen. She has all the chutzpah necessary for being everything we need–if she quits being lambasted by people at every level–the Republican elite notwithstanding.
As for Rick Perry–not sure yet. He’ll have to come on the scene and be measured on all accounts–fiscal responsibility, the social issues (i.e., abortion, same-sex marriage) before I consider the possibilities for him.
Obama is beatable. Are we willing to choose the candidate who will pose enough of a threat to him, or just some other “guy” who wants to go across the aisle (like McCain) and never come back?
Report comment to moderator
“Obama is beatable.”
SURE HE IS! But not by any of the Republican contenders so far.
Colin Powell could beat Barack Obama, but he doesn’t seem interested in running, and he probably wouldn’t get the blessing of social conservatives. Rudy Guiliani could beat Obama, and he MIGHT be in the running, but he DEFINITELY wouldn’t get the blessing of social conservatives.
Of all the so-called “frontrunners” in the GOP, Mitt Romney seems the most mainstream. But will evangelicals vote for a Mormon? Probably not.
Report comment to moderator
Here are the things that will come up to haunt Perry if he runs:
1. Guilt by association with Bush given they share a home state.
2. Adios, mofo.
3. Why don’t you just let us get on down the road?
4. Required Gardasil vaccinations, which on its face should offend the personal liberty crowd, but even moreso when the recommendation was made after heavy lobbying by Merck.
5. Trans-Texas Corridor. Here Perry was going to seize huge swaths of private land under eminent domain in order to build a super-highway to support additional truck traffic due to NAFTA.
6. Perry floats the idea of secession.
7. Was a Democrat until 1989.
8. Chaired the campaign to elect Al Gore in Texas in 1988.
Report comment to moderator
Friends–A brief book review I wrote on a book by EAGLE SCOUT Rick Perry (”On My Honor”) is published on line and can be read at:
http://www.campuscrosswalk.org/online/Resources/Reviews/BookReviewOnMyHonor/tabid/306/Default.aspx
Report comment to moderator
#4 – POLISHBEAR, Obama ran and won on a campaign that amounted to a virtual secession from American principles. He wanted to “fundamentally change” America (not just reform her)! That’s secession rhetoric and the left loved it. Also, the raw racist and anti-American rhetoric coming from his beloved church of 20 years in Chicago did not seem to matter to leftists. Many cheered for it. Obama’s apologies for America did not stop voters either.
Report comment to moderator
The book review link at #9 shows, at a personal level, that Governor Perry is well worth considering with an open mind. I like a lot of the Republican candidates (and potentials) and I look forward to considering Perry’s merits for this particular job.
That people like BUDDYGLASS, at #8, are all prepared so early to hash out Democrat Party opposition talking points in such detail shows that Gov. Perry may be better than any of us thought at first. Maybe Perry scares the leftists ideologues and Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
The Gardasil might matter in the primaries against other GOP candidates, but the left can’t criticize it. They think it’s great. Don’t just vaccinate them, tell them what to eat, drink and drive.
Report comment to moderator
“Mexicans, terrorists, and socialism?”
Those things scare me. Can’t wait for the cartels(which Obama is arming!) come to NJ.
Report comment to moderator
Christie still refuses to run, but the Dems seem to fear him.
Report comment to moderator
When we allow Demcorat-manufactured and media-magnified opposition talking points to influence our considerations for the Republican primaries, we have decided to lose already. Let them smear (it’s a free country) without allowing it to slightly influence our respectful considerations.
Legit criticisms are fair and must be considered in a fair context, which Demcorat-manufactured and media-magnified opposition talking points specifically ignore.
Report comment to moderator
#8 Buddy Glass
Yes Sir. All you say is right. I think the nation has for a few decades at least “sworn off” cowboy candidates. Perry could prove to be another Harry Truman about whom everyone had low expectations.
And yes, the post Civil War constitution rendered the Texas Gov office largely ceremonial. Very little actual power. The Lieutenant Gov wields huge power and I bet only 1 in 10 Texans could even tell you who that is [David Dewhurst]
On a side note, the state now mourns the passing of Wm P. “Dollar Bill” Clements. He was the first freely-chosen R gov in Texas. [Edmund J. Davis was appointed by Union troop commanders in 1865]
Report comment to moderator
What about Buddy’s criticism was unfair?
Perry did make headlines with his talk about Texas seceding from the United States of America.
In a party where ideological purity is paramount (and in a climate — as your own posts frequently evidence — in which “Dem” stands for “Demon”), the fact that he was a Democrat and campaigned for Democrats until 1990 is going to be an issue.
And really, isn’t it a valid criticism that the government should not be forcing 11 year old girls to get vaccinated against STDs? I have no doubt that if a Democrat signed such a law, this blog would express its outrage with the usual screeds against Democrats and their big gubmint ways. Surely that issue would, as Buddy said, be a problem for Perry in the primaries.
1, 2, and 3 are just perception problems, but they would likely get their run in the media. In this day and age, perception problems are real problems for a candidate.
So what specifically is unfair and taken out of context?
Report comment to moderator
Perry did make headlines with his talk about Texas seceding from the United States of America.
Personally I think he was just trying to score points with the Tea Party crowd he was addressing. I doubt Perry supports secession or views it as something Texas could feasibly pursue. Of course, the fact he’s willing to imply he’s okay with secession when he actually isn’t doesn’t exactly endear him to me.
And really, isn’t it a valid criticism that the government should not be forcing 11 year old girls to get vaccinated against STDs?
I know I’m arguing against myself here, but this was overblown to a certain degree. In Texas you can get an exemption from the required vaccinations; you just have to fill out a form every few years. Nobody was going to hold them down and administer it. It just means lots of parents who don’t care enough to get the exemption would go with the flow and have their daughters vaccinated. The criticism Perry received on this particular issue actually came from the right and it came specifically because the vaccine attempts to protect against a contagion that’s spread through sexual contact. Requiring the vaccination came to be viewed in a similar way to preemptively putting teenage girls on hormonal birth control, i.e. as inviting bad behavior.
1, 2, and 3 are just perception problems, but they would likely get their run in the media.
I agree on #1 and #2, but #3 IMO exposes a deeper issue. Perry is eminently willing to abuse his position to place himself above the law. And not on something big or important either; it only took a potential speeding ticket.
Report comment to moderator
Dredging up things from 20+ years ago has some value, but that value diminishes the farther back you go. The fact that he speaks well of Hayek and Shlaes, and has actually read their books, makes my ears perk up. Not that I trust any politician, but the principles embodied in those books are certainly a good start, and if someone has “seen the [economic] light” in a genuine way, I’m not going to automatically write him off based on some event from 1989. As for the fact that he shares a home state with Dubya, I think people are more intelligent than to ascribe any significance to that.
Report comment to moderator
He loves America so much that he invited Texas to leave it.
Report comment to moderator
As for Obama’s re-electibility, I think it shouldn’t be much of a problem. Even the American Public’s short attention span still will not let them forget the economic collapse that followed eight years of our last R President. And the tea partiers are doing a great of exposing the true goals of the R party. Except for maybe precipitating some kind of economic armageddon by not raising the debt ceiling.
As for Perry, the post sure looks like part of an organized trial balloon to me.
I still think Pawlenty who doesn’t have a long record and is a superb political tap dancer will emerge eventually.
Meanwhile, RUN, SARAH, RUN!
Report comment to moderator
“Except for maybe precipitating some kind of economic armageddon by not raising the debt ceiling.”
Leaving the debt ceiling where it is will not be the cause of economic armageddon. Letting this out of control congress, administration, and FED continue the status quo will be the cause of economic armageddon.
They have to be stopped.
Report comment to moderator
MIM, I’ve stated my “beef” with Palin numerous times. Yes, she was conservative enough that her presence on the ticket swayed me to vote for McCain, but honestly nothing I’ve seen from her since then has ever impressed me, so I don’t understand conservative excitement over her.
But the reality is this: She already has a full-time job, wife and mother, and I have no interest in hiring her away from that role.
Report comment to moderator
JJF asked, “What about Buddy’s criticism was unfair?”
What is wrong with my asking for a fair and open mind? I was speaking in general, merely asking for a fair and open mind that is not easily misled by quick-draw partisan opposition talking points. Is there anything unfair about that?
As I pointed out, for me, BUDDYGLASS was just a bit too quick with a long list of attacks, as if they were prepared in advance by some web-site or by the Democrat Party or someone who supplies BUDDYGLASS’ information. Who knows. That’s just my impression and I have the freedom here to offer my perspective.
Why would the leftists on this blog be so seemingly afraid that we take an open mind to our own considerations for the REPUBLICAN primary elections?
Actually, JJF, “Dem” stands for Demagogue, not demon.
And maybe I would be outraged about gov’t mandating girls to get STD vacinations. I did not comment either way. You see, I have an open mind to flaws in candidates too.
Report comment to moderator
The fact that he speaks well of Hayek and Shlaes, and has actually read their books…
Would that be the same Hayek who wrote:
(emphases mine)
Report comment to moderator
As I pointed out, for me, BUDDYGLASS was just a bit too quick with a long list of attacks, as if they were prepared in advance by some web-site or by the Democrat Party or someone who supplies BUDDYGLASS’ information.
I live in Texas so I get more Rick Perry news than most. I compiled the list by myself.
Report comment to moderator
Palin has a desire for celebrity. So be it. But I wouldn’t vote for that.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – Good, you’re actually referencing The Road to Serfdom by economic Nobel Prize-winner, F. A. Hayek. I suggest you and everyone else read the entire book, as well as his other works, which were the inspiration for Margaret Thatcher and the entire world’s move toward free markets, and away from government wage and price controls (and central planning in general) in the 1980s and 1990s. One such other work is an elegant little essay, easily found through google, entitled “The Use of Knowledge in Society” – it has a wonderful explanation of why the price signal system is superior to government central planning in allocating raw materials and goods to where they are most highly valued. If you don’t have time to read the whole Road to Serfdom book, check out the condensed version at the following link:
http://www.tfasinternational.org/aipe/academics/morriss2008/hayekroadtoserfdom.pdf
If you don’t have time to read that, then go right to page 63 and see the cartoon version. It’s very clever.
Report comment to moderator
According to liberals, Barack Obama could beat Obama. Barack Obama the man who ran in 2008, that is.
The predicament that Obama faces is worse than the choice Lincoln had to make.
The South pushed Lincoln into choosing between saving the Union and saving 600,000 lives.
The New South is pushing Obama into choosing between saving Medicare and saving the world economy. If Obama doesn’t appease Republicans, the number of marginally subsisting people who would die around the world would far exceed 600,000.
Yet, Medicare is the Union.
Report comment to moderator
Of course there’s nothing wrong with an open mind, Joel. But you don’t seem to have one regarding criticism of the candidate. You immediately, without listing a single reason or defense or argument, dismissed those criticisms as “Democrat-manufactured opposition talking points” and “smears” which were not “fair [or] considered in context,” whose very existence recommended Perry because the likes of BuddyGlass dared speak them.
That sounds like a mind closed up and packed away, not an open mind.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy (#19),
You said about Perry: “The fact that he speaks well of Hayek and Shlaes, and has actually read their books, makes my ears perk up.”
Makes my ears perk up also!!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl (#23),
I agree with the vast majority of your posts, BUT I really disagree with you regarding Sarah Palin!
Nevertheless, I don’t think that she is going to enter the race – but I love what she will do to the leftists in the meantime.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu, you devil! I am enjoying it, too. I wouldn’t tell them whre I was going either.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu 31 –
Report comment to moderator
The fact that he speaks well of Hayek and Shlaes, and has actually read their books…
Would that be the same Hayek who wrote:
Not Salma Hayek then?
Nevertheless, I don’t think that she is going to enter the race – but I love what she will do to the leftists in the meantime.
What is it you imagine she does to “leftists?”
I love how every time liberals point out real and significant criticisms of a conservative darling, a few people dependably pipe up to say “Oh you must be scared of” … that person. (Such as #11) It’s a very weird attempt to make the criticisms go away (it doesn’t work by the way), and it’s delightfully surreal.
Report comment to moderator
The election is Obama’s to lose.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, as I already stated, the open mind that I advocate and seek is one that is open to all the facts in context, positive or negative. I said nothing to contradict that so you are wrong.
And Republicans should not let leftist Democrat opposition talking points smear our candidates unduly without a fair consideration of the context.
As far as Democrats go, their minds are so open that they uncritically supported a wealth-spreading socialist who runs down our country routinely, and had a 20-year close relationship with an America hating racist pastor. They do not care that he has broken most of his Bush-bashing campaign promises and become a virtual Bush clone on the war on terrorism. Their minds are so open that their brains have leaked out, in my humble opinion.
Report comment to moderator
#36 Atheist-Jew
“The election is Obama’s to lose.”
It fell out of his pocket. Obama is looking around for it on the ground. The wind has just picked up and is blowing it away from him.
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin is one of the most unstained prospects that has come along for decades for Republicans. That’s why the Democrats have been desperate for three years to destroy her. But there’s little substance to the smears. She a decent woman who ran Alaska rather well and did nothing to hurt Alaska when she left. And she has an incredible voice. This drives Dems craaaaazy.
But the problem is not the Democrat Party smear-meisters. It is Republican and moderate sycophants (longing for the love of the secular left) who allow the Dems to control our hearts and minds regarding Sarah Palin and most any candidate. This includes George Will and Charles Krauthammer, to some extent. Dick Morris is a total sycophant for the culture that controls him.
Since the left has succeeded in smearing Palin even in the hearts and minds of weak-minded Republicans, they are empowered to try the same tactics on anyone and everyone conservatives present. And it works.
Stop it, Republicans! Think for yourselves. this is OUR primary. The nation can reject OUR candidate if they want to in the final election, but don’t let the left choose that candidate for us now. Thin for yourself. Don’t let the culture-temperature-takers control you. Reject Palin if you wish, but let it NOT be because she’s got too many manufactured negatives. The Democrats piled those on to her illegitimately, in my view.
She’s awesome, but my mind is still quite open as to who I will vote for.
Report comment to moderator
D.C. Innes – You make some valid points about the advantage of the incumbency for the office of POTUS, but I think you discount the importance of the economy. If the economy continues to stink in 2012, I would think BHO will be fairly easily beatable, so long as the GOP nominates someone who is a principled conservative but also doesn’t spook independents. Perhaps someone like Pawlenty.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – you do an incredible job here. I don’t know where you get all the energy, but you’re a great encouragement to all of us who love liberty and justice.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
“Since the left has succeeded in smearing Palin even in the hearts and minds of weak-minded Republicans . . .” is way, way too strong. Since I am one of the few on this thread who has spoken out against Palin, it’s possible you consider me one of the weak-minded Republicans influenced by the media. If so, nothing could be further from the truth.
I have no idea whether my TV works. I haven’t subscribed to a newspaper or secular newsmagazine for many years, nor even seen many issues of such. My media exposure is quite minimal. My personal stated reasons are being “unimpressed” (that would include thinking she is not knowledgeable enough, and too “cutesy,” to be a serious contender, and also the sense that leaving the office one holds to be a reality show star or whatever it is she is doing is hardly building a good resume) and believing that a wife and mother should not focus on a job that is more than full time (this is a biblical assessment, not a media-driven one).
I appreciate that you like Palin. Some of us think that she had better not be the “best” the Republicans can come up with, because she isn’t a good candidate and she almost certainly wouldn’t win anyway. That isn’t a media-driven opinion, and it certainly isn’t more “biased” than your liking her.
Report comment to moderator
I have to go with Cheryl a little bit on this one. I don’t buy what the Left says about Palin. It is so well-orchestrated that they have to be afraid of her. That said, there is something she lacks. Now, in comparison to Obama, his education has not been a plus. I’m not seeing it at all. If he’s all that smart, why doesn’t the country get better? It just isn’t getting better. And he is NOT dealing honestly with The People. Sorry, but all he wants to do is kick the can down the road — and there’s no more road. Someone who loves this country wouldn’t care about himself and his new limos. He’d put the country first. He’s not doing that. Sarah, whatever you say, would do a better job, whatever she lacks, because all we need here is a SPINE, and she’s got one.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – I don’t buy what the Left says about Palin. It is so well-orchestrated that they have to be afraid of her.
That (the fear) is the very reason they contract Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Report comment to moderator
Perry would find support on the immigration issue from alot of people. He also has some positives, especially economic. This election will be about the economy. Cue James Carville.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1862.pdf
“Texas’ economy continued to outperform the U.S. economy, gaining 254,000 jobs from April
2010 to April 2011, an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent (Table 1 and Figure 1). Over the same
period, U.S. nonfarm employment rose 1.1 percent (Table 1 and Figure 1). The state’s private
sector also exceeded U.S. figures, posting an annual employment growth rate of 3 percent
compared with 1.7 percent for the U.S. private sector from April 2010 to April 2011 (Table 1).
Texas’ seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 8 percent in April 2011 from 8.2 in April
2010. Over the same period, the nation’s rate decreased from 9.8 to 9 percent (Table 1).
Table 2 shows Texas industries ranked by employment growth rate from April 2010 to April
2011. Table 3 shows the relative importance of the state’s industries based on number of
employees.
All Texas industries except the information industry had more jobs in April 2011 than in April
2010 (Table 2).”"
Texas seems to be doing what Obama can’t nationally. His ideas certainly bear consideration.
Report comment to moderator
Immigration, also a positive.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/governor-rick-perry-on-obamas-immigration-speech-the-guys-a-stand-up-comic/
“This is a president who is more interested in trying out for Saturday Night Live it seems like… The guy’s a stand-up comic, and that was what he was playing to. The fact of the matter is, Americans don’t want a stand-up comic for the President of the United States. Anyone who knows what’s happening on the border of Texas and Mexico or, for that matter, the southern border of the United States with Mexico realizes this is not comedy; there are people’s lives in jeopardy every day.
And that sentiment just might have something to do with the Governor’s strained relationship with Washington:
I’m the Governor of the state of Texas. I don’t need to be briefed by people 1,500 miles away from Texas to tell me what’s going on, on immigration and border security. I know, I’ve got people who are putting their lives on the line to keep our citizens safe.
“We need this administration to be engaged,” Perry added, “to be actively trying to find solutions, not standing up and doing Saturday Night Live comedy in El Paso, Texas and making fun of people who are putting their lives on the line. I find that to be reprehensible.” Given how terrible SNL has been for some time now, that’s really got to sting.”
Report comment to moderator
Sarah Palin is a great person and did a good job as governor. But she has as much chance as a shepherd boy against a giant. It would take a miracle.
As DC says, “Despite the trouble President Obama has brought upon himself in the course of his first term, it is very likely he will be reelected in 2012.”
Yup. That’s because he is Machiavelli’s Prince who has full access to the entire US Treasury which he used to buy off unions, the biggest banks, the biggest corporations and gave paybacks galore to his cronies, calling it stimulus of all things.
Having placed a moratorium on US drilling Obama used his power to prop up the Soros oil conglomerate Petroleo Brasileiro (Petrobas) while he was in Brazil secretly starting an illegal war with Libya to support European oil interests.
Anyone who takes on Obama will be like a country bumpkin taking on a gangster who rules the world and will stop at nothing to take down his opponents.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/texas-gov-perry-passing-immigration-laws-naught-if-you-don039t-secure-border
“VAN SUSTEREN: Well, we were recently down on your border with Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. She announced two things. One is that you were getting some troops, and the other thing is I think you’re getting anywhere from $12 million to $15 million to help secure your borders. Is it insufficient? And I know that you’ve also invited the president down there and sent him a letter. But are they just not doing enough? Because it seems they’re at least trying to do something.
PERRY: Well, I said this was a good first step. But look, we — we got a 1,200-mile border. They’re talking about sending 1,250 National Guard troops to an 1,800-mile border that we have with Mexico, the entire U.S./Mexico border. The idea that you’re going to send 280 to Texas is — it’s almost — it’s offensive, the fact of the matter is. And I’ve said that. I’ve said it to the administration and I’ve said it publicly.
You need 3,000 Border Patrol on the border between El Paso and Brownsville. That 1,200 miles, you need Predator drones in the air. You need technology, whether it’s night vision. You need motion detectors and the types of cameras that we can use. You — you can secure the border. We’ve done it. Greta, we spend $115 million to $120 million biannum (ph) using our own Texas state troopers, our Texas Rangers, our National Guard to go in where the federal government has been abject failures at this.
You know, here’s one of my great concerns, is that we have a federal government that’s now suing to stop states from doing border security, and that’s their responsibility. I mean, it’s becoming really frustrating when we’re seeing a Mexican governor assassinated across the border from Texas. You’ve got bullets hitting the city hall in El Paso. You’ve got bombs exploding in El Paso.
The border with Mexico is a war zone. These drug cartels are using it as a base of operations, and we’ve got to have our federal government come in and secure that border because if you don’t secure the border, you’re never going to have immigration reform. You can pass laws until the world looks level, it’s not going to make any difference. Secure the border, Mr. President!”
What he said. Ditto.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, it’s all just Petrified of Palin Syndrome.;)
RUN, SARAH, RUN!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think you guys are afraid of Palin. I think, like Obama, you’re snooty elititist, who honestly think a hick like her wouldn’t stand a chance. As usual, you underestimate her. Just like you underestimate how vulnerable your buddy Obama is. I think you’ll be surprised, not by Palin though. But lets face it, just about anything else would be an improvement. A guy like Perry could actually help the economy, unlike Obama. This will be all about the economy and jobs. People aren’t buying the alleged recovery, and they’re watchin’ jobs disappear. Obama owns that now. He’s very beatable.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: It is so well-orchestrated that they have to be afraid of her.
Oh yeah. We’re terrified. Shaking in our boots, you betcha.
hehehehe .. yeah, keep telling yourself that. Palin’s probably a nice and decent person, but she has no chance, NONE, of ever being elected to the White House.
Go ahead and nominate her. Obama’s re-election would be a lock from the moment that nomination is announced. Seriously.
The only Republican contenders who might have a real chance of beating Obama are Pawlenty and Romney. Nominating Gingrich or Palin would be conceding the election.
Frankly, I hope Pawlenty or Romney gets the nomination. I’d actually consider voting for one of them. I really don’t want to vote for Obama again, so it would be nice to have an option I could support.
Report comment to moderator
And a thank you to Conan, for proving my point.
Report comment to moderator
Well, at least the first part. But honestly Conan, would you really pull the R lever? I find that a little hard to believe.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I agree with what Buzzy said at #41! I will treat you to dinner sometime.
Report comment to moderator
#47: You do know that Obama is really from another planet, right? His mission here is to prepare the world for invasion by weakening global defenses as much as possible, including economically. Ideally his people will wait until 2016 to send the fleet of attack ships, but if he loses re-election (because the satellite-based mind-control network is only so powerful), they will take stock of the situation in 2012 and decide if he made enough progress for them to proceed.
Report comment to moderator
AJ: Oh please. There’s nothing “elitist” about what I said, nor do I consider Palin a “hick.” I know hundreds of people personally, and thousands more from the news, who I think are very smart, capable and decent that also would not stand a chance of being elected president.
You guys think we’re either “afraid” of Palin or else take your approach and insist we look down on her. I think this defensiveness and your need to find any explanation other than that we really just don’t think she’s presidential material suggests that you know we’re right.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I predict that Mitt Romney will get the nomination and supposedly conservative Christians will “hold their noses” and vote for him as “the lesser of two evils.” And he’ll lose against Obama.
I would like to ask all the so-called conservatives here if they feel that their vote for John McCain was a wasted vote, since he didn’t win. That’s what you always hear–that a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote. However, a vote for the loser is just as much a wasted vote–and you did not vote according to your actual convictions.
Why do Christians insist that you have to vote either for a Democrat or a Republican? Shouldn’t you vote for the person who will do the job best and his views are in as much alignment with your own as possible?
Report comment to moderator
It is Republican and moderate sycophants (longing for the love of the secular left) who allow the Dems to control our hearts and minds regarding Sarah Palin and most any candidate. This includes George Will and Charles Krauthammer, to some extent. Dick Morris is a total sycophant for the culture that controls him.
Please, let’s not stop at questioning the conservative bona fides of George Will and Charles Krauthammer, because they’re by far not the only conservative voices poo-poo-ing Palin. There’s also David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Kathleen Parker, Mona Charen, David Keene, Karl Rove, David Frum, Dorothy Rabinowitz, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Peggy Noonan, Joe Scarborough and Michael Medved.
See post #23 here for full quotes.
Palin’s probably a nice and decent person, but she has no chance, NONE, of ever being elected to the White House.
Disagree on the first, agree on the second. I saw one poll that had Dennis Kucinich beating Palin in a hypothetical matchup. Let that sink in for a second.
Frankly, I hope Pawlenty or Romney gets the nomination. I’d actually consider voting for one of them. I really don’t want to vote for Obama again, so it would be nice to have an option I could support.
Ick and double-Ick. I probably would have voted for Daniels. Johnson has some appeal except for his being pro-choice. In his case, though, he’s totally unelectable. I might have considered voting for Christie, but he’s probably not going to run unless someone taps him as VP. Looks like I’m stuck voting for Obama again. Or writing in whomever’s name I happen to like, even if they’re not their party’s nominee. I live in Texas so my vote in the general election essentially doesn’t count. At least Texas has open primaries so I can vote against Palin if she decides to run.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I predict that Mitt Romney will get the nomination and supposedly conservative Christians will “hold their noses” and vote for him as “the lesser of two evils.” And he’ll lose against Obama.
Agree 100%. Though I do think some of the passionate Tea Party types will vote for third party candidates (Libertarian or Constitution) or just stay home.
Report comment to moderator
If I were a betting man, this is where I’d put my money.
As for being afraid of Palin or thinking she’s too hick to win… Well, the “irrational fear” thesis cuts both ways. Maybe you’re just afraid of Obama because he’s finally putting this country back on the right track and taking it away from your fatcat Wall Street pals. Maybe you’re a racist who thinks a non-white president can’t run the country well. Maybe you just find powerful and sexy black men threatening.
I don’t actually believe any of that, but it’s no more nonsensical than the sort of stuff that is said by conservatives on every single Palin thread on this board. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives have very good reasons for disliking Palin. It’s dishonest and weak to invent irrational reasons as red herrings for the glaringly obvious real reasons.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D wrote; “Since I am one of the few on this thread who has spoken out against Palin, it’s possible you consider me one of the weak-minded Republicans influenced by the media.”
Please note, CHREYL, that I did not make my comments with you in mind. But it all depends on why you speak out against her. Frankly, a couple of the reasons you gave do not sound very fair or substantive. Too “cutsie”? It was indeed the media’s purpose to make us all think she was not a serious contender. My entire point was that I think she can be a serious contender. And I think you are downfight wrong that she is not knowledgeable enough. She has not been poinsoned by an Ivy League education and that’s a huge plus for me (although many can survive such indoctrination with some wisdom). But I respect your objection about her quitting mid-term, although it is not a major point. As for the point about a possible conflict with her mom or wife role, I respect your point there too (although Palin would brissle at that, probably).
Do you agree that some Republicans (not necessarily you) have indeed ben moved away from supporting Palin by the smear jobs she sustained from the left?
Report comment to moderator
BUDDY GLASS, you can list all the pundits you want and fail to mention how different their reasons are for whatever criticisms they have offered regarding Palin, but I still think for myself.
I have not even voiced support for Palin in terms of who I would vote for or not. All I do is respectully consider her serious and I get flack (in different forms) from right and left.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I don’t consider CHERYL’s post as “flack.”
Report comment to moderator
But I do like the maxim, if you are getting flack, you must be over the target.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A asked, “Why do Christians insist that you have to vote either for a Democrat or a Republican?”
Has anyone here ever used their Christianity or some sort of faith basis to say this? I don’t think so. In fact, no one has ever to my knowledge said anyone “has” to vote any way. It’s a pragmatic point of realism. Do you get the point about splitting a ticket? Just use your head and vote how you please. It cannot be that hard to get.
KYLE, work hard NOW for the candidate you most like who holds the principles you hold. And don’t place your faith in politics orpoliticians (not that you are).
And — No, the 2008 final presidential vote for McCain was not a waste, not with Obama on the ticket and NO ONE ELSE near enough to stand as a viable alternative to Obama.
KYLE asked, “Shouldn’t you vote for the person who will do the job best and his views are in as much alignment with your own as possible.”
In the primaries? Sure. Kyle, do you understand the practical difference when it comes to the final election? I think you do.
_______
Report comment to moderator
I missed on some of the bold font technicals.
Report comment to moderator
When Kyle says Christians insist you “have to” vote for either D or R, he doesn’t mean you have some legal obligation (or however Joel Mark interpreted it). If I may speak for Kyle, he’s saying Christians insist on exactly what Joel Mark goes on to advocate in 64: vote for the viable candidate; cast the “practical” vote. Of course, we see that kind of pragmatism all over the place in the Bible; just the kind of thing the prophets and apostles did all the time. It probably explains why they were so popular.
Report comment to moderator
And Joel Mark is right: a vote for McCain was NOT wasted. Christians voting for McCain send politicians a nice, clear message: you can be *that* bad and we’ll still vote for you.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. One could almost think this thread was about Gov. Rick Perry.
Report comment to moderator
Conan. I must say something about your comment on post #55. There are no aliens from space! The only aliens here are illegal aliens/felons from the border war with the Mexican cartels. We need to quit watching so many episodes of Star Trak,et al, and to read the Bible and learn about the true Superintellegence and Supernatural, not the false and immitation. The Bible is THE manual for grown adults to live in the real world. There is no religion anymore. Lord Jesus has done away with religion. Without Jesus in the picture anything goes. I suggest the rule of law has gone the way of the dinosaurs. My brother lives in the San Antonio area. Almost every day some sort of illegal alien activity is going on. He sold some land he had because it was too close to Mexico and the trouble. Nearly every day some illegal was tresspassing on his or his neighbors property. Break-ins, burlglary, and weapons charges are a regular occurance. These felonies were committed by illegals. The authorities protecting Texans were Texans themselves. No sign of the Feds here. If the president and his form of government are not going to defend us we need to DO someting about this useless government. The primary duty of our Constitutional Federal Republic is to defend American citizens from enemies domestic and foreign! Note: I defined our government based on a written and proven document! I did not base our govenrment on fantasy, wishfull thinking, or non-Biblical totalarism (take any -ism mankind has made and place here)! Also, about presidental candidates: I am not certain which Republican I will vote for. I do know I will not vote for “Herr Goebbels”( AKA:Obama-a propagandist if ever there was one). Remember your American history. The media and public thought at one time that Presidents Jackson and and Reagan were un-electable. Jackson’s enemies even called his wife Rachel “Jackson’s whore” to attack and degrade his wife and him! America’s media of all forms has always been vicious,degrading, and full of lies! I always check a media story from half a dozen sources before I ascertain it as fact. The right, the left, and the middle all have their agenda to preach to a un-informed and spiritualy ignorant public.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, sure, the media turned people against Palin who might otherwise have supported her.
Report comment to moderator
Yes. Often. Never in such plain language (e.g., “Christians must vote for X”), but all the time in more circumspect words.
Here, I can demonstrate, if you’re willing to answer a simple yes or no question without dodging:
Can a Christian vote for Barack Obama without violating a right understanding of the Bible?
I think we can even make it broader:
Can you name any Democrat currently in the House or Senate that a Christian could vote for without demonstrating an incorrect understanding of the Bible?
People here — from editors down to commenters — quite frequently use their Christianity to say how we should vote. In fact, it’s sort of WORLD’s thing. Maybe even its raison d’etre.
Report comment to moderator
“Maybe you’re just afraid of Obama because he’s finally putting this country back on the right track and taking it away from your fatcat Wall Street pals.”
That right there is comedy gold! Funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Of course, anyone with a brain knows it’s a lie as well. But a funny one at least.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Is this what you mean by “putting the country back on the right track”?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43239586
“The last month has been a horror show for the U.S. economy, with economic data falling off a cliff, according to Mike Riddell, a fund manager at M&G Investments in London.
“It seems that almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently,” said Riddell, in a note sent to CNBC on Wednesday.
“US house prices have fallen by more than 5 percent year on year, pending home sales have collapsed and existing home sales disappointed, the trend of improving jobless claims has arrested, first quarter GDP wasn’t revised upwards by the 0.4 percent forecast, durables goods orders shrank, manufacturing surveys from Philadelphia Fed, Richmond Fed and Chicago Fed were all very disappointing.”
“And that’s just in the last week and a bit,” said Riddell.
Pointing to the dramatic turnaround in the Citigroup “Economic Surprise Index” for the United States, Riddell said the tumble in a matter of months to negative from positive is almost as bad as the situation before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.”
Now compare this economic news to what’s going on in Texas in the link in #45. Obama’s beatable, and Perry may be just the man for the job.
Report comment to moderator
Those Republican-manufactured and media-magnified opposition talking point smears from the Right are just more proof of your Obama Derangement Syndrome. Sure, it might be possible to criticize Obama, but those criticisms must be fair and considered in context. The Right is incapable of being fair, and always takes everything out of context.
Why oh why are the Right-Wingers on this blog so afraid of Obama? Or are you just jealous of his raw sexual energy? (boom chicka wow wow)
If the Right complains about him, he must be doing things great, because (after all) “if you are getting flack, you must be over the target.” Obama sure gets a lot of flak, hence (ipso facto!) he must right over that target. I’m talking like perpendicularly over.
But I don’t expect the Right to see that, because they’re blinding by fear and greed and hatred of American principles and (heck, why not) racism. They’re cowards and liars, the lot of them.
[/sarcasm]
(In case it’s not clear, I believe hardly a word of that. I just wanted to try my hand at the sort of rhetoric so frequently employed against “The Left” on this blog.
In the same way, my statement about Obama “finally putting this country back on the right track and taking it away from your fatcat Wall Street pals” was entirely insincere, and only meant to show the absurdity of the “Palin Derangement Syndrome” defense.
But I find my insincere statement about Obama no less ridiculous than many of the similar encomiums about Palin. (c.f., Palin “has all the chutzpah necessary for being everything we need,” or “Sarah Palin is one of the most unstained prospects that has come along for decades”).
Report comment to moderator
Rick Perry on the issues. Quotes and background.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rick_Perry.htm
Report comment to moderator
Alex Massie puts his finger on Palin’s appeal:
To the extent she’s loved by some it’s precisely because she’s hated by others. If the left were “meh” about Palin then it would diminish some of her appeal to her base. The fact that lots of folks really, really dislike her only endears her to her fans. So long as she’s “sticking it to” Obama, the left and the “lamestream media” her supporters will ignore any issues with her ability to govern, knowledge of world events, grasp of policy nuance, etc.
I’ll believe Palin is going to run when she leaves (or is asked to leave) her position at Fox News. Until then I’m going with the theory that she’s just exploiting the uncertainty to get free press.
Report comment to moderator
Hey JJF, I started to read post #74 thinking you would have some substantive comeback to the facts coming from CNBC, but all I got was trash talk. How do you, as an obvious Obama devotee, explain away all the economic negatives?
Report comment to moderator
Socialworker – don’t expect too much when someone tries to defend the indefensible.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you kindly to RONDU and BUZZY. My hopes are refreshed.
Report comment to moderator
Upon reflection, I think it is unwise for journalists like D.C. Innes to try to play the role of predictive pundit (although he was not absolutist in the vein). Journalists were so convinced that Dewey was unbeatable that they were sticking to that line even the morning after Truman won.
Report comment to moderator
Thats…not what happened.
Report comment to moderator
#66 – MACRUTABAGA (KYLE and JJF too).,
I was not talking about some “legal obligation” in response to KYLE’s question, neither was I talking about some sort of “Christian” obligation. In fact, obligation was not in the ballpark of my thoughts. It is silly for anyone to say that “Christians”, per se, insist on voting for “the viable candidate.” It is merely a point of pragmatic wisdom that anyone, regardless of religion, can consider or grasp for themselves. I have never made a voting case one way or the other predicated on a “Christian” obligation.
But I will say that Christianity does NOT call for us to assassinate our pragmatism wholesale. But it does give us a bigger picture than pure pragmatism can offer by itself.
Again, can we grasp and articulate the practical impact of splitting a ticket? The Democrat Party strategy invests millions upon millions (using much pretense in the process) seeking to divide conservatives and split conservative tickets.
Is that too hard for some to grasp?
Report comment to moderator
Read it all the way through, guys.
Are we to infer, from the fact that you have never made the case, that you in fact do not believe that true Christianity obligates one to vote against Barack Obama or the current Democratic party?
In other words, would you say “YES, a Christian can vote for Barack Obama without violating a right understanding of the Bible.”
?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I was referring to the sense of “has to” that you were attributing to Kyle’s use of the words, not to your own position. Kyle wasn’t saying anyone else was saying we “have to” do anything–he was using a figure of speech.
Again, can we grasp and articulate the practical impact of splitting a ticket? The Democrat Party strategy invests millions upon millions (using much pretense in the process) seeking to divide conservatives and split conservative tickets.
Is that too hard for some to grasp?
Not hard to grasp. So next election, why not join with the rest of us and vote for a decent candidate. You can keep your McCains.
Report comment to moderator
JJF asked, “Can a Christian vote for Barack Obama without violating a right understanding of the Bible?”
What President Lincoln said after the Civil War still applies today, “Both sides read the same Bible.” Nevertheless, I can say that the South’s pro-slavery reading of the Bible was wrong. Most Christians I know today know how to disagree honorably and stay united through Christ and his cross. Most leftists I have known don’t get this.
In every ministry I have been a part of, we have had wonderful Christian members in good standing who voted Democrat and yes, even for Obama last time. As a church, we celebrate our Christian unity far beyond our political differences. We don’t have “another side of the aisle” at our church. Democrat members often supported me and my right to voice my convictions more clearly than even the Republicans at my church who were afraid of free and respectful speech. As a minister and beyond all the media stereotypes, I have found that Christian Democrats can be incredibly awesome Christians.
The Democrat Party has been retreating from decency for a long time on many levels (Libertarians and Republicans have sometimes done the same thing to a far less serious extent), but a lot of real people who have grown up Democrat (or Republican or otherwise) simply do not participate in this retreat.
I could not vote for a Democrat in the House or the Senate because it is politically crucial that Democrats not rule as majorities. That gives them nearly all the power and we have seen that they cannot handle one-party-rule with decency and respect. So, as a Christian, my reasons here are political and practical.
I can fellowship fully with Christians who think differently.
JJF is generally wrong in his/her judgmentalism regarding presumed Christians using Christianity to enforce “obligations” in the voting booth.
Report comment to moderator
#72: You missed the point entirely.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA wrote; “So next election, why not join with the rest of us and vote for a decent candidate.”
That puts the onus on YOU right now, MACRUTABAGA to work hard to get the candidate of your preference into a viable position. You have to make the case early for what a “decent” vote means and convince the rest of us to vote that way. That’s politics, sir. Now is the time for all good men to put their best options forward. Two months before the election is way too late, realistically speaking.
MACRUTABAGA wrote; “You can keep your McCains.”
I did not vote for McCain in the Republican primary election, sir. I supported and advocated for a Republican candidate that did not win the primary. After he lost, I swallowed my disappointment like an adult and did the best thing I thought possible for my country.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, do you distort my comments on purpose? I did not say “YES, a Christian can vote for Barack Obama without violating a right understanding of the Bible.” What I believe is that it is not my call to make for others. And I can have full Christian fellowship with those who make different call from me.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Conservative Christians can advocate strongly for their convicitions without judging others unduly or disrespecting their freedoms. I can make any case I please on what I think true Christianity means in action, what the Bible teaches, how wrong Democrats are, and how best to vote, ALL while honoring the freedom of others to disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark:
Your logic, my leige, is what keeps churning out the McCains and Doles and Ws. Keep voting for them; keep getting them.
Is that too hard for some to grasp?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: You’re overreacting in your response(s) to JJF.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – you wrote, Your logic, my leige, is what keeps churning out the McCains and Doles and Ws. Keep voting for them; keep getting them.
If I could interject, I think JM clarified he did not vote for McCain in the primary, and then when he did vote for McCain, he got Obama, not McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: By “we,” I mean “us professing conservatives.” Our guy was McCain, and we’ll keep getting McCains until the McCains understand we won’t vote for them just because of the R after their names.
Do votes made with plugged noses count any less than enthusiastic votes?
Report comment to moderator
Well, you’re right in a sense, and in a sense it’s played out as you’ve said. Both McCain and Dole lost. That said, however, I think a person can be a two-handed voter in good faith. Once the chips are down and it’s essentially a choice between two individuals, choosing the lesser of two evils is a reasonable course of action. Even if you personally feel it better to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate, it’s a question on which reasonable minds can disagree (e.g., it would be wrong to tell the two-handed McCain voter that his plugged-nose voting is objectively unreasonable or could not be done in good faith).
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Re, “good faith.” I believe the Bible calls us to vote only for godly candidates. I also believe in infant baptism and cessation of spiritual gifts, but I don’t separate from Christians who disagree. When discussing the voting topic here, I generally attempt to make the argument that it’s a failed strategy (while actually believing the more important matter is whether such a strategy is scripturally warranted). But I must say, “choosing between the lesser of two evils,” particularly when it comes to kings and rulers, is a concept entirely absent from scripture…except when it’s being condemned.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – I think some of the confusion hinges on different meanings of the word, “evil.” I’m using in the sense of something not being ideal, or being disadvantageous in some way. We choose the lesser of two evils in every day life all the time. We may need X and Y, but only have enough money for one of them. Not having X is an evil, and not having Y is an evil (in the way I’m using the term), and so purchasing the one we need the most is choosing the lesser of two evils. If two candidates are 100% bad and 0% good, then it would be impossible to choose which to vote for. But we compare them, and choose the better of the two, or, put differently, the least bad of the two. This is nowhere forbidden in scripture, and in fact, it would be a sin to choose the greater of two evils (or in the case of the candidates, to vote for the more bad of the two, if you will). Nor is a command to vote only for godly candidates found anywhere in scripture (if I’m wrong, cite me chapter and verse). Thus if, for example, McCain is not great, but Obama is horrible, it would be a sin to vote for Obama, and it would not be a sin to vote for McCain. While not voting at all or voting for a third-party candidate may also not be a sin, my point is that you can’t say voting for McCain is an objectively unreasonable or sinful action under the circumstances I’ve described.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA wrote; “Your logic, my leige, is what keeps churning out the McCains and Doles and Ws. Keep voting for them; keep getting them. Is that too hard for some to grasp?”
YES!!!!! It is for me. Seriously and honestly, I don’t get your point at all. It makes no sense to me.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA, thank you for reading my response to JJF.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe only liberals should rally behind their last standing Democrat candidate after their convention and conservatives should be free to vote for all sorts of prefered principled candidates who stay in the mix all the way to the end to rattle the cages and give us many options.
Stop reading here!
[This message brought to you by the Democrat Party chairman.]
Report comment to moderator
When it comes to failed strategies, nothing compares to staying angry and allowing your side to be divided into voting fragments and conquered.
1984 – Incumbent Reagan was re-elected as the economy was rising in strength but still struggling. Republicans united behind him.
1988 – Reagan’s endorsement united the party and conservatives around George H. W. Bush and he won.
1992 – Early in the campaign, Ross Perot was up to 40% support in the polls. He suddenly quit when actually leading all candidates just before Clinton’s convention started, suddenly giving Clinton the biggest electoral support surge in American history. The Democrat base united behind Clinton alone. Then, just before George H. W. Bush had his convention, shazzzam, if Perot did not junp back in the race to divide off conservative votes! Such 3rd Party shinanigans always benefit Dems and Perot was a Democrat tool. In the election, Perot still got 19%. He was NEVER serious. It was all about splitting the conservative ticket and getting Clinton in. Pundits will obfuscate this, but I saw it all go down clearly.
1996 – Ross Perot ran again and drew off enough support from angry Independents and fiscal conservatives to effectively split the conservative and Republican ticket again and Clinton won again. The Republican base did not unite well under Dole.
2000 – Conservatives united around George W. Bush and he still barely won over Gore. Clinton fatigue was strong.
2004 – Conservatives (rather upset with George W. Bush’s spending and refusal to veto anything) united behind the incumbent anyhow and barely re-elected him over Kerry because the economy was still stable even after 9/11, which Bush responded to rather well.
2006 – The Democrats capitalized on Mark Foley’s perversion and scandal to smear Republicans enough to take control of the House and they got the Senate too. Soon the economy began to tank.
2008 – Bad economy, Obama worship swept country.
Report comment to moderator
We just had a huge victory wherein Tea Party mania swept in some real difference-making Republicans.
Stop reading here!
(This message brought to you by your NEW Republican Party)
But no. If only this crop of Republicans would have been as good as those guys mentioned in 100–those True Republican difference makers–your Bush Is; your Doles; your Ws–guys who really separated themselves from the pack and advanced bona fide conservative principles–if only we would have gotten some of those types in office, then we wouldn’t have had the yawnfest of Republican budget proposals we’ve had since our great victory of the last election.
Anybody think these CINOs care that they’re disappointing us election cycle after cycle? I don’t either.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – I don’t really understand your argument. Are you saying the U.S. would have been better off with a President Dukakis, a President Gore, or a President Kerry? If so, please explain your theory of why that would have been better.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: No, I’m saying it’s doubtful we would have been worse off. Alternatively, we don’t *know* what would have happened–who would have run and who would have been elected–if Christians–all those millions of us–would have demanded a higher standard and withheld our votes from, say, Bush I and other local CINOs/RINOs. Sure, we’re vocal enough to get them to pay *lip service* to us, but we need to face facts–they’ve let us down; they’ve used and abused us. Look at Anthony Bradley’s column of a few days ago:
http://online.worldmag.com/2011/05/18/no-evangelical-vote-for-2012/
Beyond that, God is in control. We should ask ourselves whether he really intends to bless our political efforts when they involve, say, voting for the guy who’s a little less pro-choice than the other candidate, but has a nice stance on taxes.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what you mean, in practical reality, when you talk about “demanding a higher standard” unless you’re talking solely about “withholding our votes” from less-than-ideal candidates. Nor am I convinced God is interested in blessing our political efforts, as the political arena does not appear to be his main concern throughout scripture. Remember Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world.” God has put us in a participatory democracy, and when there are only two possibilities of who will win the presidency, I don’t think it’s objectively unreasonable, in the use of wisdom, to vote for the better of the two even if he is not ideal.
Report comment to moderator
As for your apparent theory that allowing the worse of the two to win in prior elections would result in a better situation presently, I find that to be speculative at best, and definitely not certain. In all events it is a purely consequentialist argument, and as such, does not address the inherent morality of voting for the better of two non-ideal candidates in any given election. I also find your theory flawed in another respect: there simply are not enough Evangelical Christians as a voting block to get the result you want through the tactics you advocate. It seems equally likely, to me, that if the GOP “learned its lesson” by having all its less-than-ideal candidates lose, and put up someone exactly to your liking, that person would then lose because a lot of non-Evangelicals wouldn’t vote for him. You have to face the reality that, in modern-day Americal, Evangelicals have some clout as a voting bloc, but certainly nowhere near enough to determine the outcome of a national election on their own.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t spend time prioritizing God’s “main concerns.” It’s ALL His. In any endeavor, our decisions and rationale for acting are subject to His scrutiny. There is plenty of scripture to support the idea that God is certainly interested in the political realm. Rulers are commanded to kiss the Son—that’s an Old Testament commandment *to Gentiles* and with a messianic reference. We have timeless adages in the Proverbs regarding the effect good political leadership has on nations enjoying it, and vice versa. We have prophetic references in the OT and NT about how kings and rulers will be (and should be now) subject to King Jesus.
I’m also not interested in speculating what *might* have been had we kept our votes from unworthy candidates; besides, what is there to speculate about, really? Have you *seen* our nation lately? We’re in big trouble, and “our guys” didn’t do a whole lot to keep us from getting here. We’re like Abraham—we don’t immediately see the fruit of God’s promises when we do things His way, so we lie with Hagar to try to get what we want. All kinds of trouble ensues.
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – Reference post 96, again, I ask for a verse that would suggest it is wrong to vote for the least bad of two candidates, or to refrain from voting if neither candidate is “godly” (assuming that is even capable of determination according to some objective standard, which seems doubtful). You haven’t supplied any verses. It is a simple matter of prudential wisdom, when confronted with choices A and B, to choose the better (or least bad) of the two. I’m not defending what our elected officials have done, but only the act of voting for the better of two less-than-ideal candidates when they are presented to us for selection. Again, you have not made a convincing argument that it is somehow wrong, or unscriptural, in any given election, to vote for the better of two less-than-ideal choices.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA, you are missing the poin badly.
We just had a huge REPUBLICAN victory wherein Tea Party mania swept in some real difference-making Republicans. And now the House is contoled by the Republicans. Perfection was NOT achieved but progress was made realistically. That’s politics. Republicans embraced the Tea Party movement while the left and the Democrats called them racists, without merit. But the Tea Party movement needed the organization that the Republican party provides–and that’s the point. You cannot do anything in politics without organization, persuasion, and unity.
Stop reading here!
(This message brought to you by logic).
MAC, you have convinced me that you are an angry ticket-splitting hack. That’s my impression. May your free speech continue.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy:
Why your demand for an “objective standard” of godliness? The Bible depicts godly and ungodly rulers, both within Israel and without; it includes instruction for choosing qualified leaders; it shows how they rule; it offers object lessons for what we should expect and reject in leadership; it *specifically states* various characteristics of a good ruler; it shows God giving *direct commands* to those in office. You’re making it sound like there’s too much gray area for us to glean anything about what constitutes good rule. I disagree. I think God realizes his image bearers are “less-than-ideal,” but that didn’t stop Him from establishing criteria for how they should behave.
God says kings and rulers should “kiss the Son” (Psalm 2). That commandment applies to all people everywhere, but why do you suppose God calls out kings and rulers specifically? Proverbs 8:15, 16 says, “By me [wisdom--*Christ*] kings reign, and rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, All who judge rightly.” Romans 13 says God establishes political authorities, and they are a minister of God…*for good.* Complete the logic here: politicians are established by God; they are to kiss the Son; they are to minister on God’s behalf for our good; and we live in a participatory democracy. But we’re free to support (vote for) a candidate because his vices are a bit less than the other fella’s?
Either way, the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach has proven to be a miserable failure. When our guys have gotten in there, they haven’t helped. We keep voting for them. How are they supposed to be getting the message that we aren’t satisfied? The only message we send is that so long as they aren’t as extreme as their opponent, they can count on our vote.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, this is a good one:
You cannot do anything in politics without organization, persuasion, and unity.
Great. We’ve done so much with this approach, haven’t we?
And of course, you’re “free” to think of me as a hack, etc.
Are you a pastor or something? Maybe some kind of minister? I thought I’d read something like that on these boards before.
Report comment to moderator
Mac – God makes his choices according to his sovereign counsel, and we make our choices by the light that God gives us and the conscientious application of our abilities to become informed and to reason. God’s word does not specifically and directly address the question of how to vote when presented with two candidates, neither ideal, but one clearly better than the other. I say that choosing the better of two flawed candidates is acceptable. You appear to have an ideological position against that – meaning you think things would work out better if we sent a certain “message” by not voting for him – but I do not find it to be an inherently moral position, and I also find it speculative. Ultimately, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Report comment to moderator
That’s fine, Buzzy. You asked. I was just responding.
Report comment to moderator
Certainly this was written by one of Perry’s cohorts! I am a Texas Republican and as much as I would like to see Perry leave this state, I would certainly not wish him on this country. Rick Perry is an egotist whose only true concern is Rick Perry.
A few facts regarding Rick Perry:
1) Rick Perry issued an EXECUTIVE ORDER to vaccinate girls for the human papillomavirus. The drug company that stood to make millions from this order are major supporters of Rick Perry. We can thank our State Legislature who felt this order was so radical that they overturned it.
2) Rick Perry pushed for a government takeover of private land for a toll road that would displace up to a million people, and would be run by a foreign corporation where a former Perry aide worked as a lobbyist.
3) Rick Perry brags about the number of jobs he has added to this state, but he does not mention how many of these jobs went to people from out of state and not to our currently unemployed residents. He also does not tell you how many have lost jobs or count those still unemployed but no longer receiving an unemployment check and there are many.
4) In the last campaign he refused to discuss the upcoming (now current) budget shortage, stating that the numbers wouldn’t be in until after the election. In September 2009, Perry declared that Texas was recession-proof: “As a matter of fact…someone had put a report out that the first state that’s coming out of the recession is going to be the state of Texas…I said, ‘We’re in one?’”
Paul Burka, senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, criticized Perry’s remarks, saying “You cannot be callous and cavalier when people are losing their jobs and their homes.”
Well, we now have one of the largest shortfalls in the country, so doesn’t look like we were recession proof. How to balance…Rick says let’s cut education. Heck we only rank in the 40’s now as spending less on education than other states, so why not cut it more…We will now lose 50,000 to 100,000 teachers in our state (so add them to the unemployed list). Perry’s priority in education…well, he doesn’t have one.
5)Rick Perry pretends to be tough on illegal immigration, yet he signed into law a bill that would give illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at state universities. Many of these same illegal students are also receiving state aid. (Not Federal aid as that is against the law).
6)Rick Perry’s pet project is the Texas Enterprise Fund, a slush fund to lure business, to increase employment and to help with innovative ideas. Projects are submitted to Regional Boards who decide if the project is worthy and if they approve, it is then forwarded to Perry for his signature and that of the Lt. Gov. and Speaker of the House. One of Perry’s “friends”, who had previously gone bankrupt and a company of his in which Perry’s son had owned stock, was granted millions of dollars. Funny part is, the regional board rejected this man’s request. The public was later told that the man used an appeal and went straight to Perry. Problem is, there is nothing written in The Enterprise Fund regarding appeals. Our legislature now has to take on the task of “fixing” this so Perry cannot do this again.
7)The writer of this conversation talks about Perry’s last large campaign victory. I can tell you now, this was a knee-jerk reaction to Obama as was felt through a large part of the country. Perry did not run against his opponent, but instead ran against Obama. In fact, he refused to debate, for ridiculous reasons, his Democrat opponent. Personally, I always thought he truly felt he would lose the debate. It may also be noted that in the election before that, Perry only garnered in the 30 percentile of votes cast.
8)You may want to check out some of his personal land deals where he made millions in a short time by selling land to some unsavory people. He was also fined recently by an ethics committee for non-disclosure of monies on his Bryan-College Station home.
9)I have also found it interesting that while people are losing their jobs, homes are being foreclosed and our legislature is trying to balance a budget with a a multi-billion dollar deficit, that we as taxpayers are paying over $10,000 per month for Rick Perry’s rental home (over 6300 sq. feet, 7 baths, heated pool, etc). Lawn care alone runs us over $40,000 per year. And yes sir, he has read a lot, probably paid for by us as well. Already know we pay for his magazines.
10)Finally, does anyone realize that the reason Texas has grown so much in population is the influx of illegal immigrants?
Now, as a card-carrying Republican, if I can put out these facts, how long do you think it will take the Democrats to pull up this information plus more. Yes, Perry has the gift of gab, but does he care about the State of Texas or the country? No. I think we have more viable candidates than this man.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: We just had a huge REPUBLICAN victory wherein Tea Party mania swept in some real difference-making Republicans. And now the House is contoled by the Republicans.
Don’t get used to it. They’re going to get thrown right back out again when they show their true colors in a way that people can’t ignore.
Already the Ryan budget that some of you cheer so loudly is failing with only 26% of the public approving. Go ahead and pass it if you can, and see how many members of Congress who vote for it are still around after the next election cycle.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/april_2011/opposition_to_ryan_budget_plan_grows
In Wisconsin, Republicans who supported the governor’s union busting are so afraid of being recalled that they’re rushing to try to pass more of their agenda before they get booted out.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j8y3BYEuZhNHzUYyj1iRYYoF4_EA?docId=76e1340ae0cd41859d635bc2b8ed754b
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!