Correction: You cant' make the changes if you can't with the election with a limited government Republican. We "won" the election against uber-liberal racist Cruz Bustamonte here in California with Arnold ... and we still lost to "the marxists."
Then, when we ran the "non-polarizing" moderate Meg Whitman against Jerry Brown ... we lost to "the marxists." Ironically, had we "won," we still would have lost to "the marxists" because for all her talk, Whitman wouldn't have made "the changes" needed -- she'd have advanced much of "the marxist" agenda, including the global warming hoax. She, like Romney, was all about making government more efficient. I don't want a government more efficient at suppressing freedom and prosperity. I want LESS GOVERNMENT. When all is said and done, a big government statist is a big government statist whether he/she is a Republican or a Democrat.
I haven't investigated Perry, so I haven't (that I recall) urged folks to reject him -- though I have to say that the thing that disturbs me most about him is the Gardasil issue -- it was fundamentally statist, first of all, and second, it smelled because it directly benefited a pharmaceutical company that supported Perry, if I am correct (again, only going on what I've read here). I DO appreciate articles that talk about supposed things that Perry has done that detract from his appeal as a limited government Republican, because I can investigate them for myself when I think it's time, and share my insight here, in return for the insights offered by others. This is a place I come to for INFORMATION, among other things.
What little bit of investigating I have done on another question that worried me about Perry indicates that his quote advocating "bi-national health care" is very likely taken out of context, and that what he actually meant was to allow insurance carriers to insure Mexicans as well as Texans -- a far cry from Romneycare or Obamacare. As it happens, I don't care about helping to vet Perry (for better or worse) right now because I'm waiting to see what Palin does. Unlike you, I think Palin CAN WIN, for a lot of reasons -- if you want to know what they are, read my posts "in forum" -- don't ask me to reiterate them all here. Polls I ignore, even when they're in favor of a candidate I like.
Upsdriver is, in my opinion, correct.
I wouldn’t compare California politics with Texas politics. California is full of uber liberals. Texas on the other hand is pretty much a conservative state with a few pockets of liberals in the cities.
I have kept up with Texas politics for a long time since what happens in Texas affects me somewhat living near the border. Perry is a limited government Republican. You might want to make sure who you are getting your information from because some are pushing another candidate and aren’t posting facts. The last gubernatorial election was a good mudslinging one. If there was dirt there it would have been used then.
The next election is going to require someone with experience not someone who can’t take the heat from the DNC where she cuts and runs.
I suggest you do search for the video where Todd was asked by an Alaskan resident if they sold out for the $$$$$$ (books, reality tv, the celebrity life) when she resigned. You might not think the same about her when you hear his answer and excuse. I know it turned me off of her “principled” persona.
The same is true of the Gardasil issue. Insurance companies would not pay for it like they do the other mandated inoculations for kids unless it was mandated. The mandate allowed the insurance companies to pay for it so that poor people could get it also. It also had an opt out clause for parents. No one was forced to be inoculated.
That is the type of misinformation that is prevalent even though accurate information is readily available. That is what makes me suspicious of some Perry critics. They either purposely lie about him or they have no interest in the truth.