Posted on 12/15/2011 9:56:17 AM PST by Why So Serious
I am not put off by all his "warts" as a candidate. I think they are way over blown and I look at all the really smooth talkers we've had over the years and I don't like to many of them. For example, Clinton was a pretty slick campaigner but has no character. On the other hand, Reagan was called the great communicator (the mainstream media did that as a put down) but he wasn't always the smoothest talker. George Bush 2 wasn't the best public speaker but when push came to shove on 911 he knew what to do.
I've watched Perry in some of the debates and he is solid on the issues and seems to do pretty well. obama is propped up by a fawning media. How is he going to sell his record against that of a Gov. whose state created 45% of all jobs in this country over the last 10 years?
BTW, I just took the quiz and my candidates were Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann.
BTW, I took the quiz and it was Perry, Paul, and Huntsman (I would not vote for Paul unless it was against Obama.)
Since the given answers to each question simply match candidates positions, I found that I mostly wanted to say “other”, which was useless. When I picked the answers closest to my choices, there were still three questions in which there were multiple answers that I thought could encompass my opinions. Turns out depending on how I answer those questions, my picks change. Under one set of assumptions, Michelle is number 1.
But under my most standard set of answers, Rick Perry actually is my pick, with Newt Gingrich being 2nd.
Interestingly, the answers seem to misrepresent Newt’s position on cap-and-trade. If I answer “global warming is based on faulty science”, Perry is 72% and Gingrich 55%. If I say instead “Climate change may be real, but cap-and-trade is not the solution, Perry drops to 68% and gingrich rises to 59%.
The problem being first that Perry never denied “climate change”, he doesn’t think man is effecting the climate. And Gingrich hasn’t rejected cap-and-trade, at least not in May of this year, maybe he’s said he does now that he’s in the running.
Anyway, I was surprised to see Gingrich so high on my list, but I don’t trust the paper to accurately represent the positions of the candidates. Not surprised that Michelle is high on my list, she was one of the first candidates I looked at, and I still would back her if she could get traction.
IN this quiz, I think it works out well. The “importance” slider changes the weight of your answer, so it’s all about what your answer is. If you answer that SS should be abolished, and feel that is very important, you can put the slider all the way up and it will count more in your results.
From everything I've seen Perry is great at retail politics, speaking at local events and getting local support. Whoever our nominee is the media will be gunning for them like crazy. Gingrich may be the best at dealing with the media, but he also gives them a huge amount of ammunition to use against him. Perry is not as adept at dealing with the media, but other than some speaking errors they have nothing on him.
What do you think the "average Joes" will think of Perry when they learn about how he befriended and helped the Navy Seal Luttrel?
It didn’t have end SS. And I said stay in Afghanistan and it put Paul at the top of my list. Looking at everybody’s answers it seems geared towards the ones low in the polls.
Good job, Sir! :)
The question is HOW will they find this stuff out and will enough of them be able to see past the "interference" to what Perry stands for AND what kind of POTUS he would be.
I didn't see the debates last night. How did he do? I saw comments that said he did pretty well but still can't see him as POTUS.
Still, I like Perry. I'm acutely aware that "debating" is not his strong suit. (I wonder, do they have a debating team at Texas A&M???)
On the other hand, we're electing a president, not a Debater-in-Chief. So I am looking for presidential qualities, not the mere ability to prevail in a debate setting. You seem to have some reservations about this setting, too, having commented, "these three-ring-circus MSM events [that are] mislabeled 'debates.'" They are more like so-called "reality shows," which do not depict any actual reality that I'm aware of.
Back to presidential qualities, and why I think Perry has them. He indubitably has successful executive experience, having been elected three times to the Office of Governor of Texas. I sense he is a man of strong personal character — which I gather wmfights recognizes, too, having observed, "... he is the kind of person you could do business with on a handshake. He has that middle America rural background that places a premium on honor."
In other words, as my dearest sister in Christ Alamo-Girl has observed, he is a man who "leads from the knees." In this, he is the anti-Newt who, for all his intellectual brilliance and recent conversion to the Catholic Church, still comes across to me as a kind of moral gunslinger, shooting from the hip.
WRT Newt, I just ask myself: Do I want another "arrogant narcissist" occupying the Oval Office for the next four (or eight) years? Our Gangsta President amply demonstrates that arrogance and narcissism are not exactly presidential virtues.
Though it may be true that Newt is "the smartest man in the room" everywhere he goes, I can think of plenty of brilliant criminals — folks like, say, Bernie Madoff or Ted Bundy. :^) So intellect alone cannot recommend him to me.
Which is just to say that I am skeptical that Newt is sufficiently morally grounded and focused to be an effective president.
I thought Gov. Perry's debate performance last night was creditable, and an improvement over past efforts. I was thrilled he mentioned that yesterday was the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. He specifically referenced the Tenth Amendment, and gave several examples of legitimate state functions that have been usurped by Washington in modern times.
One more thing: Governor Perry is the sort of man who is the Progressive Left's worst nightmare — a man who "clings to his Bible and his gun." In short, to them, Perry is an oafish, dumb hick from the sticks, not an elegant, "politically correct" left intellectual like themselves. Of course, they absolutely detest him, and would make his life miserable, were he ever to become the nominee.
But then they'll do that to any candidate with the temerity to challenge the Gangsta President....
Of course, if the Left hates Perry, that's all the more reason for me to like him. :^)
In conclusion, Perry "rings my bell," and I wish him well. It's early yet; we'll have to wait to see what happens.
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, PapaNew!
I share your (to me) valid concern that Newt is a "big government" guy, a font of big, sweeping ideas.
But I don't want another "big government guy." I want Washington's scope and intervention into our lives to SHRINK, not grow. Newt proffers "expert answers" to everything, while I just want to leave as much to the states and the people as possible, so as not to have our lives run by "experts" — no matter how "'brilliant" — out of Washington.
Newt is a Washington insider par excellence. Perry is not — indeed he is quite the reverse. If power is ever to be devolved out of Washington, it'll take a man like Perry to get that ball rolling.
The two men are so unalike I can't even see them on the same ticket. Their respective temperaments, values, and basic political philosophies seem to be totally mutually opposed.
I thought this was very well said, dear wmfight:
If we can get back some of our rights from fedzilla we may not always agree with what happens in a state we reside in, but we will have the option to move to a state that better represents our values. IOW, we will be free and the govt will be subject to our will.I so agree! Washington is all about top-down expert technocratic answers to every problem in life uniformly imposed on all "from above." Either we stuff Leviathan back into his cage (where he belongs), or we will absolutely, positively lose all our personal liberties before too long.
Perry looked to me like the only potential "Leviathan tamer" in the room last night. For openers, he distinctly does not have a knee-jerk, in-built, pro-Washington bias.
[FWIW, the other big "constitutionalist" in the field, Ron Paul, is a thoroughly indoctrinated crackpot who probably hasn't had a fresh idea in decades. He just cycles all data through the filter of his doctrine, which (to me) is the flattest, most reductionist view of the Constitution imaginable. Given his views on foreign policy, I wonder what planet exactly he lives on. His grasp on Realism seems quite slight to me. JMHO]
The long and the short of it is: I just like Perry — he's "my guy." I hope I'll get the chance to vote for him.
We'll just have to wait and see if that can happen....
Thank you ever so much for writing!
I feel the same way. I like where he's at on the role of govt and where power should reside. I think he is steadily improving in the debates. Also, I think the slippage Gingrich is experiencing is an indication of how important organization and dollars are.
If Perry doesn't end up with the nomination I wonder if any of the other candidates can beat obama. Here's my thinking.
Romney loses 20% of the Pub base and enthusiasm is down because of his pro-abortion support as Gov and Romneycare. obama is able to paint Romney as the evil wall street capitalist who's out of touch with people. Obama wins.
Gingrich is a great orator and beats the pants off of obama in debates. However, married women with children are not strong supporters of a confessed adulterer. Also, obama plays up the inside DC influence peddling of Gingrich especially representing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then the out of touch with the "working man" argument is cemented with the Tiffany's credit line. The race is probably a toss up.
Paul loses because he's out of his mind on foreign policy.
Perry beats obama big because he is the opposite of obama. He is a successful executive of the 2nd most populous state in the country and the 13th largest economy in the world. He wants govt brought under control and his history is that of a guy who gets things done. Also, his life story of growing up in rural America, going to a non-Ivy league school and serving in the military resonates with America.
A national election (I maintained while Cain was complaining about a public trial) is basically a public trial in the court of public opinion. He won't win unless the majority of voter "gets" him. It's HIS job to make sure that happens. HE's the one on trial here and he's got to make his case better than anyone else. He's got to get out of the way of himself enough to communicate clearly to the American people who he is and what he stands for. It isn't enough for you and I and the rest of the low % to know it.
I just wonder whether the establishment GOP understands who its base is anymore. They seem to fear the Tea Party more than the political Left does.
The question is: WHY???
In an earlier post, BillyBoy slams Perry because he was formerly a Democrat. Well, so what??? So was Ronald Reagan once, who, IIRC, famously explained that "he didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left him." Perhaps Perry's explanation would be the same as Ronaldus Magnus'....
Because I am more in tune with the Tea Party than I am with establishment Republicanism, I can say the same thing: When I changed my voter registration last summer, I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me.
I truly believe that the establishment GOP regards the Tea Party as a direct threat to its power. That is, it does not see the Tea Party as part of its "base" at all. This, to me, is suicidal.
FWIW.
I wish Perry would shoot to the head of the pack. The issue as I see it isn't what insightful people like you and certain others might understand about him, but what he has communicated to the "average Joe" on the street. What's going to turn his head and make Perry stand out from the crowd (in a GOOD way)? So far, he hasn't done a very good job IMO. No, I hate the debate circus, but dang it if he's going to participate he's got to at least keep from looking like one of the circus clowns (sounds like he did better last night), and elsewhere, he's got to drive his message home clearly without histrionics.
A national election (I maintained while Cain was complaining about a public trial) is basically a public trial in the court of public opinion. He won't win unless the majority of voter "gets" him. It's HIS job to make sure that happens. HE's the one on trial here and he's got to make his case better than anyone else. He's got to get out of the way of himself enough to communicate clearly to the American people who he is and what he stands for. It isn't enough for you and I and the rest of the low % to know it.
I totally agree, PapaNew.
And so I wish him: Godspeed!
Thank you so much for your excellent insights.
Thanks for such kind remarks.
Bachman, Gingrich, Perry.
Problem is, very few of the questions have answers I want. For instance, Taxes needs a “Fair Tax” option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.