Posted on 08/22/2011 2:29:17 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Why would any self-respecting conservative quote Molly Ivins? That woman was so wacked-out in her politics and so mean-spirited, she made Ann Richards look like a cuddly, little puppy.
LOL!
Of the candidates (declared), or those of us holding out to decide from the current field if Sarah doesn't declare?
Perry just entered the race, many of us are relatively unfamilliar with him, and he's going through vetting for us.
If that gets all y'all's panties in a wad, so be it!
We are in the process of comparing candidates. If someone is going to bash a candidate for not being conservative enough then it must in the context of "compared to who." If the basher is not willing to fess up who their candidate is, then their argument is moot. Palin/Bachmann supporters don't hide who their candidate is, as such, one can safely assume that the bashers who don't indicate their preference are either Mittsters, axlerodians, or Paulistas. It is that simple.
Sure, that's right. John Kerry lost because Rove and company ran an ad that featured wolves. Remember how it became the focal point of the campaign?
Okay, maybe not.
Not really, more of a 'compared to what'?
I want to know where they stand on the issues, not who is on which side of them.
What have they done? What statist acts have they either supported or opposed?
Proof of fiscal responsibility?
Moral fiber? Et cetera.
Let's see how they all add up compared to a fixed standard, and not just who is relatively more or less than the other.
Political (moral) relativity instead of an absolute standard is how we got to the point where pro-abortion, anti-gun statists are deemed "conservative" in some areas.
If the discussion is about Perry, or Palin, or Bachmann or whoever, discuss them, don't go off to Freeper Island bashing someone else instead of discussing whoever is being discussed.
Perry supporters don't gain squat by going off on people calling them 'Paultards' and launching into tirades about Ron Paul if they haven't answered the questions about Perry, for example, because it is just changing the subject.
If anything, that'll cost Perry a second look and support because people weary of that crap.
You don't need to bash some other candidate to support your own, or you haven't got much.
When the standard is "who is most conservative", which appears to be THE standard here at FR, and there is only a small pool of candidates to choose from that demands by necessity "relativity." Weighing a candidate against some airy ideal is fine when choosing a hero, but when there is competition for a political seat, one must choose which one "best" fits the ideal.
Then, of course, there is the added, and very important, consideration, which one can win.
I have no time for those who won't show their cards. BTW, it isn't just Perry supporters that rail against "Paultards", Palin, Bachmann, Cain supporters do it too, its not like the term "Paultard" was coined AFTER Perry got in. Far from it.
Interesting, but you are going to alienate the undecided--and you won't convert any 'paultards', either.
But because no declared candidate has strongly advocated doing what really needs to be done to keep our great-grandchildren from living in economic slavery, I'm still undecided.
There are 'stoppers' out there, too: some issues which frankly will cost an otherwise good candidate my vote if they take the wrong side.
I don't expect perfection, but I do expect a clear effort or at least a willingness to admit mistakes and learn from them. Actions speak louder than words, though, and if their actions belie their words, the words don't count.
Aside from that, I've noticed hostility toward people who don' just sing praises for Perry.
Well, as I said, many of us don't know him. Get over the Tejas-centricity and tell us why we should vote for him.
If there are some ugly bits, better discuss those as well, rather than berate those who bring them up. Address the issue. You won't sell me a Toyota by howling about 'Ford-bots' and berating Mercedes.
(Did you know the one made cars for the Nazis and the other had factories in the USSR?--back in the 40s!)
There are still those of us who want to kick the tires, slam the doors, look under the hood, and check under the vehicle for drips and leaks--especially the latter, because those of us who believe in a far more originalist interpretation of the Untied States Constitution than any candidate has thus far embraced have spent plenty of time under the bus--after every election.
So some of us will be slow to declare support for any primary candidate, especially this year.
We'll vote for the most Conservative, so long as we find them credible.
Sorry I should have been more clear, I wasn’t asking you since you had already answered.
I’ve always enjoyed reading accounts of your many interesting experiences over the years, Phil. You should write a book!! Perhaps you have.
I followed the link for Charles Butt CEO HEB for 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000--no Rick Perry.Sarah may declare the 3d, or she may not.
Steve King backs Michelle Bachman--but either Steve or Michelle would be vastly better as Speaker than Boehner.
Perry or Palin would be vastly better than the puppet of the Red and Black--
--who is toppling secular regimes and replacing them with Islamist ones.
Huntsman--not Perry--tracks with the Rovian punch-pulling strategy which allowed the Left to suppress Bush's poll numbers.
We face another time for choosing--We win; Obama loses.
Bull.
That's called overplaying your hand. Now you're discredited.
Then you stayed home...there is NO way you voted for Rick Perry.
Wouldn't refuse the good guys my support.
Good read.
The Secret Service had better be on their toes. There's only one way Obama can guarantee a RAT landslide, and it ain't by running.
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.