Posted on 10/28/2011 1:45:03 AM PDT by hocndoc
DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?
This is a serious question, by no means rhetorical. Conservatives may be full of sound and fury against Zero, but it signifies nothing without actual evidence, of which there is little.
Tea Partyers can wave the American flag and proclaim their passion for reclaiming America, but you can't beat something with nothing.
If this isn't true, then why is a Total Rino way ahead in the polls? *******************
Perry's tax and economic reform proposal is far, far better (and better thought out) than Cain's 9-9-9, which keeps changing and necessitates a national sales tax. His mechanism for reducing the federal government to Constitutional levels is the best one for doing so - the 10th Amendment. He will revive the economy far, far more than Romney would by getting the government more out of the way, and by drilling, baby, drilling. (Remember that Romney's a Warmist who loves renewable energy scams.)
One of these days, conservatives are going to have to figure out that we're not to going to get better than Perry. And that he really is our best chance to rescue our economy, indeed our country.
To see why - or at least to consider this as a possibility - read the transcript of Perry's interview with John Harwood of CNBC on Tuesday (10/25). http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/25/transcript-of-rick-perrys-interview-with-cnbcs-john-harwood/ (A caveat: this is an unedited computer-generated transcription of Perry's answers with lots of mistakes and glitches, which were left in - one suspects to make Perry not as fluent as you could see on television).
What really turned me on, frankly, was his absolute refusal to be intimidated by envy-mongering. Harwood starts right off the bat with this, saying that his tax plan would be a huge tax cut for the wealthy, that "those at the top, it is hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars for them." Perry immediately responds:
"But I don't care about that. What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies. To go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again 'cause they actually get to keep more of what they work for."
OMG. That's the ballgame. The entire argument of the Left is an envy-trip. What America needs more than any other one single thing is a president who says to the Dems, the Enemedia, Academia, their acolytes, the entire dog's breakfast of the Left, "I don't care about your envy!
Harwood can't get over this, so later he asks a gotcha, "Do you fundamentally believe we should not have a progressive tax system in the country?" Perry straight out answers, "I do." Harwood is shocked. "But the idea of taking-- of having-- higher rates-- of various kinds for people who earn more are [sic] not right?" Again, Perry says straight, "I don't agree with that."
I encourage you to read the whole thing. Try this on:
"I don't think this president understands basic economics. Not economics that work. He may understand some theory that someone in Princeton sat and dreamed up, but it's not working.
"This President would be wise if he addressed the economy in the way that we know it works. You give incentives to job creators. Lower the tax burden, lower the regulatory climate, and this President would be stunned I'm sure. But America's economy would take off and take off quickly.
"That's what we need in a president that respects how this country got to the point of being the greatest economy in the world. And it was done simply by giving the incentive to job creators so they knew they could keep more of what they work for."
No teleprompter here, ad lib. You really think Zero could take him in a one-on-one debate? And look how he took care of the "birther" thing:
"I don't have a clue about where the President (was born) and what his birth certificate says. But it's also a great distraction. I'm not distracted by it. If those of you in the media want to talk about it that's fine, but I hope what you'll really get focused on is how are we going to get this country back on track.
"Because if we don't, America's next generation is not going to have as good a future as what we had, and that's what I'm concerned about. I know how to do that. And you do it by giving a flat tax. You get these regulations pulled off of businesses, and you allow entrepreneurs the confidence that they can go risk their capital."
You can't get a better answer than that. Birtherism is a distraction for exactly the reasons Perry says. And for another reason. Getting Zero removed from office on a technicality would be a moral disaster.
A majority of American voters electing Zero was the most suicidally stupid and immoral act ever committed en masse in American history since the Civil War. It was complete moral collapse of the electorate to vote for a man whose preacher wanted God to damn their country.
The only way it can be rectified, to stop America from continuing to slide down the path to national suicide and resurrect their morality, is for a majority of voters to unelect him.
Moreover, to unelect him such that it reverses the direction he has taken our country. So which Republican candidate can best do this? Defeat Zero resoundingly, not even close, and pervasively reverse Zero's course?
Definitely, that candidate is not Romney. I do not think it is Cain, for as fine and accomplished a man as he is, he does not know what he is doing. I think Perry does.
I could be wrong about Cain. He is very smart, maybe smart enough to climb a virtually 90-degree learning curve in the next couple of months.
Conservatives will need to watch him carefully to see if he can do this. They can't be led by emotions, neither by a crush on Cain nor by carping on Perry. They have to choose wisely.
This is the most serious choice collectively conservatives will ever make. The literal fate of our America depends on it. Conservatives have to decide whether they want to win in 2012 or not.
Wrong! The third sentence or so states “Why is a total RINO” ahead in the polls. The next sentence attacks Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, and touts Perry’s plan. Most polls I’ve seen put Cain in the lead. Nice try.
Secondly, Coulter isn’t running for prez.
There are a lot of people who call themselves "conservative" when the poll taker asks "Are you a conservative or a liberal?" but that is not the same thing.
I bet that a third to a half of that 40 percent, were they to express their views on FR, would get the zot.
Those of us who regularly post to this site are a segment of a segment of a segment of the electorate.
I know this will come as a surprise, but abortion has been legal for 37 years.
Sane people do, but he Perrywinkles are incapable of rational thought. The NRLC came out in support of Cain and NARAL blasted him...yes, he is pro-coice. sarc.
The fact that Herman Cain came out with a tax plan while all the rest just attacked it. Tells you Cain is the leader in the pact.
Now that Perry is following Cain’s lead with his own tax plan, tells you Cain is the real leader.
Funny how so many candidates are all following Herman Cain’s plan.
Cain to me is the clear the leader of the pact. Perry looks like he does not want to even be there. It’s as if the establishment has forced him or something?
Sorry but Perry is NOT a conservative and NOT Presidential material.
Cain’s reparation zones shows you a lot. American first, black second, conservative last...
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Cain, Perry, or Gingrich are all acceptable to me.
Gingrich is by far the best prepared.
Perry has the easiest electoral path to victory.
Cain is the most compelling and the least Washington insider...in fact, virtually a total outsider.
“TAKE YOUR mitt AND SHOVE HIM... I AIN’T VOTIN’ FER A RINO NO MORE”
LLS
Only a RINO would say this /s.
I agree with Perry. If the feds would do their job and patrol the borders and if the feds would stop mandating states provide illegals with all the benefits, there is no need for a fence.
Why don't we fence Canada?
The feds are responsible for this mess--not the states.
Yours is a very reasonable post and I agree with you.
Go ahead and get Perry, but, when you get him, don’t be surprised when he turns out to be Al Gore recarnated.
Oh oh. Did his campaign choose this? Not a good photo choice.
Yawn. There.s still time to reject your groupie status .
See hocndoc’s post 39.
From that link:
While a case that these number are off can be made using Department of Homeland Security data showing that the number of illegal immigrants getting new jobs in Texas (60,000) was less than half that claimed in the CIS report (153,880), the more important issue is the flawed methodology that led to the report’s most widely reported claim.
“It is true that Texas had a nation-leading net of 279,000 more jobs in the second quarter of 2011 than it did in the second quarter of 2007. But CIS’s claim that immigrants filled 225,000 of these jobs is wrong. There is no way to determine — statistically or otherwise — that this is the case. The numbers are simply not comparable. Looking at the total number of jobs created in our dynamic and complex economy shows the fault of this claim.”
“TPPF contends that Texas’s record of job creation is due to low state spending and taxes, a predictable, low level of regulation, and strong property-rights protection, a sound civil-justice system, and minimal dependence on — or interference from — the federal government. These policies benefit Texans, as well as people who decide to move to Texas from other states and from other countries.”
Oh, then it'll be perfect when he moves to D.C. and into the White House as the next President. Washington D.C.'s a city, by the way.
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.