Skip to comments.Donít Settle: Rick Perry for President.
Posted on 12/19/2011 10:20:28 AM PST by Chasaway
"If this website has a purpose if any conservative website or publication has a purpose it must begin with electing conservatives to significant public offices. We have the chance to nominate a conservative for president and win the White House in 2012. We can fumble that chance away by settling for a nominee we cant trust to pursue conservative policies in office, or we can make a stand for the best, most conservative potential president in the field. Thats Rick Perry, and we enthusiastically endorse him to be the 45th President of the United States."
Very nice piece, with a lot of the reasoning behind their endorsement.
Way too many here at FR are agreeing to be Newtered simply because his polling numbers are high. (Or at least the were.)
“We can fumble that chance away by settling for a nominee we cant trust to pursue conservative policies in office, or we can make a stand for the best, most conservative potential president in the field....”
Wow, how original.
I’m sure you are aware that people dont think Perry is really a conservative either?
If he gives 100% pledge to veto any variant of amnesty bill (which would automatically get expanded by courts and future admins) AND supports mandatory e-verify (or similar stricter variant) AND supports old fashion border fence in many areas with streamlined process, then call me again.
Without Newtonian LaRaza stance he would be credible candidate. But never again another mccain like LaRaza activist.
I agree. But I respect those who say that he cannot un-do his initial (national) impression of being mush-mouthed and forgetful. HOw I wish he had had a better debut.
Oh that's good news! Gov. Perry appears to be a very gracious man so it's good to hear that he knows how to prevail in a political fight.
A great article, Chasaway thank you so much for the link!
You’ve convinced me. I’m not going to settle for Rick Perry.
Yesterday after church I was talking to a local lawyer who, a couple of months ago, was sure Perry would win and liked him--now he dismisses him as having no chance. I like Perry but it does look like his chances of a comeback at this point are pretty slim.
The campaign has run its course. I’ve given everyone a fair look.
I was on the Cain Train until it derailed.
I considered Newt due to his strong debate performances, until I woke up and remembered his record, especially his recent record.
I will now support the most viable of either Perry, Santorum or Bachmann. (I believe Perry will probably be the most viable of the three).
I haven’t liked at least two of Perry’s ads, myself: The one in which he put gays-in-the-military as the foremost issue. (I disagree that it was “anti-gay” somehow, though.) The other ad I didn’t like much was the one you mentioned. Very religion-on-his-sleeve-ey.
You are so heartless ;)
Actually right now perry is my favorite ... but it is what it is
There, fixed it.
I’m open. I value my vote.
La Raza Rick = Fail.
Sorry, they’re all Bog Government hacks as far as I’m concerned, they all don’t mind the government controlling what you and can not do as long as they agree with what they’re forcing you to do.
That’s the part I find funny about so many on here, so many always spout off about how they want small government and more freedom, yet you have no issue with the government trying to legislate morality, you don’t mind the government forcing people to do something as long as you agree with it.
Too many on here don’t want smaller government, they just want the government to waste tax dollars on what they want.
They’re all hypocrites in my eyes.
People should be free to do as they choose as long as their actions don’t infringe on the rights of another, government’s job is to protect you from others infringing on your rights, not to protect you from yourself.
I’ll stick with Paul.
My sentiments exactly. It was only a short time ago (last fall) that Newt’s name was poison at FR, and as I type this, Rush is talking about Newt’s 2nd book on global warming which is coming out in 2013-—AFTER the election. I don’t trust Newt as far as I can throw him.
Of the three Constitutional conservatives in the race-—Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann-—only one has a decade of leadership already under his belt. Perry is definitely my candidate.
Despite all the facts and hopes, I have a feeling that 49/50 states are sick and tired of a Texan in the White House.
A choice between Newt, Romney and Perry, Perry gets my vote.
Yes, things change. Now if you mention Newt’s support for amnesty or his global warming involvement, you are attacked and your name is added to some list. I believe the Newt skeptics list was supposed to be ready today, but apparently mom is using basement today.
I just read this in the Des Moines Register: http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/12/19/des-moines-area-falls-50-places-in-job-growth-study/
Note the top five cities are all in TX. We need to duplicate this kind of success nationwide.
Remember when Pres. W couldn’t name the president of one of the “Stan” countries? Remember how the press went after his dumbness? Now they’re after Rick Perry. The game ain’t over till it’s over, even if the press has picked TWO rinos, so far, to lead this nation.
Perry IS dumb...the liberal media would not even have to make stuff up. He’s not electable...he blew it, left a first and then second impression that he doesn’t know much.
>>Perrys reputation in Texas is very different from Bushs. Bush was all about bipartisan bonhomie; Perry has left the state littered with the political corpses of people who stood in his way.
Oh that’s good news! Gov. Perry appears to be a very gracious man so it’s good to hear that he knows how to prevail in a political fight.<<
Exactly, it was Bush’s “bipartisan bonhomie” that pushed him toward supporting the global warming scam in his second term. Wouldn’t want to appear to be too much of an outsider, you know. And then there was his failure to rein in a profligate Republican Congress in his first term. Better we should have had a few “political corpses”, even if they were Republican, during that era.
“Too many on here dont want smaller government, they just want the government to waste tax dollars on what they want.”
Your candidate Ron Paul is no exception :
He had a half- billion dollars of special interest earmarks over the last two years . One for two million dollars was for bike racks, trash cans, and decorative street lighting in one of the cities in his district.
Actually Ron Paul has made note of his earmarks himself, it’s his way of getting money that was taken from the citizens of the state of Texas by the federal government through oppressive taxation back to Texas.
That’s not big government, try again.
Here’s the problem. All Perry has to do is make one gaffe (very likely) against Obama and it is over. They will rerun it over and over again and convince the neanderthals to vote for Obama again.
He tried to squirm out of it at the dabate, claiming he did it for hiway funds, etc.
And you should be aware that they are wrong if they don’t think Perry is a conservative.
He tried to squirm out of it at the dabate, claiming he did it for hiway funds, etc.
What’s your criteria - who’s the dumbest?
This Texan is sick of having a Kenyan in the white house, but do what you want.
Sorry, but I would now consider voting for Perry as settling bigtime!
I suppose, if he is still running when I vote, I will settle for Perry over Newt in a heartbeat.
Hey, man up. Perry may make a verbal gaffe or two but he has a record to run on.
The liberal press will find negatives about anyone we run. Let’s run the best guy and defend him.
Actually, the smartest guy, is not necessarily the best. I don’t like Romney, or Newt. Give me a ballot with Santorum, or Bachmann on it, and then I would scratch my head. I probably would go for Santorum, but it would be close.
>>Give me a ballot with Santorum, or Bachmann on it, and then I would scratch my head. I probably would go for Santorum, but it would be close.<<
And how about if the three names on your ballot were Romney, Gingrich, and Perry? Just curious.
What is so aggravating to me is that when a Left Progressive intones the word "bipartisan," Republicans don't instantly go looking for the trap. LPs never offer good-faith proposals, only ways to co-opt their opponents at some imagined date in the not-too-distant future. If the Pubbies don't play along, then they simply stall, and stall some more and then blame the Pubbies for the lack of "progress."
RE: President Bush's second term, when he had Republican majorities in both Houses, I so agree with you "Better we should have had a few political corpses, even if they were Republican, during that era."
Because NOW, our Gangsta President is having a field-day casting ALL blame on such types Bush and his "coterie" for ALL the miseries we suffer today....
The Republican corpses would hopefully have included the Right Progressives the oxymoronic "big-government 'conservatives.'" But they have not been "purged." On the contrary, the GOP tried to run one of them for president, in 2008....
And I daresay the RNC is trying to run another "big-government 'conservative'" i.e., a Right Progressive this election cycle....
I dunno. I just think this is nutz.
Meanwhile, I wish Gov. Perry Godspeed!
Thank you so much for writing!
>>What is so aggravating to me is that when a Left Progressive intones the word “bipartisan,” Republicans don’t instantly go looking for the trap.<<
Yes, when Leftist blame the Right for failing to be bipartisan, you can bet that what they are offering is anything but bipartisan.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Moreover, he’s an A&M grad. I’d vote for him just for not being an Ivy Leaguer.
The last 2 customers I talked politics with were Christian women who loved Perry but lost heart and were just disinterested. After I encouraged them they were excited again. You can always work.
Perry is still working his butt off to earn the votes.
I am from Texas and I am not sure Perry could deliver Texas. He is a poor candidate. Newt is much better.
This is another weird race with at least two striking similarities to the last race:
1) Both GOP primaries had conservative darlings that bailed (Thompson and Palin (2012 had the bonus of Cain dropping also).
2) The 2012 GOP nominee may very well be another white-haired wrinkly white dude going up against The One who is smooth, svelte, and black.
Right now the appearance of the GOP looks to me:
Gingrich - Seems the most substantive but also a mixed bag.
Romney - Has the "presidential" look. Hard to know who he really is and what he really stands for. Hard to trust him.
Perry - Sometimes looks like the "undercard" boxer in the primarily bout before the Main Event. May be the best in the substantive issues.
Paul - A true economic libertarian who seems to understand the problems with the FED and a bloated cabinet. Seems he would really downsize government. All that is good. But he seems to be a nut case when it comes to foreign policy and caustic about American interests at home and abroad IMO.
Bachmann - Sometimes comes across as mean-spirited and small in her constant attacks on the other candidates. Even though I think she takes a conservative stand on most issues she hasn't distinguished herself in my mind from the other candidates.
The rest - Not too impressed.