It's too bad that verbal gaffes and style count more than actual records these days. I originally supported Perry because of his record. I was rethinking due to his implosion, but was going full circle back there with my leanings again after Obama just screwed over this country once again to please his base of global warming nutters. He said no to the pipeline. Gas is around $3.50. Obama wants it $5.00. Send the oil from our Canadian allies to China instead. Good job. Really.
Perry was a better governor than he was a presidential campaigner. Perry wasn't a bad governor. He's experienced, and most importantly did not screw up the Texas economy like Granholm did here in Michigan. He also understood domestic energy and its importance. Perry's endorsed Newt. With Perry and Huntsman gone, it's down to Romney, Paul, Santorum, and Newt. Newt really isn't all that much different than Romney with the flips except a more conservative record than Mitt. Santorum's similar to Bush with his record. Ron Paul is who he is.
I'm going to wait and see what happens with South Carolina and Florida and make my final primary decision from there.
In other news, Conservative Jack Hoogendyk, former state rep and Core Principles blogger Jack Hoogendyk wants a rematch against moderate Fred Upton. Jack lost 42,182 to 31,660 in the little publicized (at least in East Michigan) 2010 primary. It may get more interesting this time. At worst, this pushes Upton to the right a bit on issues like energy.
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Rick Perry for President
I expect when things to shake out for this to be a three, maybe four way race in the primary. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and possibly Michele Bachmann. Ron Paul will likely get his 5-10% with varied support for Herman Cain, Thad McCotter, Newt Gingrich, and Gary Johnson. I don't expect Sarah Palin to jump in, but I don't see her getting the nomination based on a "Can't win" worry.
Romney, Perry, and Huntsman I think are the "frontrunners." I think any of those three could win the nomination. I think of those three, two of them are very electable in the general election. Perry and Huntsman. Romney I think is less electable unless Obama beats himself.
Unless Perry drops out, I will probably not be voting for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Newt, Johnson, Santorum, or Palin (if she runs) based on chances of winning in the general election. I protest voted in the 08 election because of Rudy McRomneyabee. I don't regret it. There's different dynamics this time.
I don't care for Romney, but he's got money and organizational skills. His organizational skills are elite. Those two things alone give him a chance. He is a former governor for one term, and has a venture capitalist background. He was the establishment favorite in 2008 and is their favorite once again this year. Working against him (I think) this time is that there's no McCain. That's hurting him with conservatives who preferred him to McCain. Huntsman may play a factor in this later on though. Despite polls, I don't think Romney is electable unless Obama beats himself. That's due to his constant shifting in positions over and over again, as well as his pandering. Where does he stand after Romneycare? Social issues, especially his shift on life issues and a consistently anti-gun record, are a factor to a degree, but Romneycare is his biggest issue, followed by the voting against it after voting for it types of shifts. Jobs is the other. His jobs record in Massachusetts isn't that stellar, and it needs to be in order to compete with Obama. His biggest weakness though isn't his views. It's his constant changing of views. There's too much John Kerry in him, although at least Romney isn't a traitor like Kerry was in his 72 senate speech. I'd probably cave if he's the nominee, but I'd really be holding my nose.
Speaking of Huntsman. Why would I support Huntsman over Romney? It's the economy stupid. Utah has been one of the brighter spots with the economy in recent years. Huntsman only had one term as governor, but there was stronger economic growth in Utah than many other places in the country. Was he responsible for all of it? No, but he didn't screw things up, although there is one major issue I have with economic issues of his that is a dealbreaker with me for any primary vote. Cap and trade. He supports it for global warming. As someone with family in the auto industry and supportive of manufacturing, that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sold on man-made global warming because A. Every study I've seen is based on an 150 year study or so, which is a drop in the bucket in earth years unless you are a young earth creationist (I'm not) or B. I'm not sold that global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is bad, how is cap and trade going to fix it? The other thing about Huntsman - good and bad - is that he's a technocrat.
Huntsman has a record of being pro-life as far as I know, but my guard is up a bit. Is he for embryo research? I'd trust him over Romney on this issue though. He is for civil unions. I oppose those and would rather have government get out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreak for me, but cap and trade is. However, I do think Huntsman is electable in a general election if he is the nominee. I also think you'll see a lot more from him as it gets closer to New Hampshire and Iowa. What separates Huntsman from Romney is that with Huntsman, you have a good idea what you're going to get. A moderate technocrat. I'd vote for Huntsman over Obama, but not in a primary.
Rick Perry has my support. I commented on his electability here. I think he's a center-right candidate who can win due to his experience, the economy, and the fact that people know what they are going to get from him. Perry is who he is. Do I agree with Perry 100%? No I don't. The vaccine requirement. I don't have a problem with him encouraging it, but I did with requirements. He realized his mistake and backed off. I'm also opposed to the death penalty. However, there's a lot of issues where I do agree with him.
1. Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges. Right now, there's no accountability for federal judicial decisions. There needs to be checks and balances.
2. 16th Amendment income tax. Eliminate it.
3. Balance Budget Amendment.
4. Opposition to Cap and Trade and supports of all the above energy policy which will help our economy
5. Pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment
6. Repeal Obamacare.
7. Turned down stimulus money because of the strings attached.
8. Reduced property taxes and refused to create income tax
9. Vetoes. He used the veto more times than anyone else in Texas history - despite republican control for much of his time in office.
In addition to that, the issue is experience. Obama was a junior league senator with four years of statewide elected experience. Before that, he was a state senator. He is the Peter Principle in Chief. George W Bush I think was inexperienced as well. He was a 1 1/2 term governor and his other major experience was running the Texas Rangers. I think the inexperience caught up with him in the 2nd term of his presidency. Carter was a one term governor and former state senator. He was the Peter Principle in Chief of his time, and then some. Worst president in my lifetime.
Rick Perry has a 10 year record as governor, and 10 years before that as either Lt Governor or Agricultural Commissioner. During the past 20 years, Texas has been one of the leading states in economic growth. Perry didn't do that by himself, but most importantly, he didn't screw things up. A bad governor can do a number on a state. Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Kathleen Blanco, and Rod Blagojevich prove that. Rick Perry is the most conservative candidate running who can win, and he can win due to the performance of the Texas economy and jobs over the past 10 years.
Jobs is how Perry wins, and jobs is how Obama loses.
Romney, Perry, and Huntsman I think are the "frontrunners." I think any of those three could win the nomination. I think of those three, two of them are very electable in the general election. Perry and Huntsman. Romney I think is less electable unless Obama beats himself.
Unless Perry drops out, I will probably not be voting for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Newt, Johnson, Santorum, or Palin (if she runs) based on chances of winning in the general election. I protest voted in the 08 election because of Rudy McRomneyabee. I don't regret it. There's different dynamics this time.
I don't care for Romney, but he's got money and organizational skills. His organizational skills are elite. Those two things alone give him a chance. He is a former governor for one term, and has a venture capitalist background. He was the establishment favorite in 2008 and is their favorite once again this year. Working against him (I think) this time is that there's no McCain. That's hurting him with conservatives who preferred him to McCain. Huntsman may play a factor in this later on though. Despite polls, I don't think Romney is electable unless Obama beats himself. That's due to his constant shifting in positions over and over again, as well as his pandering. Where does he stand after Romneycare? Social issues, especially his shift on life issues and a consistently anti-gun record, are a factor to a degree, but Romneycare is his biggest issue, followed by the voting against it after voting for it types of shifts. Jobs is the other. His jobs record in Massachusetts isn't that stellar, and it needs to be in order to compete with Obama. His biggest weakness though isn't his views. It's his constant changing of views. There's too much John Kerry in him, although at least Romney isn't a traitor like Kerry was in his 72 senate speech. I'd probably cave if he's the nominee, but I'd really be holding my nose.
Speaking of Huntsman. Why would I support Huntsman over Romney? It's the economy stupid. Utah has been one of the brighter spots with the economy in recent years. Huntsman only had one term as governor, but there was stronger economic growth in Utah than many other places in the country. Was he responsible for all of it? No, but he didn't screw things up, although there is one major issue I have with economic issues of his that is a dealbreaker with me for any primary vote. Cap and trade. He supports it for global warming. As someone with family in the auto industry and supportive of manufacturing, that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sold on man-made global warming because A. Every study I've seen is based on an 150 year study or so, which is a drop in the bucket in earth years unless you are a young earth creationist (I'm not) or B. I'm not sold that global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is bad, how is cap and trade going to fix it? The other thing about Huntsman - good and bad - is that he's a technocrat.
Huntsman has a record of being pro-life as far as I know, but my guard is up a bit. Is he for embryo research? I'd trust him over Romney on this issue though. He is for civil unions. I oppose those and would rather have government get out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreak for me, but cap and trade is. However, I do think Huntsman is electable in a general election if he is the nominee. I also think you'll see a lot more from him as it gets closer to New Hampshire and Iowa. What separates Huntsman from Romney is that with Huntsman, you have a good idea what you're going to get. A moderate technocrat. I'd vote for Huntsman over Obama, but not in a primary.
Rick Perry has my support. I commented on his electability here. I think he's a center-right candidate who can win due to his experience, the economy, and the fact that people know what they are going to get from him. Perry is who he is. Do I agree with Perry 100%? No I don't. The vaccine requirement. I don't have a problem with him encouraging it, but I did with requirements. He realized his mistake and backed off. I'm also opposed to the death penalty. However, there's a lot of issues where I do agree with him.
1. Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges. Right now, there's no accountability for federal judicial decisions. There needs to be checks and balances.
2. 16th Amendment income tax. Eliminate it.
3. Balance Budget Amendment.
4. Opposition to Cap and Trade and supports of all the above energy policy which will help our economy
5. Pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment
6. Repeal Obamacare.
7. Turned down stimulus money because of the strings attached.
8. Reduced property taxes and refused to create income tax
9. Vetoes. He used the veto more times than anyone else in Texas history - despite republican control for much of his time in office.
In addition to that, the issue is experience. Obama was a junior league senator with four years of statewide elected experience. Before that, he was a state senator. He is the Peter Principle in Chief. George W Bush I think was inexperienced as well. He was a 1 1/2 term governor and his other major experience was running the Texas Rangers. I think the inexperience caught up with him in the 2nd term of his presidency. Carter was a one term governor and former state senator. He was the Peter Principle in Chief of his time, and then some. Worst president in my lifetime.
Rick Perry has a 10 year record as governor, and 10 years before that as either Lt Governor or Agricultural Commissioner. During the past 20 years, Texas has been one of the leading states in economic growth. Perry didn't do that by himself, but most importantly, he didn't screw things up. A bad governor can do a number on a state. Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Kathleen Blanco, and Rod Blagojevich prove that. Rick Perry is the most conservative candidate running who can win, and he can win due to the performance of the Texas economy and jobs over the past 10 years.
Jobs is how Perry wins, and jobs is how Obama loses.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Rick Perry - The most electable candidate right now? Yes, if he plays his cards right
With Perry jumping in, it's looking like a three way race right now in the top tier. Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry. Romney is a quasi-frontrunner right now, but is by no means running away with this. There is a LOT of opposition to Mitt Romney for several reasons, most notably Romneycare. Bachmann won the Iowa strong poll and is very well known for her strong conservative stances in Congress.
Now comes Rick Perry, who did well in the straw poll as a write in who did not compete. That brings two questions. Who is Rick Perry? Can he win? The answer to the 2nd part is, yes.
Rick Perry is the Governor of Texas. Governors usually win elections to the presidency. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors. Before he was governor, he was Lieutenant Governor, which is a separate elected position than the governor in Texas (unlike Michigan). Before that, he served two terms as Agricultural Commissioner. He's held statewide office since 1990 in Texas. Rick Perry is a party switcher. That's not unusual in Texas, especially when his dad was a democrat county commissioner. He was a state legislator from 1984-1990. For five of those years, he was a democrat. He switched in 1989. Before election, he was a farmer for 13 years. At election time, there will be 28 years of experience, 20 of which is statewide executive experience. That dwarfs the Peter Principle in Chief.
From looking at his home of Haskell County on an elections map, it was still yellow dog territory there. It was Sam Rayburn country. His congressional district (13th ) was democrat for all except two years until the 84 elections. It went dem again from 88-94. Bush, from Midland, barely won Haskell County in his first election. Bush 50%, Gore 47% Bill Clinton, despite losing Texas twice, won it twice. Michael Dukakis won the county. Jimmy Carter won it twice. Ronald Reagan won it in the 84 landslide, and the next Republican to win that district was George W Bush. Bush and McCain both got over 60% against far left candidates like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Looking at where Perry's from, I can see where he was a late party switcher. Haskell County is not Midland County. That's ranch country, not oil country.
Perry's going to be attacked for his party switching. I look back at my own family in 1988. There were a lot more democrats, albeit many were Reagan Democrats, than there are today. People can change. One of the most hardline democrats in the family back at that period later had a Joe Hune sign in front of the house. Joe's no RINO, that's for sure. How I'd judge Perry's switch and whether it was a real party switch or a Arlen Specter type of double switch (D to R to D but being the same clown the whole time) is to look at Perry's record. He has a 20 year record as a Republican official. Perry can use the old line of the democrats leaving him. They are no longer the party of working families, but for rich leftists like Soros, Buffett, Hollywood, and Gates.
Some say that Perry will be like George W Bush. Not exactly. Perry was never really Bush's guy. In fact, by all accounts Bush quietly backed Kay Bailey Hutchison in the primary against Perry in the last election. He didn't publically make an endorsement, but Dick Cheney and George HW Bush did back Hutchison. From what I've heard, Bush and Perry aren't close, but you won't hear them say anything about it.
The media is going to try and paint Perry as "The social conservative candidate." When you have a 20 year record, you have a lot more than that in your campaign. I think Perry's best chance is to focus on the top three issues. Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs. It's the economy. That's the advantage has with Perry having a long record from Texas. Texas is in much better shape than a lot of states when it comes to the economy. That's where the growth is. One comment Perry made when asked if his campaign could sell in swing states like Pennsylvania is "I think people in Pennsylvania want jobs too." Perry's experience is what separates him from Bachmann. Perry can run on the economy, while also being a social conservative. Bachmann can run on as a social conservative activist who is also a fiscal conservative. The subtle wording is the difference between the candidates. It's the emphasis. I like Bachmann. I don't think she can win a presidential race right now. I'd like to see her stay in congress. We need her there. Perry won't emphasize the social issues as much as Bachmann, but he'll be reliable on life issues when needed. He is outspoken on the 2nd Amendment, and some coyote made the mistake of going near his daughters dog.
Compare Perry's experience as an executive to Obama. It's no comparison. 20 years (10 as governor) as a large state executive to 4 with the country. Economic matters? Anybody is better than Obama, but 40% of the new jobs have been created in Texas. Weakness - Perry is a Texas governor. So was Bush. Turn that into a positive. Perry's not Bush and had more experience on the state level than Bush. 10 years as governor against 6. Texas created jobs. Obama lost jobs. That's why Perry can win.
Now comes Rick Perry, who did well in the straw poll as a write in who did not compete. That brings two questions. Who is Rick Perry? Can he win? The answer to the 2nd part is, yes.
Rick Perry is the Governor of Texas. Governors usually win elections to the presidency. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors. Before he was governor, he was Lieutenant Governor, which is a separate elected position than the governor in Texas (unlike Michigan). Before that, he served two terms as Agricultural Commissioner. He's held statewide office since 1990 in Texas. Rick Perry is a party switcher. That's not unusual in Texas, especially when his dad was a democrat county commissioner. He was a state legislator from 1984-1990. For five of those years, he was a democrat. He switched in 1989. Before election, he was a farmer for 13 years. At election time, there will be 28 years of experience, 20 of which is statewide executive experience. That dwarfs the Peter Principle in Chief.
From looking at his home of Haskell County on an elections map, it was still yellow dog territory there. It was Sam Rayburn country. His congressional district (13th ) was democrat for all except two years until the 84 elections. It went dem again from 88-94. Bush, from Midland, barely won Haskell County in his first election. Bush 50%, Gore 47% Bill Clinton, despite losing Texas twice, won it twice. Michael Dukakis won the county. Jimmy Carter won it twice. Ronald Reagan won it in the 84 landslide, and the next Republican to win that district was George W Bush. Bush and McCain both got over 60% against far left candidates like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Looking at where Perry's from, I can see where he was a late party switcher. Haskell County is not Midland County. That's ranch country, not oil country.
Perry's going to be attacked for his party switching. I look back at my own family in 1988. There were a lot more democrats, albeit many were Reagan Democrats, than there are today. People can change. One of the most hardline democrats in the family back at that period later had a Joe Hune sign in front of the house. Joe's no RINO, that's for sure. How I'd judge Perry's switch and whether it was a real party switch or a Arlen Specter type of double switch (D to R to D but being the same clown the whole time) is to look at Perry's record. He has a 20 year record as a Republican official. Perry can use the old line of the democrats leaving him. They are no longer the party of working families, but for rich leftists like Soros, Buffett, Hollywood, and Gates.
Some say that Perry will be like George W Bush. Not exactly. Perry was never really Bush's guy. In fact, by all accounts Bush quietly backed Kay Bailey Hutchison in the primary against Perry in the last election. He didn't publically make an endorsement, but Dick Cheney and George HW Bush did back Hutchison. From what I've heard, Bush and Perry aren't close, but you won't hear them say anything about it.
The media is going to try and paint Perry as "The social conservative candidate." When you have a 20 year record, you have a lot more than that in your campaign. I think Perry's best chance is to focus on the top three issues. Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs. It's the economy. That's the advantage has with Perry having a long record from Texas. Texas is in much better shape than a lot of states when it comes to the economy. That's where the growth is. One comment Perry made when asked if his campaign could sell in swing states like Pennsylvania is "I think people in Pennsylvania want jobs too." Perry's experience is what separates him from Bachmann. Perry can run on the economy, while also being a social conservative. Bachmann can run on as a social conservative activist who is also a fiscal conservative. The subtle wording is the difference between the candidates. It's the emphasis. I like Bachmann. I don't think she can win a presidential race right now. I'd like to see her stay in congress. We need her there. Perry won't emphasize the social issues as much as Bachmann, but he'll be reliable on life issues when needed. He is outspoken on the 2nd Amendment, and some coyote made the mistake of going near his daughters dog.
Compare Perry's experience as an executive to Obama. It's no comparison. 20 years (10 as governor) as a large state executive to 4 with the country. Economic matters? Anybody is better than Obama, but 40% of the new jobs have been created in Texas. Weakness - Perry is a Texas governor. So was Bush. Turn that into a positive. Perry's not Bush and had more experience on the state level than Bush. 10 years as governor against 6. Texas created jobs. Obama lost jobs. That's why Perry can win.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Pawlenty drops out
The Ames Straw Poll claims its first victim.
From Politico
I think the biggest thing that hurt him is one of the most unfortunate reasons. People find him boring. That really should have no effect at all in a political race. Policy gets boring, but it's important. I've always been more of a behind the scenes person and a process/policy person instead of the one who tries to get in front of the camera. Pawlenty hints at the boring part here.
This guy won a state which is very difficult to win. Twice. Once in a very bad year. However, as I've been told by many "He doesn't have a chance. He's boring." I think this is Bill Clinton's biggest influence on the GOP. Many Republicans are afraid of a candidate who is viewed as boring because they think they will come out as "Bob Dole" in 96, losing to a dynamic speaker. Here's a newsflash. Unless you come out with the ghost of Reagan - and there's only one Reagan Republican - you're not going to out speech Obama and his teleprompter in style. I don't like Obama's style at all, but I'm not the person you're trying to convince either in a general election. Personally, I'd run against Obama's charisma and contrast style vs substance. He's the Peter Principle in Chief.
Now who gets that 13%? Pawlenty was running hard against Bachmann. I don't think most of his support will get going there. I think Perry is the one that's going to most benefit from this. Pawlenty was the gubernatorial alternative to Romney. Perry stepped into that role as soon as he jumped in. Pawlenty's quote outside of the blue state - "What I brought forward, I thought, was a rational, established, credible, strong record of results, based on experience governing" can fit to Perry as well. Perry's been governor 10 years. Perry's state isn't blue at all, but it is extremely diverse. Texas is a minority-majority state. Perry's biggest issue nationally may be George W Bush being his precedessor. Whether that works to an advantage or disadvantage or no effect in both the primary and general remains to be seen. Perry's his own guy, though. It's been almost 11 years since Bush was in the governor's mansion in Texas. Bush left after 6 years. Perry would have 10 years if he won.
Romney and Huntsman are the other governors. They obviously aren't hurt by Pawlenty's drop, but I think Romney's already viewed as the quasi-frontrunner. I think the question will be if Romney can hang on through the primaries. We'll see.
From Politico
AMES, Iowa - After spending much of his money to finish a distant third in the Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty ended his presidential bid Sunday.
“We needed to get some lift to continue on and have a pathway forward and that didn’t happen, so I’m announcing on your show that I’m ending my campaign for president,” the former governor said on “This Week.”
I think the biggest thing that hurt him is one of the most unfortunate reasons. People find him boring. That really should have no effect at all in a political race. Policy gets boring, but it's important. I've always been more of a behind the scenes person and a process/policy person instead of the one who tries to get in front of the camera. Pawlenty hints at the boring part here.
“What I brought forward, I thought, was a rational, established, credible, strong record of results, based on experience governing - a two-term governor of a blue state,” said Pawlenty. “But I think the audience, so to speak, was looking for something different.”
This guy won a state which is very difficult to win. Twice. Once in a very bad year. However, as I've been told by many "He doesn't have a chance. He's boring." I think this is Bill Clinton's biggest influence on the GOP. Many Republicans are afraid of a candidate who is viewed as boring because they think they will come out as "Bob Dole" in 96, losing to a dynamic speaker. Here's a newsflash. Unless you come out with the ghost of Reagan - and there's only one Reagan Republican - you're not going to out speech Obama and his teleprompter in style. I don't like Obama's style at all, but I'm not the person you're trying to convince either in a general election. Personally, I'd run against Obama's charisma and contrast style vs substance. He's the Peter Principle in Chief.
Now who gets that 13%? Pawlenty was running hard against Bachmann. I don't think most of his support will get going there. I think Perry is the one that's going to most benefit from this. Pawlenty was the gubernatorial alternative to Romney. Perry stepped into that role as soon as he jumped in. Pawlenty's quote outside of the blue state - "What I brought forward, I thought, was a rational, established, credible, strong record of results, based on experience governing" can fit to Perry as well. Perry's been governor 10 years. Perry's state isn't blue at all, but it is extremely diverse. Texas is a minority-majority state. Perry's biggest issue nationally may be George W Bush being his precedessor. Whether that works to an advantage or disadvantage or no effect in both the primary and general remains to be seen. Perry's his own guy, though. It's been almost 11 years since Bush was in the governor's mansion in Texas. Bush left after 6 years. Perry would have 10 years if he won.
Romney and Huntsman are the other governors. They obviously aren't hurt by Pawlenty's drop, but I think Romney's already viewed as the quasi-frontrunner. I think the question will be if Romney can hang on through the primaries. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
