Why Perry Can't Win

[Unkotare]

Ok, I now believe you that you really are this stupid. I guess that's not your fault, but you don't seem to be trying very hard to improve.

If we leave Afghanistan before a stable, functioning government is in place that can police itself and exert control over all its provinces, in a few years (or maybe just a few months) it will become an incubator, sponsor, and haven for the kind of evil that enabled a certain problem we had about ten years ago (remember?). If that happens and we have to return again it will be even harder and more 'expensive.' Leaving a job unfinished always ends up being more, not less, trouble.

But Afghanistan has NEVER had a functioning government that has exerted control over all its provinces.

Afghanistan has always been a spot on the map they gave a name to, but it's never been a place with a national identity.

The Soviets tried for 10 years to do what you say, and they put a lot more effort into the project. The minute they pulled out, all their boys were taken out and shot.

The British tried for years to conquer it and couldn't do it, either.

Only a Moron thinks we are going to be able to turn this place into a functioning democracy or give it a government that'll do our bidding.

Oh, wait, I forgot I was talking to a guy who thinks he's wearing magic underpants.

None of that does anything to change the situation and circumstances we are currently in and what the best course of action is for our nation (my nation anyway, I don't know where the hell you are from) and it is childishly illogical to try and suggest a connection that does not exist.

And, as I have told you many times, I am not a Mormon, you stupid fucking bigot.

 

[yidnar]

The GOP / Tea Party / Libertarians have a real quandry on their hands with this guy. I really liked him when we lived in Sugar Land, TX but we were pretty insulated from the poor / lower-middle-class there. I have to admit, I was not paying attention to a lot that was going on. I thought all was fine.

So the biggest debacle the Conservs have had recently (in the eyes of everyone but themselves) was the debt ceiling. Polls ranged anywhere from 65% - 78% of people thinking the GOP handled it disastrously. Doesn't matter if they were right or had a point, elections are won based on perception - and the perception was overwhelmingly poor. This was one of the few areas in which Obama (although he too had poor ratings) came out looking WAY better than the GOP. So debt is a key issue.
What's Perry's record on debt? Oops. What will the Dem sound bite be? "A vote for Perry is just like a vote for bringing George W. Bush back to the White House!" Oops.
Then there are those things about his highway and giving the government land and power? Oops. Big Government guy eh? More Bushlike.
Owned by Big Oil? Of course. More Bushlike.

But here's what's worse for him. Subliminal Psychology. The stuff we don't even notice, that effects our decision making.
I voted for Bush (the good one, not the idiot). I was floored when he lost! He was the first incumbant president in history to decisively win a war that the whole nation was behind - and then lose re-election.
I used to lecture on Pyschological Profiling at USD and decided to make him a case study. Bush was a long-time spook. One of the things you learn in the biz, is misdirectional body language. Shaking your head no, while you say the word "yes", for example. Bush was a master of this and it killed him. In one speech he held his thumb and forefinger an inch apart. What does that mean to our subconscious? Small. What was he actually saying at the time? "The Hispanic community is very important to me." What was the message sent to Hispanic voters? He's lying.
In another speech, he held his hands together and then motioned them outwards. What does that mean? Pushing apart. What did he say? "I'm here to bring us together. To work as a non-partisan." Again, the subconscious message that he was lying.
Now I think he actually meant those things but he had so much training in misdirectional body language, he couldn't help himself. So whether or not he was genuine, at the subconcious level, he wasn't perceived as genuine. That cost him.
So now we come to Perry. I've been watching and listening. There are three things that make impact: Visual appearance, Vocal tones and patterns, Choice of words.
Perry dresses and moves a lot like Bush (the idiot, not the good one). He's very "down home" and Texan. Even likes cowboy boots. This is bad.
Perry's vocal tones and patterns are a LOT like W. I heard him on the radio and thought it actually was W for a second. He speaks slowly, with a Texan drawl. He pauses a lot. He laughs just a bit, here and there. He speaks in a tone that is mostly light-hearted and then varies to anywhere from serious to mildly angered. This is all classic W.
Finaly, Perry's choice of words come straight from the Texas Handbook of Politics. It works wonders at home and worked wonders for W in both elections. And if it wasn't for W, it might make a fantastic contrast to Obama. But because of the spectre of The False Texan Conservative of Elections Past, it will be a killer for him.
Add to that, the actual, legitmate challenges he faces with issues such as spending and he's cooked. It's not that people would move toward Obama, it's that hoardes of Independents, Moderates (yes, there is a difference!) and others would move away from Perry.
So like I said, I liked Perry when I lived in Texas. I think Obama sucks. But for reasons beyond the recognizable, Perry would almost definitely lose a general election. A lot of people will "just have a bad feeling" about him and not even be sure why. Remember, most people don't research candidates, couldn't tell you if the 2nd amendment has to do with guns or ice cream, and vote based on the impressions they get from 30 second sound bites. It won't be hard for the Dems to gather sound bites that make Perry seem like a virtual clone of W.

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, I now believe you that you really are this stupid. I guess that's not your fault, but you don't seem to be trying very hard to improve.

If we leave Afghanistan before a stable, functioning government is in place that can police itself and exert control over all its provinces, in a few years (or maybe just a few months) it will become an incubator, sponsor, and haven for the kind of evil that enabled a certain problem we had about ten years ago (remember?). If that happens and we have to return again it will be even harder and more 'expensive.' Leaving a job unfinished always ends up being more, not less, trouble.

But Afghanistan has NEVER had a functioning government that has exerted control over all its provinces.

Afghanistan has always been a spot on the map they gave a name to, but it's never been a place with a national identity.

The Soviets tried for 10 years to do what you say, and they put a lot more effort into the project. The minute they pulled out, all their boys were taken out and shot.

The British tried for years to conquer it and couldn't do it, either.

Only a Moron thinks we are going to be able to turn this place into a functioning democracy or give it a government that'll do our bidding.

Oh, wait, I forgot I was talking to a guy who thinks he's wearing magic underpants.

None of that does anything to change the situation and circumstances we are currently in and what the best course of action is for our nation (my nation anyway, I don't know where the hell you are from) and it is childishly illogical to try and suggest a connection that does not exist.

And, as I have told you many times, I am not a Mormon, you stupid fucking bigot.

Now, if you keep using the bad words, they aren't going to show you the secret handshake that gets you into the Celestial Heaven...

The point is, we are NEVER going to establish a government there that is our kind of people. Karzai is inept, but he's the only game we've got. He's a dead man after we leave, and everyone knows it.

So yes, ideal world, it would be wonderful if we could establish a kind of government you call for, but real world, it ain't gonna happen with people this backwards.

Turn it over to the Chinese and let them have a go at it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the way, Romney is having no problem dealing with Perry.

If you consider trailing by double digits to be "no problem", then yeah, he's having no problem.

Besides all the other reasons I've listed as to why Romney can't win the nomination, here's another one.

He doesn't really believe what he's saying.

Back in 2008, when he decided he was going to work the far right end of the street when McCain and Guliani had the moderate side sewn up, he suddenly renounced nearly all of his past positions. Except nobody bought it. It was faker than Pamela Anderson's breast implants.

He'll try to make a play for the right again this time, and he'll sound fake and forced when he does it.

JoeB, everyone knows by now that you are very off on the numbers.

The polls clearly reveal Romney trail overall by maye 2% in the GOP polls, is kicking Perry's rear by 15% or more in NH, and Perry's exposure is weaking him in the eyes of the indepednent and moderate classes.

You need to stay in reality.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Okay, given Obama's extremely poor performance, I guess it was a bit strong to say that Perry "Can't win". Fine he has a shot, albeit a long shot. I think the GOP would be better off with Paul than Perry - and that's saying something because Paul seems unelectable. But at least he wouldn't be perceived thus: W was horrible. Obama is W part II, Here comes Perry - W Part III.

Obama certainly did not turn out to be the President for Change, but don't go giving any kudos to the Republicans yet. They had a choice opportunity to step up, take the reins and look like they gave a G'damn about the future of this country. Instead, like the spoiled colicky 3-year-olds they are, they threw a bitch tantrum resulting in absolutely nothing getting done.

What irks me most are these "macho" 1-up-manship games continually being played by this worthless Congressional cadre. These do-nothing-leeches and their do-nothing-games are being played daily at our expense.

Obama may well not win a second term, but don't count on a pointy-toed religious hypocrite from Texas whose idea of American life got stuck somewhere in the 1950s being his replacement.

As for Mitt Romney - if he had a bit more of that old political know-how his father George Romney had, he might fare better. As for now, he still looks like a vacationing department store mannequin. That he doesn't like Perry is a three steps parlay for him where I'm concerned, however.

It seems to have completely slipped the elephant mind that it was a Republican who created this unmanageable swamp, which no one is able to figure a way out of much less how to drain. And no matter how often the Republicans shuffle those shells attempting to hide that fact, everyone over the age of 10 knows the truth.

What America should be saying is. Who cares who is to blame, only teenagers and politicians apparently. The questions of the hour are what are we as a nation going to do about it? Are our differences resolvable? How soon can workable plans or strategies be produced for getting us working again? Who is right for the job of spearheading this monumental project? That's the winning platform regardless of party politic. Unless of course the current Congress doesn't care whether or not the country, the people and our way of life survives. About that, I'm very sorry to say that the jury is still out.

Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody. — Franklin P. Adams

Wow are you stupid.
The GOP controls one house of Congress, and not by a huge margin either. They hammered out the best deal they could. The Democrats had no proposal. Obama had no clue. The only way the deal was made to begin with was when he was asked to leave the room so the adults could decide.
The deal sucked, as Boehner himself admitted. But it was the best one that was going to happen with Obama and the Dums not taking debt reduction seriously. The proof is in how OBama blew off the downgrade in his speech.

No, Obama is one and done. He has exhibited zero leadership and has no ideas. Perry will change things for the better.

Congressional control can change with the next election - just as it did with the last.

And stupid right back at ya, if you expect me to believe the Republicans did their best when the final offering didn't even meet Speaker Boehner's standards.

Reagan asked for and got without argument 18 debt ceiling increases during his tenure; Bush, 7. Republicans can be so ridiculously transparent. More to the point, the debt isn't going anywhere and I'll give you odds on the American taxpayer knowing who will get stuck with the tab, no matter how long it takes Republicans and the rest of Congress to figure it out.

Republicans didn't give a fig about the ever increasing war debt while Georgie Porgie was busily maxing out the country's credit. Where was the Republican outcry for fiscal responsibility then?

And what this country doesn't need is another numb-nut Texan taking up space in the White House. If Perry is the answer, then the question must be simpler than anyone imagines. I was born and raised in Austin, Texas and proud of it. As such it is difficult to believe he's the best Texas has to offer. If so, Texas must be slipping. Perry's secession threat was not only offensive but childish. However, it certainly would be interesting to observe his reactions upon discovering what withdrawing from the protection of the United States really means. Not even the great State of Texas could meet and defeat that challenge. Beware of candidates who leap before checking distance, and where, on what and how they'll land.

Another Petty gaff - of all the pressing problems facing Americans and their families today, abortion rights just isn't one of them - no matter how narrow Perry's view. But true to the Neo-Con objective they'll hawk their backward anti-abortion palaver regardless, They seen blissfully unaware that the subject at most affects less than 1/1000th of the entire population, so who cares. Other than jogging with his six shooter (happiness is a warm gun); threatening secession; making unwanted and unnecessary Constitution changes and his totally absurd comparative to teaching the Creation Myth as an alternative to teaching the Theory of Evolution, is this guy for real real? He certainly doesn't sound like he is.

Romney doesn't like Perry and that puts Romney way ahead in my race. And Romney doesn't discuss his six shooter as if it were an extension of his anatomy either. Doesn't think =abortion rights are a pressing issue. And best of all, he has a clear distinctive understanding of what separation of church and state means.

Perry comes very close to nudging Sarah Palin out of her top spot as the candidate most unlikely to succeed. He'd have to quit cold turkey mid term to ace her out completely - but that's one point in his favor.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama certainly did not turn out to be the President for Change, but don't go giving any kudos to the Republicans yet. They had a choice opportunity to step up, take the reins and look like they gave a G'damn about the future of this country. Instead, like the spoiled colicky 3-year-olds they are, they threw a http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/the-rabbi.htmlbitch tantrum resulting in absolutely nothing getting done.

What irks me most are these "macho" 1-up-manship games continually being played by this worthless Congressional cadre. These do-nothing-leeches and their do-nothing-games are being played daily at our expense.

Obama may well not win a second term, but don't count on a pointy-toed religious hypocrite from Texas whose idea of American life got stuck somewhere in the 1950s being his replacement.

As for Mitt Romney - if he had a bit more of that old political know-how his father George Romney had, he might fare better. As for now, he still looks like a vacationing department store mannequin. That he doesn't like Perry is a three steps parlay for him where I'm concerned, however.

It seems to have completely slipped the elephant mind that it was a Republican who created this unmanageable swamp, which no one is able to figure a way out of much less how to drain. And no matter how often the Republicans shuffle those shells attempting to hide that fact, everyone over the age of 10 knows the truth.

What America should be saying is. Who cares who is to blame, only teenagers and politicians apparently. The questions of the hour are what are we as a nation going to do about it? Are our differences resolvable? How soon can workable plans or strategies be produced for getting us working again? Who is right for the job of spearheading this monumental project? That's the winning platform regardless of party politic. Unless of course the current Congress doesn't care whether or not the country, the people and our way of life survives. About that, I'm very sorry to say that the jury is still out.

Wow are you stupid.
The GOP controls one house of Congress, and not by a huge margin either. They hammered out the best deal they could. The Democrats had no proposal. Obama had no clue. The only way the deal was made to begin with was when he was asked to leave the room so the adults could decide.
The deal sucked, as Boehner himself admitted. But it was the best one that was going to happen with Obama and the Dums not taking debt reduction seriously. The proof is in how OBama blew off the downgrade in his speech.

No, Obama is one and done. He has exhibited zero leadership and has no ideas. Perry will change things for the better.

Congressional control can change with the next election - just as it did with the last.

And stupid right back at ya, if you expect me to believe the Republicans did their best when the final offering didn't even meet Speaker Boehner's standards.

Reagan asked for and got without argument 18 debt ceiling increases during his tenure; Bush, 7. Republicans can be so ridiculously transparent. More to the point, the debt isn't going anywhere and I'll give you odds on the American taxpayer knowing who will get stuck with the tab, no matter how long it takes Republicans and the rest of Congress to figure it out.

Republicans didn't give a fig about the ever increasing war debt while Georgie Porgie was busily maxing out the country's credit. Where was the Republican outcry for fiscal responsibility then?

And what this country doesn't need is another numb-nut Texan taking up space in the White House. If Perry is the answer, then the question must be simpler than anyone imagines. I was born and raised in Austin, Texas and proud of it. As such it is difficult to believe he's the best Texas has to offer. If so, Texas must be slipping. Perry's secession threat was not only offensive but childish. However, it certainly would be interesting to observe his reactions upon discovering what withdrawing from the protection of the United States really means. Not even the great State of Texas could meet and defeat that challenge. Beware of candidates who leap before checking distance, and where, on what and how they'll land.

Another Petty gaff - of all the pressing problems facing Americans and their families today, abortion rights just isn't one of them - no matter how narrow Perry's view. But true to the Neo-Con objective they'll hawk their backward anti-abortion palaver regardless, They seen blissfully unaware that the subject at most affects less than 1/1000th of the entire population, so who cares. Other than jogging with his six shooter (happiness is a warm gun); threatening secession; making unwanted and unnecessary Constitution changes and his totally absurd comparative to teaching the Creation Myth as an alternative to teaching the Theory of Evolution, is this guy for real real? He certainly doesn't sound like he is.

Romney doesn't like Perry and that puts Romney way ahead in my race. And Romney doesn't discuss his six shooter as if it were an extension of his anatomy either. Doesn't think =abortion rights are a pressing issue. And best of all, he has a clear distinctive understanding of what separation of church and state means.

Perry comes very close to nudging Sarah Palin out of her top spot as the candidate most unlikely to succeed. He'd have to quit cold turkey mid term to ace her out completely - but that's one point in his favor.

When has debt ever been this high as a percentage of GDP? I dont recall anyone discussing a downgrade of US debt during Reagan's or Bush's terms.
Change the subject because you are losing.

And yes, killing babies is an important issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi is correct if he is implying that Romney sounds Tea Party but will have no intention of fulfilling the TeaPots' wildest ambitions. He needs only a small portion of them during the primary and the national election, then he is home free for four years. Romney will then steadily ignore the Tea Party and undermine their reps' national patronage in the states if they don't support his programs.

 

[Toro]

Wow are you stupid.
The GOP controls one house of Congress, and not by a huge margin either. They hammered out the best deal they could. The Democrats had no proposal. Obama had no clue. The only way the deal was made to begin with was when he was asked to leave the room so the adults could decide.
The deal sucked, as Boehner himself admitted. But it was the best one that was going to happen with Obama and the Dums not taking debt reduction seriously. The proof is in how OBama blew off the downgrade in his speech.

No, Obama is one and done. He has exhibited zero leadership and has no ideas. Perry will change things for the better.

Congressional control can change with the next election - just as it did with the last.

And stupid right back at ya, if you expect me to believe the Republicans did their best when the final offering didn't even meet Speaker Boehner's standards.

Reagan asked for and got without argument 18 debt ceiling increases during his tenure; Bush, 7. Republicans can be so ridiculously transparent. More to the point, the debt isn't going anywhere and I'll give you odds on the American taxpayer knowing who will get stuck with the tab, no matter how long it takes Republicans and the rest of Congress to figure it out.

Republicans didn't give a fig about the ever increasing war debt while Georgie Porgie was busily maxing out the country's credit. Where was the Republican outcry for fiscal responsibility then?

And what this country doesn't need is another numb-nut Texan taking up space in the White House. If Perry is the answer, then the question must be simpler than anyone imagines. I was born and raised in Austin, Texas and proud of it. As such it is difficult to believe he's the best Texas has to offer. If so, Texas must be slipping. Perry's secession threat was not only offensive but childish. However, it certainly would be interesting to observe his reactions upon discovering what withdrawing from the protection of the United States really means. Not even the great State of Texas could meet and defeat that challenge. Beware of candidates who leap before checking distance, and where, on what and how they'll land.

Another Petty gaff - of all the pressing problems facing Americans and their families today, abortion rights just isn't one of them - no matter how narrow Perry's view. But true to the Neo-Con objective they'll hawk their backward anti-abortion palaver regardless, They seen blissfully unaware that the subject at most affects less than 1/1000th of the entire population, so who cares. Other than jogging with his six shooter (happiness is a warm gun); threatening secession; making unwanted and unnecessary Constitution changes and his totally absurd comparative to teaching the Creation Myth as an alternative to teaching the Theory of Evolution, is this guy for real real? He certainly doesn't sound like he is.

Romney doesn't like Perry and that puts Romney way ahead in my race. And Romney doesn't discuss his six shooter as if it were an extension of his anatomy either. Doesn't think =abortion rights are a pressing issue. And best of all, he has a clear distinctive understanding of what separation of church and state means.

Perry comes very close to nudging Sarah Palin out of her top spot as the candidate most unlikely to succeed. He'd have to quit cold turkey mid term to ace her out completely - but that's one point in his favor.

When has debt ever been this high as a percentage of GDP? I dont recall anyone discussing a downgrade of US debt during Reagan's or Bush's terms.
Change the subject because you are losing.

And yes, killing babies is an important issue.

Debt to GDP was higher during WWII.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB, everyone knows by now that you are very off on the numbers.

The polls clearly reveal Romney trail overall by maye 2% in the GOP polls, is kicking Perry's rear by 15% or more in NH, and Perry's exposure is weaking him in the eyes of the indepednent and moderate classes.

You need to stay in reality.

New CNN POll out today gives Perry the widest margin yet against the Android from Kolob- 13 points.

Even your beloved "Aggregate" (which contains too much old data) is now opened up to a 5% advantage for Perry.

And as Palin and Bachmann fade, Perry's got nowhere to go but up.

But I guess Romney can get John Huntsman's whole 1%... That's something.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congressional control can change with the next election - just as it did with the last.

And stupid right back at ya, if you expect me to believe the Republicans did their best when the final offering didn't even meet Speaker Boehner's standards.

Reagan asked for and got without argument 18 debt ceiling increases during his tenure; Bush, 7. Republicans can be so ridiculously transparent. More to the point, the debt isn't going anywhere and I'll give you odds on the American taxpayer knowing who will get stuck with the tab, no matter how long it takes Republicans and the rest of Congress to figure it out.

Republicans didn't give a fig about the ever increasing war debt while Georgie Porgie was busily maxing out the country's credit. Where was the Republican outcry for fiscal responsibility then?

And what this country doesn't need is another numb-nut Texan taking up space in the White House. If Perry is the answer, then the question must be simpler than anyone imagines. I was born and raised in Austin, Texas and proud of it. As such it is difficult to believe he's the best Texas has to offer. If so, Texas must be slipping. Perry's secession threat was not only offensive but childish. However, it certainly would be interesting to observe his reactions upon discovering what withdrawing from the protection of the United States really means. Not even the great State of Texas could meet and defeat that challenge. Beware of candidates who leap before checking distance, and where, on what and how they'll land.

Another Petty gaff - of all the pressing problems facing Americans and their families today, abortion rights just isn't one of them - no matter how narrow Perry's view. But true to the Neo-Con objective they'll hawk their backward anti-abortion palaver regardless, They seen blissfully unaware that the subject at most affects less than 1/1000th of the entire population, so who cares. Other than jogging with his six shooter (happiness is a warm gun); threatening secession; making unwanted and unnecessary Constitution changes and his totally absurd comparative to teaching the Creation Myth as an alternative to teaching the Theory of Evolution, is this guy for real real? He certainly doesn't sound like he is.

Romney doesn't like Perry and that puts Romney way ahead in my race. And Romney doesn't discuss his six shooter as if it were an extension of his anatomy either. Doesn't think =abortion rights are a pressing issue. And best of all, he has a clear distinctive understanding of what separation of church and state means.

Perry comes very close to nudging Sarah Palin out of her top spot as the candidate most unlikely to succeed. He'd have to quit cold turkey mid term to ace her out completely - but that's one point in his favor.

When has debt ever been this high as a percentage of GDP? I dont recall anyone discussing a downgrade of US debt during Reagan's or Bush's terms.
Change the subject because you are losing.

And yes, killing babies is an important issue.

Debt to GDP was higher during WWII.

Yes it was. And that's a damn good reason.
There is no damn good reason today for it. But until it reaches this point it really shouldn't be much of an issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

JoeB, everyone knows by now that you are very off on the numbers.

The polls clearly reveal Romney trail overall by maye 2% in the GOP polls, is kicking Perry's rear by 15% or more in NH, and Perry's exposure is weaking him in the eyes of the indepednent and moderate classes.

You need to stay in reality.

New CNN POll out today gives Perry the widest margin yet against the Android from Kolob- 13 points.

Even your beloved "Aggregate" (which contains too much old data) is now opened up to a 5% advantage for Perry.

And as Palin and Bachmann fade, Perry's got nowhere to go but up.

But I guess Romney can get John Huntsman's whole 1%... That's something.

It's OK. Perry CAN"T win. Right?

 

[dblack]

It's OK. Perry CAN"T win. Right?

I think Perry CAN win. After Bush's victory in 2004, I'm reasonably sure it's possible. To me, the question is, do we want him too?

 

[JoeB131]

It's OK. Perry CAN"T win. Right?

I think Perry CAN win. After Bush's victory in 2004, I'm reasonably sure it's possible. To me, the question is, do we want him too?

FOr my viewpoint, the alternatives are worse.

Obama has proven himself incapable of running the country. This is really not even in dispute at this point. Even liberals are doing analyses of what he did wrong right now, which looks more like an autopsy than a constructive criticism. Since no president (not even the Great Reagan) has had a second term that was better than his first, and given how awful Obama's first term has been for, well, everyone, I just can't see a second term of this guy not being a disaster for all involved, including Democrats.

That leaves a Republican. More importantly, it leaves a viable republican, and there are only two. Romney and Perry. Romney is a non-starter for me. Not just because he belongs to a religion I don't trust, but because everything about the guy seems contrived, phony and dishonest. As Mike Huckabee said, "He looks like the guy who lays you off."

Now, I consider myself more centrist than right wing. (And you will get people who will take either position, but it really tends on the issue. I'm right on some, left on others, and I am always rethinking my positions.) So if we were talking just positions, I'd probably be closer to Romney than Perry. As an agnostic, I'm not entirely comfortable with Perry's over religiosity.

But if I were on a sinking boat or stranded in the middle of the desert, Perry strikes me as the guy who would take charge and get us to safety more than Obama or Romney ever would, and frankly, that's what we need right now more than an idealogy. Right or left, these guys inevitably get pulled towards the center anyway.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's OK. Perry CAN"T win. Right?

I think Perry CAN win. After Bush's victory in 2004, I'm reasonably sure it's possible. To me, the question is, do we want him too?

You mean because BUsh was competent and exhibited leadership qualities while the Democratic nominee had nothing of substance going for him?

Anyway, away from Planet Libertarian where the masses are calling for Ron Paul, Americans want a limited government, a strong foreign policy, and fair taxation. Perry seems to promise all of these. He is not scripted and does not speak in sound bites. He has actual experience in his resume. And he seems genuinely to like people, which is important.
He is also smart as hell, something the Dems have not understood yet. He knows what issues are important and can focus on those.

 

[dblack]

You mean because BUsh was competent and exhibited leadership qualities?

No, I mean the fact that they fell for the opposite with Bush II, means it's possible they'll fall for it again with Bush III. Perry is the same-old neo-con bullshit warmed up in the microwave. If we fall for it again, we'll deserve whatever we get.

 

[dblack]

That leaves a Republican. More importantly, it leaves a viable republican, and there are only two. Romney and Perry.

That's exactly what I'm calling bullshit on. The powers-that-be would have us believe that Romney and Perry are the only options because they know they'll 'play ball' with the corporatist status quo. We've got to stop rubber stamping whatever stooges they serve up for us.

 

[JoeB131]

That leaves a Republican. More importantly, it leaves a viable republican, and there are only two. Romney and Perry.

That's exactly what I'm calling bullshit on. The powers-that-be would have us believe that Romney and Perry are the only options because they know they'll 'play ball' with the corporatist status quo. We've got to stop rubber stamping whatever stooges they serve up for us.

Corporations are the reality of our lives in the world. If corporations are dead set against someone like, oh Ron Batshit Crazy Paul, it's probably because that person is batshit crazy.

 

[dblack]

Corporations are the reality of our lives in the world. If corporations are dead set against someone like, oh Ron Batshit Crazy Paul, it's probably because that person is batshit crazy.

Heh.. really now? Corporations would never oppose someone for ulterior motives?

 

[JoeB131]

Corporations are the reality of our lives in the world. If corporations are dead set against someone like, oh Ron Batshit Crazy Paul, it's probably because that person is batshit crazy.

Heh.. really now? Corporations would never oppose someone for ulterior motives?

They don't have an ulterior motive. They have a clear motive, they are pretty honest about. They are about making money.

And they support people who allow them to do that, not nutbags with tin-foil hats like Ron Paul.

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean because BUsh was competent and exhibited leadership qualities?

No, I mean the fact that they fell for the opposite with Bush II, means it's possible they'll fall for it again with Bush III. Perry is the same-old neo-con bullshit warmed up in the microwave. If we fall for it again, we'll deserve whatever we get.

To a narco-libtard anyone who espouses a strong foreign policy is a "neo con".