I have finally made up my mind…at least for today. If the primary were held today, I know how I’d vote. I’ll get to that in a bit, but first – let me explain my criteria and why I selected this person. I’ll whittle down the candidates as I go through my review.
First, we need a candidate who can directly combat Obamacare. What do I mean by that? It’s unpopular and it’s going to the Supreme Court now, we need a candidate who can readily challenge the law in the public square, challenge the President on this issue, and do so with authority. Bachmann can do that, so can Perry, Paul, Huntsman, and Santorum. What about Gingrich and Romney? Both have endorsed a mandate at some level in the past – be it state (Romney) or federal (Gingrich). While it may be a nuanced historic viewpoint, it’s easy to see the ads hammering them home on this very issue making it a non-issue for the President. The other candidates have more consistently been opposed to the healthcare mandate and the entirety of Obamacare. They are better messengers for this issue, which I feel could be critical in 2012.
Second, we need a candidate who can address the out of control spending and taxing in Washington. Of the remaining contenders, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul can each readily address this issue with either first hand experience fighting it in Washington (Santorum, Bachmann, Paul) or experience balancing a state budget (Huntsman, Perry). I believe any of these candidates can adequately address these issues in a campaign against Obama.
Third, we need a candidate who has relevant experience with tangible results they can point to, showing how their ideas / policies will work. Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum can argue all day about how they fought the tide of big government – but in the end their task was to cast votes and give speeches. Tangible results that directly stem from their votes are hard to measure. Tangible results from an executive standpoint are something you can readily measure from a sitting or former executive, (CEO, Governor, Mayor, etc). This brings us to just two candidates who still remain, Huntsman and Perry.
Now, when you look at their platforms and backgrounds as Governors, there is a lot to like from both Huntsman and Perry. Both cut taxes. Both cut spending. Both served as Governors of states with significant economic growth. These are important to note when competing against a President who has presided over a downgrade in US credit. Both have well developed, pro-growth economic platforms (Huntsman’s edges out Perry’s in my mind, but both still good). But when it comes to having the instincts to push things back to a state versus federal level, Perry wins. Huntsman was a big TARP supporter – in fact, he supported making it bigger. Perry opposed it then, opposes it now. More recently he’s referred to it as an “…act of theivery.” He may not always be right, but Perry’s instincts is smaller government, more local control. His idea of the states controlling social security is…silly at best, impractical and unobtainable at worst. Also, it’s important to note this statistic – since December 2000, 45% of all jobs created in America were created in Texas. Yes, it’s a huge state. Yes, some of those policies that led to said growth were implemented before Perry became Governor, but they’re still working – still growing today. It’s hard to argue with that statistic which can be hammered home against President Downgrade.
So, if the primary were held today, I’d probably vote for Perry. I wanted to like Newt. I really did. But in the end, he has no executive experience, has a history of being all over the map on fiscal issues, and his personal life is a big pill to swallow. I don’t mind Bachmann, but her instincts on the offensive are often gutteral and wrong. Attacking Perry on Guardasil was a bold, but incredibly foolhardy move, especially the way in which it was presented. Comparing 9-9-9 to the mark of the beast in a debate with a wink and a nod was over the top. Santorum? He’s a former US Senator and social conservative to his core. That said, Santorum has been inconsistent on fiscal issues ranging from his past support of ethanol subsidies / the minimum wage to his opposition to NAFTA. Santorum is a great retail politician, but angry in a debate setting and, frankly, I’m not yet convinced he’d be a capable executive as he’s never served in such a capacity. I’d vote for any of the three of them over Obama, though, without even having to think.
Romney? There were reasons I didn’t pick Romney in ’08 and those reasons are still valid this year. MassCare is a big deal to me, always was, and I remain unconvinced that he’s the right messenger for the sentiment of this election cycle. I say that to point out this – part of me thinks Romney may have been the right candidate for 2008. The American public was looking for a serious candidate who could talk about economics in an approachable way. They were looking for a candidate with a serious demeanor who talked about getting things done to deal with the economic downturn immediately. Obama came across as the adult in the room, the serious one. McCain appeared flighty, inconsistent, even stopping his campaign at a moments notice to…do his job as US Senator. Romney was stoic and serious, and may have been a better choice for 2008. But, I do not feel is the right choice for 2012. In 2012, the American people are looking for someone with a populist streak, who can appeal to them on a basic level – displaying an understanding for the plight of the middle class. One who casually talks about a $10,000 bet is not going to appeal to that kind of an audience.
At the moment, I think Perry is the right choice. As I said, if the primary were held today, that’s who I’d vote for. Not quite an endorsement – but that’s how I feel. By the Maryland primary, my answer may turn out to be different.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant / Pundit League and Tweets far too often.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Ron Paul 2012!
December 21st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Good selection the one true candidate that loves crony capitalism and then want to vaccinate my granddaughters. The one candidate who has done more to promote illegal aliens coming into this country. Real good selection Matt I applaud ya for your candor.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Well Matthew, your choice is your choice. At least you’re helping disprove the grousing about how all Race’s front-page posters are Romneyites.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Matt, I’ve got a slightly different set of criteria that led me to Perry, although mine overlap in the departments of executive governing experience and an impressive economic track record. For me there are also his military background and his emphasis on nailing down an assertive energy policy.
Still, I’d be amazed if he’s still on the ballot by the time we vote here in WV, so I’ll probably have to make due with a protest vote for Ronulus Paulus.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:31 pm
3. What’s the score now anyway? One for Paul, one for Perry, 359 for Romney or thereabouts?
December 21st, 2011 at 5:32 pm
IMO Rick Perry’s issue with mandates is worse than Romney’s or Newts. At least neither of those two never mandated a particular healthcare decision without any input from the people or legislature. It is incredibly naive to think that this won’t be pointed out in a general election. It would also be incredibly naive for anyone to think that his apology will matter to anyone in the general election.
I would take Perry over Newt simply because Perry isn’t as corrupt as Newt, but in the end he’s still a career politician who’s real world experience outside of government is very limited.
Finally, the main reason that Perry should not be nominated is that he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot adequately react to stressful situations that require even a minimal amount of complex thought.
That all being said, I still will not be surprised to see Iowans take a second look at Perry and for this race to end up being Mitt v. Rick.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:32 pm
#5:
Sounds pretty evenly balanced to me
December 21st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I am staying away from career politicians is this cycle
December 21st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Matt, I’m clearly a Mitt guy, so my comments can’t be considered at all objective, but I do try to be fair in my assessments.
Here’s why I think Perry would be a horrible choice…
* Of all those jobs, I think I recall reading that a pretty high percentage were IN government. Rick made government bigger, not smaller.
* Of all those jobs, what can Rick point to take any reasonable credit?
* Right or wrong, much of the general public blames Bush for the state of the economy. Rick talks much like W. Makes gaffes much like W. And, comes from Texas, much like W. I’m not sure they’re willing to give another W another chance.
* I’ve got a real problem with his illegal immigrant tuition policy.
* I’ve got a real problem with his attempt to tell 12 year old girls they have to be inoculated against sexually transmitted disease — essentially telling them he KNOWS they’re going to be promiscuous.
* A president is more than a debater, but communication skills and thinking on your feet is an important part of the job and I just don’t think Perry is up to it. He’d get eaten alive by foreign dignitaries.
* He’s not prepared. A bunch of people told him he’d be a shoe-in and he bought into it.
* And, on a clearly biased note, I really hate that he keeps lying about Mitt’s record, gets caught, and does it again.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I expect to vote Ron Paul in the primary and then again in the general election.
Whomever the Republican Party nominates will have to work hard to earn the Paul voters who distrust Republicans and Democrats. In my case I don’t think Romney or Bachmann could ever earn my vote.
I’m open to persuasion from the rest but I don’t favor any at present.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Rick Perry’s “mandate” wasn’t quite the same as Mitt’s, since Perry’s had an easy opt-out and wasn’t enforced with punitive sanctions, such as MassCare’s tax penalty. In fact, Perry’s executive order was perfectly in line with the recommendations of the highly regarded Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH).
December 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Also, I think we should all commend Mr. Newman for putting up a FPP that he probably knows will get hammered pretty hard. Takes guts.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
9. OH, and I’m very skeptical of his ethics. He’s spent his entire adult career in politics and is a millionaire? Something’s wrong, there.
And, the accusations of crony capitalism appear very credible, to me.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
I read the analysis, thought there were some great points, but the conclusion is non-sequitor for me. Perry does not have the charisma, nor the backbone nor the smarts to stand up to the heavyweights and intellectuals in those circles.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:39 pm
I really don’t understand the support for Perry. As drob noted, anyone who has actually looked at Perry’s record knows he and Obama have the same crony capital issue. In Perry’s case, it’s even worse as he doesn’t just give tax dollars to his supporters, he appoints them to the board that makes the decision! Super.
He’s also been fortunate that some of his dumber ideas such as the Trans Texas Corridor were shot down by his own legislature. And then theres his support for providing tuition to illegals. People have a problem with Romney’s MA health plan? Yea, well I have a real problem with giving tax dollars to illegal immigrants, something Obama and the Democrats in DC have been dying to do ever since Perry put his plan in place in Texas. His great executive experience led him to a $7 billion dollar budget shortfall this past year and rather than making the cuts necessary to fill the hole he used Obama stimulus dollars instead. Terrific. I can’t wait to see him call Obama out on his spending.
And I really don’t get how anyone thinks Perry would stand a chance against Obama. Obama is many things but a bad campaigner is not one of them. Perry has been flat out awful during this campaign and consistently the worst or one of the worst debaters on the stage. Even yesterday, he forgot a huge part of his own tax plan and Jindal had to bail him out.
Many conservative bloggers anointed Perry the savior before he even got in the race and they continue to support him despite his real record, not the True Conservative aura he has surrounded himself with, and his terrible campaign that has him in single digits. If it wasn’t for the deep pockets of Texas posse he would be out of the race already.
I don’t get it.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Great choice. I’m sure the DNC will forget talking about Perry’s mandate forcing anti-STD vaccines on little girls. I’m sure they won’t point out the $ being exchanged between Perry’s friends over that deal. I doubt they’ll even bring up the millions Perry gave to his campaign donors or how he overrode the board in charge of such decisions to hook up his buddies. And I doubt they’ll mention that under Perry TX debt has gone up at a faster rate than the federal debt under Obama.
Yea, I’m sure Mitt & Newt are the only candidate’s who’s negative history will be attacked. They wouldn’t dare attack the guy that can’t verbally defend himself. Is verbally mocking Perry as bad as hitting a guy with glasses?
December 21st, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Perry.. GW part 2…but even more of a dolt if thats possible
December 21st, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Ummm … OK. What is the difference between the HPV mandate and the RomneyCare mandate?
December 21st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Marque at 11.
In fact, Perry’s executive order was perfectly in line with the recommendations of the highly regarded Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH).
————————————
Romney’s mandate was straight out of the Heritage Foundation, but nobody is cutting him any slack for that.
I realize that Perry had an opt-out. My response is that regardless of an opt-out, to presume that the government should make an actual healthcare choice, not just whether or not you should have insurance, but to make an actual healthcare choice for people without seeking the approval of the legislature or the people, is the essence of top down, government knows best, central planning big government. I always laugh when Perry hits Mitt on mandates, because all Mitt wanted to do was to get people insured and then let them make their own decisions with their doctors. Perry presumed that he knew better than those girls’ parents and those girls himself. On the issue of mandates, Perry is far to the left of Romney.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:47 pm
13.
And, the accusations of crony capitalism appear very credible, to me.
They are way beyond accusations. They are fact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/rick-perry-venture-socialist/2011/03/04/gIQAvX2X2K_blog.html
December 21st, 2011 at 5:47 pm
I have no problem with someone endorsing someone other than Mitt. I don’t understand an endorsement that focuses only on Romney’s negatives and on none of Perry’s many negatives.
Of course, and endorsement is supposed to be an advertisement of sorts for a candidate, so it makes some sense. I just appreciate it when people are straight forward about their characterization of the different candidates. Perry has some big flaws and very few of them were addressed in this post. None of Romney’s advantages were discussed.
But whatever, it doesn’t matter that much anyways.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Oh, another arena where Perry trumps Mitt and the O Man: He ain’t no gall-dern Ivy Leaguer.
I instruct anyone’s offspring who allow me to approach without threatening a restraining order that it has been the Ivy League nitwits who got us into this mess — and you youngens are gonna have to pay!
:-p
December 21st, 2011 at 5:49 pm
11 – Romney pushed for an opt out too, as you probably know (but are unwilling to admit). His legislature, of course, shot it down. Perry didn’t even consult with the legislature.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
11. “Perry’s executive order was perfectly in line with the recommendations of the highly regarded Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Health (NIH).”
Yes. And it was perfectly in line w/his buddy’s long-term financial success, which was his real reason for pushing it through. Deep down you know this is true. Like most of Perry’s actions, it was all about $ for himself and his cronies.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
16 – yeah unless Mitt’s wearing the glasses of course. haha
December 21st, 2011 at 5:51 pm
22 – Reason # 5,677,948 why the Republican party has gone insane. Stereotypical prejudice against people because of where they went to school. Fantastic way to pick a President … the dumber the better.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
The only negative thing I’ll say is this; Perry is the worst debater in primary history. I just don’t see how he’s going to be able to stand up on stage with the incumbent President of the United States and present an appealing alternative vision to the American people. He cannot articulate what a Perry Presidency would look like and the DNC will be absolutely merciless with replaying his “oops” moment.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Oops.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Romney on health care in 1994
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTnKh8oQ6YI&feature=channel_video_title
December 21st, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Is it prejudicial to form prejudgment against our noble betters whose collective track record, from the Bush Yalies to the Clintonian Harvardites, got us into this mess in the first place? I wouldn’t call that prejudice. I’d call it justified aversion based on negative reinforcement stimuli.
But perhaps your mileage has varied in your dealings with our credentialed gentry. Feel free to bow and scrape on your own knees, not mine.
December 21st, 2011 at 5:59 pm
27, exactly. Even if Perry were to win the nomination, he most likely already lost the general election in that infamous 53 seconds.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:01 pm
30 – If you can’t come up with a better slam on Romney than where he went to school, you need to dig a little deeper.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:03 pm
This video is for anyone who thinks Romney isn’t willing to look his constituents in the eye and tell them the hard truth, even if it is unpopular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMG_Nc0t500&feature=channel_video_title
December 21st, 2011 at 6:03 pm
32. He was also an English major!! So let’s double the :-p .
December 21st, 2011 at 6:04 pm
30.
>>Is it prejudicial to form prejudgment against our noble betters whose collective track record, from the Bush Yalies to the Clintonian Harvardites, got us into this mess in the first place?
The person most responsible for getting us into the mess we are in today is one Lyndon Baines Johnson with his Great Society garbage. Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest contributors to our impending financial disaster. Johnson went to Southwest Texas State Teacher’s College.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:09 pm
30. “…our noble betters … our credentialed gentry … Feel free to bow and scrape on your own knees, not mine.”
No one anointed anyone. Your aversion to academically successful people says nothing about them, but something about you. Was your SAT/ACT/GMAT/LSAT/etc. too low? You seem to have a serious short-man’s syndrome when it comes to academic accolades.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:13 pm
36. Well, at least I can count, and I’ve exceeded my limit. Catch you later in a different thread.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:22 pm
WOW…….you really think Perry is INTELLECTUALLY prepared for the national let alone the international scene??? WOW!
Mitt is intellectually, organizationally and experientially (is that a word!?!?) prepared for the national and international scene.
Boy…….I hope the GOP gets this right. We don’t have many more chances left.
December 21st, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Great Matt! As long as you are taking votes away from Newt you’re doing Romney a favor
Keep on pulling them away from Newt, maybe try to push Perry up to at least 15% so he, Paul and Newt can remain even while Romney runs away with Iowa. Thanks man!
December 21st, 2011 at 6:40 pm
By the way, Matt, this election is about the economy and who can beat Obama. The latter suggests that nominating Perry is taking a serious gamble. The man cannot articulate, in honest and effect ways, another candidates record! We can’t have Perry out there spouting out falsehoods about Obama, while getting severely pummeled by him in debates. WAKE UP!
December 21st, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Give it up…..Perry is done.
Unfortnately the great hope that was the Perry candidacy has been dashed because of his own inabiity to think and talk at the same time.
Perry is a gaffe machine. Jindal had to correct him on his own tax policy just yesterday on the stump.
Of course he followed it up with his common schtick of “oh boy aren’t I stupid” cutesy remark again.
The only reason to support Perry is to not want to win in 2012.
Romney is our best shot against Obama.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Perry is done because of his heartless comment.
Believing that illegal aliens are entitled to taxpayer-funded bennies is tantamount to blasphemy (and rightly so) in the Republican Party.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
41
I suggest that’s because it’s not really Rick’s tax policy. His handlers created it and gave it to him. I sometimes wonder if he even read it. If not, he’s got a very bad memory — and that’s a skill a president really ought to have.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:19 pm
If Perry is GOP candidate then Obama wins easily
December 21st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
If you like your Presidents to resemble southern youth pastors, then Perry is your guy. At least Huckabee made me feel like an adult when he preached the good news. I feel like I’m listening to a 14 year old when I listen to Rick Perry.
Plus he illegally had over a hundred children seized from their mothers without any evidence that they were in any danger. And that story never got one ounze of coverage because the FLDS are a distasteful religious minority with a felon at its head. Perry’s actions were still wrong and illegal and the story got zero coverage.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I keep hearing that Romney’s position on healthcare is difficult to explain away. It’s not. Here goes:
States do some things. The federal government does others. That’s the way the Constitution set things up. Healthcare is one of the things that states do–like police, fire departments, roads, etc. That’s why a governor might support a sweeping healthcare program in a state but say he’s not in favor at a national level.
Or, let’s take this tack: People were getting healthcare for free. Federal law prevents you from leaving them out on the street, so Massachusetts made people who could pay pay instead of getting a handout. If done right, it also saves money because people visit a doctor for an antibiotic instead of an emergency room for a surgery because there wasn’t preventive care.
Or how about this approach: Romneycare was run through private insurance companies. Obamacare is run by the government.
I think that people who can’t see the difference are suffering from serious mental atrophy. OR perhaps they want to do away with federalism (a la Newt’s desire to destroy the notion of checks and balances). Either way, the problem is with them and not with Romney.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Well Matt, I respect your reasoning. If Romneycare is the big hiccup for you then so be it. I do however agree with the many comments puzzled with your support for someone who mandated a type of healthcare to 12 yr old girls via executive order, especially considering the ties between a close Perry aide and the company manufacturing the vaccine. At least Romneycare went before the state legislature before becoming a law and therefore exhibited a fair level of transparency, giving opportunity for citizen involvement. The process used to enact Romneycare was much more conservative and did not reek of crony capitalism when compared to the texas mandated vaccine debacle.
December 21st, 2011 at 7:47 pm
45 – Very good point … I forgot about that one.
December 21st, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Wow, you really know how to pick ‘em Matthew. You are rapidly approaching Adam Brickleyesque irrelevance.
December 21st, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I promised myself I would not respond to comments. I’ve changed my mind, I will respond to one comment – #3 – Jonathan – You’re welcome.
December 21st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Yep. Whatever. I respect your wishful thinking but only one candidate has the right skill set and has done the work to be in pole position.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:11 pm
J R Perry is a dishonest loon. He’s not been vetted. He wasn’t the FOTM long enough to have been vetted. If he somehow survives past super T day, just watch for the digging on the TETF and the fireworks will start in earnest.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Have you read the bill Romney introduced? Have you read the Heritage Foundation articles on Commonwealth care? Do you favor one of the other bills that were introduced at that time? Is it really a big deal to you if all the previous answers are no?
December 21st, 2011 at 9:31 pm
52 Although Perry’s probably the next most electable, he’s been vetted enough to know he’s not going to win. The voters aren’t going to hand the economy over to a guy who has a hard time getting to 3.
December 21st, 2011 at 9:51 pm
I find it interesting that you immediately discount Romney and Gingrich because they support any form of mandates. Yet, you pick Perry. The same Rick Perry that mandated, by use of Executive Order no less, the vaccination of girls as young as 13 to protect them from a STD. Yes, we know, there was an exemption and, yes, it was overturned. But it doesn’t excuse the fact that Perry actually signed the bill into law.
(For what it’s worth, Romney’s health care mandate also included an exemption for those that could afford it. However, the liberal legislature decided otherwise.)
December 22nd, 2011 at 12:17 am
Let’s get the facts straight … Gov Perry was following the advice of the National Disease Center in Atlanta and his wife’s support (she is a nurse). There was always an opt out for parents, but when he received objections to his executive order, he killed it. Perry stated publicly that although he still supports the vaccine because it prevents cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age, he was wrong in writing an executive order rather than going through the legislature and he killed the bill.
Perry, unlike other politicians, gets creamed for admitting his mistakes and taking responsibility. I actually prefer that to lying. He is a man that steps to the plate.
The illegal immigrants issue is ridiculous. The Feds force the border states to support and educate illegals children through grade 12. Many go on welfare after that if they even graduate. As an incentive to apply for legal status and to stay off the welfare rolls, Perry with the full support of the legislature decided that illegal children could go to local TX colleges and receive in-state tuition like their classmates if:
1) They had attended TX schools for the last 3 years
2) They had a certain grade level
3) They start the process to obtain legal citizenship
The legislature did this to try to deal with the masses of illegals on their welfare rolls and to give incentive to become legal tax paying citizens.
Please tell facts. Where Perry’s handlers are REALLY bad is getting these key facts out there, and Perry needs to learn how to get the message out there and still remain honest to his core values.
December 22nd, 2011 at 2:11 am
Perry? I don’t think so.
December 22nd, 2011 at 5:39 am
#40 Spenza – There are several great comments that I believe are crucial to understand about our party’s strategy and why Perry would be a mistake, but your point sums it up best…
Perry does not have the intellectual recall to stand up to the task…already clearly demonstrated it, repeatedly. My husband said it simply, “If his opponent goes off the expected script and his coached answers, he flounders.”
Perry’s grasp of the issues does not come from within, it comes from his coaches. I’ve come to the conclusion that in Texas, Perry is a political prop of others – with his own appetite and ego to boot.
December 22nd, 2011 at 6:41 am
#55, I also noticed the rather convenient way Matt prioritized his criteria so as to immediately eliminate the two most likely options. It sure would have made for a much shorter article had he considered that his priorities may not reflect those of the public.
Healthcare is a timebomb, no doubt, but there is no question that the economy and jobs are the primary issue. Healthcare relates to the economy, but it isn’t the primary focal point by any means.
I read most of the article, but I stopped paying close attention after that initial dodge. With an opener like that, I don’t see much point in debating the conclusion!
December 22nd, 2011 at 8:14 am
56 – You have an interesting definition of “facts”
December 22nd, 2011 at 10:06 am
59. When you start with the conclusion that Perry is the guy, you have to pick and choose your criteria to get the desired outcome.
In this case, as usual, it ends up not being very convincing.
The fact that Perry, by executive order, tried to force that vaccination on to other peoples children, is just a non-starter. It puts his character into serious question.
Also, it should have had an opt-in, rather than an opt-out.
Nah, I see Perry as the guy that governed moderately in a conservative state, compared to Romney as the guy that governed conservatively in a very liberal state.
December 22nd, 2011 at 10:26 am
Perry over Romney LOL. Perry’s screw up so out weigh Romney’s but more power to you for standing up for the screw up. Executive experience is a valid Point which is why it is Perry or Romney for me. But the clear winner in there leading is Romney for a million reason’s!
December 22nd, 2011 at 10:27 am
Lot’s of credit for not choosing the sell out Grinch!
December 22nd, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Oops.
Ron Paul 2012.
December 23rd, 2011 at 8:15 am
Huckabee supported the DREAM Act too, and he would probably be winning right now if he had run…
and I’m saying this as someone who truly can’t stand Huck.
December 23rd, 2011 at 8:18 am
scratch the “too” in my above comment.
December 23rd, 2011 at 8:21 am
note #2: Huck didn’t support on a national scale, but on the state level.