Matters Of Opinion

Perry Derangement Syndrome?

It should be noted, before all else, that this isn’t a post about those people that simply don’t support Perry (like I wrote in the last piece I had written talking about my support for the guy, vote for whom you want). This isn’t about them having concerns about him as a candidate; I get that, I welcome those arguments, and ANY candidate should be well vetted, and should expect that people are going to go after them. I’m no Kool Aid drinker for anyone, though I have my set of reasons (some laid out in my last post) for supporting Perry. Different people will have their own ideological reasoning’s, or personal reasoning’s, or whatever, for supporting one person or another, and I’m not the type of person who can’t laugh at myself or about a person that I support. Life’s too short for me to take politics to that level. Different people whom support different candidates are going to fight amongst each other; and that’s healthy, to a degree.

However it is important that, at the end of the day, when the dust settles, that the fighting hasn’t fatally wounded the last candidate standing.

This is what worries me about this immediate lashing out by different factions against Perry, particularly since I think, statistically speaking, Perry has the best chance of winning the primary. There are four major camps right now: the Perry people, the Bachmann people, the Romney people, and the Paul people. It is only a matter of time before Cain, Newt, Santorum, and all the others drop out; they all poll very low and have shown that they can’t raise the money necessary. Granted, Paul doesn’t exactly poll high (9%), but he has a rock solid base and he won’t drop out at all, so he doesn’t factor into my main point: and that is that these other candidates, which will inevitably drop out, will disperse all of there supporters amongst the other major camps. Most will probably gravitate towards Perry and Bachmann, with a smaller amount going to the Paul and Romney camps, I believe. This is expected (and normal), and isn’t what worries me; I was just laying out how I think Perry will end up with the win in the end (barring, of course, some unexpected curve ball candidates announcement). What worries me is that, since I’m not the only person to see the writing on the wall, people from all sides have been trying to take chunks out of Perry’s credibility, some that are just plain malicious, some that are just plain…well…dumb. The unusually high amount of these attacks tells me that many others recognize that the scenario I’ve laid out is possible, if not what will probably happen. Here is an assortment of the attacks that have already been levied against Perry:

*Rick Perry is a Bildeberger (or rather, as I like to say, he likes to “build a burger”). This is from the conspiracy sector, of course, but I didn’t have to tell you that.

*A Texas Ron Paul supporter has taken out a full page ad asking “strippers, women, men, whomever” to step forward if they have had sex with Rick Perry. This isn’t even an attack on his character; this is trolling for an ability to attack his character, while insinuating that since such an ad is being printed, that there just HAS to be some truth behind it. It is disgusting.

*The day before Perry announced, the Obama administration ALREADY was lobbing bombs in his direction (so to speak) regarding his Texas record; a week later, they lobbed more regarding his stances on education. This one doesn’t, obviously, fall into the malicious category, but it is revealing that the administration would be this worried about a person.

*A false poll was conducted, showing that Perry lost to Paul when polled in Texas. What was interesting was that this poll was conducted by a polling group that was just started June 30th, that the poll was done before Perry ever decided to run for president, was done by the local RLC in that area, and called mostly people in the District that Paul represents for the polling data. When questioned, the head person that conducted the poll admitted that there “may have some discrepancies…” It is unknown whether or not Paul himself knows about this, or the ad that was taken out by a supporter, but I would gain A LOT of respect for him if he were to speak up against this type of Republican canabolism.

At the end of the day, Republicans have to be able to stand side by side. We’re the big tent party, we have numerous sects and factions, and we have numerous fights amongst each other. These attacks obviously don’t indicate that every single Paul supporter would stoop this low, and shouldn’t be misread as me looking for a reason to slam Paul; I have my reasons for not supporting him, have laid out those reasons time and time again, and have a number of friends that ARE Ron Paul supporters. We have our debates (usually in a friendly manner), and that’s fine. The problem with far too many of these Paul supporters, however, is that they won’t stand next to the R that wins at the end of the day, and will instead vote for the libertarian candidate; this does not bode well with a lot of people in the party, because it shows a bit of a double standard. They want support, but won’t give it. It is what it is, no big deal. But if during this process we eat our own, then no matter who wins, it will be another four years of Obama, and I know NO Republican wants that. So just think about it before making that killing shot; we can either work with each other, or against.

Hey, Where’s Perry?

OK, first of all, only those with small children will get the “Hey, where’s Perry?” title. Check out your Disney kids programs and you’ll get the reference.

Second of all, I didn’t watch tonight’s Iowa debates, for three main reasons. One, it was my last night of vacation and my wife would kill me if we spent it sitting at home watching the debates. Two, it’s like a year and a half away from the presidential elections; I’ll catch plenty of other debates and see more about this election than I want to before it is all over. And three? Rick Perry hasn’t announced yet, so it doesn’t matter.

However, I have read a number of different accounts and opinions of this debate, and it was best boiled down to three main arguments (at least from what I have read, feel free to leave your own thoughts).

Pawlenty and Bachmann, first, got into it pretty good with Pawlenty pointing out that she didn’t have much experience in executive decision making (which is correct). From what I’ve ascertained he didn’t beat around the bush at all, and she made a point of not blinking and coming right back at him with his supposedly liberal voting record (though I’ve read more about Pawlenty, and know that a lot of that record has to do with finding middle ground on different issues, which is essential for Governors who want to run their state and not let it turn into a political fire fight). All in all, I don’t think either of them are going to win the primary, so it doesn’t matter much, though my ten cents is this: I probably agree with Bachmann on more points than Pawlenty, but recognize that a Governor who is willing to work with his opponents is a more valuable leader. So it’s a wash, for me at least.

The second main point was Newt’s general rant against the media. It irritates me, a bit, when big time Republicans (and arguably Newt is as big as it gets, being former Speaker of the House) fall into this trap. Yes, the media often times has a bias. Yes, it is generally harder to be a Republican than a Democrat (because we don’t, as a rule, hand out free crap by the bucket load). But, at this point, it is pointless to point it out, particularly in a Presidential debate (not to mention the fact it was a rant directed at Chris Wallace from Fox News). Newt needs to step aside and put his support and funding efforts behind somebody else who has a better chance.

The third was Santorum’s views on the Tenth Amendment (and, in this same “rant”, if one wants to call it that, his rant against Ron Paul). Santorum made his point that though he is all for state’s rights, he believes there are some areas where the national government has a responsibility to step in; the points he uses in the quote I read specifically used polygamy as an example (which I suppose could have been a back door way of slamming Romney’s religion, though I obviously don’t know for certain).

All in all, I didn’t miss much, and I’m sure neither did you.

However, the candidate that I have been keeping an eye on (ever since Daniels decided he wasn’t going to run) and have been hoping would throw his hat in the ring has all but entered: Rick Perry is expected to announce his candidacy this Saturday.

I have several reasons for wanting Perry to run. First, I kind of have a thing for Texas Governors. Sue me. Second, statistically speaking, Perry has been polling just under Romney when he has been entered as running against Obama. Pretty good considering he isn’t even an official candidate yet. He is also the Governor of a state that is CONSISTENTLY in the black, creates gobs and gobs of jobs, and has great hair (yeah, I went there). Yes, he used to be a Democrat and at one point worked with Al Gore on a past campaign. Remember, though, that Reagan was once a Democrat, so ultimately that doesn’t matter. There are a few other odds and ends that could (and will, I’m sure) come up about him. For example, the amount of money that was spent on his Governors mansion while he was in power, and his flip flopping on gay marriage, etc. However, in my own humble opinion, this is the guy with best odds of winning both the primary and the general election, who has executive experience, and is overall a conservative Republican. I don’t want to try and tell you who to vote for or who to support (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, vote for whoever lifts your skirt, it doesn’t matter to me one way or another) but this is a guy who is worth looking into, for the reasons I gave and beyond.