Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lockmat

Perry for President?

Recommended Posts

Should he be the president based on these numbers alone? I mean, dang!

In those 10 years, Texas gained 732,800 private sector jobs, far ahead of the number two and three states, Arizona (90,200) and Nevada (90,000). The nation overall lost more than 2 million private sector jobs, with the biggest losses coming in California (623,700), Michigan (619,200) and Ohio (460,900).
More than 7 times more???!!! All he'd have to do is walk around with a t-shirt on that had these statistics :P

In 1970 New York had 18 million people. In 2010 New York had 19 million people. In 1970 Texas had 11 million people. In 2010 Texas had 25 million people.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexa...s#ixzz1OzukJu2Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I know, you're right. We should just keep all the jobs in Texas. I agree :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perry isn't even popular in Texas, so I don't see how he could possibly be elected President of the United States, particularly with the post-Bush hangover still lingering.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be of the delusion that Perry is somehow responsible for the creation of these jobs. Texas is successful in spite of Rick Perry, not because of him.

But, hey, he's throwing a prayer meeting, so a Republican presidential campaign can't be far away, right? Because that's all this country needs is a few prayer meetings and everything will be alright.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perry isn't even popular in Texas, so I don't see how he could possibly be elected President of the United States, particularly with the post-Bush hangover still lingering.

Isn't he the longest termed governor in Texas history?

You seem to be of the delusion that Perry is somehow responsible for the creation of these jobs. Texas is successful in spite of Rick Perry, not because of him.

But, hey, he's throwing a prayer meeting, so a Republican presidential campaign can't be far away, right? Because that's all this country needs is a few prayer meetings and everything will be alright.

Is it the mayors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should he be the president based on these numbers alone? I mean, dang!

More than 7 times more???!!! All he'd have to do is walk around with a t-shirt on that had these statistics :P

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexa...s#ixzz1OzukJu2Z

1. Government figureheads from the executive branch do not make jobs. They can kill jobs with crap policies. They can be the unwitting recipient of jobs from other jurisdictions that have crap policies. But it's really hard to be proactive on job creation and not find yourself in a situation where you're moving money around from one potential use to another and then declaring victory. Rick Perry does that a lot.

2. Rick Perry is too fiscally liberal. Over the past ten years, he has signed off on legislation that has significantly increased inflation-adjusted tax collections per capita in Texas. And the only reason that there's a budget shortfall is that he increased State spending at an even faster rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perry isn't even popular in Texas, so I don't see how he could possibly be elected President of the United States, particularly with the post-Bush hangover still lingering.

Perry could portray himself as the Bloody Mary, the hair of the dog that the nation thinks it needs to come out of its hangover. And certainly, the nastiness of a Perry presidential campaign would focus in on that aspect. Obama made it possible. Obama was supposed to be FDR to Bush's Hoover. Obama was supposed to usher in an era of change. What we got was pocket change, and it's left everyone a bit cynical. I'm not saying that Obama is incompetent or anything, just that after his electoral grandstanding, we got to see that he was just another post-Reagan president, not at all unlike the others. If Obama tries to use the same kind of rhetoric he has previously, it'll be empty and transparent.

I think that Perry would also make a rather typical and middling President, but he is able to portray a more dynamic and exciting personality...and that's partly because he is a character (almost cartoonish), but also because outside of his own state, nobody would know him for who he is. He would be able to claim a good track record with Texas' economy (whether it actually reflects on him or not). And he would deeply appeal to the Republican base and be able to drive turnout; meanwhile, he would lampoon Obama, the crappy four years and the broken promises and broken dreams, and suppress turnout from the opposition's base. That's what it's about. He could do it. His campaigns are just that nasty and aggressive.

BTW, I'm not endorsing either. I do not like either. And whomever the GOP runs in 2012, I won't like them. These are merely my observations of a voting public that I can only ever share a comraderie with when I'm drunk off my rocker. I have no respect for them at any other point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, hey, he's throwing a prayer meeting, so a Republican presidential campaign can't be far away, right? Because that's all this country needs is a few prayer meetings and everything will be alright.

It would be funny if someone "accidentally" slipped this into the teleprompter while Perry is "praying"...

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

.-Matthew 6:5-7

Edited by august948

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Government figureheads from the executive branch do not make jobs. They can kill jobs with crap policies. They can be the unwitting recipient of jobs from other jurisdictions that have crap policies. But it's really hard to be proactive on job creation and not find yourself in a situation where you're moving money around from one potential use to another and then declaring victory. Rick Perry does that a lot.

You're right, and I'm not defending Perry, just the argument, but can't a policy maker help create jobs indirectly by not passing certain laws and allowing pro business through good or a lack of laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the petroleum.

You're mostly right, I'm sure. But what about Dallas, Austin and San Antonio? I know oil has a presence there, too, and for sure in west Texas, but how much of those economies is actually made up of oil?

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, and I'm not defending Perry, just the argument, but can't a policy maker help create jobs indirectly by not passing certain laws and allowing pro business through good or a lack of laws?

Yes. And they can do that by doing things like, say, cutting education spending, or spending on parks, or on transportation spending, or by refusing federal help with unemployment benefits, or slashing regulatory budgets. Just imagine how many jobs we could create if we got rid of, or cut funding for, regulation of meatpacking or maybe lead paint in children's toys. So some folks die of food poisoning or some kids get brain damage from lead exposure. No big deal, right? As long as we create more jobs.

Of course these are just academic musings...not that any politician would dream of gutting regulatory agencies or slash education spending. Or that people would actually vote for them, if, for instance they did these things.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He really hasn't done much for the state and us basically a figure head.

I'm voting romney. Hilary if she runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He really hasn't done much for the state and us basically a figure head.

I'm voting romney. Hilary if she runs.

Literally. He looks like a "figure" "head". The freakin cheesy smile, sculpted hair, and when he talks it's like pulling the string on a cliche republican doll. And if you forced me to pick a party, which I won't, I would pick republican!! So I'm not just speaking as some right-hater. He just bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally. He looks like a "figure" "head". The freakin cheesy smile, sculpted hair, and when he talks it's like pulling the string on a cliche republican doll. And if you forced me to pick a party, which I won't, I would pick republican!! So I'm not just speaking as some right-hater. He just bothers me.

from what I can tel, I'm one of the few people on this system that won't go for just one party, and perry is just plain odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perry is just plain odd.

That much is certainly true. He turned up at some event when I was in high school where the band was performing. He was positioned behind them for a period of time and gave one of the tuba players a back rub. He didn't ask whether the back rub was wanted or anything. He just started in on it. Made that guy really uncomforable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That much is certainly true. He turned up at some event when I was in high school where the band was performing. He was positioned behind them for a period of time and gave one of the tuba players a back rub. He didn't ask whether the back rub was wanted or anything. He just started in on it. Made that guy really uncomforable.

Funny, G.W. Bush gave an awkward back rub to an unsuspecting German Chancellor Merkel a few years back. Peculiar.

mn_bush_merkel.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should he be the president based on these numbers alone? I mean, dang!

More than 7 times more???!!! All he'd have to do is walk around with a t-shirt on that had these statistics :P

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexa...s#ixzz1OzukJu2Z

How many of those jobs are at walmart, check cashing places, game rooms, autobuses americanos, or simply low-end?

I'm glad the population of Texas is growing and growing. However, how many of those are katrinians or illegal aliens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something kind of unsettling about Perry to me. I mean, he's made a number of bad decisions already, and likely one of the things he and Obama have in common is some overly expensive mass transit plan.

I begrudgingly voted for Perry last time around, when it was clear that he was going to be on the Republican ticket, and Bill White was a liberal Democrat similar to Obama and the Democrats in the White House (I mean, I was really looking into White, hoping that he was different)

That being said, if it's between Obama and Perry, I'm still going to go with Perry...I want to see Obama get out ASAP.

Edited by IronTiger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something kind of unsettling about Perry to me. I mean, he's made a number of bad decisions already, and likely one of the things he and Obama have in common is some overly expensive mass transit plan.

I begrudgingly voted for Perry last time around, when it was clear that he was going to be on the Republican ticket, and Bill White was a liberal Democrat similar to Obama and the Democrats in the White House (I mean, I was really looking into White, hoping that he was different)

That being said, if it's between Obama and Perry, I'm still going to go with Perry...I want to see Obama get out ASAP.

I'm about as conservative as they come, and I dislike Perry. Perry is not a good choice for president, but for whatever reason we keep having to choose between the lesser of the evils. Obama is an absolutely terrible President. I am so sick of hearing about the Bush inheritance and the Bush hangover - that is all BS. This is Obama's presidency. He screwed it up. He went so far off the left rocker that all but the most extreme Leftist democrats were unhappy and running from him...Then he loses the house in 2010 and he tries to be more centrist, but nobody believes him - now he has the far left mad at him too. Nobody likes him. He is a one term loser.

Perry is awful - a horrible choice, but if I have to choose between the worst President in my lifetime, and Perry (who may well be the 2nd worst president in my lifetime) I will choose Perry. Just about anyone could do a better job than Obama.

I dont have a realistic choice that I like. Ron Paul appeals to me more than anyone else in the race, but he has some crazy ideas that dont sit well on several issues....Ron Paul won't ever get the RNC nomination - he is hated by the establishment money, and you can't win without money.

I'm petrified of Perry - the Mainstream media likes him...that alone means he is just another poor choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope this means he HAS to resign his position as governor. It might be the only way to get rid of him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Perry believes in Texas' right to secede, because that's exactly what we should do if he is elected President. I don't want to live in a country where Perry is President, and we've suffered enough under his rule.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope this means he HAS to resign his position as governor. It might be the only way to get rid of him.

That would mean David Dewhurst becomes governor of Texas, which IIRC, is one of Perry's cronies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Perry believes in Texas' right to secede, because that's exactly what we should do if he is elected President. I don't want to live in a country where Perry is President, and we've suffered enough under his rule.

Let's not forgot about the TRCC and how it was mostly comprised of his cronies, donors, and home builders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the time he thought he didnt deserve a ticket when a state trooper/sheriff pulled him over. He was downright belligerent.

And of course....

Adios Mofo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope this means he HAS to resign his position as governor. It might be the only way to get rid of him.

Unfortunately, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about as conservative as they come, and I dislike Perry. Perry is not a good choice for president, but for whatever reason we keep having to choose between the lesser of the evils. Obama is an absolutely terrible President. I am so sick of hearing about the Bush inheritance and the Bush hangover - that is all BS. This is Obama's presidency. He screwed it up. He went so far off the left rocker that all but the most extreme Leftist democrats were unhappy and running from him...Then he loses the house in 2010 and he tries to be more centrist, but nobody believes him - now he has the far left mad at him too. Nobody likes him. He is a one term loser.

Perry is awful - a horrible choice, but if I have to choose between the worst President in my lifetime, and Perry (who may well be the 2nd worst president in my lifetime) I will choose Perry. Just about anyone could do a better job than Obama.

I dont have a realistic choice that I like. Ron Paul appeals to me more than anyone else in the race, but he has some crazy ideas that dont sit well on several issues....Ron Paul won't ever get the RNC nomination - he is hated by the establishment money, and you can't win without money.

I'm petrified of Perry - the Mainstream media likes him...that alone means he is just another poor choice.

So much for the party of "personal responsibility" ever accepting any.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about as conservative as they come, and I dislike Perry. Perry is not a good choice for president, but for whatever reason we keep having to choose between the lesser of the evils. Obama is an absolutely terrible President. I am so sick of hearing about the Bush inheritance and the Bush hangover - that is all BS. This is Obama's presidency. He screwed it up. He went so far off the left rocker that all but the most extreme Leftist democrats were unhappy and running from him...Then he loses the house in 2010 and he tries to be more centrist, but nobody believes him - now he has the far left mad at him too. Nobody likes him. He is a one term loser.

Perry is awful - a horrible choice, but if I have to choose between the worst President in my lifetime, and Perry (who may well be the 2nd worst president in my lifetime) I will choose Perry. Just about anyone could do a better job than Obama.

I dont have a realistic choice that I like. Ron Paul appeals to me more than anyone else in the race, but he has some crazy ideas that dont sit well on several issues....Ron Paul won't ever get the RNC nomination - he is hated by the establishment money, and you can't win without money.

I'm petrified of Perry - the Mainstream media likes him...that alone means he is just another poor choice.

I agree with you on Perry, but I'd say Obama has been a mediocre president. To say he's been absolutely terrible would infer that he's done something scandalous or severely damaging to the country. When I say he's mediocre, it's because he tries too hard to compromise with extremists instead of exposing their lunacy and fighting back. I do have to give him credit for working in an insanely partisan atmosphere - probably the most difficult of any recent president - but I still knock him for regularly caving in. Probably my biggest disappointment in this regard is not doing enough to regulate Wall St and the banks to prevent another economic disaster. But he has also accomplished quite a few important things that go mostly unknown or forgotten by the public at large.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Perry believes in Texas' right to secede, because that's exactly what we should do if he is elected President. I don't want to live in a country where Perry is President, and we've suffered enough under his rule.

It is very sad that the governor of Texas doesn't know it's Constitution well enough to know that we have no right or choice to secede. Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows that. He is just a slimy, pandering politician of the worst kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would mean David Dewhurst becomes governor of Texas, which IIRC, is one of Perry's cronies.

Dewhurst is contemplating running for KBH's senate seat. Which means we could be in a position in 2012 if they both win, where the the Texas Congress appoints both our Lt Gov and Gov.

That being said.. hopefully Perry doesn't get the nomination. I'm still waiting for Christie to jump in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the party of "personal responsibility" ever accepting any.

It was not the republicans who steered the bus towards the cliff. It was the democrats. The democrats have had a majority in BOTH houses since 2007. Bush was president, but Congress does all the work.

Bush was a disappointment because he was too liberal, but to lay the blame for the current state of affairs on his administration completely ignores the fact that the democrats have been driving for 4 VERY long years. Obama may have inherited a recession but that recession began under the pathetic leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The recession got worse after Obama was elected because businesses are scared to death to invest in this country for fear of being regulated out of existence. Bush raised the debt by 400 billion/yr but is blamed for the deficit. Obama raised the debt by 1.3 trillion in one year and its still Bush's fault. What a joke!

So much for the democrats ever accepting responsibility for their actions....google "Obama blames" the results show an ego maniac unable to accept any blame whatsoever for the mess we are in. Its literally page after page of fingerpointing from the most "non-partisan" president ever. The guy is a loser!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Spoken like a true Fox Zombie. Speaking of losers, whatever happened to John McCain anyway?

john-mccain-Sen-R-NV-scowl-234x300.jpg

Edited by Mister X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not the republicans who steered the bus towards the cliff. It was the democrats. The democrats have had a majority in BOTH houses since 2007. Bush was president, but Congress does all the work.

Bush was a disappointment because he was too liberal, but to lay the blame for the current state of affairs on his administration completely ignores the fact that the democrats have been driving for 4 VERY long years. Obama may have inherited a recession but that recession began under the pathetic leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The recession got worse after Obama was elected because businesses are scared to death to invest in this country for fear of being regulated out of existence. Bush raised the debt by 400 billion/yr but is blamed for the deficit. Obama raised the debt by 1.3 trillion in one year and its still Bush's fault. What a joke!

So much for the democrats ever accepting responsibility for their actions....google "Obama blames" the results show an ego maniac unable to accept any blame whatsoever for the mess we are in. Its literally page after page of fingerpointing from the most "non-partisan" president ever. The guy is a loser!

Reid and Pelosi had control since 01-07 and the economy pretty much crapped out in 08-08. Arguably, Bush was a better politician and had his way with them for the remainder of his term. Regardless of what McCain said, the fundamentals were not strong in 07-08. The swirling down the crapper starting well before 01-07. So you can say with a straight face the GOP, with almost total control from '01-'09 had nothing to do with the collapse?

Edited by west20th
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Spoken like a true Fox Zombie. Speaking of losers, whatever happened to John McCain anyway?

john-mccain-Sen-R-NV-scowl-234x300.jpg

We found common ground. McCain is a loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know.. disagreeing with someone who's politics are different isn't a bad thing... but making the point to give them a -1 every time they open their mouth... ?

We get it Mister X.. you hate Marksmu.. but if you'd at least skip a post every now and then, it might not be so obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reid and Pelosi had control since 01-07 and the economy pretty much crapped out in 08-08. Arguably, Bush was a better politician and had his way with them for the remainder of his term. Regardless of what McCain said, the fundamentals were not strong in 07-08. The swirling down the crapper starting well before 01-07. So you can say with a straight face the GOP, with almost total control from '01-'09 had nothing to do with the collapse?

Did not say republicans had nothing to do with the collapse....We could have done without the added debts of Iraq/Afghanistan. However,t with democrats in complete control of congress from 2007 on I can say that republicans did not have control after January of 2007. They were sidelined. Left only to filibuster and even then they eventually lost most issues. Bush could only veto. He signed more crappy legislation from the democrat congress than he did good; which is precisely why republicans in congress filibustered so often in that 2 year period.

Part of the reason the economy crapped out was because of political instability. Democrats wanted to go FAR left - republicans did not. Congress showed its inability to compromise and business responded to it by becoming risk averse, and waiting to see what happened in 2008 with the presidency. After it was apparent that Obama was going to be elected things worsened...Business now had to worry about being over-regulated, and taxed so they continued to hoard cash. The housing crisis, which was caused by reckless Democrat policies to put every American in a home, regardless of income, helped deepen the crisis....Business contraction worsened the housing crisis as the housing bubble burst completly.

There is plenty of blame to go around, Republicans over spent more than their fair share, but democrat policies are anti-business, and an anti-business government is not a good thing to have during a crisis.

That is the way I see it. Important to note that Congress was just as polarized an ineffective at agreement long before the tea party came into existence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know.. disagreeing with someone who's politics are different isn't a bad thing... but making the point to give them a -1 every time they open their mouth... ?

We get it Mister X.. you hate Marksmu.. but if you'd at least skip a post every now and then, it might not be so obvious.

Shut up or your next! I'll ruin your rep too! Just Kidding.

Seriously tho, thank you for paying attention to my minuses. Yes, I do hate MarkSMU and I do find reading his misguided opinion post painful, predictable, and pointless - and I don't care if it's obvious or not. I shall not hold back my minuses for no internet dim-wit. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Just kidding again. I don't really hate Mark or think he's a dim-wit. I just never seem to agree with his opinions. Isn't that what minuses are for? They aren't hurting anyone.

I am Mister X and I approve of this post.

Edited by Mister X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not say republicans had nothing to do with the collapse....We could have done without the added debts of Iraq/Afghanistan. However,t with democrats in complete control of congress from 2007 on I can say that republicans did not have control after January of 2007. They were sidelined. Left only to filibuster and even then they eventually lost most issues. Bush could only veto. He signed more crappy legislation from the democrat congress than he did good; which is precisely why republicans in congress filibustered so often in that 2 year period.

Part of the reason the economy crapped out was because of political instability. Democrats wanted to go FAR left - republicans did not. Congress showed its inability to compromise and business responded to it by becoming risk averse, and waiting to see what happened in 2008 with the presidency. After it was apparent that Obama was going to be elected things worsened...Business now had to worry about being over-regulated, and taxed so they continued to hoard cash. The housing crisis, which was caused by reckless Democrat policies to put every American in a home, regardless of income, helped deepen the crisis....Business contraction worsened the housing crisis as the housing bubble burst completly.

There is plenty of blame to go around, Republicans over spent more than their fair share, but democrat policies are anti-business, and an anti-business government is not a good thing to have during a crisis.

That is the way I see it. Important to note that Congress was just as polarized an ineffective at agreement long before the tea party came into existence.

I'm going to make one more point and step back from this argument. This is a Perry thread. Congress is gridlocked because Boehner is an ineffective leader and the GOP minority in the Senate requires 60 votes on EVERYTHING as a matter of course. They don't care if they are for a bill or against it. They have no solutions. The plan? B itch, obstruct and re-gain power.

Edited by west20th
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very sad that the governor of Texas doesn't know it's Constitution well enough to know that we have no right or choice to secede. Actually, I'm pretty sure he knows that. He is just a slimy, pandering politician of the worst kind.

Of course there is a right to secede. The Constitution is just words on paper. If a state should reject that and adopt other words on paper, they can do that. The federal government may disagree. That state may be subject to military intervention...which would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, if the federal government still maintains that they are or should be a state. Kind of a catch 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is a right to secede. The Constitution is just words on paper. If a state should reject that and adopt other words on paper, they can do that. The federal government may disagree. That state may be subject to military intervention...which would be in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, if the federal government still maintains that they are or should be a state. Kind of a catch 22.

My point was that the Texas constitution does not spell out the right to secede. That is an urban legend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that the Texas constitution does not spell out the right to secede. That is an urban legend.

The federal and state constitutions are silent on lots of things, both general and specific in subject matter. And for good reason! The ninth and tenth amendments were very deliberately included in the bill of rights, after all.

The secession issue was a contentious one (obviously), but the courts ruled that states cannot secede. That doesn't mean that this is good law, but it is the law. Moveover, whatever kind of deals Texas had worked out as part of its annexation, the Reconstruction-era state constitution approved by congress pretty much eliminated them.

But again. The point is moot. It's all just words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our current Democratic party chairman in Galveston County used to be a state representative and sat next to Rick Perry in the legislature. This was back when Rick Perry was still a democrat. Lyold stated that sitting next to Rick Perry was like sitting next to a girl. He said Rick was constantly primping himself, fixing his hair and making sure that he was included in all of the right gatherings and invited to the right parties. He was a scocial climber back then and quickly followed the lobbyist's and their money to the Republican party.

When I learned later that the media were comparing Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson as both former cheerleaders, it all made sense. This guy belongs in Hollywood, not Washington D.C..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing little pieces here and there digging up dirt on Perry, more so than other candidates at this point. Hopefully that can gain some momentum and end his run early. I really don't want to see him any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing little pieces here and there digging up dirt on Perry, more so than other candidates at this point. Hopefully that can gain some momentum and end his run early. I really don't want to see him any more.

I see all these hit pieces, locally and nationally, as a sign that powerful people fear the ramifications of a Perry candidacy. Successful or not, a Perry campaign will cause a great deal of collateral damage to both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see all these hit pieces, locally and nationally, as a sign that powerful people fear the ramifications of a Perry candidacy. Successful or not, a Perry campaign will cause a great deal of collateral damage to both parties.

Has anybody written any articles about when powerful people determine that a candidate would cause damage to the status quote? About how powerful people try to persuade the voting public and/or the primary voters with op-eds? Are they journal articles that one has to download from a research service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody written any articles about when powerful people determine that a candidate would cause damage to the status quote? About how powerful people try to persuade the voting public and/or the primary voters with op-eds? Are they journal articles that one has to download from a research service?

Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how a researcher would quantify that sort of thing on any sort of consistent basis throughout history.

The closest parallel that I could draw is Jimmy Carter, a flagrantly-Christian governor of a southern state that ran as an anti-incumbent. The key difference there was that Carter had media backing. Perry does not. ...but this time, the people's perceptions (and consumption patterns) of mass media are far more varied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...