Pawlenty drops out of race

[YankeeFan]

Perry is very comfortable campaigning. Yesterday, Mark Halpern said something like, "Perry's only been on the campaign trail for two days, and he already has the best stump speech."

He's also much less scripted than other candidates. This is appealing to people and makes him seem "authentic".

It's also going to lead to a lot of statements like yesterday's where he accused the Fed Chairman of "almost treason".

There's a reason why we find unscripted candidates appealing, but elect candidates who stick to the day's message.

We'll see if Perry can walk the line between the two.

 

[YankeeFan]

I did think Perry's comments about him being the most conservative candidate in the race was strange. I don't think he's anywhere close to as conservative as Bachmann.

She's quoted in the NYT today, from one of the talk shows this weekend, as in favor of reinstating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if she's elected.

I understand that's no great surprise. But I can't believe that a candidate in 2012 is still beating the anti-gay drum as hard as she does. That horse isn't going to ride much longer, surely.

Assuming it's phased out without any problems -- which I assume will be the case -- it's stupid.

If there's no problem, why do we need to change it?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I did think Perry's comments about him being the most conservative candidate in the race was strange. I don't think he's anywhere close to as conservative as Bachmann.

She's quoted in the NYT today, from one of the talk shows this weekend, as in favor of reinstating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if she's elected.

I understand that's no great surprise. But I can't believe that a candidate in 2012 is still beating the anti-gay drum as hard as she does. That horse isn't going to ride much longer, surely.

Assuming it's phased out without any problems -- which I assume will be the case -- it's stupid.

If there's no problem, why do we need to change it?

Because anti-homosexuality is as much a part of her identity as the color of her hair or her eyes. She's a very principled bigot. It's absolutely ingrained. She's a true believer when it comes to this particular issue. It's sad.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I did think Perry's comments about him being the most conservative candidate in the race was strange. I don't think he's anywhere close to as conservative as Bachmann.

She's quoted in the NYT today, from one of the talk shows this weekend, as in favor of reinstating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if she's elected.

I understand that's no great surprise. But I can't believe that a candidate in 2012 is still beating the anti-gay drum as hard as she does. That horse isn't going to ride much longer, surely.

Unfortunately, it probably will until our parents generation (I'm assuming we're roughly the same age...) dies out.

I don't think this is a party issue. It's an age and race issue.

 

[PeterGibbons]

But, Perry's been in elected office a long time. In no way is he unacceptable.

Aren't these two sentences completely contradictory to a certain segment of the population?

It will be really funny to watch Perry tout his business credentials when he's never held a private-sector job in his life, btw.

I'll still support Perry, but the dirty secret some people don't know is (like Reagan) he used to be a Democrat. That's enough to cause some to keel over in the Republican ranks.

Eh, not buying it. Former-Democratic Republicans aren't uncommon in the South.

True. And they tend to have one thing in common, or at least the older generation did.

I know your goal is to paint every Republican as a racist. It's always been silly, but it's real absurd in this case.

Perry didn't switch parties after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He's not even a "Reagan Democrat".

We're talking about the guy who was the Chairman of Al Gore's 1988 Presidential campaign in Texas.

The fact is, the Democrat(ic) party has changed. Rick Perry has not. It used to be that you could be a Democrat and be for a strong military. You could be a pro-life Democrat.

But, the current Democrat(ic) Party is a coalition of special interests. In order for each special interest to get what it wants, they all stand together. So, if you're not down with every part of the coalition, you're drummed out of the party.

Especially on Life, there's no compromise. While the left likes to paint Republicans as ideologues, the truth is the left demands ideological purity.

Al Gore used to be pro-Life. Lot's of Democrats were. Now you can't be. (And don't give me Harry Reid or Bob Casey, Jr. They've both been neutered as far as their pro-Life positions go.)

Rick Perry had no future in the modern Democrat(ic) party. And, it had nothing to do with race.

I'm pretty sure this is the case with both parties and one of the many reasons why the economy is in a tailspin. Both parties are doing their best to screw over the American public and I really don't see Obama or Perry pulling us out of this

 

[Mizzougrad96]

A lot of people have switched parties during their lifetimes. Doesn't that imply that someone might be more moderate?

 

[PeterGibbons]

With all the influence of the special interests these days, it's going to be really hard to get a real moderate through the primaries... from either party

 

[Mizzougrad96]

With all the influence of the special interests these days, it's going to be really hard to get a real moderate through the primaries... from either party

Right, which is unfortunate... I see Romney as a moderate. I see Huntsman as a moderate. I don't think Perry is an "extreme" candidate.

I do see Bachmann and Santorum that way.

 

[Dick Whitman]

With all the influence of the special interests these days, it's going to be really hard to get a real moderate through the primaries... from either party

And yet we have one in the White House right now.

Every election I hear this same "truism." That you have to go hard left or hard right to get through the primaries. And every election, the freak show ends long before November (vice presidential candidate in '08 excepted).

 

[Bob Cook]

But, Perry's been in elected office a long time. In no way is he unacceptable.

Aren't these two sentences completely contradictory to a certain segment of the population?

It will be really funny to watch Perry tout his business credentials when he's never held a private-sector job in his life, btw.

I'll still support Perry, but the dirty secret some people don't know is (like Reagan) he used to be a Democrat. That's enough to cause some to keel over in the Republican ranks.

Eh, not buying it. Former-Democratic Republicans aren't uncommon in the South.

True. And they tend to have one thing in common, or at least the older generation did.

I know your goal is to paint every Republican as a racist. It's always been silly, but it's real absurd in this case.

Perry didn't switch parties after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He's not even a "Reagan Democrat".

We're talking about the guy who was the Chairman of Al Gore's 1988 Presidential campaign in Texas.

The fact is, the Democrat(ic) party has changed. Rick Perry has not. It used to be that you could be a Democrat and be for a strong military. You could be a pro-life Democrat.

But, the current Democrat(ic) Party is a coalition of special interests. In order for each special interest to get what it wants, they all stand together. So, if you're not down with every part of the coalition, you're drummed out of the party.

Especially on Life, there's no compromise. While the left likes to paint Republicans as ideologues, the truth is the left demands ideological purity.

Al Gore used to be pro-Life. Lot's of Democrats were. Now you can't be. (And don't give me Harry Reid or Bob Casey, Jr. They've both been neutered as far as their pro-Life positions go.)

Rick Perry had no future in the modern Democrat(ic) party. And, it had nothing to do with race.

Good column in The Economist this week on the intransigence of both parties on, well, just about anything. Interesting take from overseas, even if it isn't groundbreaking.

As far as the whole, "Perry knows how to win elections" thing ... It is somewhat disingenuous now for a lot of Democrats to discount that as a qualification. It was used over and over again as an Obama executive qualification in 2008.

"He's run a campaign in umpteen primary states!"

"He won the Illinois Senate with 97 percent of the vote!"

One real problem with Perry's candidacy, just from what I'm reading, is that his Texas Miracle has a lot to do with oil prices going up. And when that gets a little more exposure, it has a chance of really neutralizing his greatest strength. Rick Perry's state gained from our suffering. That's how it will be framed.

I do agree with him about the importance of a steady, predictable regulatory scheme, although I'm sure we'd disagree on the particulars. But it's a huge problem in the U.S. right now.

Admittedly, I'm still learning about him. And, admittedly, a lot of my information comes from the New York Times.

A good breakdown of the "Texas Miracle" is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/breaking-down-rick-perrys-texas-miracle/2011/08/15/gIQAzRHFHJ_blog.html

There is a lot of stuff that couldn't be replicated nationwide. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs. It's benefited from the oil and gas industry when others suffered because of it. It has low housing costs, and low business regulation, though those existed before Perry ever became governor. Oh, and Perry eagerly sopped up a LOT of Obama stimulus money. Without it, he's having to make severe slices in the state's budget, worsening Texas' already paltry education and health systems.

In fact, you could argue that Perry is getting out while the getting is good, because he's benefited from a growing economy in his state, and now he's being put in the position of making unpopular decisions now that the economy is going in reverse (Texas' unemployment rate is now worse than New York's, Massachusetts' and Wisconsin's, and is heading in the direction of some Midwest Rust Belt states that were taking one to the chin at the start of the recession). One of his races, Perry won with only 39 percent of the vote. Not saying he would lose in his next race, but what's happened in Texas recently will make it harder for him to win.

Plus, there was the whole secession thing.

 

[YankeeFan]

There were two, strong third party candidates in the race where he only received 39% -- including a former Republican.

The secession thing is crap. Post/read the quote. He didn't advocate for it - just the opposite in fact.

 

[Dick Whitman]

He also put an innocent man to death and then called off the investigation. Deplorable.

As far as the economy thing goes, the Texas thing reminds me a little bit about a conversation we were having the other day here about how things are covered by the media. Gas prices going up is covered as bad news. House prices going down is covered as bad news. For some people, it's good news. For Texans, gas prices going up is great news.