I had a conversation with my mother over the weekend. She is a Mennonite Protestant and one of the most conservative, religious ladies I have ever met.
She said she would rather see a Mormon (Romney) than Obama in the white house this was not surprising… surprising to me was when she said it was time to vote for a candidate who at the very least shared her values, if not her theology…so better Mormon than Democrat.
I was absolutely stunned.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I consider myself one of the ‘religious right.’ Alienate us to pick up some independents and you’ll lose. And you’ll lose big. I’d sooner throw away my vote on some 3rd party candidate than some pro civil union, pro-choice, with an aversion to “god bless america,” libertarian. Or, some GoP progressive-lite. I’d sooner let the democrats run the nation than reward the GoP. [/quote]
I’m from the same place and I second that motion! And that’s one reason that Huntsman is a loser going in. [/quote]
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win, rather that voting for somebody who may not be ideal, but at least holds views closer to yours than obama, over spite? That just doesn’t make sense…You are still responsible for your vote. If you deliberately throw your vote, you deserve what you get which is 4 more years of obama, which is 4 more years of entitlements, horrible economy and liberal agendas. No thanks. [/quote]
Campaigning on social conservatism will be a nonstarter in 2012. People care a lot more about jobs than about stopping two lesbians from tying the knot. That’s why I don’t see tea party candidates as having a snowball’s chance in hell this upcoming election. Once people are fat and happy, they’ll care more about pushing their social values on others. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy, don’t ya know?
I’ve been following and researching Rick Perry for a while now, and like any candidate I suppose, people have some polarized opinions of him. While the rest of us politically conservative types, see something exceptional in Rick Perry & Texas when compared to our own states politicians & status, many Texans are not that crazy about him. So, to echo Mufasa’s question…Why is that, exactly?
The unsubstantiated opinions out there, positive and negative, are endless.
But I recently came across the write-up in the link below that appears to be fairly objective and factual and explained a lot to me. Is Rick Perry lily white? Hardly. But I still think he’s the best option I’ve seen so far.
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/
Using just the FACTS (references go a long way) I’d be interested in knowing what others think; what advantages and disadvantages are there regarding Rick Perry POTUS.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I consider myself one of the ‘religious right.’ Alienate us to pick up some independents and you’ll lose. And you’ll lose big. I’d sooner throw away my vote on some 3rd party candidate than some pro civil union, pro-choice, with an aversion to “god bless america,” libertarian. Or, some GoP progressive-lite. I’d sooner let the democrats run the nation than reward the GoP. [/quote]
I’m from the same place and I second that motion! And that’s one reason that Huntsman is a loser going in. [/quote]
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win, rather that voting for somebody who may not be ideal, but at least holds views closer to yours than obama, over spite? That just doesn’t make sense…You are still responsible for your vote. If you deliberately throw your vote, you deserve what you get which is 4 more years of obama, which is 4 more years of entitlements, horrible economy and liberal agendas. No thanks. [/quote]
Well, I’ll tell you something my friend, I held my nose and voted for McCain. I didn’t like how it felt but he was certainly the better of the two candidates. In experience alone he had it over Obama like a tent. But going forward I’m not going to vote for a character like Huntsman who is basically “Obama lite.” The republican party either stands for family values, shrinking big government and lower taxes, or it doesn’t. I will not pick between two people who hold views that align with the democratic party and say this one is better than that one.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Campaigning on social conservatism will be a nonstarter in 2012. People care a lot more about jobs than about stopping two lesbians from tying the knot. That’s why I don’t see tea party candidates as having a snowball’s chance in hell this upcoming election. Once people are fat and happy, they’ll care more about pushing their social values on others. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy, don’t ya know?[/quote]
Yes, both Perry and Bachmann have publicly deflected questions on abortion and gay rights…simply saying the focus is on the economy and jobs. My guess is Mitty will do the same.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Campaigning on social conservatism will be a nonstarter in 2012. People care a lot more about jobs than about stopping two lesbians from tying the knot. That’s why I don’t see tea party candidates as having a snowball’s chance in hell this upcoming election. Once people are fat and happy, they’ll care more about pushing their social values on others. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy, don’t ya know?[/quote]
I agree. The person who has economy on the top rung will win. Broke people don’t give a shit about social issues.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Campaigning on social conservatism will be a nonstarter in 2012. People care a lot more about jobs than about stopping two lesbians from tying the knot. That’s why I don’t see tea party candidates as having a snowball’s chance in hell this upcoming election. Once people are fat and happy, they’ll care more about pushing their social values on others. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy, don’t ya know?[/quote]
Yes, both Perry and Bachmann have publicly deflected questions on abortion and gay rights…simply saying the focus is on the economy and jobs. My guess is Mitty will do the same.[/quote]
Bachmann pointedly answered the question of abortion, even in the case of rape. And I thought that was very bold of her.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Campaigning on social conservatism will be a nonstarter in 2012. People care a lot more about jobs than about stopping two lesbians from tying the knot. That’s why I don’t see tea party candidates as having a snowball’s chance in hell this upcoming election. Once people are fat and happy, they’ll care more about pushing their social values on others. It’s Maslow’s hierarchy, don’t ya know?[/quote]
I agree. The person who has economy on the top rung will win. Broke people don’t give a shit about social issues.[/quote]
Also saying that the Tea Party is only for socially conservative issues is probably one of the dumbest things I’ve read on this thread. The Tea Party was born out a desire to end runaway government spending. That’s why they swept many of their members into office last November and that’s why they’ll have a huge impact in the Presidential election.
Just once I’d like forlife to get something right, anything really…
[quote]pat wrote:
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win [/quote]
Yes. And the next time some diplo-dink GoP thought it best to move away from a social conservative message to pick up a few wishy-washy independents, he’ll recall that trouncing they took when we didn’t show up. I will not in any way, ever, ever, contribute my support to a libertarian-lite party. Not even if it’s a rebranded New GoP. I’m a conservative, a social conservative. I will only support such a candidate and will not hesitate to vote 3rd party if available. And not all, if no such avenue is present. Lack of support sends a message with future politics in mind. I’d rather Obama get relected than support some farting in the wind republican.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win [/quote]
Yes. And the next time some diplo-dink GoP thought it best to move away from a social conservative message to pick up a few wishy-washy independents, he’ll recall that trouncing they took when we didn’t show up. I will not in any way, ever, ever, contribute my support to a libertarian-lite party. Not even if it’s a rebranded New GoP. I’m a conservative, a social conservative. I will only support such a candidate and will not hesitate to vote 3rd party if available. And not all, if no such avenue is present. Lack of support sends a message with future politics in mind. I’d rather Obama get relected than support some farting in the wind republican.[/quote]
I have no desire to change your mind, since this actually helps me by splitting the Republican vote, but I’m curious. Wouldn’t you rather elect a candidate that is financially conservative and socially liberal than see a candidate get elected who is both financially and socially liberal?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win [/quote]
Yes. And the next time some diplo-dink GoP thought it best to move away from a social conservative message to pick up a few wishy-washy independents, he’ll recall that trouncing they took when we didn’t show up. I will not in any way, ever, ever, contribute my support to a libertarian-lite party. Not even if it’s a rebranded New GoP. I’m a conservative, a social conservative. I will only support such a candidate and will not hesitate to vote 3rd party if available. And not all, if no such avenue is present. Lack of support sends a message with future politics in mind. I’d rather Obama get relected than support some farting in the wind republican.[/quote]
Ok, well it’s your vote do with it how you see fit.
At least it’s better than my neighbors policy, votes democrat because her father has always voted democrat and they are from Boston so that’s just what they do.
At least you have principle.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win [/quote]
Yes. And the next time some diplo-dink GoP thought it best to move away from a social conservative message to pick up a few wishy-washy independents, he’ll recall that trouncing they took when we didn’t show up. I will not in any way, ever, ever, contribute my support to a libertarian-lite party. Not even if it’s a rebranded New GoP. I’m a conservative, a social conservative. I will only support such a candidate and will not hesitate to vote 3rd party if available. And not all, if no such avenue is present. Lack of support sends a message with future politics in mind. I’d rather Obama get relected than support some farting in the wind republican.[/quote]
I have no desire to change your mind, since this actually helps me by splitting the Republican vote, but I’m curious. Wouldn’t you rather elect a candidate that is financially conservative and socially liberal than see a candidate get elected who is both financially and socially liberal?[/quote]
There’s never going to be somebody whose good enough for me. I have my list of issues in priority and who ever most closely matches my list and that’s who I go for. I am impossible to please.
I am prolife as hell, so this removes 99% of democrats and most libertarians, but I am pro legalization so that eliminates republicans and most democrats. Now economically I am conservative, but on jobs I tend to be lefty, etc, etc.
So like I said, the person who hits most often on the top part of my list is who I go for. I don’t have any major requirements for the personage other than at least somewhat upstanding. 'Cause it won’t matter if they support my views if they are just lying about it completely.
Thought this was funny . . . . The Great Campaigner
Sorry…can’t seem to get it to show bigger
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
So you would throw away your vote, allowing Obama to win [/quote]
Yes. And the next time some diplo-dink GoP thought it best to move away from a social conservative message to pick up a few wishy-washy independents, he’ll recall that trouncing they took when we didn’t show up. I will not in any way, ever, ever, contribute my support to a libertarian-lite party. Not even if it’s a rebranded New GoP. I’m a conservative, a social conservative. I will only support such a candidate and will not hesitate to vote 3rd party if available. And not all, if no such avenue is present. Lack of support sends a message with future politics in mind. I’d rather Obama get relected than support some farting in the wind republican.[/quote]
I have no desire to change your mind, since this actually helps me by splitting the Republican vote, but I’m curious. Wouldn’t you rather elect a candidate that is financially conservative and socially liberal than see a candidate get elected who is both financially and socially liberal?[/quote]
There’s never going to be somebody whose good enough for me. I have my list of issues in priority and who ever most closely matches my list and that’s who I go for. I am impossible to please.
I am prolife as hell, so this removes 99% of democrats and most libertarians, but I am pro legalization so that eliminates republicans and most democrats. Now economically I am conservative, but on jobs I tend to be lefty, etc, etc.
So like I said, the person who hits most often on the top part of my list is who I go for. I don’t have any major requirements for the personage other than at least somewhat upstanding. 'Cause it won’t matter if they support my views if they are just lying about it completely.
[/quote]
That’s how I see it, too. Why would you vote for someone that you knew represented fewer of your critical views, compared to a candidate that represented more of those views? Nobody is going to represent your views perfectly.
It’s like finding a mate, only with a twist: Staying single is not an option. You WILL get married, so you might as well choose the mate that is the best match, given the other courters out there.
Yeah! Another ultra-religious, right-wing wacko from TX! How’d that work out last time?
Add that to two Mormons, one ex-Obama aide and an anti-government candidate who was in Congress for 35 years, and you have a slam dunk!
Wake up rich white guys!! Your taxes are going back to 39%!!
Abortions for all! Universal health care! Means testing for SS and Medicare! Educated citizens who will compete with your children for the 3 good jobs that are left! Tax penalties for offshoring jobs!
Roads and bridges fixed! Regulation on Natural Gas companies!
Oh this is pissing you off? THAT is what is sad.
Now off to your Masonic lodges, all of you!
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
Pawlenty’s out. Perry might as well be the GOP candidate. I have no hope for the GOP or the presidency in the upcoming election.[/quote]
What’s making you feel this way, Otep?
Mufasa[/quote]
I was pulling for Pawlenty. His record as a fiscal conservative was excellent, and he didn’t come with a lot of evangelical christian demagoguery, which alienates me. He seemed reasonable, was a former governor, and I think if he were elected he’d make a good president.
But he’s out, so we’re left with Perry, Romney, Bachmann…Paul… and maybe a few other contenders, no real big names. I hate to say it, but Zeb’s correct about Paul’s chances of attaining the republican candidacy. I’m not as confident, but I’d say he’s probably also right about Bachmann’s chances at the Presidency. Paul won’t become the republican candidate and if Bachmann DOES become the candidate, she won’t become the president.
Also, I don’t think Bachmann brings much to a Perry or Romney ticket, since she’s a congressman and they’re all pretty far to the right.
So that leaves us with Perry or Romney. Both will say anything to get elected, and if elected, will deliver us unto the same budget-busting conservatism Bush II did. But neither one will have the balls to tackle social security like Bush II did. You’ll get Obama wearing red ties with either of them.
So I hold no hope for the GOP, or for the Presidency of America, in the 2012 election cycle.
Who knows? Maybe they’ll surprise me. At least there’s seventy-something tea-party congressmen if the whole thing goes tits-up.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
what advantages and disadvantages are there regarding Rick Perry POTUS.[/quote]
Advantages: Fifth generation West Texan, Christian, track record of fiscal conservativism, pro-death penalty(but commuted a convicted murderer’s death sentence)
Disadvantages: Former Democrat, flip flopped on gay marriage recently, wrote a nutty liberatarian book(Fed Up!), signed HRC 50 and talks about seceding from the Union, HPC vaccine executive order, Trans Texas Corridor/Cintra corruption
That’s all I can come up with. Maybe someone else could add something. To be honest the libertarian stuff leaves me with a deep and abiding concern about Perry’s judgement and character.