Rick Perry Must Be Stopped!

I’m beginning to believe that the pro-immigration, pro-war Rick Perry is the worst of all possible GOP hopefuls.  Sure, Romney  is bad, but the only thing that Romney is ideologically in favor of is Romney, which means that he might bend to grassroots pressure if he sees it as securing his base.  Perry, however, like Bush and Obama, is a true believer, a true believer in the invade-the-world / invite-the-world mantra.


delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

27 thoughts on “Rick Perry Must Be Stopped!

  1. Walter Post author

    Before anyone jumps to conclusions, I’m not saying that we should support Romney. I’m just saying that Perry is worse than Romney.

  2. Woden

    “Perry, however, like Bush and Obama, is a true believer, a true believer in the invade-the-world / invite-the-world mantra.”

    I agree 100%.

    Furthermore, Perry has stood his ground on subsidized tuition for illegals and against the border fence. Any support Perry gets will be seen as an endorsement or vindication of those stances.

    Perry thus must be stopped, even if it means having to vote for Romney.

  3. RedPhillips

    The problem with Perry is that he is perceived as more conservative than he actually is, as was Bush II. Therefore, if Perry fails as a President, conservatism will get discredited in the mind of many when what is really in opperation is moderation.

    The problem with a Romney nomination, beside the fact that he belongs to a heretical cult, (Yes, illiberal that I am, I do believe Christians should not vote for cultists.) is that his nomination will prove that conservatives don’t necessarily control the nomination process and can be had. (Reinforcing what we already know from Dole, Bush II, McCain, etc.)

    I would rather Cain or Bachmann get the nomination, if Paul doesn’t, because at least both are perceived as conservatives and their nomination would demonstrate “conservative” strength in the nomination process, even though we know their conservatism is flawed.

  4. Augustinian


    In reference to the heretical cult, did you mean to say ‘Romney’ rather than ‘Perry’? Anyway, I think I can also hold my nose and force myself to vote for Cain or Bachmann, but nobody else amongst that GOP gaggle (other than Paul, of course).

    And, yes, I cannot and will not vote for a Mormon, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Mohammedan, or any other pagan. However flawed they may be to me (a conservative Calvinist Anglican), I can vote for a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox.

  5. James

    I starting to arrive at the same place Walter and Wooden is at. I’m going to vote for Paul, but I do think I would prefer Romney to Perry, if that is the choice. Romney is a corporate, country club Republican but he is also a practical politician who, like practical politicians, say and so what it takes to get elected. He has few if any principles. That is, sad to say in this day and age but true, preferable to someone like Perry who has the wrong views on the most important issues. What is it with Texas Repubicans anyway? Do they have a soft spot in their heart for illegal immigrants because their house cleaners and gardeners are illegal Mexicans and Guatamalans? What gets me is how stuipid the Perry people must be not to have realized how damaging his stance on these issues (the NAFTA super-highway, tuition for illegal immigrats, HPV) would be among the base of the Republican party. They didn’t prepare him that well, or perhaps, this guy is just that dense and arrogant. If that is the case, then all the more reason not to have him in the White House. I think the perfect example of that arrogant attitude with Bush came with his effort to nominate Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. A women wholey unqualified, but a friend of the Bushes. Conservatives where agast. Finally a chance to put a real conservative on the bench had arrived and instead of putting forward someone who was a conservative intellectual heavyweight, he picked her. Dense!

  6. Matt Weber

    I’d go for Romney. The man hasn’t a principle to his name, but that means he has no bad principles, and to the extent an American politician has principles they are bad ones. Someone who just blandly pandered to the public is preferable to Bush III. God knows president Romney isn’t going to do anything worthwhile, but he may appoint a decent justice or two and in any case Paul isn’t going to win and the rest of the Republicans are worse than Romney.

  7. Woden

    “Someone who just blandly pandered to the public is preferable to Bush III.”

    Agreed. If we had a President who just followed polls and did what the American people wanted, that would be great. He would probably be the best President since Andrew Jackson.

  8. Matt Weber

    In other news, this must be the worst election preseason yet. First it was Bachmann, then Perry, and now apparently Herman Cain is the star of the polls. Who is voting in these polls and why can’t they decide on one person?

  9. HarrisonBergeron2

    Rick Perry has Reagan’s hair, Nixon’s five o’clock shadow, and W’s agenda.

    Now that’s scary.

  10. Kirt Higdon

    Current betting odds are almost 50/50 on Romney to win the nomination and almost 3 to 1 against Perry, so there is really no need for this panic. And those who think it is better to vote for someone with no principles of his own at all on the grounds that he will do what “the people” want should consider how fickle and easily manipulated the people are. They should also consider that there is a great difference between saying whatever people want to hear in order to get elected and actually governing in accord with popular opinion when there is no election coming up in the next couple of years.

  11. roho

    Founding Father “John Adams” said it best, and I paraphrase: “It’s not a horse race, trying to pick a winner. One should always vote their principles regardless of a perceived low chance of victory.”

    I’m no better than the politician himself, if I abandon my principles, and my greatest voting regret is failing to vote for Ross Perot because I thought he could not win? Only one candidate speaks his principles and lives his principles year in and year out.

    Win Ron Paul!

  12. Kirt Higdon

    I agree with roho. So many people mistake a vote for a bet. In voting there’s no payoff for picking the winner if all the candidates are various degrees of rotten. Last general election, I voted for Chuck Baldwin. You can always vote 3rd party, cast a write-in vote or not vote at all. No need to bow to the duopoly.

  13. Matt Weber

    A vote may not be a bet, but it isn’t a statement of principle either. Nor is agreement on various issues the sole determinant of voting. If I were to vote for the person who shared my principles most, I’d be writing myself in every time. No, you have to take account of whether the person can accomplish what he wants to do, whether he could be influenced on issues he feels less strongly about and what kind of bargains he is likely to make, and in the primaries whether he can win the general and get the current boob out of office.

    If you were in an election where the outcome was obvious then you’d have some latitude for protest voting, but usually the question presumes the outcome is in doubt.

  14. Kirt Higdon

    Other than in small makes-no-difference local elections, the one thing not in doubt is that my vote will not decide the election. Hence I always have the latitude for “protest” voting, which I prefer to think of positively as voting my principles. Anyone who thinks that his vote can decide a US presidential election need only to look at what happened in the Florida deadlock of 2000. Both sides reached for their attorneys and the issue was decided by the appointed, responsible to no one, US Supreme Court.

  15. Pingback: Herman Cain just as politically correct as Obama? | Conservative Heritage Times

  16. roho

    I will vote Ron Paul in the primary, and if it be that he loses, I will again vote third party. I will NOT be boxed in to vote only for the duopoly of the evil of two lessers.

    I no longer have any confidence in the two party system anyway, and assume that the electronic voting machines are flawed as well?

    My confidence is so low in the system, that in the end I may simply go fishing?

  17. Juan Batista

    Rick Perry Palled Around With Terrorists Who Tried to Kill George Bush

    An expose of Rick Perry palling around with terrorists. The shocking story of the man who would be president supporting terrorists who tried to kill George W Bush and Bill Clinton, plotted to murder American soldiers, tried to murder Texas cops, kidnapped innocents, and extorted BILLIONS.

    More than an expose, Thank You Rick Perry is also a work of alternate history showing how Perry’s treason could have led to a shattered Texas. Militias would launch more campaigns of assassination and bombings. Loyal Americans would rise up against secession. Loyal patriots in the state, Mexican-Americans, Blacks, progressives, moderates, and non-treasonous conservatives would struggle to keep much of Texas in the USA, and would break away from Texas to form their own states.

    A book for anyone asking the questions, “How could such an extremist as Perry be considered for president?” and “How can anyone claiming to be a loyal American favor secession and treason, and what can true patriots do to stop them?”

  18. RedPhillips

    “How can anyone claiming to be a loyal American favor secession…”

    How can any loyal American oppose the right of secession?

  19. Pingback: Herman Cain’s Hip-Hop Presidency | Conservative Heritage Times

  20. Juan Batista

    Secession is treason. Period. It’s favoring the overthrow of the US, or part of it.

    And supporting terrorists who use violence to achieve treason/secession is as crazy and reckless as can be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>