Wednesday, December 28, 2011

In which I endorse Rick Perry for President

Not that it matters much, or that he has much of a chance of winning.  However, he's the best choice on offer.  The reason is that he's the only one who plausibly will address the problem facing the Republic.  Via Foseti, Wikipedia explains it:
What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
Mitt Romney is a big government "fixer", which means that he instinctively reaches for the new regulation.  While I have a lot of admiration for Romney's personal life and personal morals, I have nothing but contempt for his what-do-you-like-I-like-that-too attitude towards governing.  I could easily see him bending to more of the "Domestic Terrorist" nonsense - or if he won't, he certainly has done nothing to convince me otherwise.  Quite frankly, the noise about how he's the only viable candidate is just that - noise.  It's the sound of the political elite trying to get a bandwagon rolling.  A moment's thought will dispel this as the mirage it is.

Newt Gengrich is without doubt the smartest man in the room (I'm not joking here), but the last three years have shown us the danger of electing a Professor-in-Chief.  Plus, he's clearly overly comfortable sitting on the sofa spouting support for what was even then clearly a dead program, so just how smart is he?  He said this was a mistake, but never said why he thought it was a good idea at the time.  Now, I like a lot of his ideas; the problem is that I don't know which of those he'd try to get implemented.  Given his unwillingness to explain the Nancy Pelosi thing, I suspect that I won't like the answer much.

R0n P4U1!!!!eleventy!!!! isn't just a kook, his response to the newsletter fiasco has turned a problem for his campaign into a disqualifying event.  He didn't know what was being published in his newsletter?  Oooooh kaaaay.  I don't think that he's a racist, I think that he thinks that I'm a dim bulb.  That expression of contempt for my intelligence is returned in equal measure.  Don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out, R0n.  He's simply dishonest and unwilling to take the heat, which means I don't want him anywhere near the Oval Office. 

I don't think that Michelle Bachman is crazy, but she's far too socially conservative for me.  Gay marriage is not the biggest crisis facing the Republic today, and so she's taking her eye off the ball.

The rest (Santorum?  Huntsman? Not even sure who's there or why) are rounding error.  They might make good Presidents, in some alternate universe where they break into double digits.  It's possible that I could reconsider one of these in the unlikely event that they show signs of being contenders.  But the first rule of getting elected is getting elected.  Not much to see here so far.

Which leaves Rick Perry.

He's not glib, although he does decently well with a Teleprompter.  People overly impressed with glibness will either vote for Obama anyway (Thomas Friedman), or will hold their noses and vote for him (Peggy Noonan).  In other words, this is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he's the only candidate that's shown a long term instinct to resist the growing anarcho-tyranny of the current political elite.

The fact that the elite hate him is what the lawyers call admission against interest - we can infer the truth because it damages their case.

Ace makes a pretty good (and detailed) case for Perry:
But I don't want someone who is so confident that he is a more capable administrator of federal power. I want someone who is skeptical of federal power no matter who wields it, no matter how skilled and able an administrator he might be, even if that administrator is he himself, and so always prefers to shunt power away from the government to to the states, and their citizens.
Quite frankly, he's the only one with a record of walking this walk.  And this is the problem facing the Republic today - too much government, done in the interest of political lobbying, with government agencies writing thousands of new regulations in the interest of the special interests who have entirely captured those agencies.

At this point, I should confess that I don't much like Perry personally.  That doesn't matter.  He's the only one with his eye on the ball that actually counts.

UPDATE 28 December 2011 16:32: Via Hotair, here's Romney telling us that Massachusetts' RomneyCare was conservative, not liberal:



Presumably, that's why it's preferred 3:1 by those conservative Massachusetts voters.

He thinks that we're idiots, to swallow this drivel.  I'd like a higher caliber of drivel.

UPDATE 28 December 16:45: Ron Paul is crazy as a coot.  Foreign policy is messy, because international relations are chaotic.  The only way to interpret this is that we have no interests in the rest of the world.  Or he somehow thinks that his State Department will be staffed with Philosopher Kings, who won't make mistakes or fail to foresee what might happen twenty years down the road.



So what, I wonder, would be the unforeseen consequences (twenty years in the future) of withdrawing from the world?  Again, via Hotair.

16 comments:

Matt said...

While I believe the more socially conservative the better, I otherwise have to agree with you on the rest.

Southern Belle said...

Darn you for making me give Governor Good Hair a second look!

Rev. Paul said...

I've said much the same thing to my wife, but not nearly as well-expressed as you've done here.

Aretae said...

Borepatch,

I'm right there with you. Have been for a while. I think he will suck somewhat less than any of the other choices.

An Ordinary American said...

At the end of the day, I have to look at our economy and quality of living here in Texas.

Perry's been in Austin for ten years and has been smart enough to stay out of the way of progress.

We need an economy in this nation or nothing else is going to matter.

We could do better than Perry, but I assure you we can do FAR FAR worse than him as well.

Look at who we have right now.

I also look at who the GOP elite hate and generally make the one of my top runners. The Elite not only hates Perry, they're scared of him too.

I rest my case.

--AOA

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Gonadal politics have little sway with me other than if some politician eschews them and won't engage on them at all one way or another... I support that.

If it's Mitt v Obama, I am not voting for a President.

If it is Paul v Obama, I am voting for Obama! There is a lot to like with Ron Paul and if I made a presidential candidate from scratch it would have a lot of Paul in him. But, like they say, Ron Paul is half right, half wrong, and all crazy. I can't just get the half right parts.

thesouthtexaspistolero said...

"Santorum? Huntsman?"

They wouldn't be any better than Michelle Bachmann or Mitt Romney. Bachmann is Rick Santorum in drag, and Huntsman is by and large Utah's version of Mitt Romney.

thesouthtexaspistolero said...

Other than that, though, BP, your analysis was spot-on. Perry's been good for Texas. I think he'd be good for America, too.

SiGraybeard said...

I've been coming to the same conclusions, for pretty much the same reasons.

I heard a long (45 minute) interview with Michelle Bachmann. Without the lights and throngs of reporters she was much more engaging and sounded really great. She was willing to talk openly about the coming economic collapse and the need to prepare people for it while working to hold it off. But anyone who can't handle the throngs of reporters probably can't handle the job.

Not many are talking about actually cutting government by 35% or more, not just cutting spending. I've heard nobody talking about eliminating large chunks of the CFR. This quote from Perry is about as close as it has gotten.

Anonymous said...

Hallelujah - somebody finally realized that principles matter more than brainpower.

Newt and Mitt are smart enough to talk themselves into supporting anything - like global warming, state-run health care, or assault rifle bans.

Perry is the guy who has already chosen some departments to eliminate - energy, education, whatever, and that is why the elites don't want him - he threatens their food supply/power base of bureaucratic jobs.

Without those jobs to hand out as treats (bribes) to supporters, they are out of power, and will have to get honest jobs.

Ken said...

Well, while I can't really argue with much Borepatch said about Ron Paul. However, I have evaluated the tradeoffs in light of my own values, and taking the bad with the good he's still my best choice.

Aside: I think maybe Borepatch's "I think that he thinks that I'm a dim bulb..." perhaps misses the mark. I'm no expert in inside libertarian baseball, but the most plausible explanation I've read -- that Paul is protecting Lew Rockwell, in essence -- seems to fit. Your mileage may vary.

Perry, however, is less bad than Slick Willard or Noot Buonaparte, and I could vote for him in the general rather than sitting it out or voting for Obama (Turn It Up to 11 in '12!).

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Now that Gary Johnson has switched to the Libertarian Party, I'm really looking into him. I just don't have much confidence in Perry's ability to keep his religion out of the social issues - and out of my bedroom.

I wish I knew more about him (though I'm trying to remedy that). I think he really got shafted when they kept him out of the early debates.

TOTWTYTR said...

I'd like to see Perry win, but unfortunately he's a non starter at this point.

Ron Paul is crazy as a loon, and his ties to racists and anti semites, be they in the past or not, are troubling to say the least.

I'm lukewarm to Romney, as I've said in the past. Also, as I've said in the past, WE HAVE TO BEAT OBAMA.

That is the goal, not getting "our guy" in the Oval Office. If that was the goal, then I'd be behind Newt all the way. Which I will be in the primary, but I'm not going to sulk and not vote or worse through my vote to a wing nut who's candidacy will ensure four more years of Obama.

As bad as Obama is, Obama who doesn't have to worry about re-election is going to end this country.

It's about getting Obama out and someone in who will work with a hopefully Republican controlled Senate and House.

Keep your eyes on the prize.

kx59 said...

Yet again, this presidential election cycle is going to suck with a capital S.

Borepatch said...

kx59, and a capital U, a capital C, and a capital K as well.

Mark Horning said...

I'm supporting Newt, but could be happy with Santorum or even Perry.

What I like about Newt is that he can clearly articulate a reasoned and ethical opposition to everything the Dems are doing.

Mitt simply can't win. And even if he could win, having a large government, anti-gun, big business crony capitalist, nanystate Rebublican in office is not measurably better than having a large government, anti-gun, big business crony capitalist, nanystate Democrat in office.

As for Ron Paul, I think he would make a world class Secretary of the Treasury. (on monetary policy he's clearly the sharpest tool in the shed by a long shot) but his foreign policy naivete shows he's not suited for the job of POTUS.