Support NeoGAF

[Mike M]

Yeah, I'm baffled at everyone's assumption that being an idiot religious fundamentalist governor from Texas is somehow a barrier to the White House.

Perry doesn't butcher the English language the way Bush did, already that gives him a substantial boost in at least not appearing to be as ignorant as Bush, whatever his actual stances might be. And it's not like the American public in general indulges in deep, nuanced assessment of a candidate's policies and positions, so we underestimate Perry's image control at our own peril.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Strange statement. I thought the female demographic was generally pro gay marriage, pro choice, socially "liberal."

Those are niche issues that the Libertarians are not synonymous with (to the general public). Ultimately, it's economics that matters the most to people. You will have a tough time convincing women that their present rights/earning power hasn't been entertwined with 'big government' actions of the past.

It's an easier sell to the white male.

 

[Klocker]

On the need for regulations: just google the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Look at how letting the market self regulate worked in that instance.

Here is an example of what you will find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

Exactly. The child of deregulation is greed, a disregard for ensuring safety and corner-cutting at the expense of others.

 

[A Human Becoming]

They did with Bush. Twice.

Would you really classify Bush as a "far right guy religious nutbag"?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Would you really classify Bush as a "far right guy religious nutbag"?

Yup.

 

[eznark]

Those are niche issues that the Libertarians are not synonymous with (to the general public). Ultimately, it's economics that matters the most to people. You will have a tough time convincing women that their present rights/earning power hasn't been entertwined with 'big government' actions of the past.

It's an easier sell to the white male.

"Women can't understand economics..."

sexist!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Would you really classify Bush as a "far right guy religious nutbag"?

Perry is not a religious nutbag. Like Bush, he uses religion when it suits him. Not long ago Perry said his faith didn't effect his role as governor much, now he wears it on his sleeve during the run up to a presidential campaign. Sound familiar?

His record just might guarantee him the presidency.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Yeah, I'm baffled at everyone's assumption that being an idiot religious fundamentalist governor from Texas is somehow a barrier to the White House.

Perry doesn't butcher the English language the way Bush did, already that gives him a substantial boost in at least not appearing to be as ignorant as Bush, whatever his actual stances might be. And it's not like the American public in general indulges in deep, nuanced assessment of a candidate's policies and positions, so we underestimate Perry's image control at our own peril.

yes it's true. But time will tell how he will pan out. The man is a crazy loon with a lot of crazy ideas. I wonder how well he will answer and take responsibility for the stances he take.

 

[teruterubozu]

Yup.

Compared to Pat Buchanan, who was also running at the time?

 

[Mike M]

Would you really classify Bush as a "far right guy religious nutbag"?

Yes.

Spoiler

Full disclosure: I count all creationists as religious nutbags.

 

[empty vessel]

Exactly, and Perry is way more smooth and charismatic.

It could just be me, but Perry strikes me as much less likeable than Bush. He is less affable and less relatable.

 

[teruterubozu]

Yes.

Spoiler

Full disclosure: I count all creationists as religious nutbags.

Oh please, he never came out as a Creationist.

It could just be me, but Perry strikes me as much less likeable than Bush. He is less affable and less relatable.

Yeah, Perry doesn't seem like the dude you "have a beer with".

 

[Mike M]

Compared to Pat Buchanan, who was also running at the time?

Herpes is worse than the clap, but they're both STDs.

 

[TestOfTide]

Oh please, he never came out as a Creationist.

To say that evolution is "still in the courts" in the 21st century is to be a religious nutbag.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Compared to Pat Buchanan, who was also running at the time?

On a spectrum, Bush is not at the extreme right pole. But he's well into "far right guy religious nutbag" territory.

The Bachman's and Perry's are further, which should terrify any sane human being.

 

[eznark]

It could just be me, but Perry strikes me as much less likeable than Bush. He is less affable and less relatable.

I doubt it's just you. Bush came off as an every-man. He spoke plainly, smiled a lot and had a generally jovial tone.

Perry comes off as a polished TV preacher, Elmer Gantry type (without the fire and brimstone, but with double the thick veneer)

 

[polyh3dron]

Why do so many people discount ron paul? I don't get it. He wins most of not all the polls.

Ron Paul is the Snakes On A Plane of Presidential candidates.

 

[teruterubozu]

Herpes is worse than the clap, but they're both STDs.

So what about Clinton and Obama's Christian backgrounds? Another kind of STD?

 

[Fragamemnon]

Perry has huge heaps of nuttery in his Fed Up book, though. I think Americans, given the choice, will go with the Republican they do know (Obama) vs. the scary outside the mainstream Republican (Perry).

 

[FLEABttn]

Strange statement. I thought the female demographic was generally pro gay marriage, pro choice

There's not enough consensus within the libertarian circles to have an obvious appeal to women. For every libertarian who is for gay marriage, there's another who says they hate it and are fine with it being banned at the state level. For every pro-choice libertarian, there's JayDubya.

Ron Paul is the Snakes On A Plane of Presidential candidates.

I laughed at this probably more than I should have.

 

[Mike M]

Oh please, he never came out as a Creationist.

"The jury is still out on evolution" is close enough.

Spoiler

Full disclosure: I count him as a religious nutbag for other reasons. Office of Faith Based Iniatives and how it never gave a single cent to non-Christian groups, for example.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Bush's announcement speech in 1999:

I’m running because my party must match a conservative mind with a compassionate heart. [...]

It is conservative to insist on education standards, basics and local control. It is compassionate to make sure that not one single child gets left behind.

I know this approach has been criticized. But why? Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by someone who boasts of a hard heart? I know Republicans – across the country — are generous of heart. I am confident the American people view compassion as a noble calling. The calling of a nation where the strong are just and the weak are valued.

I am proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome the label. And on this ground I’ll take my stand.”

http://www.4president.org/speeches/2000/georgewbush2000announcement.htm

the late 1990s, when, as a candidate, he told audiences that “Prosperity without purpose is just materialism” and vowed to “rally the armies of compassion in our communities to fight a very different war against poverty

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/86075/compassionate-conservative-hiv-pepfar-bush-gop-budget


Perry's announcement speech:

In America, the people are not subjects of government. The government is subject to the people. And it is up to us, to this present generation of Americans, to take a stand for freedom, to send a message to Washington that we’re taking our future back from the grips of central planners who would control our healthcare, who would spend our treasure, who downgrade our future and micro-manage our lives. [...]

And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can. And at the same time, we’ll be freeing our families and small businesses and states from the burdensome and costly federal government so those groups can create, innovate and succeed.”

Seems Perry is more Michelle Bachmann than GWB.

 

[eznark]

There's not enough consensus within the libertarian circles to have an obvious appeal to women. For every libertarian who is for gay marriage, there's another who says they hate it and are fine with it being banned at the state level. For every pro-choice libertarian, there's JayDubya.

So the libertarians need litmus tests? No. Fucking. Thanks. Free minds and free markets, yo.

 

[Mike M]

So what about Clinton and Obama's Christian backgrounds? Another kind of STD?

In this analogy? I don't know, an irritating persistent cough, perhaps?

There's a difference between being religious and being a religious nutjob.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So what about Clinton and Obama's Christian backgrounds? Another kind of STD?

Quite different. Seriously. Did Obama ever hold a prayer gathering that attracted the lowest common denominator of the Christian community? No. Did Perry? Yes. Whether it was for political gain or not isn't the issue. What is the issue is he is trying to attract these individuals who should be kept as far away from every day decisions that impact the citizens of this country.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Free minds

You get what you pay for.

 

[besada]

So the libertarians need litmus tests? No. Fucking. Thanks. Free minds and free markets, yo.

And that's why they don't get the female or minority vote. No one's saying you should change, eznark, just explaining why you guys don't and likely never will weild serious political power.

 

[teruterubozu]

Quite different. Seriously. Did Obama ever hold a prayer gathering that attracted the lowest common denominator of the Christian community? No. Did Perry? Yes. Whether it was for political gain or not isn't the issue. What is the issue is he is trying to attract these individuals who should be kept as far away from every day decisions that impact the citizens of this country.

eh, Christianity, on both sides, is used for political gain. Sure the Repubs are more in your face about it, but the Dems are just as guilty of playing up to the Christian contingent. Let's not pretend Democrats are true atheists.

 

[Klocker]

eh, Christianity, on both sides, is used for political gain. Sure the Repubs are more in your face about it, but the Dems are just as guilty of playing up to the Christian contingent.

uh no. the republican far right (which is now the middle) trumpets the forces of evangelical patriotism to rally against the "evil gays" and the leftist agenda of anti-christ sentiment.There is no batshit equivalent of that on the left.


Besides we need to get that shit the hell out of our politics like the rest of the non-theocratic countries.

It's bullshit and has no place in the common sense decision making of running a government.

 

[FLEABttn]

So the libertarians need litmus tests? No. Fucking. Thanks. Free minds and free markets, yo.

How can you wedge people into your party based on social issues otherwise?

And like besada said, I'm not suggesting you change, I'm merely suggesting why libertarians are the way they are when it comes to organizing and appealing to others.

Arguably you brought up the notion that they had a litmus test that would pass for women before I suggested they did not =P

 

[A Human Becoming]

Bush's announcement speech in 1999:



http://www.4president.org/speeches/2000/georgewbush2000announcement.htm



http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/86075/compassionate-conservative-hiv-pepfar-bush-gop-budget


Perry's announcement speech:




Seems Perry is more Michelle Bachmann than GWB.

That is what I thought. I thought Bush was just far right, not a nut job. You could argue Perry is closer to Reagan than Bush.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

eh, Christianity, on both sides, is used for political gain. Sure the Repubs are more in your face about it, but the Dems are just as guilty of playing up to the Christian contingent.

I have to strongly disagree. Most of the churches that I have attended it was the Republican party that had the most support. Listen to how the Republican party tries to portray itself as the party of Jesus Christ. So often you'll hear that supporting the Democratic party is anti Christian. The last 30 years the Republican party has attempted a take over of the evangelical body in this country and many of the evangelical denominations have been all too willing to accept.

I attended Fuller Theological Seminary for my masters. I cannot tell you how many churches and Republicans that I know look down upon Fuller for being too liberal. Why? Fuller doesn't support the literal innerancy of the Bible for today. They are much more willing to discuss issues like abortion rights and homosexuality with gay marriage without being black and white. The President came out against the war in Irag, was given millions to do outreach to the Muslim community after 9/11, and much more. The Republican party sees all of these as anti-Christian and countless church communities have agreed.

 

[teruterubozu]

uh no.

Really? You must have been too young to remember Obama's struggles with his church during the elections.

 

[Mike M]

eh, Christianity, on both sides, is used for political gain. Sure the Repubs are more in your face about it, but the Dems are just as guilty of playing up to the Christian contingent.

My beef is that Republican's playing it up for political gain takes the form of trying to introduce creationism into science classes and deny GLBT people equal rights.

Democrats playing it for political gain doesn't usually manifest in legislation that I can recall off the top of my head...

 

[Dude Abides]

Really? You must have been too young to remember Obama's struggles with his church during the elections.

Obama's struggles were because his preacher was a loon, and he distanced himself from it. He certainly wasn't running around advertising it or talking about how Jesus was his favorite political philosopher.

 

[Klocker]

Really? You must have been too young to remember Obama's struggles with his church during the elections.

stealth edit


uh no. the republican far right (which is now the middle) trumpets the forces of evangelical patriotism to rally against the "evil gays" and the leftist agenda of anti-christ sentiment. There is no batshit equivalent of that on the left. At least none that would fill up an auditorium.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Really? You must have been too young to remember Obama's struggles with his church during the elections.

Wasn't his only struggle involving Reverend Wright saying that 9/11 was proof that "America's chickens are coming home to roost" and "...not God Bless America. God damn America"?

EDIT: Beaten by Dude.

 

[ToxicAdam]

That is what I thought. I thought Bush was just far right, not a nut job. You could argue Perry is closer to Reagan than Bush.

Reagan raised taxes in 1982 then in 1984 to fund SS and then in 1988 to expand Medicare. Would Perry agree to that?

 

[teruterubozu]

I have to strongly disagree. Most of the churches that I have attended it was the Republican party that had the most support. Listen to how the Republican party tries to portray itself as the party of Jesus Christ. So often you'll hear that supporting the Democratic party is anti Christian. The last 30 years the Republican party has attempted a take over of the evangelical body in this country and many of the evangelical denominations have been all too willing to accept.

Well of course. I'm just saying the Dems still walk on eggshells when it comes to a Christian upbringing. I know on GAF we'd love Richard Dawkins to be president, but most Americans, even Democrats, still feel comfortable when their president has a Christian background.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Reagan raised taxes in 1982 then in 1984 to fund SS and then in 1988 to expand Medicare. Would Perry agree to that?

I'm saying in rhetoric, not in action.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well of course. I'm just saying the Dems still walk on eggshells when it comes to a Christian upbringing. I know on GAF we'd love Richard Dawkins to be president, but most Americans, even Democrats, still feel comfortable when their president has a Christian background.

Being comfortable with a President being Christian is quite different than having a party trying to align itself with the extreme wing of a religious community. Democrats want voters and Christians make up millions of potential voters. Sure. But Republicans have outright sold itself to the evangelical Christian community over the last 30 years. I don't blame Republicans alone as the evangelical leaders have been all too ready to approve said partnership and benefit from it.

I can't tell you how many times I had conversations with previous pastors of mine and to vote Democrat was anathema. This was during my time as a Republican so it didn't really concern me. Abortion rights, gay marriage, and end times (big government?) have overwhelmed the wider evangelical community for years and the Republican party is the party who these individuals see as standing with them.

 

[Klocker]

Being comfortable with a President being Christian is quite different than having a party trying to align itself with the extreme wing of a religious community. Democrats want voters and Christians make up millions of potential voters. Sure. But Republicans have outright sold itself to the evangelical Christian community over the last 30 years. I don't blame Republicans alone as the evangelical leaders have been all too ready to approve said partnership

Yes. Not to mention it is one group that can be led to the polls to do exactly what the leader of the church tells them to do. So the politicians only need woo the heads and the tail follows.

 

[teruterubozu]

Being comfortable with a President being Christian is quite different than having a party trying to align itself with the extreme wing of a religious community. Democrats want voters and Christians make up millions of potential voters. Sure. But Republicans have outright sold itself to the evangelical Christian community over the last 30 years. I don't blame Republicans alone as the evangelical leaders have been all too ready to approve said partnership

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you anywhere. But bring up religion and it becomes a shitstorm around here.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you anywhere. But bring up religion and it becomes a shitstorm around here.

Most definitely. But GAF doesn't really represent the wider populace as a whole (whether that is a good thing or not is up for debate =P )

 

[eznark]

And that's why they don't get the female or minority vote. No one's saying you should change, eznark, just explaining why you guys don't and likely never will weild serious political power.

Remember when I was hoping for 5% of the Indiana vote and following local dog catcher races?

Yeah, I think I am well aware of the realities of my teams political chances.

You get what you pay for.

The motto of the Chicago machine?

 

[Particle Physicist]

And that's why they don't get the female or minority vote. No one's saying you should change, eznark, just explaining why you guys don't and likely never will weild serious political power.

Have you checked your PMs?

 

[RustyNails]

Maybe Perry will actually make the primary interesting. He should win many southern states and might garner that grass-roots, tea bagger money to keep him going. I just don't see him winning the NE, midwest or California primaries. It will be the first interesting Republican primary in .. forever .. if it plays out that way.

Is it possible that we might have a possible 50/50 split between delegates over Perry/Romney? Or maybe 33/33/33 split over Perry/Bachmann/Romney? This looks like a truly divisive primary.

 

[besada]

Remember when I was hoping for 5% of the Indiana vote and following local dog catcher races?

Yeah, I think I am well aware of the realities of my teams political chances.

That's one of the reasons I like you, sir. You never try to convince us that the world is a rhomboid.

 

[Plinko]

Is it possible that we might have a possible 50/50 split between delegates over Perry/Romney? Or maybe 33/33/33 split over Perry/Bachmann/Romney? This looks like a truly divisive primary.

I'm interested in this as well. I see Bachmann/Perry splitting their own voter base with Romney taking the rest. I just don't know what that "rest" is.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

The motto of the Chicago machine?

You would never survive in a free market of comebacks.