Well, Rick Perry Apparently Has Little Interest In Acquiring the Support of Those Under 65…
Rick Perry’s political campaign may be ending as ineptly as it began. Some of his staff is apparently in revolt over his recent antigay turn, which has included an ad attacking openly gay soldiers. According to The Huffington Post, Perry’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, sent the ad’s creator an email calling it “nuts.” Perry’s socially conservative turn has apparently come at the urging of the ad’s creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield.
With the collapse of Herman Cain’s campaign, Tea Party conservatives who do not want an establishment narcissist committed to the perpetuation of the status quo and his own bank account must now do their own “reassessment” of candidates previously rejected.
This new ad from Rick Perry effectively derails any hope I had that perhaps the Texas governor could rise again. (And he was the candidate I was drifting back toward supporting.)
This has nothing to do with my disagreement with Perry’s anti-gay views. None of the candidates share the pro-gay cultural sensibilities of Gen Y and Gen X conservatives and even if one did then it would not matter. How a candidate handles the disassembly of the welfare state and the defeat of the Islamist threat — not to even begin getting into questions of temperament and campaign strategy — are much more important than whether their religion teaches them that same-sex relationships are sinful.
To beat Obama in 2012 a candidate must understand he is running in 2012, not 2004 or 2006. This commercial is only more evidence that Team Perry does not grasp today’s political culture and has no way to chart a path to victory. Say what you will about the immorality of Alinskyite political strategy, at least the community organizing Marxists know how to de-emphasize divisive social issues to unify constituents around economic populism.
The entire Republican primary has been a “how not to” manual.
Rick Perry “You have no heart”, Y’allsheimers moment and Brokeback Campaign debacles are just the tip of the iceberg.
The “B” team has piled out of the clown car and made an absolute mess of the GOP brand.
Michael Walsh at NRO says they are too stupid to live. Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer have pretty much come to the same conclusion.
The social conservatives are at the BOTTOM of the GOP polling results. People want to get the Fabian and his Marxist groupies out of our economy, our military, our homeland security and our DOJ. Romney is likely to nibble around the edges of the key issues and Newt’s casting couch seems always full…from Nancy Pelosi to Freddie Mac to Wrongway Peter Peachfuzz.
People can carp all they want that Walsh, Coulter, Krauthammer and Steyn don’t “measure up” to the appropriate “conservative bona fides”…but pretty soon those Puritans are going to run out of people to blame for not supporting the clown car.
“Newt’s casting couch” is a rather uncomfortable — ye appropriate — image. Sigh.
Good points.
This post sounds like a “concern troll” type of post – where someone disingenuously claims concern about something, when they’re really concerned about something else.
This ad is directed towards the Iowa Republican primary voter – many of whom ARE traditional and/or religious. If Perry doesn’t break into the top three in Iowa, he is going to have a real hard time staying in the race.
So yeah, it is a good ad, even if it doesn’t appeal to the hip urban Northeastern commie transsexual Occupy-Wall-Street poop-on-the-police voter.
This is the conventional wisdom and indicates that you too are still acting like it’s 2004 or 2006 and pandering to Christian voters will work. Sure, the ad is supposedly directed toward Iowa primary voters. But what percentage of the millions of people who saw it on YOUTUBE and are now fueling anti-Perry sentiment fit that description? It does not benefit Perry in Iowa to remind voters that he opposes gays serving in the military.
And there’s nothing disingenuous about my post. My positions are as I state them; I have nothing to hide. The only thing that I’m “concerned” about is that Perry and his people are incompetent when it comes to understanding the political culture of 2012.
Even if this ad would be harmful to Perry later on down the road (I don’t think that it would), it doesn’t matter. If Perry doesn’t have a strong showing in Iowa, his campaign is all but done anyway.
Besides, it isn’t like most Republicans nationwide were for the repeal of DADT.
First an aside about how Youtube ratings work:
1) you have to have a youtube account to rate a video
2) you can only rate that video once
Now that we’ve gotten the technical part out of the way, here’s a fact to chew on:
Rick Perry’s ad has broken the records for most negative votes. Currently it’s polling at more than 500,000 against (and 14000 for). And there haven’t been big surges either way, it’s been consistently rated that negatively all along.
The younger generation hates it. Hates it. Hates it. Hates it.
The younger generation can hate it all they want – they aren’t the target audience. The ad is aimed at Republican primary voters. The younger generation doesn’t vote.
By the time the younger generation matures enough to take their responsibility to vote seriously, they may very well be a lot wiser through real world experience, and less brainwashed through leftist teachers and professors.
When I was younger, I was indoctrinated into the liberal worldview. Fortunately, I was also too undisciplined to vote back then. Then I grew up.
What “pro-gay” sensibilities?
I, frankly, don’t care either way, leaning towards opposing “gay marriage”. I used to be in favor of civil unions, but then Illinois used their civil union “and religious freedom protection” law to attack Catholic charities for having the gall to be Catholic.
When the “gay marriage” movement stops being used as a Trojan horse to attack the religious, then I’ll give them another listen. I expect that to happen right about the time of the Heat Death of the Universe.
(NB: I’m not the least bit religious. Agnostic, if anything.)
Click the link in the phrase you cite to see the data about the percentages of Gen Y and Gen X who support gay marriage.
There is no “gay marriage movement,” just individuals who support the right of individual states to recognize same-sex marriages if their citizens choose to pass such laws.
I’ll lay out my thoughts on the issue more soon but for now understand that I’m sympathetic to the arguments Jonathan Rauch makes in his book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805076336/pajamasmedia-20
I tend to support gay marriage because it’s my view that culturally we need to have the expectation for EVERYONE — gay or straight — to get married. Promiscuity is destructive. So I approach the issue from a Gen Y social conservative perspective which is one that you might not hear very much yet but will be coming more soon as my generation continues to emerge into the world.
Ah, the real reason for Mr. Swindle’s “concern troll” post – he supports gay marriage.
Gays have the same rights/privileges/abilities to marry that “straights” do. To pretend otherwise is to play into the leftist’s “argument.”
If homosexuals don’t have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, then name a single person that a heterosexual man can marry that a homosexual man could not. If you cannot give me the name of any such person, then your “argument” is busted.
When you answer my arguments for gay marriage then I’ll consider answering your cliches opposed.
Actually, you didn’t give me an argument, you gave me a link to a book. I, however, have provided an argument that you have yet to address.
But allow me to address your link with a link of my own:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/207683/marriage-radicals/stanley-kurtz
Kurtz argues against your view that gay marriage would reduce promiscuity. In fact, he argues that gay marriage will increase promiscuity, just as gay marriage has led to increasingly lax views towards polygamy.
So continue to avoid my points as I continue to decimate your points.
I did give you an argument and your very old link to my friend Stanley Kurtz (from 9 years ago) doesn’t refute it.
Let me repeat the argument you mistinterpreted:
“I tend to support gay marriage because it’s my view that culturally we need to have the expectation for EVERYONE — gay or straight — to get married. Promiscuity is destructive. So I approach the issue from a Gen Y social conservative perspective which is one that you might not hear very much yet but will be coming more soon as my generation continues to emerge into the world.”
How a cultural expectation that everyone gets married will lead to greater promiscuity is a mystery to me. Perhaps you’d like to elaborate? And citing Kurtz’s arguments about European countries using data that’s at least a decade old won’t be that convincing.
But before we even bother continuing the discussion we either have to agree or disagree on one point: Do gay people exist? And by that I mean, are there men and women who are naturally attracted to the same sex? If you answer is yes then we can continue. If your answer is no and you’re the sort who thinks gay people just need some therapy to become straight again then we might as well stop discussing the merits of gay marriage because we have a bigger foundational disagreement.
Of course the whole gay marriage pro/con debate is actually irrelevant to the whole point of this post which you’ve still missed: Perry gains nothing by raising the issue of gays in the military in a TV ad. If his intent was to focus on Obama’s persecution of Christians there were other ways to do it that would have been more effective.
Mr. Swindle said, “How a cultural expectation that everyone gets married will lead to greater promiscuity is a mystery to me. Perhaps you’d like to elaborate? And citing Kurtz’s arguments about European countries using data that’s at least a decade old won’t be that convincing.”
Kurtz’s article does mention a problem with your argument – that radically redefining marriage can alter the public’s views and expectations of marriage. Kurtz points to radicals who want to destroy traditional marriage, and have jumped on the bandwagon of gay marriage as a means of furthering that cause. If you still don’t see it, try reading Kurtz’s article again with these things in mind.
Mr. Swindle said, “Of course the whole gay marriage pro/con debate is actually irrelevant to the whole point of this post which you’ve still missed: Perry gains nothing by raising the issue of gays in the military in a TV ad. If his intent was to focus on Obama’s persecution of Christians there were other ways to do it that would have been more effective.”
I’m not from Iowa, but apart from that, unlike yourself, I AM a social conservative. I’m not speculating, I’m telling you it IS effective, because it appeals to me.
And if you think it is stupid to play to the social cons in an attempt to win the Iowa primary, remember what happened in 2008. Huckabee, with no money, came out of nowhere to win Iowa, which catapulted him into the “big three” of the 2008 Republican primary.
“And if you think it is stupid to play to the social cons in an attempt to win the Iowa primary, remember what happened in 2008. Huckabee, with no money, came out of nowhere to win Iowa, which catapulted him into the “big three” of the 2008 Republican primary.”
And he didn’t get the nomination. Thus the strategy didn’t work. Thank you for conceding that I am correct in identifying this as a flawed strategy that didn’t work in 2008 and certainly won’t work in 2012 as the “social issues” are no longer the hot topics of the day. The political culture changes. Deal with it.
And Kurtz does not present any empirical evidence on the point that you raise. That’s my point. (And it’s been almost a decade since that article was written. A lot has changed.) Not that I expect you to get it because this isn’t a dialogue. This is a troll pseudo-debate where you try and demonstrate that you’re smarter than the professional writer.
“I’m not from Iowa, but apart from that, unlike yourself, I AM a social conservative.”
I understand that you perceive yourself as a “social conservative.” You also seem to put an awful lot of stock in labels that shift as the political culture evolves.
Mr. Swindle said, “And he didn’t get the nomination. Thus the strategy didn’t work.”
So if Huckabee hadn’t won Iowa (because of the social con vote), do you think Huckabee would have been MORE or LESS successful in the 2008 primary? Huckabee’s surprising win in Iowa catapulted him from nothing into the top tier.
But clearly you, the “professional writer,” are right – surely Huckabee would have done much better if he hadn’t appealed to social cons, never won Iowa, and remained a nobody throughout the primary race.
Mr. Swindle said, Thank you for conceding that I am correct in identifying this as a flawed strategy that didn’t work in 2008 and certainly won’t work in 2012 as the ‘social issues’ are no longer the hot topics of the day. The political culture changes. Deal with it.”
Since you clearly don’t understand social cons, let me explain something very simple to you, the “professional writer.” Social issues are ALWAYS the topic of the day for social cons. And this ad was addressed to social cons.
Mr. Swindle said, “This is a… debate where… you’re smarter than the professional writer.”
I agree. Oh, I guess you didn’t like being selectively edited like that, did you, Mr. “professional writer”? Kind of like how I didn’t like the fact that you selectively edited Mr. Perry’s words to turn his words around, which this “troll” (how professional of you to call me names for making serious points)and many other commenters here (presumably trolls, too) agree that you did misquote and mischaracterize Perry’s words.
Tell me, Mr. “professional writer,” who is your boss? I would like to speak to them directly and file a complaint against your dishonest behavior here. Please send me the phone number or e-mail, as you have my e-mail address from my posts.
“There is no “gay marriage movement,””
You’re delusional.
“just individuals who support the right of individual states to recognize same-sex marriages if their citizens choose to pass such laws.”
And to subject to horrendous abuse anyone who opposes those laws. Look at the history of Prop 8 in California, and the way Illinois has used its law. Look up the case of Elane Photography.
Who are the leaders of the “gay marriage movement”? If it’s a movement it should have leaders.
Who is the leader of the Tea Party movement? It doesn’t have nor does it need an official leader or leaders. But by your own reasoning, I guess the Tea Party isn’t a movement.
Many Tea Party leaders can be named — Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Andrew Breitbart are examples.
I’m still waiting on the leaders and organizations of the “gay marriage movement” to be named.
Show me the quotes where Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Andrew Breitbart claimed to be leaders or founders of the Tea Party movement. The fact is, there is no head to the Tea Party movement. It isn’t led by these people, they merely acknowledged and participated in a movement that started among the grassroots.
It consists of like-minded people who are united on such principles as limited government, getting rid of the national debt, and low taxes. There are no official leaders or spokesmen for the Tea Party movement, which you certainly know, but you are being deliberately obtuse.
All I’m doing is using language differently than you are. I’m glad that it’s making you uncomfortable and upsetting your linguistic dogmas.
Ah, I’ll take that dodge as liberal speak for “You are correct, I cannot prove they are leaders, I merely assert it.”
When you get me those quotes where these people claim to be leaders, you let me know.
Demanding everyone get married is as bad as abolishing marriage as an institution.
I don’t demand. I expect. I expect every person to make an effort to get married. If they don’t then it means there’s something wrong with them.
Mr. Swindle, first, you’re not just arguing for everyone to get married, you’re arguing to CHANGE the definition of marriage. That is something very different. As it is right now, every single person can get married, regardless of one’s sexual persuasion.
Second, not everyone SHOULD get married. You’re argument is like the Fannie & Freddie fiasco – owning your own home is good, so EVERYONE should own their own home, even if we have to change the rules to house ownership to accomplish that goal. What could go wrong?!
People who are bent on being promiscuous should not be married. Marriage, as currently understood in America, is assumed to be a monogamous relationship. The more people that marry and carry on a promiscuous lifestyle, the more that undermines marriage in the mind of the society, thus weakening both marriage AND society.
There are certain particularities regarding the heterosexual relationship that work towards reducing promiscuity that simply isn’t there in a male-male sexual relationship. It is not by accident that homosexual men are notoriously promiscuous as a general rule. By ushering in a large number of promiscuous people into marriage, you assume it will make these promiscuous people less promiscuous, when in fact, it could have a very different effect – it could undermine the assumption that marriage is a monogamous relationship.
This can be seen in the advent of frivolous (no fault) divorces. Once divorce becomes frivolous and easy, more people get divorced. The more people get divorced, the assumption that marriage is to be life-long is undermined. The consequence is, many people no longer see a reason to get married in the first place (since marriage no longer means anything, nor does it guarantee commitment). Which is why so many people now don’t bother to get married, they just live together.
You’re just picking fights with me for the sake of it. Thanks for labeling yourself a troll so I didn’t have to.
“Second, not everyone SHOULD get married. You’re argument is like the Fannie & Freddie fiasco – owning your own home is good, so EVERYONE should own their own home, even if we have to change the rules to house ownership to accomplish that goal. What could go wrong?!
People who are bent on being promiscuous should not be married.”
People can change their personalities and become better people. It’s usually necessary to do that to make a marriage work. But from your comments and your attitude, and the fact that you identify as a troll, it’s pretty clear you don’t understand that and are trapped in your own unhappy personality. Best of luck to you on figuring out that you can fix that and stop being a troll and actually contribute something of value.
I don’t self-identify as a troll – the label I’ve been posting as is a reference to my initial point (see my initial post here) where I point out how you sound like a “concern troll.” I then only kept the username so as to avoid confusion.
But the way you continue to call me a troll, ooooo how clever of you, Mr. “professional writer.”
And I take it you don’t have a comeback that changes in marriage can alter people’s perception of marriage? I’m not surprised, as this is a common error among liberals.
It is like when liberals claim that we need to raise taxes to increase revenues. What they don’t seem to realize is, if you raise taxes, all other things do NOT remain equal. The more you tax, the less you will get of that activity. So by raising taxes, you can often DECREASE revenues.
Likewise, it is sometimes possible to increase revenues through tax decreases.
You can’t just assume you can radically redefine marriage, and then assume marriage will in all other respects remain the same. That might be how it works in the ultra-liberal world of English college departments, but that ISN’T how it works in the real world.
Promiscuity is almost as destructive as homosexuality. This post is arrogant in how it assumes to know the difference between 2006 “sensibilities” and 2012. If a “majority of gen x” thinks gay marriage is good (first, whocares what they think) then they need to be persuaded they are wrong. This is a Juseo-Christian nation. Some hipsters might not like it, but it is. And those values teach gay marriage is a fiction. A farce.
Maybe the youngsters don’t like it on youtube…but Perry has got a lot of veterans across the country supporting him. The repeal of DADT is not a settled issue in the military despite what Big Media says.
Why do we still have Medicare and Social Security?
Because most people under age 65 don’t vote. And everyone between age 50-65 DO vote and are more concerned with ensuring that Medicare and Social Security are there for them and would gladly sacrifice the gay agenda for it.
Alas, it is the 2012, where Tim Tebow is more controversial than Adam Lambert.
I also wanted to point out that when David Swindle quotes the Daily Beast, Mr. Swindle is quoting a lie and doesn’t bother to point out the lie.
Here is the lie: Perry’s ad “has included an ad attacking openly gay soldiers.”
Watch the ad and listen very carefully. There is no attack on soldiers who are openly gay.
So keep peddling those lies and smears, Mr. Swindle.
“You don’t need to be in the pews every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military.”
If that isn’t an attack on openly gay soldiers then nothing is.
Keep peddling those lies and smears, Mr. I-don’t-have-the-cojones-to-post-my-real-name-but-will-troll-those-who-do.
Hey, Mr. Swindle….Where’s the rest of that quote? Anyone who watches the ad knows it doesn’t end there.
Presenting incomplete information to advance your belief is the same as lying. The complete sentence is comparing government treatment of different groups, not attacking gays in the military.
But hey, you post your name, so I guess lying is okay.
Mr. Swindle, it was “convenient” of you to leave out the rest of the quote.
If you would include the FULL quote, you would see that it is not an attack on openly gay soldiers who serve. Now I know why you quoted a lie without pointing it out as such.
You’re assuming Swindle has ever heard or read the entire quote.
Um, I embedded the whole ad at the top of the post. Stop accusing me of lying. When you resort to speculating about your opponents’ motives it’s pretty clear you don’t have an argument.
I’ve heard the whole quote and it doesn’t change anything. Perry is needlessly provoking the media to attack him on this issue. Voters already know his position on DADT and gay marriage. It doesn’t help him — or any of the candidates — to wave it around when all the candidates basically have the same position.
You’re wrong, and you know it. Or at least I know it, Anonymous knows it, and GDI knows it. As you quoted Perry, it IS an attack. But as Perry said it, in context, with the whole quote, it is NOT an attack.
As GDI correctly points out, it isn’t an attack, it is a contrast between two things. If we allow this one thing (that IS controversial), how can we forbid this other thing (which ISN’T controversial)?
The longer you fail to acknowledge this, the more damage it does to your credibility.
And what is the difference here? Well, Obama’s official position is that he is for traditional marriage and opposed to gay marriage. Unless you are a sucker, there is a difference between taking an “official position” on something, and actually campaigning on it. As in, one candidate is likely to defend traditional marriage, whereas another candidate isn’t.
The ad is NOT an attack on the repeal of DADT. It points out the hypocrisy of Democrats trumpeting the repeal of same, while having little tolerance for people of faith.
“You’re wrong, and you know it. Or at least I know it, Anonymous knows it, and GDI knows it. As you quoted Perry, it IS an attack. But as Perry said it, in context, with the whole quote, it is NOT an attack.”
Yes, I know that you perceive me as wrong. I can live comfortably with trolls on the internet perceiving me as wrong because I’ve offended them by tweaking their savior. There’s more to life than arguing over the semantics of “attack.” Have a good weekend and good luck with your trolling elsewhere.
Have to go with 5-Concern.
The ad doesn’t attack anyone or anything. It basically asks a question: Why are we liberal/tolerant in this way, but not in this other way?
Good question. And far from an attack.
That question can be asked in a way that does not provide fodder for the enemy to smear you.
Mr. Swindle, your post here has proven that no matter what one says, people will simply lie about you and make stuff up. It is impossible to prevent immoral people from “smearing” others, which is by definition a “dirty attack.”
It doesn’t matter what Perry actually said, people like Mr. Swindle will selectively quote people out of context – hence, it is a smear, a dirty attack.
I haven’t selectively quoted him. I embedded the video at the top of my post.
Yes, you did selectively quote Perry – you cut him off MID-SENTENCE. Here is the relevant line:
“But you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in schools.”
Perry is making a contrast, as other commenters acknowledge. But by deliberately cutting him off in the middle of his sentence, his point – the contrast – is completely lost, changing the meaning of the sentence.
As you quoted him, it makes what’s wrong the fact that gays can serve openly in the military, when his actual point is it is wrong to allow them to serve openly in the military but NOT allow kids to celebrate Christmas openly – it is an absurd double standard. Of course, you being an English major (ought to) know all this. You’re wrong, you’re busted, everyone here knows it, but you are either too proud to own up it too brain-washed to recognize it.
I don’t see this as an attack on gays in the military, a slight dig maybe but nothing to get your feathers in an uproar over. As a former Marine I’m not really for open gays in the military. It seems to just be asking for trouble. Notice I said open gays. What someone does on his own time means nothing to me. When he or she brings it into the barracks then there could be a problem. It would be the same problem as having mixed sex barracks. Someone’s gonna mess up and you’re gonna have a fight.
As for the other part of his ad, I’m not religious but I have nothing against someone for practicing their religion. Just so long as they don’t start harping on me because I don’t believe the same way they do. For 62 years I’ve celebrated Christmas. As I said, I’m not religious but I’m not going to tell someone they cant set up a tree and have a good time. A unit I was in in Okinawa had a calender that had every day marked with something special that had happened on that day. When we got off work we would check that calender to see what we were celebrating that night. No one cared if it happened to be a religious holiday or someone’s birthday, We just went out to party.