This is an example of a positive campaign ad, about as good as I’ve seen. A positive approach is when the candidate tells you what is good about him (or her) and not what is bad about everyone else. This is not to say negative campaigning will or should ever stop. It won’t for one simple reason: It works. People say with their mouths that they hate negative campaigning, but they don’t say that with their votes. Negative ads get votes so negative campaigns will always be with us. That’s not to say that merely being negative is enough. One must also hit the right notes. Michelle Bachmann found that out when she released Ed Rollins to attack Sarah Palin and it backfired on her. But it’s still true that in politics the cliche about nice guys finishing last is as true at it can ever be. It’s good to see a positive campaign ad like this once in a while.
From Rick Perry’s website, his official position on abortion is as follows:
- Protect the unborn via sonogram requirement. (Feb 2011)
- The right to privacy is fictitious. (Nov 2010)
- Abortion only for rape, incest, or maternal health. (Jun 2002)
- Supports prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2010)
- Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)
This is from The Politico:
Republican Rick Perry is shifting his opposition to abortion, saying he opposes it even after rape or incest.
Perry on Tuesday told potential caucus-goers in Iowa that he has changed his mind.
Previously, he believed abortion was acceptable in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. Now, he says abortion in all forms should be prohibited.
Perry told a pastor who asked him about his views that, in his words, “you’re seeing a transformation.”
Perry says he recently watched former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s documentary about abortion. He says he met a woman in the film and that she told him she was the result of rape and that her life has worth.
Perry says that encounter led him to rethink his position.
Of course, The Politico calls this a flip flop. They would wouldn’t they? They wouldn’t know the difference between a politically motivated flip flop and a genuine transformation of the heart and mind based upon intelligence guided by experience, would they? Not that I know either, I’m just giving Perry the benefit of the doubt because he does cite an experience which could have been the reason for his change of mind, and it has a ring of truth.
Here’s a personal note on abortion, even though I really have no idea what my position on it happens to be because I can’t seem to settle on one. But I do know this. If abortion had been legal and readily available in 1945 you would not be reading this today because I would never have been born. [Wonderful!, you say.] My natural mother, age 16 at the time, did everything she could think of to get rid of me as soon as she could, and if abortion had been an easy option she would have jumped for it. I was not the result of rape or incest, in fact she was married to my natural father. She did find a way to get rid of me as soon as I was born. She opted for the easiest, quickest, and most socially acceptable thing to do at the time. She gave me to someone who wanted me, loved me, and gave me a wonderful home and a terrific childhood. They did things differently back then, in 1945.
That someone that my natural mother gave me to? I buried her in 2006 when she was three months shy of her 100th birthday. She wasn’t anyone special, just a good woman who lived a good life. I hope I brought a little light into it.
Democrat unmanned drone Steny Hoyer accuses Perry of pandering to the Tea Party to which Perry says, “Thanks, brother.”
Aside from the specific proposals of the plan it would be great if Perry would also pledge to adopt a philosophy as President along the lines of the following.
Before any Federal law or administrative agency regulation will be supported by the President or allowed to be promulgated, the following three questions must all be answered in the affirmative, (i.e., a negative response to any one of them stops all further action at the Federal level):
1) Is this something that should be done?
2) Is this something that government should do? (i.e., should it be left to the private sector?)
3) Is this something that the Federal government should do? (or is it the exclusive province of state governments?)
If three “yes” answers cannot be given with a rational explanation as to why the Federal government should be acting in this area, along with an analysis of exactly which of the 22 Federal government powers enumerated in the Constitution authorizes it, then all further action at the Federal level should cease forthwith.
That sort of approach would immediately get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of …., Energy!
It would get rid of a lot of other things as well, such as the light bulb ban, the low-volume-multiple-flush toilet mandate, Federally mandated flow restricters in your shower head preventing you from getting the shampoo out of your hair, a whole bunch of Federal gun laws and regulations, and much more. The scope and size of the Federal government would be dramatically reduced overnight, along with Federal corruption, at least if you subscribe to the theory that government corruption is a function of the size and scope of government. The bigger, meaner, nastier the wolf at the door the more incentive people have to bribe the wolf.
This approach would eliminate the Federal government’s war on drugs everywhere except at the border. If we return to the days when each state made its own criminal drug laws the 50 state laboratories would likely find a solution to the illicit drug problem that would reduce drug use without turning the country into a police state. We could go on and on and on.
The other GOP primary candidates are spending their money and political capital making TV ads against each other. Rick Perry is the only one using his resources where it counts — taking the case directly to Obama. Donald Trump did that also and shot up in the polls during his brief dalliance with the GOP nomination. The key to winning the GOP nomination is run against Obama first, and the other GOP candidates second. Perry gets it.
Here is Perry’s new TV ad. It’s highly effective, especially the tornado siren.
These Carter ads fell flat. I’m betting the Obama campaign will adopt a similar style, and they will also fall flat.
On the other hand, ads similar to this might work beautifully against Obama.
Is Rick Perry going to run for President? It’s looking more and more that he will. That’s a good thing because Perry is a Tenth Amendment guy [The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.] Perry believes the federal government should do those things the Constitution empowers it to do, and no more. The philosophy of the founding fathers was that state and local governments are closer to the people they serve and that makes them better equipped to enact public policies that work the best for those people. A one size fits all approach deprives the people of innovative ideas that would result if the fifty states made their own polices on those things not delegated in the Constitution. Perry is a Tea Party favorite because he embraces the idea that Congress should say in the preamble to every law it passes just what enumerated power in the Constitution authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
A development in the Newt Gingrich campaign has made it easier for Rick Perry to make a Presidential bid. Namely, Newt’s entire political staff has left him. That includes two people Perry has said he would have to have on his team were he to run. Perry’s top political consultant, Dave Carney and his former campaign manager, Rob Johnson, were working for Gingrich but are now available.
“Now, do not misunderstand me, America is great.
“But we are fed up with being over-taxed and over-regulated. We are tired of being told how much salt to put on our food, what kind of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what we are allowed to do to elect political candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what doctor we can see. What kind of nation are we becoming? I fear it’s the very kind the Colonists fought against.
“…perhaps most of all, we are fed up because deep down we know how great America has always been, how many great things the people do in spite of their government, and how great the nation can be in the future if government will just get out of the way.
“Our fight is clear. We must step up and retake the reins of our government from a Washington establishment that has abused our trust. We must empower states to fight for our beliefs, elect only leaders who are on our team, set out to remind our fellow Americans why liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution, and take concrete steps to take back our country. The American people have never sat idle when liberty’s trumpet sounds the call to battle-and today that battle is for the soul of America.”
Texas has created more new jobs during the Obama administration than the other 49 states combined. Texas has no income tax. Texas has more medical research facilities than any other State and more medical innovations are borne of that research than in any other State. Texas works.
I like the idea of a President that grew up in a town called “Paint Creek.”
The way to think about an Obama reelection in 2012 is to think about a McCain victory in 2008. Had McCain won in 2008 where would conservatives be now? “On the ropes” is the only answer that makes any sense given what is known of McCain’s history and his personal traits. It’s unimaginable that there would be the sort of conservative ascendancy that has occurred in the last 2 years if McCain had defeated Obama in 2008. Obama has done for the conservative movement what McCain could never have done, nor had any desire to do, and that is to revive the conservative movement and inspire The Tea Party which has moved big numbers of “precious” independents away from the Democrat party to the Republican party. I call independents “precious” because both parties think they are the key to electoral success.
The Republican field of likely presidential candidates for 2012 doesn’t look all that good unless you consider some that are probably not well positioned for 2012, but will be by 2016. For 2012 it is Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckaby. All of those would be a disaster for conservatives and for the Republican party because they are tentative conservatives and would be too easy for Democrats and the media to demonize. They’d start apologizing as soon as they were attacked on the most frivolous grounds, or like Daniels, give up on conservative principles. They are in the George B. McClellan branch of the Party. In the Ulysses S. Grant branch of the party are the young bloods; they are Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and possibly Mr. “Roadmap for America” Paul Ryan, although he has already ruled himself out for 2012. Texas Governor Rick Perry fits here as well.
The Grants are the ones that can reposition the Republican party to attract conservatives and independents and make it a winning majority, and become the party of good governance. While the McClellans dither, snivel and apologize for being just a teeny-weeny bit conservative, the Grants fight for conservative ideas and proudly proclaim their allegiance to conservative principles. The McClellan branch are losers and will take down conservatives and Republicans with them. But if a Republican is to defeat Obama in 2012 it will likely to one from the McClellan branch. If one of them can beat Obama it won’t be because he is such a good candidate. It will be solely because Obama is such an awful candidate. The Grants have the potential to be great candidates, but perhaps not yet. Perhaps not by 2012. Surely by 2016, though.
A 2012 outcome that has Obama getting a second term but Republicans in control of both houses of Congress would not be a bad result. The Grants will be there doing good by holding the namby-pamby, scaredy-cat, tired and old McClellan slow-boys’ feet to the fire. Obama’s continued presence will keep the Tea Party rolling along as well. The fight to get rid of Obamacare will intensify and Obama and the Democrats will have to defend it as it becomes increasingly unpopular. All in all, 2016 will be a great year for conservatives and Republicans by heading off a possible McClellan win in 2012 and the sort of sorry-assed, one-term Republican presidency any of them are good for only to be followed by another big across-the-board Democrat victory in 2016 when the voters are once again fatigued by Republican moderates, RINOS and losers.
I find support for this thesis from Noemie Emery, one of my favorite columnists.