Steve Forbes: Perry will win the White House

mhaze

Banned
mhaze
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
15,718
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/steve-forbes-rick-perry-win-white-house-185808605.html

"I think at the end of the day Perry will win the nomination, and I think he'll win the election."


Forbes thinks Perry has the right message on the economy that resonates with the electorate. "The criticism of the Federal Reserve is right on, he's for tax simplification, certainly no blow-out in spending," he says. "So in terms of issues that matter most to the people I think he's going to be a winner."


Perry has pledged to create jobs and get the country's fiscal house in order without raising taxes. Just how can he do that? Forbes says he can close the budget gap through "growth" and spending restraint, aka shrinking government.
 
And if anyone knows how to win primary and presidential campaigns, it's Steve Forbes.
 
Can Perry even hope for the nomination? Seems that just from initial news stories he has more baggage and skeletons in more closets than most candidates.

I don't mean to imply that a willfully ignorant religious fundamentalist loon COULDN'T be nominated... But you can always hope....
 
Sure Perry could win the nomination & election. I much prefer Obama at this point, but whenever someone floats a specific scenario I'm usually not terribly alarmed. This is because there is a pendulum effect in politics, swings to the right are balanced by swings to the left.

Also, since it seems "unintended consequences" are sometimes more powerful than intent - I see even the best/worst of intentions being moderated by unexpected developments that thwart attempts to manipulate public policy.

One example I can think of right now is border security - in some ways the more secure the border the more motive you create for seasonal workers to get their entire families across. When individuals could come and go more freely, families tended to stay in Mexico. Without labeling this a "good" or "bad" development, chances are it wasn't what was intended, yet it's contributed to rapidly changing demographics in the U.S.

I think Perry's too evangelical and anti-science for the general public, including many conservatives. I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
I would comment on "border security" that if you had a POTUS come in who had been Governor of one of the four border states for ten years, pretty much irregardless of his party affiliation you'd likely have improvements that were substantial.
 
Hmm, the number one issue for voters is the economy and jobs and these are much higher than anything else in polls. Yet, Forbes doesn't actually talk about that. He talks about the deficit and taxes as winning issues.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone that says what Perry has about Medicare and Social Security can possibly win a general election.
 
Minoosh said:
.... the best/worst of intentions being moderated by unexpected developments that thwart attempts to manipulate public policy.

One example I can think of right now is border security - in some ways the more secure the border the more motive you create for seasonal workers to get their entire families across. When individuals could come and go more freely, families tended to stay in Mexico. Without labeling this a "good" or "bad" development, chances are it wasn't what was intended, yet it's contributed to rapidly changing demographics in the U.S.

I think Perry's too evangelical and anti-science for the general public, including many conservatives. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Right now, the Mexicans I know in South Texas are not going back. They are scared to. They have friends or family members who've been robbed last time they tried to go visit relatives. They know people who've been killed for no reason in the border war.

In a very real sense, and unintended, they are a sort of war refugee.

Evangelical and anti-science? Well, we'll see whether liberals can make those charges stick. You can't be any more evangelical than Black Protestant churches. Ahhh....like that one Obama attended... But go ahead and work on that one, it might stick. Anti-science, yeah, you try that too. Wasn't Perry the guy that just had stem cell therapy? I kind of doubt that assertion will get you anywhere but butt kicked off the bar stool and a chorus of laughs.

But hey you never know.

:)
 
mhaze said:
I would comment on "border security" that if you had a POTUS come in who had been Governor of one of the four border states for ten years, pretty much irregardless of his party affiliation you'd likely have improvements that were substantial.
Click to expand...

You would have better-informed proposals. Bush got this; most border-area politicians do. I give Perry credit for realism and a nuanced stance. It may not be what the "base" wants to hear.
 
mhaze said:
You can't be any more evangelical than Black Protestant churches. Ahhh....like that one Obama attended... But go ahead and work on that one, it might stick. Anti-science, yeah, you try that too.
Click to expand...

For years I resisted using the "evangelical" label. There is an evangelical Christian left; besides, even among my "conservative Christian" relatives there is a huge differences of opinion. The label seemed too broad. It still does, in a way - I doubt that all "evangelicals" believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

If they start from this premise, though, it's pretty easy to deduce that they are anti-science or anti-empiricism. Plus, there was a distinct movement away from denominations and toward a generic Christianity that seemed fairly white, conservative and creationist.

I don't freak out if a president prays or says Jesus is Lord or whatever. The core belief that "God gave Israel to the Jews" does bother me and I prefer that my politicians NOT assume the end of the world is imminent (and desirable, and that they are destined to help bring it about).
 
Minoosh said:
For years I resisted using the "evangelical" label. There is an evangelical Christian left; besides, even among my "conservative Christian" relatives there is a huge differences of opinion. The label seemed too broad. It still does, in a way - I doubt that all "evangelicals" believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

If they start from this premise, though, it's pretty easy to deduce that they are anti-science or anti-empiricism. Plus, there was a distinct movement away from denominations and toward a generic Christianity that seemed fairly white, conservative and creationist.

I don't freak out if a president prays or says Jesus is Lord or whatever. The core belief that "God gave Israel to the Jews" does bother me and I prefer that my politicians NOT assume the end of the world is imminent (and desirable, and that they are destined to help bring it about).
Click to expand...

I'm thinking you've never been to a black Pentecostal service. Or anything like that. But you are fast and loose with the term "white".

So how would you rephrase your comments to include "black"? Because it's absence sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
Minoosh said:
You would have better-informed proposals. Bush got this; most border-area politicians do. I give Perry credit for realism and a nuanced stance. It may not be what the "base" wants to hear.
Click to expand...

This is one of the things that pissed me off about McCain in 2008. He knew better, but still pandered to the base in his rhetoric. I also agree with you that immigration was one of the things that Bush got right, but it also caused the most disagreement from his base. The recent bashing in the debate on Perry about his immigration policies also seems to show that on that issue he is practical, not ideological.

My problems with Perry are that my biggest issues this election are, in order: the economy, universal health care and gay marriage, all of which I strongly disagree with Perry on.
 
cwalner said:
This is one of the things that pissed me off about McCain in 2008. He knew better, but still pandered to the base in his rhetoric. I also agree with you that immigration was one of the things that Bush got right, but it also caused the most disagreement from his base. The recent bashing in the debate on Perry about his immigration policies also seems to show that on that issue he is practical, not ideological.

My problems with Perry are that my biggest issues this election are, in order: the economy, universal health care and gay marriage, all of which I strongly disagree with Perry on.
Click to expand...

Immigration splits the base of both parties. So it is hard for a party to have a policy on it as it will alienate part of their base.
 
mhaze said:
Anti-science, yeah, you try that too. Wasn't Perry the guy that just had stem cell therapy? I kind of doubt that assertion will get you anywhere but butt kicked off the bar stool and a chorus of laughs.
Click to expand...

Science-based medical treatments actually need to be proven to be effective. Spending a bunch of money to have stem cells injected into you doesn't make the treatment scientific.
 
mhaze said:
I'm thinking you've never been to a black Pentecostal service. Or anything like that. But you are fast and loose with the term "white".

So how would you rephrase your comments to include "black"? Because it's absence sticks out like a sore thumb.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I am using "evangelical" in a way I used to avoid, but it has fallen into a looser general meaning that implies a certain voting bloc. In the context of the presidential race, the only reason I parse "evangelicals" as "white" is because I seriously doubt any Republican is going to sway large masses of black voters away from Obama, no matter how fervently they worship.
 
mhaze said:
Perry has pledged to create jobs and get the country's fiscal house in order without raising taxes. Just how can he do that? Forbes says he can close the budget gap through "growth" and spending restraint, aka shrinking government.
Click to expand...

The IMF generaly thinks otherwise.
 
Bikewer said:
Can Perry even hope for the nomination? Seems that just from initial news stories he has more baggage and skeletons in more closets than most candidates.
Click to expand...

At this point he is the fox news candidate which means that he should be able to effectively turn it into a two horse race with Mitt Romney. As a position thats winnable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom