Patriot Update

Perry is soft on illegal aliens, as was W. Bush. It must be a Texas thing, as Texas has been overrun by hordes of illegals from Mexico. Perry wants to give all no-criminal illegal aliens work permits and allow them to stay here. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Perry when it comes to illegal aliens.
I will probably vote for Newt in the primaries.

Here’s Devvy Kidd on Newt Gingrich:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd449.htm
Newty is NWO, CFR, and RINO in one package!

Maybe the sheriff should ask Romney if he can spare a few thousand of those annoying men in short sleeved shirts that ride bicycles and try to tell us they are Christian, to patrol the border. The Feds have jurisdiction not Govonors.

No more Executive Orders, sorry.

The subject of this article was why Romney’s Iowa Robo calls are targeting Perry instead of Cain: and it seems obvious that Romney, or anyone else would spend their resources where they think they will work to the greatest good with minimal risk of doing harm.

Perry is certainly still a viable candidate; and, attacking Cain, right now could be perceived as attacking a man while he is down, not usually a smart move. Deservedly or not, Cain is the sympathy darling right now. To me, it seems an astute decision to target Perry and just wait to see if Cain will continue to self-destruct in his efforts to explain his current situation.

George Will: What’s the Point of Mitt Romney?

In a column for The Daily Caller last week: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/whats-the-point-of-practical-conservatism/ , I wrote/asked the following:

As a conservative friend about my age once said, he’s despised every president during his adult life more than his predecessor. George H.W. Bush was a sorry follow-up to Ronald Reagan. Clinton was worse than H.W. Bush. Then we got another Bush worse than both his dad and Clinton in terms of growing government. Now we’re stuck with the worst president of modern times, who is every bit the incompetent failure Obama’s harshest right-wing critics portray him as.

But again, conservatives are going to replace him with … who exactly?

At its core, American conservatism has always been a critique of the modern state. Both Goldwater and Reagan questioned what the role of the federal government should be, believing this was the primary task of any true conservative. Many today seem to believe conservatism is simply a matter of whether Republicans instead of Democrats should be in charge of an ever-expanding federal government. This is backward thinking, and conservatism never has been — and never should be — about making big government simply more Republican.

For too many conservatives, these questions are too philosophical and therefore impractical to be important. I, too, believe in being politically practical. I agree, for example, that the most important goal right now is getting Obama out of the White House. But then what? Bush III? Obama-lite? This is where conservatives must think about philosophy. The history of American conservatism is a history of losing. Practical Republican politics have yet to lead to ideological victory. Quite the opposite. And to the degree that practicality must always trump philosophy means conservatism will continue to lose.

Columnist George Will believes that Republicans who are willing to settle for Mitt Romney as the supposedly practical selection are making the same losing choice:

The Republican presidential dynamic—various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support—is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.

Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ … Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?

Come on,Mitt
Whos going to mow your lawn?

I was a staunch Tea Party supporter until they started turning radical with their anti-hispanic ,hispanic hate rhetoric calling children born here “anchor babies” ,electric fences that “kill Mexicans”and all.The GOP will lose without the hispanic vote and you can blame the Tea Party for that if it happens.

be very CAREFUL,Tea Party!
It was this kind of rhetoric in 2010 that sunk Meg Whitman and Sharon Angle.

Tom Tancredo lost his bid for Gov of Colorado thanks to his hateful anti hispanic stance.