So, the GOP’s social-religious-conservative/Tea Party wing (represented by Bachmann) beats its Libertarian wing (Paul). This time, in this straw poll. Does this portend anything, I wonder?
It leaves Romney as the only non-crazy candidate (though, for some reason the media is trying to present Perry as one of the sane choices, he’s just as around the bend as Bachmann-Palin Overdrive). If the media keeps protecting Perry, he could steal the nomination from Romney, but he can’t wn the general.
Um, you don’t need a Straw to drink Tea?
I understand he was a write-in, but what I don’t understand is why you placed Perry in the sane camp?
He had not declared his candidacy and he was being framed that way. Also, he’s a multi-term governor of a big state, which puts him the Establishment column. Newt Gingrich is also in the Establishment collective, notwithstanding his facile and idiosyncratic futurism.
But is Rick Perry a nutjob?
Judging from his latest book, Fed Up, Rick Perry is a perfect modern conservative. He complains that Social Security goes against the principles of the founding fathers. He thinks WWII, where we had rationing, price controls, and the actual arrest of uncooperative executives, was, "when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.” Weird. And there’s more… and better!
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/15/295427/295427/
Incidentally, I would argue that the sane Republican’s choice would be Jon Huntsman, notwithstanding some of his objectively odd judgments such as turning down a budget deal with 10% tax increases and 90% spending decreases. He also embraced Ryan’s dismantling of Medicare. Pundits think he’s angling for 2016 or maybe a VP slot.
ETA: One of my points is that the GOP used to be the party of squares. They were, um, conservative in their beliefs. But now they tend to gravitate towards the far-out.