Been reading about Perry's appeal to try to get on the Virginia ballot. Joined by Huntsman (who I guess will now drop his appeal) and Santorum.
Virginia's requirement of 10,000 signatures including 400 from each county is a heavy burden. One can understand how the state doesn't want any Tom Dick or Harry with a few hundred bucks to spend on pure vanity taking up space on a ballot. But 10,000 signatures to get in and on is like saying "Don't matter if you're ready for the big time, if you're not big time now with an organization already in place in our state, you don't get to play." The high roller buy-in philosophy. Totally anti-democratic imo.
I halfway listened to a short Perry interview on TV yesterday. Pleasant man, rugged good looks. But; you know how sometimes you talk to someone who seems a little off? How their responses to your words don't quite match up with what you said, as though they are distracted or self-obsessed or in some small way mentally impaired? That's kind of how Perry sounded to me. Pleasant but a mite tiched in the haid.
Somewhere iin this thread I mentioned "interesting candidates." Who do I call the interesting GOP candidates? Those with interesting ideas to put forward. The adventurers. A new or different point of view. Those who are in the vanguard or the forelorn hope as opposed to mainstream candidates who construct a platform out of planks provided by polls or significant blocks in the GOP electorate.
The interesting: Definitely Ron Paul. Bruce Johnson. Huntsman. I would once have included Herman Cain but his half-baked ideas didn't wash and in the perspective of time it looks like the whole Cain escapade was a testosterone and status fueled vanity run, amteur nite at the Bijou for everybody in his campaign.
Some say Ron Paul is good on domestic economics but naive about foreign policy. I say the opposite, that the strength of his ideas is in foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment