Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Great speech and great article. Thanks.
I think we should all pray for the second coming of Texas.
America ought to be proud of its own civilization, and America ought to also be proud of the Civilization in the world that it strives to preserve.
Very good speech. He was my pick the first time; again, he’ll get my vote this time around.
“If energy is going to used as a weapon, America is going to have the largest arsenal.”
Nice one.
“We can do it because it has been done–in Texas.”
Also nice.
I hadn’t thought too much of a Perry candidacy before, but that was an astounding speech. I think he spoke directly to the issues that really define where our country is currently.
I know it’s fashionable to talk about his failed attempt in 2012, or the HPV vaccine thing. But I’m an American, I believe in second chances.
And as a native New Mexican, I would be proud to have this Texan as President. :)
I’m glad to hear from folks who support Mr. Perry. Let me commend to you my previous post on him–I have tried to bring out what I see about him that is distinctive, the ways in which he is unlike other candidates in the last couple of election cycles.
Mr. Perry is more combative & boastful than others. I think this could serve to remind Americans that some fight & some pride is needed to deal with very big problems. Hope will not suffice. Mr. Perry in a sense shows what every other candidate, or nearly everyone, is trying to hide–the opinion that he is the man for the job. He sees in this latest crisis of American confidence an opportunity to prevail, such that in futurity, it will be not unpleasant to remember, like the previous crises he mentioned in his speech.
I am not saying, he should be made president by popular acclamation first thing next Monday. Maybe he will make mistakes that should cost him the nomination. But what he brings to politics is very necessary. We see more & more in our world how the job replaces the man, how the function replaces the person–how professionalism replaces manliness. A lot of that is good, & men should ask for directions occasionally, but if it ends up with Mr. Jonathan Gruber telling the few how the many in America are stupid, that’s unacceptable.
Take it away Mr. Lovett:
Outstanding write-up. I watched the speech yesterday and was quite surprised by Perry’s grandeur and composure, especially after being underwhelmed by his oratory skills in general.
I’ve voted for him as my #2 choice since the beginning (behind Rubio), simply due to electability and speaking. I hope Perry can prove me wrong on the first, but I’m skeptical on the second. Still a great man and a great governor.
Thanks. Yes, he is surprising everyone in a good way. I hope he keeps it up–there is much to be gained from this, even if he does not win the nomination. The man can make sure the country will not soon forget him if he persuades the conservative electorate to show some respect for manliness. Men need this kind of example, & not just men.
Of course, he is taking risks no other candidate will take, because manliness is often wrong & more often offensive to so many people. If he starts letting his mouth do his thinking for him, there is the danger that it will not be as thoughtful as the situation requires. Perhaps next year I will have to do a follow-up post explaining how it all went to hell super-charged. But I am persuaded the risks are worth taking.
About Mark Antony, Shakespeare has a philosopher say: When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with. That is the danger. Mr. Perry will have to face it.
Ha ha, he said nucular!
Get some.
If he seriously runs a C-130 for the campaign, he’s gonna kick some backside.
Here’s Mr. Dennis Miller, I think the first time he said anything serious about what it is to be a man.
1. The importance of how things seem. The irreplaceable virtue of superficiality.
2. The importance of manliness to being a first guesser before every clever speaker second guesses you.
3. Nucular vs. nuclear — Texans do not care about the niceties of speech, which is why no one is in doubt about their deeds.
4. Support for war & for the young men you’re asking to go through horrors, as opposed to playing regulation hopscotch in the perpetual minefields.
5. The fantastic imaginations of liberalism vs. the ugly fact that Americans must do evil to the devil.
I’m sorry I put things so crudely–I’m not the gifted comedian Mr. Miller is. I’m going to spare you any quibbling, however–no need to thank me. The bottom line here is that manliness in politics insists on how things seem, on reputations, & on the past, therefore. These things are now neglected. If Americans were obsessed with never changing anything instead of being partial to changing nearly everything, manliness would be less important or good in politics. In the world in which we live, however, thinking through the political good that manliness can do is irreplaceable to defend civilization.
One important thing is this. The man’s habit of killing people who threaten him saves everyone who might otherwise be a victim.
By the by, I’m not tying myself to the USS Perry–no doubt bound for Japan–without reservations or blind to flaws. This ain’t love. Here’s the goddess of war reminding every red-blooded man, woman, & child of an appropriate age with adequate supervision or an internet connection on the little screen that’s there when friends & family are not–where was I going with this?–oh, yeah, immigration is a big deal & Mr. Perry is remarkably saying the wrong things about it! I hope he sees sense–& I’m counting on the goddess to beat it into him if necessary.
I’ve been secretly harboring an optimism for Perry. Like you, I have reservations. So far, so good. The “big dog” left a mess in the yard last time, but there’s time to clean up. Plenty of time.
Titus. I’d like your opinion on Rick Perry’s introductory music as presented on a Ricochet post this morning. I’d missed the warning about those of a sensitive nature’s who might have ‘difficulty’ watching the video. I made it to the end.
Whoo!
Your take?
:)
http://ricochet.com/rick-perry-campaign-music/
I’ll take a listen, but of course my answer is: Mr. Lyle Lovett has already said whatever you need your music to say. Talk to him!
I’m going to stop before I run through my entire playlist.
Titus. I’m in beeeeg trouble now. You’ve gone and made me a Lyle Lovett fan.
My husband will probably start divorce proceedings in days.
Gid-de-up !!!! Oh yeah!!!!
I don’t watch or listen to presidential speeches or presidential candidate speeches, not wanting to be influenced by them. Instead I read what people have to say about them, which is what I’ve done here. So thank you, Ricochet.
I’ve cheated and watched as much as 60 seconds of Obama on YouTube, but it was probably closer to 20 seconds worth. 60 seconds if you count some campaign talk I heard on the car radio in 2008. On the radio I thought he sounded like Sen. Foghorn Leghorn.
Oh, I also watched one GWB speech after 9/11. He didn’t trip all over his tongue, so people called him a great leader.
And I watched what was probably Reagan’s last public speech, I think at a party convention.
Can’t think of any other exceptions since Reagan, and the discussion here leads me to think my policy is a wise one.
I’ve always said I’d be glad to vote for Perry if he’s the nominee. One of my favorite thing about him is it is said he couldn’t remember the names of departments he wanted to eliminate. That is as it should be.
Oh, I thought of another exception. I heard Bill Clinton on the radio the day after Vince Foster died. Until his comments to the press, I had felt kind of sorry for him. But his remarks were a hair-raising experience.
You’re welcome. You are right to rely on reputation instead of boasts. But politicians are also teachers, or want to be…
I second the opinion & congratulate you on the colorful imagery.
He did not fail; the people did the rest. That is sometimes enough.
Usually, I prefer to read his speeches. I like avoiding some of the sentiment–somehow, with presidents of the first rank, I prefer the written words. Charm there is a danger.
That man is unforgettable–as well as the fact that Americans can no longer summon the sense & the sense of outrage to tar & feather him, run him out of town on a rail-
I’d like to take a moment to thank everyone who commented. I was unaware that people here cared, but it was worth taking the chance, I thought. I’ll write more on Mr. Perry’s campaign as it gets moving, so stay tuned, there is a chance it will be memorable.
People talk, rightly, about the strange fact of having so many men–& one woman–throwing their hats in the ring for the GOP nomination. Most of them are not interesting as politicians, however. This one is-
Thanks, TT. Superb post. I’m for Ted Cruz first, then Walker, but I think I’m putting Perry down as third thanks to his roll-out and your fine article. Keep ’em coming.
Thanks. That’s a good list you’ve got there, better than most available in the field. In fact, I could read a post of Sen. Cruz if you’ve got it on the tips of your fingers–we should have members write a kind of series, Introducing the GOP contenders–whenever someone feels he’s hit on something insightful.
TT, I’m loving this, thanks. Let me say this. When you first came on Ricochet, I was a smidgen negative on your commentary, not really enough to say much but to watch for more. This post has put you much in my favor, for the analysis and for your own posture. I’ve had Cruz and Walker before Perry up to now, I think now maybe that was because they had been more active than Perry this time.
I like his executive governing experience and his exposure to the military, both his college years, his own service in the USAF, and his involvement with veterans of our more recent conflicts. He has more actual experience dealing with immigration issues than others, so I trust that he can arrive at the correct point. He acts positively on economic growth issues. And I like his manliness.
Thanks for the kind words; I hope I’ll deserve well of you. Your list is rather like Mr. Koler’s. Mine is far more vague–I’m somewhat mixed up on the matter. I like all three politicians, but I am most skeptical about Sen. Cruz, who speechifies far more than the others & yet has done little to convince me that he understands how things work enough to get himself elected–inasmuch as it lies in him, of course–& to run the country properly.
(I like Sen. Rubio on foreign policy, but I am not sure I can trust him.)
Titus. This: (I like Sen. Rubio on foreign policy, but I am not sure I can trust him.)
Why? What in his character or statements makes you wary?
I find it interesting that we have two governors from southern states and two senators from those same states all running for president and competing with each other to do it. Very interesting. (Mustn’t forget Bobby Jindal as a southerner, also. I like him and trust him a lot.)
The thing that’s interesting about Ted Cruz is how much the left hates him. And then second, how odd and oddly vague the criticism is from the Republicans and conservatives. I have watched this thing for years with Republicans wounding one of their own because of some shared knowledge across the political divide that shows tacit agreement at the very top of the elite circles that Newt and Ted (for example) aren’t right for the country. It’s the vagueness of your criticism that reminds me of this tic on the right. TT, did you get a memo from the ruling elite bipartisan central committee on Cruz? I mean how does this work? Is it osmosis? coded transmissions gleaned from plain text news readers? I’m curious. (This is all in good humor — I’m serious about my worries here but I don’t impute improper motives to you.)
Oh, I forgot to mention my favorite new term: dog whistles. Is that how things are communicated?
That’s another set of notes on another speech!
The short of it is the breathtaking incompetence on immigration–people do not get into bed with Sen. Schumer by accident, nor yet do crocodiles–this was an experienced politician not the ignorant types that Mr. Clinton abused–or JFK, come to think of it.
Then, too, the Tea Party & the conservative base really needed a man, woman or child–it’s all about the children, ain’t it!–to stand up on immigration. None could be found. One see the goddess of war, but who else? Mr. Robinson tut-tuts her, but it ain’t her fault & it ain’t virtue in him either. Sen. Rubio still refuses to be the champion people need him to be.
Aside from the problems with the bill, the politics, the partisan matters, on the foreign policy stuff–talking hawk talk to Republicans is not difficult. Doing it very persuasively is, but it is not wiser for that reason. It is not manliness speaking. He speaks to show off–he gives details of his subject to let people know he’s not an amateur. This is what a knowing amateur would do, too. I feel I know more about foreign policy than he does–this is not saying much either way: I have had more time & fewer distractions. Florida is not an education of foreign affairs… He needs simplicity, not sophistication…
The GOP has taken over the south in this last generation, right? Putting the finishing touches on the great work of Lincoln. Emancipating people from the Dems & all. It was long in doing, but now even people who hate Lincoln love the GOP!
As for the criticism of Sen. Cruz–his famous filibuster was not that. Maybe it was worth it, anyway. In all, I like it how he is hated by the people who should hate him. I do not necessarily like it that he has no connection to the party, although that’s not a great loss either. So also for his more noticeable virtues–as a lawyer, as a speechifier–they could go either way for me. I’m slightly for him because he’s anti-establishment, but that does not decide things. He loses me for that reason. Put it this way–if you have a specific speech of his that you think shows his best achievements as a Senator or a specific deed, I would be happy to pay close attention to it, & change my mind. But if you ask me, I would have no answer–I do not know that he has one noteworthy achievement.
For a man running against governors, who are rulers in a more obvious way, he is not particularly eager to showcase that achievement or to do something noteworthy-
TT, see my post on the member feed about Ted Cruz (per your suggestion above):
http://ricochet.com/ted-cruz-im-for-him/
Thanks, I’ll read it as soon I’ve time–expect comments, but not necessarily anything you’d write home about! I’ll try for some of that later-