MichChamp02 said:actually I had read an article or two about how Karl Rove & his people hated Perry and his people from the days campaigning in Texas. That was before the primary campaigns kicked off, and Perry was still undecided about entering the race.
I wasn't sure whether the bad blood was legit, or whether it would really matter when things came down to it, but apparently it was.
This also makes sense.
. . . but I also saw and read other opinions that Perry would make a great candidate, not as good as some that didn't get in the race, but still pretty viable. On the other hand, a lot of my Tea Party friends said "yuk - is that all we get"? So there is evidence on both sides.
But . . . in today's world, there is no possible way that someone would get into the campaign if there weren't enough people telling him/her that it was a good idea. I personally believe it is rather hard to foresee how badly some will do, even if you have it on good knowledge that certain punditry don't like that candidate. Things change so dramatically.
You can say hey look at that, I was right about saying he should have never gotten in the race, but back when it was happening, the same things were said about Newt when his entire campaign staff was either fired or quit.
When I do watch Fox News, I like to listen to Charles Krauthammer. He is a very intelligent man, and he still got some things wrong from what he was saying in the beginning.
Not that he is any more credible than Karl Rove and his bunch, just that he seems to have a pretty level head about quite a few things.
In any case, I am done. We can agree to disagree. I don't think it was that bad of an idea for Perry to get in the race considering who was "in" at the time. I was wrong, but just like many, would not admit it until the debates.
. . . and I guarantee that I am not "blinded" by any nominee.