Cynthia Dunbar, of course.
So what could potentially be so unique about a “Perry for President” bid? Being a Texan, I can clearly say that while Perry has admittedly made a few mistakes, he legitimately has both a backbone and a moral compass. But again, these traits could be seen in other candidates. So what could be the defining difference really?
It would appear to be his unquestionable ability to be arguably extreme and yet appeal to the masses through his extremeness. His boldness to be outspoken even to the point of threatening succession from the Union garnered him the love and respect of those seriously disenfranchised with this current administration’s willingness to trample on our Constitution. Perhaps it is a trait that can only be fully implemented by a Texan, a conviction that conjures up the image of bravery and unrelenting passion exhibited at the Alamo, who knows? It does appear that perhaps the rebel with a cause, true to Texas grit of Governor Perry may be just the type of leadership necessary to take on a slick community organizer Obamaesque campaign. I think the Republican Party just might be ready to embrace the following image: an unrelenting Texas gunslinger bearing down on Obama with a take no prisoner’s attitude in the 2012 presidential election.
Putting aside the inscrutable grammar and grade-school spelling errors (what Perry threatened was “secession,” Cynthia. “Succession” is what Marsha Farney did to you when she took over your seat on the Texas State Board of Education), it’s hard to disagree with Dunbar’s analysis. Gov. Perry’s ability to be “extreme and yet appeal to the masses through his extremeness” does indeed make him a unique candidate for president. But while Dunbar celebrates it as strength of character, it scares the hell out of those who believe “extremeness” does not lead to sane, common-sense government.