Skip to comments.Some of You Tea Party Folk Think Rick Perry’s the Answer?
Posted on 08/28/2011 10:01:59 AM PDT by The Bronze Titan
click here to read article
I don’t think she’s running either.
To me it means Taxed Enough Already.
Sounds like reality to me.
And anything negative about Palin gets the same treatment and she ain’t even in the race yet. RME.
LMAO all the dirt he has on him? He’s in his third term as Gov of Texas. That right there is a positive.
I think Texas is the economic example to follow right now.
I’m ready for Perry as POTUS. I can’t wait to see him in the debates. Doesn’t matter one whit to me or anyone I know that he is from Texas other than what the Texas economy is like right now.
ping start 50
My panties are just fine. Thanks for asking.
I love the vetting of my candidate but I have yet to decide who my candidate is. I just dont like the constant repetition of disproved claims, especially after I have provided links to objective analysis of the issues. I am amazed by the smearing of Perry by Freepers who are constantly angry about the MSM doing the same to conservatives in general. The hypocrisy is stunning.
On the contrary, I've seen very few actual facts to clear up some of the most controversial ones, including the links I posted to you.
Several on that list I pinged are in fact Palin supporters and are posting from her PAC. The fact that many Palin supporters are so misleading in what they say I commented I doubted they were truly her supporters and may instead be trolls. That was not aimed at you. And no, I am not aware that she has questioned Perrys spending but if you would give me a hint as to when and where she said it I will try to find it.
If that's a fact, post proof. Otherwise, it's spiteful speculation
I think Sarah is terrific and she may very well be my choice when she gets in. When she does I will defend her against misinformation, also. I have on numerous occasions in the past and on those occasions I was just as critical of those who made the same old disproved accusations time and again.
I put your name at the end of that post on purpose. Much of what I said did not apply to you but I thought you needed to see the that much of the information being spread about Perry is misinformation.
The vetting process is not easy. As Palin supporters know, she has been the most vetted person in modern political history, albeit most absolutely absurd to the point of going through trash cans. Yet as I stated before, if Perry supporters can not handle the vetting on FR, it's going to be a long 18 months because this isn't even close to what Perry can expect from the MSM.
Really? Is it that you don’t think the middle class is being decimated, or you’re not part of it so you don’t care?
We did have people to vet Obama, problem is we had a canadite we didn’t want to se any of it against Obama, secondly the media is a shill for the DNC, and they’re not going to expose it. Obama will have a tougher go in this next election almost any of our guys will beat him if they can run a good campIgn that is.
“Alaska is a thinly populated state so even if her record was exceptional, it doesnt mean much. IMO”
Not even going to waste my time with you.
It works both ways.
Yes it does, doesn’t it.
Yes there are many big government liberal republicans here like you that support Perry.
It explains a lot.
I agree, I was thinking about thid last night. Without Rudy’s steady hand NYC could have descended into chaos. He was the lighthouse in the storm. No one can ever take that away from him. Plus his work as a Prosecutor. Yeah he has his warts but what politician doesn’t. My problem with him has been his ambievalence about life.
Other than Romney and Paul I'm happy with any of the candidates. I don't expect we will ever find a perfect candidate, but with a conservative House and a growing conservative presence in the Senate I think whatever flaws our nominee may have will be off set by the Legislative body. One aspect of the Tea Party that doesn't get discussed is their willingness to go against leadership. I think this is great and don't see it changing under a Pub POTUS.
You know what, in 20/20 hindsight Giuliani would have been a far better candidate compared to McCain and damn far better POTUS than what we ended up with because McCain blew the election. Cheney mentioned the uselessness of McCain’s suspending his campaign to attend that meeting in which he added nothing to the discussion. Maybe Perry was smarter than we know.
Great post. It’s true that he’s been vetted for years. You can’t get nuttier than Alex Jones or more left than those papers you mention.
Yet another Perry supporter shows their true colors.
Giuliani? Really? Pro-abort pro-gay marriage anti-gun Giuliani? The guy who put all is effort into FL and got crushed even though he was a front runner leading into the primaries?
Cheney was right about McCain but that doesn’t make Giuliani a better pick.
You and many of the Perry supporters here put a republican win above a conservative win. You don’t care if anything gets fixed or changes just as long as there is an R after the name.
Your time is passed. We are facing the weakest dem incumbent in modern history, there is a huge grass roots movement demanding reform that has already had great electoral success (Tea Party) and you cowards want to pick bush2 because he feels like a “safe” candidate to you.
Can you comprehend what I wrote? I said IN 20/20 HINDSIGHT that Guiliani would have been a better candidate than John McCain. That is the truth like it or not. He definitely would have been a better POTUS than 0bama.
Face it, McCain blew the election when he told everyone we didn’t have anything to fear if 0bama won. He was utterly wrong and we are all paying the price for allowing JM to be the nominee in 2008. We’ll be lucky if we have a constitutional republic if we don’t take back the WH this next election. I don’t think that would be the case if Guiliani had won. And no I didn’t vote for him but I can see where he would have been better for the US than Barack HUSSEIN 0bama.
If you are too dumb to see that then I am not going to bother explaining any further.
Can you comprehend what I wrote? I said IN 20/20 HINDSIGHT that Giuliani would have been a better candidate than John McCain. That is the truth like it or not.
Nonsense. His primary election strategy was a disaster and conservatives would have stayed home in droves. O's win would have been epic.
He definitely would have been a better POTUS than 0bama.
No he wouldn't have. We would have got much the same policy-wise but the Republicans would have owned it instead of the Dems.
Face it, McCain blew the election
On this we agree though his pick of Palin as VP almost got him the win until he blew it with the "suspend the election" move. Though the whole "near collapse of the financial system" didn't help either.
And once again you prove that you are driven by fear and not logic when it comes to electoral politics. You would happily take a liberal as long as they have an R after their name.
Well I'm not afraid of the Dems, the MSM or Obama. That's why I won't settle for a big government republican with 2 slush funds of taxpayer money that he doles out to his campaign donors as he praises his version of the DREAM act.
We can and we will do much better than bush2.
I’m not driven by fear. I’m driven by reality. An ideologically pure candidate doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the general election. It takes more than ideology to govern.
And no Rudy Guiliani wouldn’t have been the same as 0bama policy wise. He is a fiscal conservative and would not have bowed down to our enemies every chance he could get.
Until you read the book you cannot know of what you speak.
The other group(mine) is determined to clean up Washington DC and is looking for a candidate that will take on the corruption in all political parties. Defeating Obama is merely one step in the process.
The problem with the first group is that they fear Obama so much that they will settle for anyone they believe will defeat him. You wont win anything coming from a position of fear.
Its time to look for bold leadership, not a band-aid administration.
SPOT ON. Yet another excellent post from the driver!
Marlowe, why the words "destroy" and "hatred"? Can you only conclude that no one would want to challenge Perry for any other reasons?
Is your hand so weak that you have to resort to such emotion-driven words to describe people here who are helping to VET a Republican in a race where his other opponents are Republicans?
Years ago I read the frightening accusation that Palin had established a windfall profits tax on oil companies in Alaska. I was heartbroken, but glad to learn of it early so I could get off the stick, do some investigating, and alert fellow conservatives not to support her. Years earlier, a Republican pundit (Hugh Hewitt) I respected greatly spoke highly of Mitt Romney. I was so glad, and got off the stick to do some investigating because I wanted to alert fellow conservatives about Romney's great potential.
I learned that the so-called "windfall profits tax" was a myth. I learned that Romney was a statist who was registered "Republican." In both situations, I was happy to be part of the vetting process that broadened the information base with which readers of FR might make smarter choices. Stupid choices arise from ignorance and fear. Smart choices come from being informed and having the courage of your convictions.
Redux here with Perry, though I haven't engaged in it much because I'm not very interested in Perry right now -- I'm waiting to see what Palin does. This is a vetting process, at the right time -- these are primaries, when we're looking for the best Republican. BY DEFINITION, that will mean digging to uncover flaws in each and every one running, including Perry, and including Palin when/if she declares. The dif is, Palin has already been vetted up one side and down the other.
Perceiving this as the intention to "destroy" and as being motivated by "hate" indicates a mindset that is defensive and weak.
A lot of Palin supporters are becoming the equivalent of Ron Paul supporters. I think Palin would be embarrassed by some the antics of the Palin supporters on this forum. I support Palin and if she runs in the Primary, she will get my vote. But right now Perry is running and she isn't. Right now, if nobody else jumps in that is better, Perry has my full support.
Well said. My sentiments exactly.
We don't need to associate these hit pieces with Sarah Palin. She very well may either be Perry's running mate or Perry may be hers. So if you want to post a hit piece on Perry, don't make it appear as if Sarah Palin is behind it.
I went to C4P’s “Palin Posts” section and not one of them was by Sarah Palin. Hmmmmmm.....
I have not heard Palin and Perry bashing each other. They probably realize what you do, P-M, that one or the other (or both) could be a nominee they need to support in the very near future.
When does “vetting” become “opposition research” on behalf of the liberals?
If you want to be taken seriously by me and probably plenty of others who read and/or post here, STOP using word "hate" to define peoples' motivations for arguing against a politician.
My problem is not that this article was posted. The fact is that it was posted from a Conservatives for Palin blog, which suggests that Sarah Palin would have approved of this hit piece.
The term "concern troll" comes to mind. If you have issues with the Conservatives for Palin blog, that's fine, and it's fine that you voice the concern here, as we're all FRiends sharing ideas, but ... what does it have to do with the price of tea in China, the primaries, or the accuracy of what's being argued against Perry? Who CARES if it was from the C4P blog?
And as for its appearing on the C4P blog as suggesting that Palin would have approved of "this hit piece," SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, FRiend. In my opinion, anyone who assumes that anything that appears on that blog has the approval of Palin, is making a stupid assumption.
You can’t make the changes if you can’t win the election. Heck, just think how much good a Sen. Alan Keyes would have been if he could have beaten the then unknown candidate 0bama.
So tell me again how is losing races to marxists the higher route?
Moderates are the ones who lose to liberals. And Senator Alan Keyes didn’t draw tens of thousands to hear him speak about politics. Palin does.
You miss the point. In order to actually make change you have to put someone on the ballot in the general election who will be able to win.
Palin doesn’t have the numbers to defeat 0bama. Perry is a solid conservative who has actually governed more than a half term.
Correction: You cant' make the changes if you can't with the election with a limited government Republican. We "won" the election against uber-liberal racist Cruz Bustamonte here in California with Arnold ... and we still lost to "the marxists."
Then, when we ran the "non-polarizing" moderate Meg Whitman against Jerry Brown ... we lost to "the marxists." Ironically, had we "won," we still would have lost to "the marxists" because for all her talk, Whitman wouldn't have made "the changes" needed -- she'd have advanced much of "the marxist" agenda, including the global warming hoax. She, like Romney, was all about making government more efficient. I don't want a government more efficient at suppressing freedom and prosperity. I want LESS GOVERNMENT. When all is said and done, a big government statist is a big government statist whether he/she is a Republican or a Democrat.
I haven't investigated Perry, so I haven't (that I recall) urged folks to reject him -- though I have to say that the thing that disturbs me most about him is the Gardasil issue -- it was fundamentally statist, first of all, and second, it smelled because it directly benefited a pharmaceutical company that supported Perry, if I am correct (again, only going on what I've read here). I DO appreciate articles that talk about supposed things that Perry has done that detract from his appeal as a limited government Republican, because I can investigate them for myself when I think it's time, and share my insight here, in return for the insights offered by others. This is a place I come to for INFORMATION, among other things.
What little bit of investigating I have done on another question that worried me about Perry indicates that his quote advocating "bi-national health care" is very likely taken out of context, and that what he actually meant was to allow insurance carriers to insure Mexicans as well as Texans -- a far cry from Romneycare or Obamacare. As it happens, I don't care about helping to vet Perry (for better or worse) right now because I'm waiting to see what Palin does. Unlike you, I think Palin CAN WIN, for a lot of reasons -- if you want to know what they are, read my posts "in forum" -- don't ask me to reiterate them all here. Polls I ignore, even when they're in favor of a candidate I like.
Upsdriver is, in my opinion, correct.
I wouldn’t compare California politics with Texas politics. California is full of uber liberals. Texas on the other hand is pretty much a conservative state with a few pockets of liberals in the cities.
I have kept up with Texas politics for a long time since what happens in Texas affects me somewhat living near the border. Perry is a limited government Republican. You might want to make sure who you are getting your information from because some are pushing another candidate and aren’t posting facts. The last gubernatorial election was a good mudslinging one. If there was dirt there it would have been used then.
The next election is going to require someone with experience not someone who can’t take the heat from the DNC where she cuts and runs.
I suggest you do search for the video where Todd was asked by an Alaskan resident if they sold out for the $$$$$$ (books, reality tv, the celebrity life) when she resigned. You might not think the same about her when you hear his answer and excuse. I know it turned me off of her “principled” persona.
Santorum? You gotta be kidding. The gal you speak of sticks her foot in her mouth and shoots herself in the same foot.
She is toast. Mitt Romney? No way. I’m not backing anyone at this point, including Palin or Perry. But if it’s Romney I’ll sit out the general election
Are you surprised?
I for one am hoping she does not run. I don't think Gov. Palin can win and I see candidates that I am convinced will win.
Gov. Perry is by far the strongest candidate in the field. He may not be perfect, but he's Gov of the 2nd most populous State. He has seen exceptional job growth in the State. He is Pro-Life, and most importantly he shoots coyotes that threaten his dog. IOW, he is everything the country is going to be looking for, experience/decisiveness over incompetence.
The strength of Gov. Perry is evidenced by the attacks being made against him by all parties.
Reality is what we make it. The question each has to answer is if Sarah Palin is the best one for the job or not. If yes, then go to work and create the reality of victory. If you don't think she is the best then go support your ideal candidate. Each of us are looking for different things in a president. Some only want to win, I want to rescue the country from the Establishment Elites who have utterly destroyed my country.
All I'm saying don't settle for second best if my goal is your goal because of a false sense of reality.
I'm going to the mat for Sarah Palin. She's going to win. I know, I bought the t-shirt. :p
Thanks! I appreciate the support!
When he survives the magnitude of attacks Sarah Palin has, I'll pay more attention. I'd like to see what he's made of. He still has a long way to go, vetting-wise. And, by the way, this is NOT an attack on Perry.
The same argument can be made for Palin.
The same is true of the Gardasil issue. Insurance companies would not pay for it like they do the other mandated inoculations for kids unless it was mandated. The mandate allowed the insurance companies to pay for it so that poor people could get it also. It also had an opt out clause for parents. No one was forced to be inoculated.
That is the type of misinformation that is prevalent even though accurate information is readily available. That is what makes me suspicious of some Perry critics. They either purposely lie about him or they have no interest in the truth.
Yes, I had read earlier what you relate about insurance companies (ultimately, taxpayers ... somehow I doubt that "mandated" inoculations are really paid for by insurance companies) having to pay for it unless it was mandated, and that as being Perry's rationale. I reject the argument -- what's this "opt out" crap? If anything, it should have been "opt in." Parents who wanted it for their girls should have had to go to some trouble for it, not the other way around, where parents who didnt' want it had to go to some trouble to protect their girls from it.
Sorry, Perry doesn't get a pass from me on that particular issue. It was wrong-headed from top to bottumus.
If one could opt in instead of out then it would not be a mandate, it would be an elective procedure. I am simply relying on what I read about the insurance companies but from my experience with them years ago this sounds consistent. I certainly don’t see that as a hanging offense.
His rationale was that it was a good thing for girls to do to protect themselves from STDs and cervical cancer plus the above about the mandate.
I want to know the truth about Perry and much of what I have seen is easily refuted but it keeps getting repeated. As of now, I prefer him over the other candidates because he has charisma, he is a good speaker, he talks the talk and seems to have walked the walk and he has followed conservative principles all the way through. He generates excitement more than the other declared candidates. Hopefully Sarah will get in on Saturday and it will be a whole new ballgame. We will then see what she says about Perry. I doubt she will be critical like her supporters are.
All candidates have been civil with the exception of Pawlenty going after Bachman in the debate. I suspect that was on the advice of his political consultants who told him he had to knock her out of the contest to have a chance himself. Instead he knocked himself out. When Bachman was asked about Palin, she said she really loves Sarah. That is the way a campaign ought to be.
I agree with those who say that Perry has been in Texas politics long enough that were there any dirt, even a spec, the Democrats and media would have long ago nailed his hide to the wall.
Like you, I'm waiting to see what Palin does. One thing I'll give Perry -- he's terrifically handsome, gorgeous, a knock-out, and I speak as a seasoned connoisseur of handsome men! (I'm married to a guy who still turns women's heads, my own included every day, after more than 20 years!!, even though he's in his 60s. He's had women chase him down and ask him for his autograph because he looks a lot like a certain handsome celebrity.)
As for being civil -- as far as I'm concerned, gloves can AND SHOULD come off during the primaries. What I care about is when a candidate lies or misrepresents the truth about another one's record, as I have seen many die-hard Palin detractors do with Palin's record. When someone has to lie or deliberately mislead in order to get people over to their side, then it's a sure sign their side is the wrong side.
But civility? That's relative, and this is politics. Civility is for afterward. Right now, such niceties are obstacles. Had Republicans been less concerned with civility, I daresay Romney wouldn't even be in the race. But everyone is so concerned about being "civil," that Romney, a big-government statist who is registered as a Republican, remains a very real danger to the Republic.
I say screw "civility" in the primaries. There'll be time to kiss and make up afterward.
Great post! I am in total agreement with you!
Thanks also for the personal profile. That increases my admiration for you. I had assumed you were a man. Does that make me sexists?
We’ll see how things unfold from here.
The biggest compliment I can get on FR is when someone assumes I'm a guy! :^) I guess that makes ME the sexist!
I have a very simple philosophy regarding the sexes. First: if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in caves. Second: men are the SOLE protectors of women. We ladies should always remember that the freedoms and privileges we enjoy, we enjoy solely via the generous chivalry of civilized gentlemen. We need look no further than the Middle East to see the truth of it.
As regards your kind post, a line from "White Christmas" comes to mind:
"Mutual, I'm sure!
I am an older guy and I occasionally advise my younger friends that basically, genetically, women are the child bearers, nest builders, and nurturers. Men are the warriors and hunter/gatherers. In the process of propagating the species women can bear children, usually one child, approximately once a year. During pregnancy and early child development they are especially vulnerable. Therefore, women seek security and men, uninhibited with pregnancy, seek to spread their sperm as far and wide and often as possible.
Of course, those urges can be controlled but they are the basis of our approach to life. They are also the perfect bartering tool for a civilized relationship between men and women.
In the Mid East, the men have never put down the club in their misguided allegiance to a religious interloper and pedophile who declared himself a prophet and shared the spoils of battle with his male followers. As most of the world has become more civilized they stay mired in the past through a religious decision not to change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.