Posted on 11/04/2011 12:41:52 AM PDT by bullypulpit
Don't believe the Mitt Romney ads declaring that Texas is a wasteland of minimum wage jobs provided only for illegal aliens. Here is Mitt Romney endorsing Rick Perry just a little over a year ago. Key takeaway quote from Romney, "What you just saw there was a man [Rick Perry] who led this state [Texas] to greatness at a time when this nation needs models of greatness."
What a difference a year makes.
(Excerpt) Read more at rickperryreport.com ...
If he could change his mind about abortion overnight, what’s a year for a politician?
Every time I think of Romney, it seems, I can’t help but say “Ugh!” out loud.
It’s a primary and they are running against each other. Do we really expect them to say lovely nice things? All this proves is that when they aren’t going head to head they support the party and its candidates. It is actually a positive for Romney in terms of pure logic (admitteldy something that is a rarity in a primary too).
Pure logic must be different from regular logic or common sense. Seems to be a positive for Perry to me.
You may have heard that “common sense” is the most abundant resource in the Universe. After all, have you ever met anyone who thought they needed more?
We all know that Perry’s ONLY goal at this point is to get Romney elected...after all his campaign is dead meat, after his ‘heartless’ comment a while ago and his de-facto Amnesty plan that he rolled out just yesterday.
The only problem I can possibly see with the above is that Romney might be TOO TOUGH on Illegals for Perry to stomach.
I have met many, perhaps all of us, who think everyone else needs more. But, along that line, I may be deficient. Please explain to me how Romney endorsing Perry two years ago is more a positive for Romney that it is for Perry. I am missing the "pure" logic leading to that conclusion.
Concerning your personal page, I recommend to you James Burke's Connections. You may modify your opinion of human development. It is his opinion that the development of irrigation led to the development of agriculture which in turn led to counting, distribution, accounting, etc. It is a very interesting book.
I honestly was not accusing you of lacking common sense - although I can imagine why you might think so. Apologies for the miscommunication.
Anyway, the logic of the situation from my perspective is as follows:
Romney is praising Perry.
This means one of two things:
1. Romney agrees with Perry and since (in my opinion and that of a very large number of others - including polls) Romney is more electable in the general election than we can relax and vote for him since he agrees with a person currently perceived as a “true conservative”.
2. Romney does not actually like or agree with Perry, but nevertheless is willing to “play by the rules” established by Reagan of not saying bad stuff about Republicans. Which, in my opinion, speaks positively of Romney as well - given the current mud slinging by the candidates.
If, however, one sees Romney as essentially a Democratic with an “R” behind his name, then his endorsement of Perry is meaningless or even damaging to Perry. After all, Obama’s high opinion of John Huntsman is not exactly something he goes around touting.
That is my logic to the situation. Perhaps not common sense though.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
I would call it a rather sophisticated analysis and you may well be right. My more mundane logic would say that by endorsing Perry Romney has limited his ability to criticize him.
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.