Posted on 07/24/2011 5:36:13 PM PDT by Coleus
(How do you know Rick Perry’s lying? Well, you know the joke. Watch his lips move and see who he remind you of.) They say first impressions are lasting ones. And if you’ve been following my comments on the potential 2012 Republicans presidential field, you know that my first impression of most of them is that they are either boobs or frauds.
There is one contender who does not meet that definition. Texas Congressman Ron Paul is neither a boob nor a fraud. He’s the only Republican in the field who has been a consistent adherent to the constitution during his entire political career. If there’s a genuinely conservative candidate from Texas , why do we need a fake one? That would be Rick Perry. I judged him a fraud the moment I saw him speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, when he had the misfortune of following Paul.
Here’s what I wrote at the time:
Afterer Ron we got a speech by Texas Governor Rick Perry. He gave a good spiel about economic growth in Texas , but then he got on to border security. It was a nice tirade against Obama for not enforcing the borders. But how dishonest do you have to be not to note that George W. Bush had eight years to secure the borders?
That’s how dishonest Rick Perry is.
It’s also a good indication of how liberal George W. Bush was. Bush was the biggest advocate of open immigration ever to occupy the White House. He was also the biggest advocate of liberal internationalism. And the biggest spender - till Barack Obama.
But back to Perry. When he gave that spiel he had to know Obama was doing a much better job on enforcing the borders than Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
Mr. Mulshine has been hitting the moonshine. Ron Paul and his foreign policy that blames America for 11 September because we had American troops in the middle east is ignorant to the point of criminality.
On the other hand, calling him conservative could be a stretch: he NEVER vetoed a spending bill.
Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
Let’s not skip Reagan while we are bashing Bush.
Only because he was talked out of Alberto Gonzalez and Harriett Meiers.
He’s probably right about Perry. He is very spongy.
He is most definitely wrong about Ron Paul - Kookville
Bush spent $7 Trillion and Obama $4 Trillion?
Are you sure about that? My math gets a different answer. Just curious.
Most liberal EVER???? Um, was this dumbass asleep during the Carter years??? Or the 90s, for that matter??
Sure, Bush wasn’t a constitutional conservative, but I’d hardly call him the most liberal EVER!!! Sheesh.
He was a liberal RINO..but he does have a good heart. Truly felt for those who suffered during 9/11 and loves the military.
Obambi is tool that could care less.
Yes, but in one case it was not his real choice.
Bush’s fault!
Bush was a very liberal president. The numbers don’t lie. He was liberal on a lot of things. I would be hard pressed to vote for a Bush because they have been proven closet liberals
Thanks for reminding us. W is a chip off the wimpy George H.W. Bush’s block. I marched around the state capital for him in 2000. I think that entitles me to denigrate him.
He did get SCOTUS right but he tried to get it wrong with Harriett Meyers.
Bush finished with about a 27% approval. One of the lowest in history.
He and Rove’s policies are the reason we now have Zero. Thanks
I agree with you.
Spending was very liberal during the Bush era but he did have better excuses than a recession.
Why didn’t we collapse after the $2.5T loss in a half an hour on 9/11?
Bush spent a trillion on that aftermath
A trillion on a new government agency: Homeland Security
Then there was the hundreds of billions spent on Hurricane Katrina that destroyed over 90,000 square miles.
You can’t forget Medicare part D. But no one noticed what the Democrats had proposed, which some say would have cost twice as much.
I’m not defending him though I like the guy. But I didn’t vote for the guy in 2000. The buzz words ‘compassionate conservative’ meant, ‘It’s easy to be compassionate with other peoples’ money.’ He was too much like his dad who called supply side economics ‘voodoo economics’, but there were some signs he understood ‘bottom up economics’ with his support of small businesses.
Considering what he was faced with, I’d consider him a pragmatist.
Now, now.
Just because facts are stubborn things is no excuse to think that those Conservative FREEPER Christians who are mystifyingly still addicted to the MSM constructions on reality will be pleased with such assertions.
Some are determined to follow their illusions and fantasies down in flames.
Were those milk sop exceptions
to more crucial Marxist/globalist priorities he was ordered to implement . . .
Were they his earnest personal efforts in spite of his orders from the oligarchy?
I don’t know.
And the beauty of bitching about Gonzalez and Meiers is that no one knows. Brilliant, if you are a Paultard.
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.