Posted on 01/04/2012 11:56:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If Rick Perry was a legitimate conservative (which I always warned he was not) he would have dropped out of the campaign today and endorsed Rick Santorum, Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich. Yet "Pay-for-Play" Perry stays in, and heads for South Carolina. So what's the deal?
The big winner of Perry staying in, by far, is Mitt Romney. The big loser is the conservative movement and the candidates who appeal to that movement. Keeping in mind my long-held view that Perry is not conservative, just a "pay-for-play" guy, what is in it for Perry?
1. Perhaps Romney offered Perry a position in his administration, such as undersecretary of Agriculture.
2. Perhaps Romney offered Perry a diplomatic post suited to his talents, such as United States Ambassador to Bolivia.
3. Perhaps Perry spent more of his money than we realize, and Romney offered to go to his 1 percent wealthy fundraisers and raise for Perry a little more dough to sweeten the pie.
Who knows? I would suggest that by staying in and helping Romney, and hurting Santorum and Gingrich, Perry is to the conservative movement what Benedict Arnold was to the colonists. Or, since Rick Perry likes analogies from the Bible, perhaps a gentleman whose first name begins with "J" and ends with "-udas" fairly describes what Perry is doing to the real conservatives today.
This pantsload has been debunked so many times it is getting boring. Yet here it comes again.
Perry I think is getting a TON of money to just stay in, according to the amount of votes he received vs. the campaign funds spent for them Perry spent an estimated $264 per vote compared to something like .73 per vote that Santorum spent.
Outside funds meant to split the cotes, no matter how much it takes.
Baloney.
A vote for Perry is just a vote for Perry.
Iowa was a show. The second and third votes for Delegates were the real policymakers, but few understand that their approval of Paulers and Romneyites negated their vote for Santorum.
The primaries begin in SC.
Sorry, but Palin jumping in now after everybody else has been doing all the heavy lifting would look lame, at least to me. That said, if Mittens begins to look like he is truly taking off, then I hope she does jump in. Screw Mittens.
There are only two things this country has ever done right, and they are the space program and our military -- both entities that this socialist administration and the Democratic Party gut at every opportunity.
Rick Perry could succeed with his policies only with a strong Tea-Party Congress, which only we can give him."....
Perry, Perry, Quite Contrary ........"Scenario B is potentially very bad news for Mr. Romney. It implies that party elites are not coalescing around him. In fact, it suggests that a subgroup of party elites are so dissatisfied with Mr. Romney that they are behaving strategically in an effort to maximize their chances of denying him the nomination..."
Iowa ethanol industry celebrates Romney-Santorum..........."Romney and Santorum (like Gingrich and Obama) both go 4-for-4 on the ethanol lobby's scorecard. Paul goes 2-for-4 because he would cut oil subsidies and allow 15-percent ethanol blends to be sold, but opposes the mandate and other subsidies. Rick Perry went 0-for-4."
Pantload? Really? Challenge accepted.
Tell you what John, You show where Perry’s polling rose after his heartless comment, pictures showing him accepting gifts from the Mexican president for his “open border” comments were published, or articles made the rounds with his smiling speeches to racist group LaRaza, AKA Stormfront Mexico, and I will retract my comments and admit I was wrong.
I have never defended Perry’s unwise (even stupid) “heartless” remark, so don’t try to hang me with that one.
Perry did speak to a La Raza group (although a far different one than the “Stormfront Mexico” aligned variants) but you don’t bother clarifying what it was he said to them.
“Gov Rick Perry spoke to La Raza about the drug cartels, shared responsibility of border security and that it is Washington’s responsibility to secure the border — that the Federal government should support the military, deliver the mail and secure the border — and they aren’t doing their job. He spoke of the money Texas spends securing the border, that it must be sealed and then we can sustain legitimate commerce...” I don’t see any pandering in there at all.
As Governor of Texas, I’m not surprised that there might be gifts exchanged with Mexican officials. so what? And this “open border” BS is really irritating to me. As far as I can tell this is an outright lie.
The caucus system is Iowa is part of why Iowa has way too much influence over national elections. Around twice as many people will vote in itty-bitty NH’s primary as caucused in Iowa, and about twice as many more again will vote in SC. SC and FL are where the rubber meets the road. Iowa and NH should be darn near irrelevant, but aren’t due to timing and the need to feed the maw of the News Cycle.
John, if you honestly don’t know, there are a number of articles , MSM and other, where he discussed his desire with MexPrez to have the kind of border we have with Canada. Perry has openly talked about it.
Mow as for Laraza. Saying there are some kind of difference between racist groups is like Whoopi claiming there rape and ‘rape-rape’ or that Al Quida is more terrorist than Hamas. Do you really want to make an argument like that? Would you find it acceptable for any patriotic American leader to address a group whose motto is “Everything for the Race?
Lastly, I’m not ‘hanging’ anything on you. you called my statement a pantload. Perry’s numbers were 30+% and tanked to single digits the very next poll, rebounding a couple points at best. That is a direct border/illegals issue as I asserted. Now I established cause and effect. You called it a pantload.
Again, prove anything I wrote here or my original post wrong and I will admit it. Otherwise, admit you are.
Edit...”Nearly single digits”
Since when does The Hill give a flying fig about who's a true Conservative and who isn't?
And who is this Brent Blutarsky fellow anyway? The name sounds familiar.
No, it is obvious to me that you are a hopeless case and absolutely do not want to see things as they are. So take comfort in your distorted and twisted views, I can’t take on the job of trying to separate you from your misrepresentations.
All I can say is that if you REALLY care about securing the border, then Perry is your obvious choice. Otherwise, go your own way.
Your choice. If you refuse to accept Perry’s own words and actions, there is no point in arguing the matter further. All I can say is that my idea of a secure border does not involve giving Democrats an opportunity to hold back the border patrol via rules, media manipulation and lawsuits as does Perry’s.
I can’t help myself, I have to try:
“President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity. Clearly we have a long way to go in addressing those issues.”
I don’t understand how anyone could fail to see that Perry is speaking about some idyllic future where Mexico has been transformed as a precondition for anything like the border we enjoy with Canada. He is certainky not talking about dismantling the border crossing stations and tearing down the fences. You seem to have him confused with Obama who has proposed unmanned border crossings.
Gov. Rick Perry’s Remarks to the Border Summit
Wednesday, August 22, 2001 • Speech
Thank you Senator Lucio. President Nevarez, UT-Pan American is to be commended for its vision and leadership in hosting this unprecedented border summit in the beautiful Texas town of Edinburg. My friends from Mexico, including Governor Tomas Yarrington Ruvalcaba of Tamaulipas, and Governor Fernando Canales Clariond of Nuevo Leon, it is an honor to be in your presence. I want to extend my gratitude to our Mexican neighbors for hosting me this July as I sought to learn one of the world’s great languages, Spanish. I enjoyed your hospitality, and was grateful for your patience as I worked on my vocabulary. No longer do I refer to “la verdad” as “la verdura.” I am delighted to see friends from the U.S. side of the border as well, including our distinguished members of the Legislature, and our county and city leaders along the border.
Today we begin a new dialogue about our shared future, a future of promising potential if we work together to solve the challenges we both face. It is fitting that we convene this summit where the great, meandering river known as the Rio Grande – or the Rio Bravo – forms the long border between Texas and Mexico. In years past, that famed body of water has been seen by many as a dividing point, If you were to walk along its banks and look to the other side, based on the stereotypes of the past, you would think you were seeing things a million miles away, instead of a stone’s throw away. But I am here today to say that while we have honest differences, there is more that unites us than divides us. The Rio Grande does not separate two nations, it joins two peoples. Mexico and the United States have a shared history, and a common future. And it is along this border where we will either fail or succeed in addressing the education, health care and transportation needs of our two peoples.
Critical to our future is meeting our border infrastructure needs. We must get traffic moving along the border so that businesses along the border and thousands of miles away can deliver products on time, and continue to grow. Companies from Spokane, Washington to Concord, New Hampshire depend on Texas highways and Texas bridges to move their products south. Seventy percent of all U.S.-Mexico truck traffic goes to, or through, the Lone Star state. Fifteen of our twenty-seven border crossings with Mexico are located in Texas. Fifty-four percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade crosses just between Brownsville and Laredo. This year the Texas legislature appropriated approximately $1 billion more in transportation funding. But more can be done.
With Texas serving as the Gateway to Mexico, it is time that we receive congressional funding that reflects the instrumental role our state plays as a port of entry. With a Texan in the White House, I believe there is no greater opportunity to end the funding discrimination that crippled Texas infrastructure under the previous administration. Good infrastructure is essential to the free flow of commerce. It is a matter of economic fact that free trade lifts the tide for all the boats in the harbor. U.S. trade with Mexico has increased by 500% since 1994. Exports and imports between Texas and Mexico now exceed $100 billion dollars annually. Thousands of jobs have been created for Texas and Mexican workers, confirming the indisputable fact that trade with Mexico is big business for Texas.
The fruits of NAFTA have just begun to ripen. At the same time, we must not allow the roots of the tree to become poisoned. The NAFTA agreement not only signaled a new era of economic possibility, but a new era of bi-national cooperation. That is why it is wrong, and inherently detrimental to our relationship with Mexico for the U.S. Congress to pursue a protectionist policy that forbids Mexican trucks from U.S. roadways. It is bad public policy, and it violates the terms of the NAFTA agreement we agreed to. Mexican trucks that meet our safety standards should be given the same access to U.S. roads as our Canadian neighbors to the north.
Mexico, too, must be vigilant in realizing its treaty obligations. For more than half a century, under the 1944 Water Treaty our two nations have cooperated so that the water needs of both countries are met. But as of late, Mexico is behind in delivering the water it has promised to the U.S. A Mexican judicial injunction now threatens the livelihood of our Rio Grande Valley farmers, and has become a source of contention between our two nations. It is time to end this dispute. I would ask that the Mexican government meet its obligation under the treaty, Texas growers are depending on it.
There are other challenges that require a unified approach, especially in the area of health care. A lack of preventative medicine means conditions that could have been eliminated through childhood immunizations show up in disturbing numbers later in life. Limited availability of medical specialists means conditions like heart disease and diabetes go untreated at alarming rates. In Texas, we recently placed a strong emphasis on preventative care when we expanded access to Medicaid for more low-income children by making the Medicaid enrollment process simpler. We allocated an additional $4 billion to the Medicaid program, and more than $900 million to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. But the effort to combat disease and illness requires greater cooperative efforts between our two nations. It is a simple truth that disease knows no boundaries. An outbreak of drug-resistant tuberculosis, for example, endangers citizens of both our nations. We have much to gain if we work together to expand preventative care, and treat maladies unique to this region.
Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance. This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That’s why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.
As a compassionate state, we know that for our children to succeed, they must not only be healthy, but educated. The future leaders of our two nations are learning their fractions and their ABC’s in classrooms all along this border. Immigrants from around the world are being taught in Texas classrooms, and our history is rich with examples of new citizens who have made great contributions. We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, “we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.” And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate. Those young minds are a part of a new generation of leaders, the doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.
We also know that poverty is not unique to either side of the border. Some of Texas’ poorest citizens live in colonias all along the border. They often lack basic infrastructure many of us take for granted. Just today, the North American Development Bank announced it will provide $6.3 million in funding to hook up colonia residents in six border cities to water and wastewater lines. More than 18,000 residents will benefit from these water or wastewater hookups. And this November, by approving Proposition 2, Texas voters can ensure that their neighbors in colonias have quality roads so that school buses, emergency vehicles and postal trucks can reach residents, and residents can get to a job or a school reliably.
President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity. Clearly we have a long way to go in addressing those issues. At the same time we must continue to deepen our economic ties, expanding opportunities for Mexican and U.S. companies to do business on both sides of the border. The outlook is promising, even if the road to prosperity is a long one. We share a bond as neighbors, and we find our culture north of the Rio Grande to be increasingly defined by the strong traits of people of Hispanic descent. Texas has long enjoyed a unique identity, an identity forged by an independent spirit, and the convergence of many different peoples. We must welcome change in the 21st Century as we have in every century before it.
Today, as we look to the south, we see a rising sun. It is perched above a people whose best days are in front of them. Let us endeavor to make the most of this new day through a new dialogue. Let us work together to combat disease, expand trade and provide educational opportunities. If we do, there are no limits to what we can accomplish for the betterment of all of our citizens. Thank you, and God bless you.
“If Santorum gets started right away and shakes 10,000 hands a day between now and the primary, he might have a chance.”
Santorum started in SC last April. He was the keynote speaker at a county convention.
An actual leader with the interests of America would tell Mexico to either get it’s drug cartels and illegal crossers under control or abandon, at minimum, any cooperation with the state of Texas to the n’th degree of his ability as a Governor.
Instead his smoke blowing is anything but.
If perry wants an ‘idyllic’ unicorn hunt via more failed diplomacy, appoint him to the UN with the rest of the useless bureaucrats.
Shouldn’t have bothered trying to defend the indefensible. I’m a lost cause that does not need nor want to hear empty platitudes to Mex, LaRaza or Islam. Perry embodies that to me by his own actions, backed by his own contradictions and empty words to go by.
It’s like I said, you’re a hopeless case.
No it hasn’t been debunked or maybe its because we are “heartless”. If Perry had forcefully said he would deport illegals and enforce immigration law, he would be the front runner today.
Excuse me while I recover from the fit of laughter I have been experiencing from imagining Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Mittens Romeny - to say nothing of our current President - securing the border. They couldn’t even find it with a map.
Ditto.
Romney, Obama, MSM, and the RNC are in a rush to crown Mittens the nominee so Obama can be re-elected and preserve the status quo.
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.