Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Perry betrays the right, stays in
The Hill ^ | January 4, 2012 | Brent Budowsky

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.


TOPICS: Iowa; Texas; Campaign News; Parties
KEYWORDS: gingrich; iowa; perry; romney; ronpaul; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
What is this? Some sort of Jedi mind trick?

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.

51 posted on 01/05/2012 3:22:52 AM PST by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

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.


52 posted on 01/05/2012 3:31:32 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

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.


53 posted on 01/05/2012 3:38:37 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

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.


54 posted on 01/05/2012 3:40:09 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

“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.


55 posted on 01/05/2012 3:47:22 AM PST by Lynne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

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.


56 posted on 01/05/2012 3:51:21 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

It’s like I said, you’re a hopeless case.


57 posted on 01/05/2012 3:54:13 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

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.


58 posted on 01/05/2012 3:54:17 AM PST by packrat35 (Heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

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.


59 posted on 01/05/2012 3:56:55 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Essie
Rick Perry has no obligation to drop out of the race. Only a small number of people voted yesterday, and no candidate got anywhere near a majority. I think yesterday’s vote is much ado about nothing. We are in the early stages of the campaign, and no one know who will get the nomination in the end.

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.

60 posted on 01/05/2012 4:00:20 AM PST by NoPrisoners ("When in the course of human events...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

John, I totally 1000% agree. I am lost to any politician showing what Perry represents on the border and any issue relating to it. I love his energy stance, his stance on gutting Washington. But his Border crap is a total deal killer. If he adopted Duncan Hunter’s plan or one close to it AND ENFORCED it, I’d disregard my other problems with him in a freaking heartbeat.

But he wont. So I wont.
That simple


61 posted on 01/05/2012 4:02:15 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

One primary doesn’t choose our choice on who to run for president. Thank god.

Stupid author.


62 posted on 01/05/2012 4:03:18 AM PST by listenhillary (Look your representatives in the eye and ask if they intend to pay off the debt. They will look away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Newt has the same problem with me and I will NOT be voting for him. Mitt Romney is a no go either for a myriad of reasons. Ron Paul is a silly ass and I will watch the others to see what they say and do.


63 posted on 01/05/2012 4:03:23 AM PST by packrat35 (Heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: packrat35
If Perry had forcefully said he would deport illegals and enforce immigration law, he would be the front runner today.

Perry's official position on the border with Mexico: "While advancing our interests abroad, Perry believes it is equally important to defend our interests at home by securing our border. "As president, Perry will substantially increase manpower, technology and fencing along the border to protect the American homeland and stop illegal immigration. This strategy has proven effective in Texas, where Gov. Perry has directed nearly $400 million in state tax dollars to do the federal government’s job of securing the border. "Perry will deploy thousands of National Guardsmen to the border until a sufficient number of border patrol agents can be hired and trained. He will order federal officials to expedite construction of strategic fencing, especially in high traffic areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job. And he will make greater use of unmanned aerial assets to gather reliable, real-time intelligence that law enforcement can immediately act upon."

64 posted on 01/05/2012 4:14:14 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: All

He’s saving the pretzels for the gas jets!


65 posted on 01/05/2012 4:20:41 AM PST by PizzaTheHut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

That’s great. But the fencing he wants leaves a thousand plus miles of border open to be be patrolled by agents that are able to be neutralized by Democrats and rendered no more effective than they are today. Or has Rick Perry forgotten that the dems did that very thing to Bush, forcing the NG to do the deed unarmed and in a backfield position, while the BP was banned outright from heavy drug routes and remain so to this day over “sensitive environmental concerns”?

THAT is the problem with no fence in those areas John and I cannot understand how you can deny it.


66 posted on 01/05/2012 4:26:54 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

One issue I have with the fence people is that there is a 1255 mile border between Texas and Mexico that is a RIVER. No one has ever adequately explained to me how you fence a river.

As for demonizing the Democrats, well you have me there. They ARE demons, truly evil people who actually seem to want harm to befall our country. We need to put them into a position where they can do no further evil. That’s going to be a tough job, but it’s one that needs doing in the worst way. For that larger job, I just can’t see Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum doing that. They would be too committed to “working across the aisle”. I don’t want a compromiser, I want a fighter.


67 posted on 01/05/2012 4:37:11 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I CHALLENGE YOU!

Yeah, I think Perry needs to drop out. He's got a point that Iowa just isn't "all that", however. Still, I just couldn't support I guy I wince at every time he approaches a microphone. He'll do a tremendous disservice to all American by further drawing off 1-2% of the votes that could go to someone who can beat Romney.

I think he's adapted "Wimp Lo's" strategy in "Kung Pow"

Click me - I'm safe

68 posted on 01/05/2012 4:37:17 AM PST by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Ron Paul has a 0% chance of getting elected.
Newt has a 0% chance of getting elected.

Perry would have a chance.


69 posted on 01/05/2012 4:46:54 AM PST by Bulwinkle (Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Cool, we have common ground ;)

All BS aside, consider this. The main arguments logistically for the fence is that 1. can’t fence mid river and 2. water rights/access.

This is a national security matter. Declare it one. The drugs, violence and potential for terrorism make it so. As stated, the Dems will do all in their power to hinder via legislation/lawsuit/media the BP/NG/ET all. This cannot be allowed.

The fence does not have to be mid river. At most it requires 300 feet of shoreline for fence/road/open security area. If there was ever a legit use of eminent domain, this is it and most, by far of the land in question is federal/state anyway. Any farmlands can simply have a canal diverted from the river in those areas for livestock etc.

Animal crossings can be established at and/or neat the manned outposts. Placing one every couple miles with cameras/sensors will take far fewer people to man than Perry’s paroling ideas.

The private lands can easily be compensated for at market value since this gets paid for by ENDING monetary aid to mexico.

So, lacking specific details is the basis. Canals are farmer maintained, Border crossings are where they exist today.

People saying the terrain is too rugged need to explain how china did it 3000 years ago over terrain with far rougher features and nothing but human hands.

I could go on for hours but them’s the basics.


70 posted on 01/05/2012 4:49:22 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

EDEDEDdit “So, lacking specific details, THIS is the basis.


71 posted on 01/05/2012 4:52:29 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PAConservative1

No. You are wrong in every way.

A vote for Perry is a vote for Perry.

To say it is a vote for Romney is idiotic. Why is a vote for any OTHER candidate in the field not a vote for Romney?

Because you say so? Because you’ve decided? Because someone else told you that? Because it’s not for YOUR guy?

Simple and small thinking and discourse.

Are you going to say that if we don’t vote for your guy that “[You’ve] handed the election to Romney”?

Because, you know, that’s a cliche now. Used with Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich and now it looks like Santorum.

Gettin’ old.

Pick a candidate, support the hell out them and vote for them.

Quit picking your votee based on what you think other people are going to do/think.


72 posted on 01/05/2012 4:54:27 AM PST by Chasaway (Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

My problem with this kind of solution (and I have thought out similar schemes) is that it effectively cedes US sovereign territory to Mexico, will be extraordinarily expensive, and is likely to be less effective than other less expensive methods.

But if such a scheme could be costed out and shown to be practical and effective in a pilot area, maybe near Brownsville, I would buy in.


73 posted on 01/05/2012 5:02:14 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Forgive the typos-been up all night ;)

As Prince once said, “Dig if you will, a picture...”

There is no question that this is a multi-billion dollar endeavor. Now consider the costs ANNUALLY of illegals on America across all 50 (or 57, depending) states

The medical costs that have put hospitals out of business (like 14-18 so far I think) that run into the 9 figures alone.

The education costs.
The social services costs
The unemployment of American citizens cost
the crime due to drugs costs...court/ jail, investigations etc.

One would have to really study the actual cost to America, but just the surface, one year would equare to the cost of the fence alone.

Then compare what Perry’s or any other simmilar plan would cost (and grow government agencies to boot for manpower on the ground and administrative)

Then there’s the cancellation of Foreign aid to Mexico which is not insignificant.

Then the costs we incur over immigration suits and laws rules and regs by the Democrats who sue and obstruct at the drop of the proverbial hat. AZ alone is dealing with that as you know. All the lawyers/ etc...and that’s separate from regular crime costs above.

OK, right there alone, one year and the fence is built and paid for without diving into minutia which would reveal massively more savings like an American doing a job over the table pays tax, an illegal under the table does not...and the wage is no longer being artificially depressed. Things like that.

Year 2-whenever is just BP cost and maintenance, resulting in a multi billion savings to America and citizens.

Crime is down.
BP are fewer and in FAR less danger of death.
Employment rises
Medical costs stabilize

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, the dems lose their illegal fueled power base and CANNOT play games with BP over “environmental concerns” and “rights” of illegals.

The laws are then rammed through to force voter ID, employers fined to oblivion for hiring ANY illegals (after a EVerify program is put in place nationally) and renters are forbidden by law from renting to illegals of ANY country.

Now, As this is a national security matter and provably so, and we have a billion times the technology we need to do it, the only thing to stop it is a Republican president and congress willing to defy the Democrats and make it happen.

Test area/run. My only opposition is that it’s been done in SoCal SanDiego already. The stats are there. It dropped illegals by orders of magnitude. They just need to deal with the tunnels via sensors/ground penetrating radar sweeps/patrols.

But another one is fine in the above manner with canals/crossings etc. It can’t fail and be that much less to do later when done fully. Also may spur mexico to deal with their issues.


74 posted on 01/05/2012 5:29:00 AM PST by Norm Lenhart (Curse you, Norm Lenhart! Im slain, crumpled in a ditch by your obvious superiority - Humblegunner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PAConservative1

We have more than one good candidate. Make the case for yours. Then others may see your passion and perhaps may even agree with you. The negative element in your post adds nothing.


75 posted on 01/05/2012 6:03:12 AM PST by maxter (Election is THIS year. Make it count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

“From your link on Santorum: Unless significant funding magically appears, he is liable to run out of gas alongside the road somewhere between South Carolina and Florida.
Santorum raised 1 million just today. Perry just blew 6 million for a fifth place ribbon. How much money does Perry have anymore and is anyone bothering to send him any donations? Perry is the one who will be out of gas at the side of the road before he even gets to the SC election.”

Funny you should go straight to the running-out-of-gas metaphor. Some people actually noticed that Iowa caucus-goers voted for the pro-ethanol candidates and against the anti-ethanol candidates. You don’t have to go any further than that. Rick Santorum is still running - ON ETHANOL!


76 posted on 01/05/2012 6:27:36 AM PST by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA; fieldmarshaldj; PAConservative1; miss marmelstein; rintense; 2ndDivisionVet; ...
Perry blew $6 million for a fifth place Iowa ribbon--billed as his "first" election loss.

Actually that was Perry's second election loss----he did not officially enter the first go-round---the Iowa straw poll---but manipulated the vote from Texas. That was supposed to take a self-assured Perry over the top.

Instead he garnered a pitiful 700 write-ins. Michelle Bachmann won with 4000 votes. Perry came stomping into Iowa flashing the victory sign as if he had actually won. In fact...he was the front-runner for a short period of time....until the first debate.

=================================================

How much money does Perry have......who is sending him donations?

Perry entered the prez race with three PACs (that we know of).....teeming with money.

He was raising 2012 money while campaigning for governor, promising trusting Texans he would not run for president if they reelected him....b/c he knew a sitting governor running for president was more credible.

One crony PAC---Make America Great Again---raised $55 million. Probably some of that was used for Perry's ploy to make himself look good early in the Iowa caucuses----saying he had "raised more than any other candidate"----$17 mill.

So there's lots of money standing by.

We'll soon be looking at Perry crowing that his fifth place loss garnered him a huge chunk of "donations."

77 posted on 01/05/2012 6:31:26 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

“Soooo, can anyone tell me how many delegates the top three got? 7-7-7 or 13,12,0 or what?”

Ironically, the short answer is 0,0,0. Iowa’s delegates are all not committed from the vote. They are free to vote for whomever they want to at the convention. Historically speaking, they will all eventually vote for the nominee.

The most important role for the Iowa finishers is who get to appear in the big debate here in Myrtle Beach next week. Only the top 4 from IA and NH will be invited. Thus, as of right now, Perry will not be on stage (I think). Stupid.

IA and NH need to go as the first 2 primaries. They are democrat states that will go for the Dems in the general. They both allow dems to participate in the Rep voting. So they both just try to pick the weakest candidate to hobble our side. Hate it.

BTW- last available poll in SC had Newt up by 16 pts in SC. Santorum only had 6 pct of vote.


78 posted on 01/05/2012 7:25:10 AM PST by PilotDave (No, really, you just can't make this stuff up!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I like Perry, he was my 1st choice when he first got in the race, but I think this just makes him look very wishy-washy.


79 posted on 01/05/2012 10:11:02 AM PST by Proudcongal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine; All; everyone; Everybody; anyone; Anybody; you
Learn from Iowa, Rick! Refine your limited government, 10th amendment message, deliver it more forcefully, and take the fight to Obama in the Fall.

I agree. I'm still undecided, but Perry shouldn't drop out until he has a poor primary result in a few of the Southern states, where he feels more 'at home' amongst the voters and just be himself. THEN if he has a poor turnout, we can safely say he can't win.

I think that what motivates people below the Mason-Dixon line may be a lot different than what motivates people in other parts of the country.

FWIW, and in case people are still open-minded and not fixed on one candidate, here's a video of Perry at Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert in Dallas in 2010, long before he'd thought of a Presidential run. (Perry's pro-Constitution rant starts at 3:15. Don't miss the part about Harry Reid).

Governor Rick Perry at sean hannity freedom concert 2010

About the only hot button he doesn't push for me is mentioning the 2nd Amendment. Y'all's mileage may vary. :)

80 posted on 01/05/2012 10:30:11 AM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
How much money does Perry have anymore and is anyone bothering to send him any donations? Perry is the one who will be out of gas at the side of the road before he even gets to the SC election.

Pockets are deep in Texas. It goes along with having the healthiest economy in the nation. ;)

Seriously, that wouldn't be the reason he dropped out. It would be because he's pragmatic enough to know he couldn't get elected, and to proceed would hurt our chances of getting rid of his arch enemy and Chief Violator of the 10th Amendment - barack hussein obama. I think he would need to hear it from southern voters, though. Not just Iowans. He's a fighter to the core, as you can see by the YouTube clip i posted, so it'll take voters from closer to home to make him pack his suitcase.

81 posted on 01/05/2012 10:48:42 AM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Is it true that some guy called Perry on Wednesday and guaranteed him $5 from his PAC if he stays in the race? Some guy on CNN in the 8PM hour stated that this indeed occurred. If true, why now? Why not last week, before Perry’s Iowa drubbing? This stinks to high heaven. Bob


82 posted on 01/05/2012 10:53:35 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
How much money does Perry have anymore and is anyone bothering to send him any donations? Perry is the one who will be out of gas at the side of the road before he even gets to the SC election.

Pockets are deep in Texas. It goes along with having the healthiest economy in the nation. ;)

Seriously, that wouldn't be the reason he dropped out. It would be because he's pragmatic enough to know he couldn't get elected, and to proceed would hurt our chances of getting rid of his arch enemy and Chief Violator of the 10th Amendment - barack hussein obama. I think he would need to hear it from southern voters, though. Not just Iowans. He's a fighter to the core, as you can see by the YouTube clip i posted, so it'll take voters from closer to home to make him pack his suitcase.

83 posted on 01/05/2012 10:53:35 AM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: naxetevitan
....here's a video of Perry in Dallas in 2010, long before he'd thought of a Presidential run.....

Contrary to what he was saying, by 2010, Perry already had three presidential PACs (that we know of) teeming with money.

One PAC raised $55 million AT THE SAME TIME Perry was promising trusting native Texans he would NOT run for president if they reelected him governor.

Perry needed to get reelected governor b/c he was all set to run for president and he knew a sitting governor has more creds as a presidential candidate.

Trusting Texans rely too much on what their governor tells them----better start looking at what he does. The two are not always the same.

84 posted on 01/05/2012 10:56:55 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: naxetevitan

The only way that a conservative can win is if guys who outspent Santorum by zillions in Iowa and won only 10% (Perry) drop the hell out. I guarantee you that there is internal polling showing that Milt one-on-one against Santorum gets creamed. That’s why the establishment must try to breathe life into a dead cause, long enough to peel away votes in SC and Fl. The right vote must continue to be split. BTW, I loathe Romney, and don’t think much more of those who agree to become Santorum’s stalking horse. Bob


85 posted on 01/05/2012 11:01:22 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
Perry is not my first chioce, he is my second choice.

However, telling Perry to bail at this point, with a share of 7 delegates on the table to be split 4 ways from the IA voters, is somewhat premature.

86 posted on 01/05/2012 11:03:25 AM PST by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

IOWA results and the count begins

"Soft" Delegates 
Need to Nominate  1,144 
(available)       2,261 

R Paul                6 
W Romney              6 
R Santorum            6 
N Gingrich            4 
J Perry               3 


87 posted on 01/05/2012 11:03:43 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Plus, we will now get to see who thinks Romney will ultimately prevail and is only in it for a shot at his VP slot.

I think that's what MB wants. When she hired Ed Rollins, she was immediately suspect to me. He's such a snake, and she should have known that.

And i just can't see perry/gingrich/santorum wanting or accepting the VP spot under Romney. Perry and Gingrich can't stand him; i'm not sure about Santorum. Perry would rather stay in Texas if he can't be in charge of undoing all the damage obama has done, and the same with Gingrich. IMHO, anyway.

I like your idea of having all 3 of them going against Mitts to hand him his head. Love it!

88 posted on 01/05/2012 11:10:09 AM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

5 bucks stinks to high heaven?


89 posted on 01/05/2012 11:21:09 AM PST by txhurl (Perry/Pence 2012 OR Perry/Ryan 2012 or even better Perry/Abbott 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

Sorry. $5 MILLION was offered to Perry. The five BUCKS is for my blood pressure medication. LOL Bob


90 posted on 01/05/2012 11:27:04 AM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
But his border/illegal alien/LaRaza position is his biggest problem and he has shown no desire to change it.

He may have a guardasil problem (and others), but that statement isn't accurate. You ARE aware that he met obama personally on the Austin airport tarmac and handed him a letter asking for more federal help?

Rick Perry meets and greets Obama on Monday at airport in Austin Texas

The letter (pdf file on the texas website)

On the same day he gave obama's people the letter (aug 2010), he made a speech talking about it, which you can watch on that same .tx.us website (scroll down and look in right margin) here

He's been hell-bent on doing everything he can do to stop the illegals and Mexican gangs at the border, but our funds and available options are limited at the state level. It's one of the main reasons he's itching for "THE Fight" against obama. In his mind, i'm sure it would be sweet justice and payback for ignoring our problem down here.

91 posted on 01/05/2012 11:28:20 AM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ngat

Do we Perry supporters go around to other threads and demand their candidate drop out?


92 posted on 01/05/2012 11:38:25 AM PST by txhurl (Perry/Pence 2012 OR Perry/Ryan 2012 or even better Perry/Abbott 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

“Do we Perry supporters go around to other threads and demand their candidate drop out?”

No, but Northeasterners seem to this it’s OK to behave that way.


93 posted on 01/05/2012 11:50:05 AM PST by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Contrary to what he was saying, by 2010, Perry already had three presidential PACs (that we know of) teeming with money.

If that's true, then i stand corrected. What is your source? And do we know that Perry himself was wanting to be President, and not just his sycophants pushing for it?

As an aside, there are a ton of people here who were affected by our latest budget cuts (including me), and many of those people are very unhappy with Perry because of it, saying he's cold-hearted and ruthless and uncaring, blah, blah, blah. Too bad, so sad. It's time to slash and burn, imo. I'll vote for whoever convinces me they have the testicular fortitude to fight and not retreat once they get to D.C. At this point, i'll vote for anyone but romney.

Who are you rooting for?

94 posted on 01/05/2012 11:57:20 AM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Essie

We still have 56 states to go.


95 posted on 01/05/2012 11:59:07 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Perry is the true social conservative. AS governor, he has signed legislation defunding PP and as a result, 12 Planned Parenthoods have folded.

Perry has also signed a Defense of Marriage act defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

We don't have to wonder about what President Perry will do, he's already done it. This is the advantage of choosing a governor for our nominee.

There is only one other governor in the race--Romney.

96 posted on 01/05/2012 12:03:39 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

So what is there to worry about? This is a wide open process. There’s still 56 states to go.


97 posted on 01/05/2012 12:06:31 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan
The only way that a conservative can win is if guys who outspent Santorum by zillions in Iowa and won only 10% (Perry) drop the hell out.

And you're basing all that on the results of just one caucus? Why the rush?

A caucus, by the way, in a state with open primaries that allows Democrats to bus themselves in, re-register as a Republican, vote, then suffer absolutely no penalty or consequence in the general election when they vote for obama.

I understand your passion, though, since you're in PA. I'm not even a big Perry fan, but find myself liking him a lot more every time someone bashes our state. It's a struggle to remain objective, but we must. We'll only get one shot at this. It's important.

98 posted on 01/05/2012 12:10:48 PM PST by naxetevitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

““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.”” Rick Perry, 2001.


99 posted on 01/05/2012 12:10:56 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo

Exacty, my friend.


100 posted on 01/05/2012 12:13:25 PM PST by CainConservative ( Newt/Santorum 2012 with Cain, Huck, Bolton, Perry, Watts, Duncan, & Bachmann in Newt's Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson