Skip to comments.Rick Perry betrays the right, stays in
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.
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.
One primary doesn’t choose our choice on who to run for president. Thank god.
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.
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 governments 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."
He’s saving the pretzels for the gas jets!
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.
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.
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"
Ron Paul has a 0% chance of getting elected.
Newt has a 0% chance of getting elected.
Perry would have a chance.
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.
EDEDEDdit “So, lacking specific details, THIS is the basis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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!
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."
“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.
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.
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).
About the only hot button he doesn't push for me is mentioning the 2nd Amendment. Y'all's mileage may vary. :)