Posted on 08/29/2011 6:46:20 AM PDT by DRey
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, like most of the other the GOP presidential hopefuls, says his campaign is about undoing the decisions of President Obama. But Perry also presents a stark alternative to the last Republican to occupy the White House, his fellow Texan George W. Bush.
In his writings and speeches before he entered the race, Perry shared the view, widely held among conservatives, that Bush’s government spending habits in office were a betrayal of the GOP’s core fiscal principles. But Perry went further, dismissing “compassionate conservatism,” the central tenet of Bush’s domestic policy, as just more overreach by the federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
http://wingright.org/2011/08/28/answer-to-bias-against-governor-rick-perry/
or, I’ve posted to FR here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2770050/posts
Excellent...thank you. I’m sure you pinged me but I must have overlooked it.
Thx again shield
He supported TARP. That’s all I need to know.
You find out what they’re really made of when the pressure is on, not from their campaign rhetoric.
At least when you’re dealing with cynical, manipulative, unprincipled politicians like Rick Perry.
Yep.
I disagree that the Governor of a State should not give a talk to citizens of the State when invited. He’s everyone’s Governor, not just those who agree with him.
We’re told to be salt and light in this world. Sometimes that means meeting with the people the Pharisees don’t like.
- - - - -
With that as a requirement. If only it was done.
Yes. He was not a fiscal conservative by any reasonable definition, but he was definitely a social conservative and a national security conservative - two of the legs of the "three-legged stool" of conservatism that Reagan spoke of.
This is why I get so upset at people crying "RINO" all of the time. Even Ronald Reagan acknowledged that someone could be a conservative without being conservative in all aspects. He always said that someone who is with us 70% is not our 30% enemy. He knew that to get anything accomplished, such as putting together winning coalitions in Congress, we needed social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Nowadays, it seems like we spend way too much of our time trying to drive anyone who doesn't meet our definition of a "true conservative" out of the party.
There were a lot of things that Bush did that I didn't like, especially on the spending side. But I can't think of anyone who ran for president in 2000 that I would have rather been at the helm on 9/11, or who would have pursued the war on terror with as much determination as Bush. We need to stop talking about him like the Dems do. We can disagree with his spending without trashing the man's character.
So who is your republican candidate that did not support it in 3rd quarter, 2008?
They were both cheerleaders in college, both were pilots in military service, both from Texas, both moderate Repubs big on govt spending, both are in favor of amnesty for illegals, and Perry just hired Bush’s campaign team...but, nah, they never heard of each other.
Ho-kay.
Yes, he certainly shielded the facts from light of day, in his post.
Cut, Cap and Balance was supported for its provisions to cut, cap and balance. The debt ceiling part was anthema but was the trade off to pass the right policies going forward.
Whereas, the Debt Ceiling Bill, which Perry opposed, raised the debt ceiling but failed to put in place the right policies going forward.
But his post pretended that Perry was for the debt ceiling going up and shielded the truth that Perry was for cutting, capping and balancing, and was against the awful Debt Ceiling so-called compromise bill.
Then, he blasted me for not knowing what he really meant, although he was the one who covered up the crucial facts in his original, accusatory post, which only blared that Perry supported raising the debt ceiling.
Given his history, he must feel pretty good about that sorry act, down there in Mom’s basement...
And naturally they come running with nothing that addresses what I said.
Cowards
You don’t support any of the Republican candiidates, so why should we care what your opinion of them is?
If it actually, cut, or capped, or balanced, there would have been no need to borrow and spend another $2.4 TRILLION dollars.
It was all nothing but smoke and mirrors. Political cover for all.
But the fact is, the Republican leadership, including Governor Perry, were intent every step of the way on raising the debt ceiling by more than two TRILLION.
Perry supporters, and Republicans in general, are doing everything in their power to mask that now, but some of us are no longer fooled by this sort of political nonsense.
False. I have no problem supporting Republicans if they’ll simply do their sworn duty. Getting pretty hard to find those who will, though.
But I am still waiting to hear who you want at the GOP nomination that did NOT support government bailout in 3rd quarter 2008.
Source please.
Oh, and Saint Sarah supported TARP, too.
Bump.
Nonsense.
“Cut, cap and balance” was a debt ceiling raise. $2.4 TRILLION dollars worth.
You can pretend it wasn’t all you want, but it won’t change the facts.
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.