Posted on 09/03/2011 4:04:09 PM PDT by jessduntno
Texas Gov. Rick Perry called in to Mark Levin's radio show and the two had a wide-ranging conversation. Levin ended by saying, while he is not endorsing anyone yet for the GOP Nomination, Perry is "up there with candidates acceptable to me."
uuhhh it says that Sarah Palin supports options?
Lol, you're the idiot if you can't distinguish between a reasoned approach and discussion to reforming SS and a lot inflammatory rhetoric that is bound to offend some voters. Perry needs to pipe down and discuss SS reform sensibly, but he might already have too much on the record to be taken seriously by many independent voters.
And as far as harsh campaign statements about the minimum wage, ask this guy, who led a senate race for weeks until he came out with this:
I remain solidly for Sarah Palin, but a broken glass Republican, I’m not.
Conservatives have been taken for granted too long -— election after election, after election, and I swear, election ‘08 was the very last time.
Election 2010 was such a wonderful, awesome election. TEA PARTY PATRIOTS on the ballot.
The GOP be warned. A lot of us aren’t going to settle for less than a thoroughly vetted conservative candidate and my prayer is that at the end of the long primary season we will have that presidential candidate!
Conservatives will stand up to all the scrutiny!
Look at Palin: she’s endured lies, smears, trashing, bashing, slashing and she’s still standing. The hate might mostly originate from the other side, but she gets very little, (dare I say “scant”?) help or backing from our side, and none from the GOP-E.
Be well, my FRiend!!!
“Was Sarah Palin endorsing Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchison’s opponent?”
I honestly don’t know because I wasn’t following the Texas race.
What’s your opinion?
He was an early, and vocal, supporter of Rubio. He has a solid track record. He knew Sharon Angle and never wavered his support for her.
If John McCain had won, Sarah wuld be his VP right now and would be endorsing all McCain’s policies. Wonder what their opinion of Sarah would be? Would she be a rino too?
She was also endorsing Debra Medina's opponent, who was claiming the *Tea Party* title via Ron Palu.
Recall, that Governor Perry asked Governor Palin to campaign for him to bring him the TEA PARTY VOTE?
It’s very simple. Perry could likely be the nominee. He’s already bested Romney. Levin wants to win like most of us do.
Onyx, let me ask a simple question....(except Mittens, and Huntsman)...
Backing Palin is great, but when has the field ever been this Conservative?
McCotter, Cain, Paul, Bachmann, Perry?
Ronald Reagan himself would have to leave his driveway, go right...and travel a pretty long way to get to the right of this bunch.
An no one left standing after SC primary....will be a commie.
Well at least Angle’s legitimate on immigration.
The RINO (open borders, no fence, Gardasil for all) Perry
has NO CHANCE.
Conservatives will write in the name: Gov. Palin.
Not reasoned. When Bush did it he was the first to do so, and Won.
Period.
Inflammatory rhetoric is only when true is only inflammatory to those that need the deception.
My apologies for the lead in.
He’s right, people are ready to hear it.
And 40 years late in being confronted with it.
I'd take you over Obama and I don't even know who the hell you are.
Perry introduced the plan and tried to ramrod it through over something in the neighborhood of six years. While there did seem to be considerable initial support for the project, people and businesses licking their chops at the prospect of government big project funds, there also seemed to be considerable objections as well. In truth this didn’t bother some folks. They saw it as nothing more than a new highway system, although I don’t think they grasped the full scope of it. Again this didn’t sit well with some citizens on a number of issues. Big government project, land rights, implications of jobs moved to Mexico and beyond, contraband smuggling drugs/illegals. Perry couldn’t shake support for the idea until most of the
other stake-holders had jumped ship.
In fairness, ask a Perry supporter and you’ll get a rosy telling. While that is fair, I don’t think it’s unfair to mention that the Clintons always had a rosy telling for everything they did too.
There will be a grain of truth in what they say, but you’ll have to look around yourself and ultimately come to your own conclusion.
Not reasoned. When Bush did it he was the first to do so, and Won.
Period.
Inflammatory rhetoric when it’s true, is inflammatory only to those that need the deception.
My apologies for the lead in.
He’s right, people are ready to hear it.
And 40 years late in being confronted with it.
subsequently he got 9/11 dropped in his lap, Then Insituted the Bush Doctrine (you dont understand it, and I've not the patience to explain it, but Obama, the commie, is conducting Foreign Policy on it)
Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubts, okay..?”
But even with 9/11 Bush had time to push through “No Child Left Behind,” “Medicare Part D.” and push for conprehensive immigration reform
Every politician makes bad decisions. It’s part of the job.
Palin quit on the People of Alaska.
Ask Palinistas, and you;ll get a rosy explanation.
Ask a Lib, and they’ll say she got rich after quitting.
The truth...somewhere in the middle.
That’s politics.
I will agree with you up to a point....on legal, Constitutional matters Levin is better than most. But his continued ignorance of the fundamental principle of the Constitution—Natural Rights (inalienable rights) from the Creator—in that we have a standard of Right and Wrong (Right Reason according to Nature) .
That is the fundamental principle of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we have no standard of Right and Wrong—(God’s)—then we cease to have Natural Rights from God.
He seems to think that our Just Laws can be determined by any type of thinking by the likes of Barney Frank—and be “Just Law” which has a legal, recognized definition which would NOT acknowledge Frank’s standards of right and wrong as Just Law....it would create Unjust Law which with all the Legal Positivism we have since Holmes, Jr....is why we are no longer a government under the Rule of Law.....but one by the Rule of Man-—just made up arbitrary law because of unconstitutional judges and Congress.
Right reason-—science and reason and logic has to be respected in all decisions—homosexual marriage could never exist, even if every person in the state and Congress voted for it. It is unnatural and denies children their right of biological parents. It makes children into a commodity to be sold or bought.
I never hear him question this-—as if he has never understood the term, Just Law and Natural Law Theory-—the foundation of our legal system-—at least it was until Holmes removed morality from the legal process which is unconstitutional. God’s laws and Natural Law Theory are replete with morality. And both would obliterate Frank’s ideas of Right Reason.
I want to hear your rosy telling of why Sarah ran on a ticket with John McCain.
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.