Posted on 09/11/2011 10:25:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Bachmann strikes me as a bit to holier than though.
I could not find direct quotes. Might be planted.
Exactly, and that is why your Congress critter was elected.
The guys would be wise to start getting a plan together.
I have been accused here of wanting the status quo. That isn’t true.
What I do know is that the way you market something has a lot to do with success.
Bachmann might do well to drop this line of reasoning.
If Romney gets the nomination (and I don’t think he will), he’s going to choose a running mate that he and his advisers think will do him the most good in an election. It certainly WON’T be another Mormon. It probably won’t be Michelle Bachmann either, since I have a feeling her credibility is going to be down, not up, after this campaign. But it’s definitely NOT going to be another Mormon.
Mitt might be a raving liberal, but he’s not a raving lunatic.
......>>>Even before Perry entered the race, Bachmann was quite cautious on the issue of entitlement reform. She voted in favor of the Paul Ryan budget in the House last April, but on the presidential campaign trail she has made clear that if elected she would rely on her own plan, not Ryan’s. But she has offered no specific proposal on what she would do to rein in the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security....<<<
I am sick an tired of reading about people, who are ill-informed or have simply followed the herd to the chow line, distort the truth about Perry's positions on immigration. I would expect a bit more decorum or intellect from people here at FR.
There is some truth in that. His stance against Texas adopting an Arizona-style immigration law was initially troubling to many conservatives even though his point was that it would be better to force the federal government to enforce the border since that is one of their primary responsibilities. A true statement, but one easier said than done.
He did add a bill prohibiting Sanctuary Cities as an emergency item in the regular session and added it to the call during the special session, but there wasn’t enough resolve in either the legislature or the Governor to overcome the business lobby that was adamantly against the bill. It died in the last special session. It was disappointing to conservatives that the Governor didn’t call another special session to continue the fight, but he maintains that It would have been a waste of taxpayer money to call another special session on an issue that lawmakers would not take action to pass – twice. The governor says that he will continue to support the prohibition of sanctuary cities in the future.
Some have said that when Perry said that the Arizona law “wasn’t the right direction for Texas,” he was taking a position against strict enforcement of immigration laws. Not so – what he actually said was, “I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.” His concern was related to the portion of the Arizona law that required peace officers to inquire about citizenship status. Perry believes that the best solution is to allow officers the discretion to ask if they deem it necessary to carry out their duty.
“Texas has a rich history with Mexico, our largest trading partner, and we share more than 1,200 miles of border, more than any other state,” Perry said. “As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government’s failure to adequately protect our borders. Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed.” Texas has allocated more than $400 million in state funding to secure the border since 2005. In the last legislative session alone, $152 million was earmarked for border security.
Perry has also adopted the National Governor’s Policy, part of which states:
Federal immigration policies should ensure that new immigrants do not become a public charge to federal, state, or local governments.
The federal government must provide adequate information to and consult with states on issues concerning immigration decisions that affect the states.
States should not have to incur significant costs in implementing federal laws regarding immigration status as a condition of benefits.
See the full National Governor’s Association policy on immigration.
In the final analysis, Governor Perry says that the nation cannot have effective immigration policy until the border is secure. Today, the border is not secure and this is where we need to focus our resources.
Here’s a link to On The Issues which has more references to Perry’s statements on immigration-related subjects (too many to include here).
She knows damn well that the numbers dont add up for SS, and she knows damn well that Perry is not trying to make old folks eat catfood.
This will be her last stand.
This is about as wise a decision as her selecting Ed Rollins, the Conservative hating POS as her campaign manager. I think Bachmann has shown that she is not quite ready for prime-time. I like her and usually support her fiery positions and courage on positions, but she is grasping for stones now and it is not becoming of her. This has bad idea written all over it.
Yes!
But that horse already left the barn. Perry's been saying that Romneycare is Mitt's biggest problem. I bet Perry plans to kept hitting Mitt in that soft spot.
BTW -- Re: "Mitt might be a raving liberal, but he’s not a raving lunatic."
You are correct on the VP thingy -- imho. (and it's a great line)
Agreed.
Thanks.
And yes, I know Perry has already hit RomneyCare, but I think what Mitt was hoping for was some kind of gentlemanly quid-pro-quo in a future debate, in which Rick might say to someone attacking Mitt on RomneyCare something like “he probably would have done it differently if he had the chance”.
I don’t think Rick’s going to do that and not because he’s not “gentlemanly” but because Rick Perry probably (and rightly) thinks that he owes his first allegiance to the truth, not to some “gentleman’s agreement” that he didn’t even enter into in the first place.
I think Mitt was saying, with a wink and a nod, “c’mon, I’m doing this for you, you can do something like it for me some time, ok buddy.”
And Rick Perry was probably thinking, I’m not your buddy, friend. (To which Michelle was probably thinking, he’s not your friend, guy!)
So you’d rather he chose someone with absolutely no previous Presidential campaign experience?
Whatever it takes to convince yourself. LOL
I still think we are underestimating the intelligence of our senior citizens.
Ah... to be a fly on the wall.
“I like Bachmann but frankly, her attacking Perry will not work.”
We need to hear exactly what Bachmann has to say first.
“This will be her last stand.”
What will be her last stand? What did she say? I think we ought to step back, and see what she says before we jump to conclusions.
Politico, and other leftist media, is always trying to make trouble, and divide conservatives. I wouldn’t trust them.
You understand what I am saying.
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.