Skip to comments.Bachmann Hits Perry on Immigration, Social Security
Posted on 09/12/2011 4:19:55 AM PDT by VU4G10
Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has taken the wind out of fellow candidate Michele Bachmanns sails ever since he entered the race Aug. 13. Now the Minnesota congresswoman is ready to go back at the Texas governor during a candidates debate in Tampa, Fla., Monday, The Washington Examiner reports.
Bachmann is poised to attack Perry over his comments that Social Security is a monstrous lie and a Ponzi scheme.
A Bachmann adviser told The Examiner: "Bernie Madoff deals with Ponzi schemes, not the grandparents of America. Clearly she feels differently about the value of Social Security than Gov. Perry does. She believes Social Security needs to be saved, that it's an important safety net for Americans who have paid into it all their lives."
Perrys view is clearly not something that's going to sit well with the people of Florida and Iowa and South Carolina and many of the early states, where there is a large population of seniors who rely heavily on Social Security. the adviser said. For [Perry] to scare them is wrong."
And Bachmann isn't stopping there. Keep Conservatives United, a Super PAC supporting her is set to start a radio ad attacking Perry for his immigration stance. The ad is scheduled to air during conservative talk radio shows in South Carolina starting Tuesday, The Hill reports.
The ad portrays Bachmann as tough on illegal immigration whileblasting Perry for failing to curb it during his stint as Texas governor.
"Michele Bachmann believes employers should be required to check the legal status of people they hire with E-Verify," the ad says. "Perry doesn't, so illegals take jobs."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
What about your fellow Congressholes?
Perry’s a disaster on illegal immigration.
But I was totally disillusioned with Bachmann on the issue in the last debate, when she essentially said she was for amnesty once our border was secure. (Not much need for e-verify once 30 million illegal immigrants are given amnesty—the Great American Experiment will then be pretty much over.)
Michelle dear....why are you not speaker or majority leader or even whip?
President....of course not. No gravitas.
again: let’s see what Michele says in her own words instead of going with anonymous advisers. Advisers toy with all kinds of ideas that never make the light of day.
Secure the borders before going after private employers and increasing their costs of doing business. The protection of the border is the responsibility of the federal govt and it can’t pass the buck over to everyone else.
The kernel..the nugget of it all is taxes, regulation, and immigration
The story of American jobs and labor is deeply intertwined with predatory Federal, state and local taxation and regulation....
South Koreans sleep soundly on their border with NORKS because of American Taxpayer dollars and the American GI.
Why cant Texans, New Mexicans, Arizonans and Californians?....BECAUSE
Illegal immigration is THE KEY to the perpetuation of the status quo in DC......
Predatory tax and regulatory policies-actions that basically serve to perpetuate and grow governments-leave what business is left in the country seeking disposable labor.
Illegal Labor is the Feds out for preserving the status quo regarding Taxes and Regulation...and is the ultimate litmus test as to the candidates in question commitment to meaningful regulatory and tax reform. If they are wishy-washy on the subject...they have no real intent to disturb the DC status quo...no matter how big their cowboy hat and six-gun.
Realleadership is that which will place Flyover Countrys interest ahead of the Feds....havent yet seen anything meaningful anywhere from anybody to indicate that might happen. We have just one more election cycle to make that happen via rule of law. Otherwise its the end of the run for America.
I hope these reports about Bachmann attacking Perry over SS are not true. As a younger voter I am happy to see a Republican with the cojones to address SS.
Bachmann is right on e-verify, wrong on SS, and wrong on campaign strategy. She should be sticking with her strength, her opposition to ObamaCare and her clear demonstration in the debate that she is the only one who clearly connects the shadow of ObamaCare on the economy with the current economic problems.
She should be realistic, understand that a path to the nomination for her is clearly not there, and take the high road, and not target any other candidate by name, but rather emphasize her long-standing and deeply-felt opposition to ObamaCare.
Will that turn things around for her? Of course not. But neither will attacking Perry, especially on SS.
This misguided attack on Perry regarding SS is only going to make her look bad.
I am surprised at Ms. Bachmann’s position on Perry’s take regarding social security.
OMG - Tim Pawlenty now on FOX - endorsing Mitt Romney. Stuttered about VP viability!!!
“Bachmann is right on e-verify, wrong on SS, and wrong on campaign strategy”
I agree and disagree. She is right on illegals and wrong on ss. However, the objective right now is to knock perry out. Whatever it takes to do that the better. We need to flush out all rinos before the first votes are cast.
She has a pretty unbeatable record of immigration votes.
You might well be surprised at the level of front line/forward area withdrawl from the border areas along the DMZ by US troops, and replaced by young ROK troops over the last twenty years, and the increase in expenditures by the ROK for its own defense. And no, they do not sleep soundly with North Korea on their borders. And this is also not to say that the US does not commit considerable resources there, but things have in fact changed over the years.
All the rest are speeches, posturing, shifting, ducking and weaving as far as I am concerned. They may be "conservatives" but they are STILL POLITICIANS. Watch what they DID not what they say they will do.
Sheesh, we should have learned our lesson with the big ass of a weathervane, McCain, in South Carolina 2008.
FOX News this morning has said Perry has clarified what he said in the debate.
He is now saying that he isn’t trying to get rid of it, he wants to reform it.
sooooo, all this angst for nothing.
>> lets see what Michele says in her own words instead of going with anonymous advisers.
You’re grasping at straws if you think this is just a loose cannon advisor.
Anyway, that if it is? Hiring poor advisors (Ed Rollins??!?) does not show the kind of judgment I want from a President.
RINOs tend to run in herds.
Spin, spin, all you can do is spin.
The fact that Perry wants to reform SS does not change the fact that, as it is currentlly structured, it IS a Ponzi scheme.
And Bachmann is shameless to try and attack Perry for telling the truth. Revealing her to be an opportunist rather than the principled conservative she and her supporters pretend that she is.
blah blah blah
You and your ilk have been spinning for months now.
All I did was report what was said on FOX News.
So SS is a Ponzi scheme. Well, yes it is. Now, what is your point?
Never mind, I am tired of you.
Did that bad choice in a campaign manager make Ronald Reagan a bad leader? (by your logic).
So the state is not responsible for protecting its citizens, we need to cancel the national guard as a waste of money if that is true.
Reagan used Rollins and won in landslides.
I would agree with that. The others including Palin, know that it is a touchy subject and has to be addressed carefully so as not to scare voters away.
We won’t be reforming anything if we don’t win elections.
You're one of the biggest slimeballs on FR, you have no standing to lecture ANYONE on spin or methods.
So SS is a Ponzi scheme. Well, yes it is. Now, what is your point?
The point is obvious to anyone who isn't pimping Bachmann.
Bachmann's main selling point was that of being a principled conservative - the only real means of differentiating herself from someone like Perry (who I agree can be and has been an opportunist).
So what does she do with the Social Security issue? Because she smells a political opportunity, she is going to bash Perry for telling the truth about Social Security.
Which means she is as much an opportunist as Perry.
Bye-bye, Bachmann differentiation. Now she's just another opportunistic politician, albeit one with a thin resume and no executive experience.
So tell us again why we should consider voting for her over someone with a resume and executive experience?
Feds now have control over the Guard.
Reagan had the sense to fire him.
Bachmann’s poor advisors don’t get fired — they quit.
But, yeah, whether Reagan or Bachmann, it shows poor judgment in the individual case. Whether individual cases of poor judgment aggregate to an overall indictment of poor judgment is seen in hindsight. Reagan passed — his good judgment outweighed his bad. Will Bachmann? I see her cases of poor judgment piling up against a rather thin base of experience.
I’ll tell you this: if she abandons her conservatism to join Romney in attacking Perry over Socialist Security, she’s dead to me. That’s one big case of REALLY poor judgment.
You go ahead and carry your little snit from thread to thread. I am not playing.
>> Because she smells a political opportunity, she is going to bash Perry for telling the truth about Social Security.
It blows me away that this isn’t patently obvious to everyone.
Romney, Perry and others are so often accused of cynical flipflopping that it’s cliche.
Bachmann does it in the most nakedly cynical way, and her “conservative” defenders still defend her on the point. Astounding.
I do not make the mistake of putting any politicians on a pedestal, they will fall off. I liked Michele, until now. If anyone put her ona pedestal, she’s just fallen off. The door is wide open for Sarah.
It would be like patching up a broken overflowing dam. You fix one crack and another crack develops somewhere else because the entire structure is messed up.
>> Reagan used Rollins and won in landslides.
Thirty years ago. And he’s built a solid record of mediocrity and increasing liberalism ever sense. Hiring him was poor judgment, whatever he did for Reagan.
Never thought he wanted to get rid of it. We know that isn’t going to happen...until it happens.
She’s doesn’t have a shot at being president so why is she hurting the party?
“Ill tell you this: if she abandons her conservatism to join Romney in attacking Perry over Socialist Security, shes dead to me. Thats one big case of REALLY poor judgment.”
yeah at this point I’m getting concerned but she still has a chance to say no to those advisers. She deserves a chance because 1) we know what the media tries to do to us and 2) she’s been reasonably good so far on all the other issues
Trust me, it IS obvious. It was obvious when she hired Rollins, it was obvious when she allowed Rollins to attack Palin, and this just wraps up the story - this one can't be blamed on Rollins, he has left the campaign.
But her supporters don't want to admit it. So they will spin and pretend the 800 pound gorrila isn't sitting on their chests.
She hasn't considered how she would explain accepting Perry's endorsement in the unlikely event she became the candidate after criticizing him over such a hot-button issue like Socialist Security.
She'll cross that rickety bridge she constructed when she gets there.
If she gets there. Which, like you, I doubt she will.
If we do nothing, it will end up going away. The idea of keeping raising the age is also a crock. We could raise the age to 90. It ends up being the same as the dem fix.
Point is they spend it before it comes in. This is even worse than a Ponzi. At least in a Ponzi people enter into the deal willingly.
The dem fix is in Obamacare.
Fewer seniors around to collect SS, the better. That old hospice chute and the blue or red pill should do it.
Talk about scaring seniors.
We need to get that issue back in the limelight.
All power derives from the people/citizens, government is formed to protect its people/citizens. To say the state has no role in protecting it people/citizens from invasion is ignorant.
The way she took Rollins to the woodshed for his Palin bashing?
Oh, wait, she didn't.
“Thirty years ago. And hes built a solid record of mediocrity and increasing liberalism ever sense. Hiring him was poor judgment, whatever he did for Reagan.”
Still it’s hard to find someone better. Atwater is no longer with us and I don’t think you’d be happy with Karl Rove.
Michele isn’t running to help Palin win, you know. I’m sure every adviser has something juicy to say about the other candidates. That’s not pleasant but it is normal.
This is the same pack of lies you would expect from a democrat. Over and over and over, Perry and other people willing to face the truth that Social Security is destined to fail have said that nothing will change for those on or about to be on Social Security. The only one trying to scare them is this adviser and, assumedly, Bachmann. That means the adviser is either an idiot or a liar. If Ms. Bachmann doesn't say anything about it, she, too, is either an idiot or a liar.
And she had about the weakest answer to the immigration question on the debate the other night. Her solution to everything was to secure the border. She refused to answer the question about what to do with the millions of illegals already here.