Posted on 09/27/2011 3:14:20 PM PDT by Clairity
The biggest mischaracterization of Perry's position has been on immigration. The fact that he has more confidence in putting "boots on the ground" along the border, instead of relying on a fence that can be climbed over or tunneled under where there is no one around, is a logistical judgment, not a question of being against border control.
Texas Rangers already have been put along the border to guard the places where the federal government has failed to guard it. Former Sen. Rick Santorum's sound-bite attempts to paint Perry as soft on border control have apparently been politically successful, judging by polls.
But his repeated interrupting of Perry's presentation of his case during the recent debate is the kind of cheap political trick that contributes nothing to public understanding and much to public misunderstanding.
I have far more questions about those who would blow this error up into something that it is not. Error-free leaders don't exist — and we don't want to end up settling for a warm body.
Ultimately, this is not about Perry. It is about a process that can destroy any potential leader, even when the country needs a new leader with a character that the "gotcha" attackers demonstrate they do not have.
(Excerpt) Read more at gosanangelo.com ...
I expect Perry to rise again and chunk Romney. This Romney matter is going to begin to come to the attention of more and more Republicans becoming more and more concerned that we have to settle for Romneyand Romneycare. As for the congeniality and fall back winner, Herman Cain, it is from Rick’s lips to Cain’s endorsement and own policy statement of the exact, that would be the EXACT same immigration policy as Rick Perry. E-X-A-C-T.
Now, Rick is a state’s rights guy. Texas policy for Texas. Arizona policy for Arizona. He said so. Now, Romney....Massachusettes policy for...er,...for Obama... to cast upon the entire nation. (Erick Erickson, there.) Romney said in his book, “...a model for the nation..”, about Romneycare. That statement is now scrubbed.
The difference is Romney likes a consequential, interfering government because he is apparently not adverse to socialism. Perry likes state’s rights and an inconsequential government as possible. Therefore, the power elites, the Marxists and the media would be trying their hardest to marginalize which of these two?
This factoid will make the difference in the end, and it will dawn on voters...................eventually.
The dangerous drug cartels already have tunnels in San Diego.
I believe the comment “You don’t have a heart” was PERCEIVED as referring to conservatives...I think Perry meant ( though he screwed up the presentation of it) that conservatives DO have a heart.
He spoke to the very issue you mention..we aren’t going to deport millions of illegals.
so, uh lets see..I won’t vote for Perry cause I thought he was insulting me and not get clarity on what he said and meant...and because he gave a tuition “ break” to illegals kids? that is going to do it for me to throw this guy over the cliff? I don’t think so.
62 posts at last count and, though disagreement with Sowell was expressed, not one serious sighting of the RINO-accusation. The odds for serious discussion here are looking up.
Uh, so if I favor Perry..I should go read carneige’s book?
Not much on counter arguments and discussion...Just “he hurt my feelings”. Ok, he hurt your feelings, so don’t be for him. He is not done yet, even if you want that.
You got it....HA!!
Just keep going, there won’t be one conservative left. ha.
” The dangerous drug cartels already have tunnels in San Diego. “ <<<<<
Bu, buh, BUT....there’s a FENCE THERE!!! You mean they tunneled UNDER, U-N-D-E-R the fence.....like Rick Perry said they would???????? Surely not. You gest. But, all that money....for the FENCE!!!
I suspected he would, but since I hadn't read his actual comments, I wasn't sure.
Then dont. You were against him before he said that in the debate. You called his fans cult like. Dont pretend like you arent going to vote for him because of the statement, that just makes you look like an emotional diva. Im sure you have real reasons for not liking him.
His name seems to be a magnet to heartless people.
Crazy ain’t it? :)
If anything, I regard Perry's action as revealing of the profound respect he has for the separation and balance of powers in Texas. Don't forget that the in-state tuition bill was passed overwhelmingly by the Texas Legislature, which is also overwhelmingly Republican. There were only four "nay" votes on this bill. It was sent to Perry, and he signed it into law — which speaks volumes to me about his respect for the "people's body" — the legislature — of Texas.
Moreover, this was entirely a state matter: Perry was setting no national precedent here.
Plus I gather he is a very humane man. The son of a tenant farmer, he most likely has had many Hispanic friends, neighbors, and associates in his lifetime, and does not see them as public enemies. Probably most of them were in the country legally. Yet whether legal or no, their children are indubitably residents of the state of Texas. If they had graduated from high school, and been here three years, giving them the same tuition rate as other Texas residents doesn't bother me much — especially if this is what the citizens of Texas voted for, through their duly constituted representative bodies.
Plus as a practical matter, a kid getting an education is probably not hanging out in a street gang somewhere, messing around with drugs and other contraband....
I definitely agree with Perry about the utter futility of building a fence. A total waste of taxpayer funds, IMHO. Jeepers, they can always tunnel under it; and I can even envision folks setting up catapults to launch themselves over it. All a fence would do is give us a false sense of security. I'd feel safer with electronic surveillance and boots on the ground.
The most attractive thing about Perry (to me) is he is without doubt a constitutional originalist. He appreciates the role of the several States in the Framers' overall constitutional design. There's an excellent article in the current National Review that you might want to look into for information about Rick Perry's constitutional understandings.
Oil wealth redistribution?
Well, it could be a deal breaker if we had other perfect candidates, but we don’t. Darn, they are ALL human—warts and all. What are we to do and of course, we all know Obama is the perfect human being, don’t we?
Hell, if dogs and gophers can do it, then Im pretty sure drug dealers and gun runners can.
I would be glad to see a split ticket Cain/Palin. L-)
Thanks for the ping. An interesting article by Sowell and a very interesting thread. Thanks to all posters.
Thanks. If I’d wanted to address you specifically I would have.
The point ofmy post was to illustrate the addresse’s winning style.
However, now seeing your post it could have been for you too.
He is done. Just still flailing like a fish on the dock. If you are hurt because we don’t like him it is no reason to demean us. Your candidate will llose the nomination.
Do you agree that ‘Undocumented aliens” are in fact breaking the law by their presence in the USA? The only possible answer is “YES” because it’s the truth. Therefor every single entity from voter (those that voted for them) to Governor to President (that willfully allow their existence) is in violation of the law by supporting so called sanctuary cities, which themselves exist only to break existing immigration law. Do you deny that? How? If you have no illegals, you do not need to give them ‘sanctuary’.
People, think this through.
“Hard working” illegals are still illegal and I don’t care if Rick Perry or anyone else ‘feels for them’, nor does existing immigration law.
“Children” (not born here) of illegals are still illegal and I don’t care if Rick Perry or anyone else ‘feels for them’, nor does existing immigration law.
Illegal aliens in school should not be there, nor should other ‘laws’ to coddle them exist because they are ILLEGAL and were as soon as they crossed the border. They still are and will be evermore and I don’t care if Rick Perry or anyone else ‘feels for them’, nor does existing immigration law.
All these tuition/health laws ignore the FACT that they are illegal and not supposed to be here to begin with. And the people who enacted those laws are helping illegal aliens. That help HURTS American citizens through taxation and cheapening our own rights. Do you deny that?
Now If all the Perry supporters here want to change EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAW TO MAKE THEM LEGAL then join the Democrats who want open borders. I defy Perry supporters to find the text of the GOP platform or any Conservative platform/philosophy that uses “for the children” as a reason for anything.
I defy Perry supporters to find the text of the GOP platform or any Conservative platform/philosophy that says to think with your ‘heart’ and not your head.
I defy Perry supporters to find the text of the GOP platform or any Conservative platform/philosophy that supports candidates that are on record as supporting ANYTHING that benefits illegal aliens in any way shape or form.
FR has gotten extremely liberal lately and it sure isn’t because JR decided to go play for the other team. So my question is why are so many people on a Conservative site when they support policies that follow a liberal philosophy?
Lastly, I expect plenty of snark. I really don’t expect anyone to answer these questions or honestly try debating the points made. But I would love to see that happen.
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.