Rush Limbaugh: I hope Perry stays in

Washington Examiner ^ | January 4, 2012 | Charlie Spiering

[seekthetruth]

This is from Governor Perry's web site:

Rick Perry believes that our nation is most secure when we have the strongest economy in the world. His first priority will be to get America’s economic engine running at full speed to restore our global economic leadership, and to ensure America has the resources needed to maintain a strong, modern defense. By the same token, we need to maintain our strong presence to defend our interests around the globe while we rebuild our economy at home.

Perry believes in American exceptionalism and rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country. He believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength. We must strengthen our diplomatic relationships, and stand firm with our allies against our common enemies.

While advancing our interests abroad, Perry believes it is equally important to defend our interests at home by securing our border.

As president, Perry will substantially increase manpower, technology and fencing along the border to protect the American homeland and stop illegal immigration. This strategy has proven effective in Texas, where Gov. Perry has directed nearly $400 million in state tax dollars to do the federal government’s job of securing the border.

Perry will deploy thousands of National Guardsmen to the border until a sufficient number of border patrol agents can be hired and trained. He will order federal officials to expedite construction of strategic fencing, especially in high traffic areas where manpower alone is insufficient to do the job. And he will make greater use of unmanned aerial assets to gather reliable, real-time intelligence that law enforcement can immediately act upon.

[DoughtyOne]

I think these are hugely important qualifiers, yet you appear to imply that Perry's support in 1988 was for a lunatic leftist like Gore has since become. What I notice you don't bring up is a much more recent endorsement of a leftist, namely Santorum's 2004 support for Benedict Arlen. At the very least, I expected Santorum -- now that Arlen has not only fully betrayed the GOP but also been sent out to pasture -- to issue an explanation (and a rebuke of Arlen), but to my knowledge, Santorum hasn't done that. I'd say a 2004 endorsement of Arlen Specter is at least as much of a negative for Santorum as is Perry's 1988 support for Gore. I have other issues with Santorum, primarily that he "hasn't ever run anything" other than his Senate office and campaigns, whereas Perry has extensive executive experience (albeit, unfortunately, none in the private sector).

Please point out for me where you mentioned either "primary" or "Toomey" here.

You may not have liked my comment, but what other take was there to place on what you said other than to address the general election ramifications.  If you wanted to discuss the primary/Toomey aspects, you should have related to me what your internal thoughts were.

I don't like that Santorum backed Specter.  He has been the bane of Conservative existence for a long time.  I should think that Santorum would know this.  It still doesn't bother me on the same order that support for Al Gore would.  Here's a comment a poster made on another forum.    It fairly well states my thoughts on it.  LINK  There's a link in there to an American Spectator commentary.  I do want to state that I do not give Santorum a pass on it.  It does grate me.

I note you addressed the Al Gore support again in a later post.

The reason I still take Perry to task on the issue of Al Gore, is that he continues to defend his support for Al Gore on Conservative grounds.  If the guy had copped to having really screwed up there, I would be more inclined to cut him some slack.  His refusal to admit Gore was not Conservative, says to me that he still doesn't have a firm grasp on Conservatism.

As for executive or business experience, the more important thing for me is whether a guy 'gets' Conservatism or not.  Santorum seems to get it quite well.  On issue after issue he is solid.

The guy and his wife have chosen to home schools their six kids.  That is not a moderate to Leftist thing to do.

[pogo101]

Good stuff. Thanks. Still think he’s wrong on E-Verify and the notion of giving illegals in-state tuition, however blameless those illegals (carried here by their parents) may be. But good stuff.

[Hot Tabasco]

This is one time I’ll have to disagree with Rush. Time to start focusing on Santorum.

So all the candidates except Santorum should drop out........got it.

At least Rush is in support of them all until the people decide.....as it should be

[Windflier]

I look forward to agreeing and arguing with you on FR. I promise to keep it civil with you.

Thanks. I promise to do the same in our future discussions.

[DoughtyOne]

You raise a good point about Gore already being liberal by 1988. I had drunk the Kool-Aid on that issue and would have guessed that his ACUs were in the 40s or 50s. Mea culpa.  And I apprecaite that.  If Perry had done just what you did here, I would have understood that he gets it now, and it was 24 years ago.  It would be a lot easier to move on.

I still believe, however, that (1) Gore has moved much further to the left since 1988,... I'm not sure how either of us can look at a 9 ACU rating and state that he has moved much further to the left since 1988, but I am still inclined to agree with you.

...and (2) it’s a very, very distant marker by which to judge someone 24 years later, particularly when that someone has been a reliable GOP stalwart in the years since.  If a person hasn't shop-lifted since 1988, at 20-24 years later, it fairly easy to state it was an anomoly.  If at 20-24 years later, he has said that a little shop-lifting once in a while isn't all that bad, then you have a problem.  Stating that support for Al Gore in 1988 wasn't all that bad, because he was a Conservative back then (despite his 9 ACU rating in '88), is a massive problem if you want folks to think you're a Conservative yourself today.

It doesn't explain things away.  It defends what you did, and now it's this time frame, a big mistake if you want folks to think you've grown and now get it.

[pogo101]

Please point out for me where you mentioned either "primary" or "Toomey" here.

Please point out to me where I mentioned "general" or "Hoeffel."

Wow. I am just amazed. You appear to be learning, now for the very first time, what THE essential knock on Santorum is (among conservatives): his 2004 PRIMARY support for Specter OVER PAT TOOMEY. NO conservative has criticized Santorum for backing Specter in the general, which Specter won rather easily; his tougher battle by far was ekeing out a 51% win in the primary over Toomey.

Until today, I had not encountered anyone who follows politics who doesn't know this "knock" on Santorum. I am just amazed that someone as obviously Jeopardy!-Champion smart as you are, and who is backing Santorum, did not already know this.

As you seem likely to post a lot of support for Santorum on FR and elsewhere, you may want to look into the 2004 primary issue a bit more, so that you can counter those who (correctly in my view) count Santorum's support for Specter as bad judgment at best.

[DoughtyOne]

I like Bachmann, but I don’t lament her dropping out. She wasn’t getting traction. I think she did the right thing.

It had been my take early on that Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum would be decent candidates from a Conservative perspective.

I’m not convinced that this year we know too little about the candidates and need to see more of them before we settle on one.

Unfortunately we have the same nomination process today that gave us John McCain in 2008. A full caucus/primary season didn’t help us that year. I’m not convinced it’s going to this year either. It remains to be seen whether we’ll get a Conservative this year or not.

If we screw up this opportunity to elect an actual Conservative to the White House this year, then elect a heavily Tea Party influenced Republican party majority in the House, and a Republican majority in the Senate, we will have screwed up a chance to lop off Leftist agenda items going back decades.

If we nominate another go-along to get-along Republican who will only maintain the status quo, we will have squandered a once in a generation chance to turn things around.

You folks who urge me to be reasoned regarding the candidates and our election process, are free to think of me what you will. I’m not going to be bashful about championing a person who had demonstrated that he gets it more than other popular candidates.

Thanks for your reasoned response. Most election cycles, I would agree with you completely. This year, not so much what we’re discussing.

[DoughtyOne]

In the future, if you wish to discuss the events of a past election, it might help if you explain which election you would like to discuss.

If you wish to blame me for not reading your mind, I can live with it.

[pogo101]

My ignorance of what is common political knowledge is not my shortcoming. It is yours.

When you know so much about Al Gore and Rick Perry in 1988, but are blindly — and at this point I will add “willfully” — ignorant about a 2004 fact about Santorum, one that is the largest conservative knock on him, something is amiss.

Although I thank you for some good points in this debate and overall civility, I think we are done now. Ask around: ANYONE will tell you that when a FReeper knocks Santorum for “backing Specter in 2004,” he’s talking about the primary. It doesn’t take a mind reader, just common knowledge — particularly for someone so obviously determined to back Santorum no matter what. After all, he “gets it,” whatever that means.

We’ve been going in circles, so I won’t read any replies.

[pogo101]

Change “My” in the first word to “Your.”

[Impy]

A backstop? TO TAKE VOTES FROM SANTORUM so Romney can win with 25% again?

Rick Perry is a fool for staying in this race.

[Hot Tabasco]

If we nominate another go-along to get-along Republican who will only maintain the status quo,

Who is the "WE" you're refering to? Folks here on FR or the citizens of the U.S?

If you're talking about FR then you're just preaching to the choir. If you're talking about the country as a whole then the final result will be their decision, not yours or ours and one that has to be lived with........

[DoughtyOne]

My ignorance of what is common political knowledge is not my shortcoming. It is yours.

Mentioning support for a candidate in a particular year, does not specify which election that year you're upset about.  For all I knew, you were upsed that Santorum backed Specter in the general election.  All you had to do is mention "primary" or "Toomey" and I would have addressed the election that was bothering you, the primary.

I didn't remember Perry supporting Gore in 1988 during this election process.  Others mentioned it.  I looked into it.  I found out some things you didn't know about that.  Did I act like you were some sort of nut for not knowing it? You said, "Mia culpa", and I said that was okay.  No problem.

When you know so much about Al Gore and Rick Perry in 1988, but are blindly — and at this point I will add “willfully” — ignorant about a 2004 fact about Santorum, one that is the largest conservative knock on him, something is amiss.

When you brought it to my attention, I addressed the issue.  I gave you my take on it as it relateds to today's environment, and I explaned why.  People can follow this exchange back up the thread to see what I stated on the matter.

Although I thank you for some good points in this debate and overall civility, I think we are done now.

Okay.

Ask around: ANYONE will tell you that when a FReeper knocks Santorum for “backing Specter in 2004,” he’s talking about the primary.

Well, I didn't know.  I try to keep up on things, but this one slipped through.  Did I deny that Santorum had done something wrong there? No.  Did I try to spin it for something other than what it was. No.  Did I say it didn't bother me at all? No.

It doesn’t take a mind reader, just common knowledge — particularly for someone so obviously determined to back Santorum no matter what. After all, he “gets it,” whatever that means.

Santorum backed Specter in the primary against Toomey in 2004.  In light of this I'm supposed to drop all support for him and jump in behind Perry.

Now I know you said you aren't a die-hard Perry supporter, but every time you continue to touch on this issue, you reference Perry/Gore.  Are you shooting straight with me?

We’ve been going in circles, so I won’t read any replies.

Well, that's your choice.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks.

[DoughtyOne]

If we nominate another go-along to get-along Republican who will only maintain the status quo,...

Who is the "WE" you're refering to? Folks here on FR or the citizens of the U.S?

Republican Party members, and whoever else is allowed to enter the caucus/primary nomination selection process.

If you're talking about FR then you're just preaching to the choir. If you're talking about the country as a whole then the final result will be their decision, not yours or ours and one that has to be lived with...

FReepers are not determining who the nominee is.

The country as a whole is not determining who the nominee is.

How did living with John McCain's nomination work out for us?  Is that 'fixed' by a glib, "...not yours or ours and one that has to be lived with..." comment?

Look who we got stuck with when McShame imploded.  I don't think you want to see that happen again.

[napscoordinator]

Pogo,
She is a very conservative FREEPER and definitely not a troll. She just wants us to get rid of the liberals like Romney and Perry who are working together to ensure a Romney win. Why else who he stay in? He definitely can’t seem to buy votes. After spending the most in Iowa, he ended up on the bottom. Leave the patriotic Miss Marmelstein alone.

[VF-51vnv]

here on FR...ya got to have some thick skin sometimes.Thanks Windflier for the stand up...but sometimes ya just have to let it go for some people on here.

[Windflier]

...sometimes ya just have to let it go for some people on here.

True. Sometimes there's just no profit in escalating things in a heated discussion. Better for both parties to realize that they're moving from the analytical, into the emotional, and just let it go.

Having the courage to apologize when you're wrong, goes a long way too. I've tasted that crow many times.