Sarah Palin attacking Rick Perry and Mitt Romney?

What was McCains’ win - loss record. Sure didn’t seem to help him much.

I'm not even saying I like Perry, no more than I like Romney who is another one facing largely unjust attacks on his person and in part even record where things are taken out of context, misrepresented etc.

The problem here on the Freerepublic is that you have “fan-clubs” for all candidates that are very spirited. Some people feel compelled to take any trash they pick up on the web/media and use it as their proof for why one should support their candidate. You also have outright surrogates and lurkers for certain people and institutions. So, in very bad taste and form, Romney's religion is attacked, Perry is now portrayed as a "crony capitalist"... Of course these same people wouldn't appreciate their candidate attacked and if he/she were, they would defend them to the end, while the liberals and media enjoy the frenzy.

If there were at least some substance, that would be an argument, but they don't have that! They simply throw half baked crap that appeals to some feeling out there and see if people run with it. If it's a catchy phrase, best if it rhymes, that always helps.

Substance on FR? Nah. Mostly just rehashed Dem talking points these days. Pretty sad.

Oh- an editorialized blog that uses second party sources. I looked, I didn't find anything credible or meaningful. Now what?

http://michellemalkin.com/?s=perry

Tell me, specifically. What has he done to make him a “crony capitalist?”

Had Sarah run for office in Texas instead of Alaska, she would have been 9-0 in elections. Texas is about as safe as it gets for the GOP.

In the last 10 years, maybe. But in the 1990's, when Perry switch to the GOP, Dems still controlled much of the state. So your analogy is flawed. By the way, Alaska has voted GOP much more reliably than Texas.

That's because Reagan was honest and had no problem ADMITTING he had been a LIBERAL New Deal Democrat and was WRONG when he supported socialists for office.

Quite a contrast to Rick Perry and his fan club continually insisting Perry was a patriotic "conservative Southern Democrat" and so was Al Gore when they campaigned together in the 80s.

Perry, on Al Gore: “I certainly got religion,” Perry said. “I think he's gone to hell.”

Source: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rick-perrys-crony-capitalism/ Of all the conservative/libertarian criticisms of Perry that have come out so far, though, the most interesting has been the one that goes right to the heart of what is clearly his proudest achievement, Texas’s job and business creation record. Charles Dameron fired the first shot at Perry on this issue in a Wall Street Journal the day after Perry entered the race. Dameron focuses on something called the Emerging Technology Fund, which was set up by Perry in 2005 to act as a sort of public-funded venture capital firm that would invest in companies developing promising technology. That was the theory, at least, the practice has been a bit different... >p>See link. I don't want to violate TOS.

Also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html?KEYWORDS=texas+technology+fund "Rick Perry's Crony Capitalism Problem"

By the way, Perry is my Governor, and second choice for POTUS.

It's funny, SP didn't mention Perry by name, but everyone assumes that's who she's talking about. It the shoe fits...

Texas was solidly Dem before Reagan. Pretty much the same story for all of the South.

>> So your analogy is flawed. By the way, Alaska has voted GOP much more reliably than Texas. <<

Actually, your analogy is flawed because most of Perry's "elections" were non-events where he faced only token opposition. He got (barely) elected Lt. Governor on George W. Bush's coattails in '98 (had Bush not produced such a huge GOTV effort that year, it's doubtful Perry would have squeaked by with his 1% victory). He inherited the Governor's job by default when Bush stepped down in 2000 to be sworn as a President. Then, as a sitting incumbent Governor, he faced a series of weak underfunded Democrat opponents in 2002, 2006, and 2010. I think the last time Perry had a really competitive election he won on his OWN merits may have been his race for Agricultural Commissioner.

It's pretty similar to Obama's record of "successful elections" actually. On paper, he's only lost one (Democrat primary for Congress in 2000), but his "election" to the state Senate was due to him throwing the incumbent off the ballot and facing only token GOP opposition in a ultra-safe Dem district, and his "election" to the U.S. Senate was after his Republican opponent dropped out and he ran unopposed for a month until the IL GOP brought in an out-of-state opponent (Alan Keyes) at the last minute. So while you could claim Obama has a "proven record" of winning 8 or so elections, the only times his victory wasn't guaranteed might have been his 2004 primary victory over Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes for the Senate nomination, and his 2008 primary victory over Hillary for the Presidential nomination. The rest of his "elections" were non-events.

Obama and Perry about equally matched there.

Palin's path to statewide office is quite different, instead of inheriting the job with the blessing of the state political machine, she ran against and unseated a sitting Governor in her own party, then defeated the two-term ex-Governor of the Democrat party who was trying to reclaim his old job back. That's rather impressive. Had she not resigned in 2009 I think she'd be in a formidable position today ( for the record: I have not endorsed Palin for President, do not think she will run for President, and she wouldn't be my first choice if she did )

Also for the record: Alaska is pretty heavily Republican but has elected a Dem (Begich) to both the U.S. Senate and to the Governor's office (Knowles) in the past decade. How many Dems have won statewide office in Texas in that time?

>> Perry, on Al Gore: “I certainly got religion,” Perry said. “I think he's gone to hell.” <<

Well, I think Al Gore has been in hell since he first entered the national spotlight, Rick. Al Gore's career in the Senate shows me a pampered politician's kid (moreso that Bush ever was)and a demagogue liberal. From every video I've seen of Al Gore in 1988, he was no "conservative" back then. Big difference between you and the Gipper, Rick. Ronald Reagan admitted "I was part of the problem back then", he didn't claim FDR "used to be a conservative in those days" but "went to hell" after Reagan joined the GOP.

No, bloggers here mentioned Perry by name and in picture.

And again, nothing illegal, nothing unethical, nothing substantiated... Giving firms tax breaks and even start up capital that come to or invest in Texas is now “crony capitalism?”

Why is this crony capitalism, because somehow somewhere, someone knew Perry and they got money? Again, guilty of what and how? Just vague statements and accusations... I could call you all sorts of things, would that make it true? If I really didn't like you, I could create 12 web pages devoted to bashing you and reference them. Would that make it any more truthful?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Emerging_Technology_Fund

http://governor.state.tx.us/ecodev/etf

You guys don't even make sense anymore! Just sling crap around and hope someone picks up on it. This is about as ignorant as those on the liberal side that think they have an argument by saying: Bush, oil, hegemony, imperiasm, cowboy (During the Bush years). Just string some $hit together.

Do you realize you spent this entire time to dig up an article in a liberal paper that more or less says nothing other than, “it could be perceived, by some, that Perry who might have influence, could have influenced this fund in an appealed case, to appropriate funds for this start up firm run by people he may know, and this could be perceived, by some, that it's wrong.”

You guys are doing the same crap over and over and over. Referencing the same sort of junk. No facts. None. Blogs and so called news articles that venture into the realm of pure conjecture, speculation and perceptions in the complete absences of anything substantive are worthless dribble that serve the purpose of affirming “beliefs” that certain target audiences have.

You can attack Perry on his record for HPV vaccinations. Factually verifiable. You can attack him for his position on amnesty albeit he's for sealing up the border. This too is factually verifiable. There are a lot of things he said and did because he's been around for a while. The crony capitalist argument is a non-argument (so-far) because it lacks all substance. You can find anything on the web, but you should use your mind and discern trash from good analysis or factual writing.

What about when there’s been a lot of substance posted, and the general inclination here on FR flows from an accurate understanding of Perry’s politics?

Let’s not miss the fact that crony capitalism is taking down our country.

If you’re running for President, you take a strong stand against it.

If you’re running for Crony Capitalist in Chief, you pretend it isn’t there.

I don’t begrudge Gov. Perry for skirting DeMint’s confab yesterday in order to return to Texas fires.

But, especially if he doesn’t appear for the next debate, it brings back memories of John McCain suspending his campaign for president so he could play senator during the financial crisis.

Perry, on Al Gore: “I certainly got religion,” Perry said. “I think he's gone to hell.”

Gore didn't go to hell. Gore already was in hell in 1988 when Perry supported him.