Posted on 10/05/2011 10:56:30 AM PDT by johnatures
Not everyone may agree, but then again, not everyone thought Reagan would win the 1980 nomination. Let me know what you think?
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
Sorry, Ronald Reagan spoke in complete sentences...
With all due respect, are you high?
No. Just no.
Rick Perry isn’t fit to shine Reagan’s shoes.
No! Rick Perry is no Ronald Reagan.
Uhhh............NO!
Uh yeah...and I’m the Pope...
Ronald Reagan didn't finance his family vacations via “pay to play” schemes while he was governor.
Reagan was a conservative, Perry is not.
Reagan was literate, Rick Perry not so much.
Only similarities: both are former Democrats turned Republican and nice hair.
Well, they both have/had dark hair and both over 6 ft. tall.
Rick Perry = “RINO”. That’s All I Have To Say Bout That.!
Um ..... no.
No one is ever going to call Rick Perry “the great communicator”.
Here in Texas we have lots of bulls and therefore we know BS when we see it. And this a full load, maybe the hair and the boots but everything else in between, no way!
Ronald Reagan stood for what he thought right, not what he thought politically expedient.
LOL!!!
I’d hate to quote Lloyd Bentsen...
I remember when most Rs thought Reagan was too “dumb”, too “extreme”, and too gaffe prone ever to be President.
It is amazing what people forget.
Get a clue!
Reagan was a conservative.
Perry is an Al Gore Democrat who calls conservatives heartless.
Bwahaha!!!
Ha ha ha!!
Ha ha!
Rick Perry = Ronald Reagan = Bovine Scatology of the EXTREME kind!
A big barf tag would have been helpful. Perry is so far from Reagan that it is humorous that you even try to equate them together. Poor Reagan is being compared to a fraud conservative. Sad!!!!
I voted for Ronald Reagan. I campaigned for Ronald Reagan. Rick Perry is no Ronald Reagan.
Unfortunately, it looks like everyone who is going to run next year has announced. The Republican nominee is probably going to be Romney or Perry. By the time I get to vote here in Texas, the nomination will already be decided (it usually is).
I will vote for either one against 0bama (I will vote for just about anyone against 0bama), but I will have to hold my nose when I do it.
It's even more amazing how people like you can twist facts to supposedly support your brain-dead conclusions.
At the height of the screeching about how Reagan was dumb or extreme, it was still obvious to anyone who was looking that he was orders of magnitude more articulate, thoughtful, and honest than Rick Perry.
you forgot the barf alert.
The only parallel I see is that they both look at ideas broadly.
Perry’s books indicate that he has thought philosophically about some of the big issues more than his competitors.
Of course, Reagan’s writings reveal someone who was a very deep thinker. And he was able to effectively communicate his ideas.
I think you're a troll and the remainder of you time here is extremely limited.
One Texas news report titled “The Governor’s Gusher,” documents 100 wealthy donors who “have sought corporate welfare, relaxed regulatory rules or other government favors” in exchange for their political largess in Texas gubernatorial races. A disturbing number of these profiteers made a fortune off government handouts or by bending or breaking regulatory rules.
A recent bill pushed through the Texas Legislature benefited Waste Control Specialists, a company owned by #2 donor to Perry, Harold Simmons. Just days after the bill was signed into law, Simmons wrote a $100,000 check to "Americans for Rick Perry, " another of Perry's presidential PACs.
Another donor paid Perry nearly $8 million in campaign contributions and sought and received his own regulatory agency called "The Texas Residential Construction Commission" in 2003.
================================================
BACKSTORY Perry has been raising truckloads of money preparing for his presidential foray. Just the other day, Senor Ricardo released his "holdings" but he sure left OUT a LOT----like for instance, that one of his multi-million dollar "political committees" paid for M/M Perry's posh trips all over the world.
=====================================
So how many political/personal slush funds does Senor Ricky have? This is what we know to date----could be many many more.
“Texans for Rick Perry” committee is a $102 million slush fund he uses at will. Some PAC mega-donors paid in $100,000 each in order to influence Perry's official actions. Gov Perry paid for posh family trips to the Bahamas, Amsterdam, Madrid out of campaign contributions from his “Texans for Rick Perry” committee.
<><> Perry's "Make Us Great Again PAC" raised millions to flood Iowa, and other early voting states, with ads promoting their boy.
<><> At the time he was saying he WAS NOT running for president last year, Ricky's Super-Pac raised $55 million for a presidential race---in $2500 max per person/ $5000 max per corporate PAC contributions. Perry organizers would not say what the Perry presidential groups has raised to date.
Perry bragged at the Tea Party debate that he raised $33 million for reelection that year and that he was "offended" at the inference that he could be "bought" with Gardisil mfg Merck's $5000 campaign donation. Merck funneled $5,000 to Perry as down payment for the Gardisil EO, but eventually gave Perry $400,000, a move that sparked outrage across Texas and, now, the nation.
Over the years Bob Perry (no relation) and his wife have given more than $2.5 million to Rick Perry's various campaigns. Bob Perry made a $1 million contribution to the RepubGovAssoc. The RGA then cut the first of two $500,000 checks to "Texans for Perry".
Perry also has a pot of unregulated "Texas Inaugural Committee" monies (must come in handy right about now).
=========================================
The $295 million Texas Enterprise Fund doles out millions of tax dollars to Perry supporters....and gave $20 million to Countrywide Mtge---the crooks at the heart of the US financial meltdown---- the $20 million was supposed to "create jobs."
The $200 million Texas Emergency Technology Fund was created at Perry's behest in 2005 to act as a kind of public-sector venture capital firm, largely to provide funding for tech start-ups in Texas and has committed nearly $200 million tax dollars to fund 133 companies. A select few including Perry enjoy ultimate decision-making power over the fund's investments.
News reports say that some $16 million from the tech fund went to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers, and $27 million from the fund went to companies founded or advised by six advisory board members.
The tangle of interests surrounding the $200 million Texas Emergency Technology Fund, created at Perry's behest, has raised eyebrows throughout the state, especially among conservatives, who think the fund is a misplaced use of taxpayer dollars to start with.
His wife Anita Perry's $60,000-a-year salary at the Austin "nonprofit" "Texas Association Against Sexual Assault" comes indirectly from Gov. Perry's political donors, state contractors and companies that do business with the state or have issues before the Legislature. Of 37 major donors during Anita Perry's tenure as fundraiser, ONLY three have NO ties to the governor or state business. Anita Perry is paid from the "nonprofit" money pool that includes political contributions. TAAS also receives grants from state agencies AND her husband, the governor's, office. Donating to the TAASA seems to be another way Perry dreamed up for those with an interest in state government to influence Perry.
====================================
The FEC better scrutinize Perry campaign filings----some donors may have contributed to Perry and don't even know it (/snix).
How did that old saying go?
“You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”
How did that old saying go?
“You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”
Yeah, but Reagan didn’t sound dumb.
There is only 1 Reagan, and we’ll not see another.
Perry -
“I think Americans just don’t know sometimes which Mitt Romney they’re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of — against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before — he was before the social programs from the standpoint of — he was for standing up for Roe versus Wade before he was against first — Roe versus Wade? Him — he was for Race to the Top. He’s for Obamacare and now he’s against it. I mean, we’ll wait until tomorrow and — and — and see which Mitt Romney we’re really talking to tonight.”
They were wrong about Reagan but would not be about Perry. Check out the video on Perry trying to explain abstinence on youtube.com. Perry can barely string three words together.
As Joe Biden would say, “Dumb is a three letter word.” Rick Perry nods in agreement.
Get a load of this...
Get a load of this...
No facts were twisted, and I didn’t present any
“conclusions”, at least about Perry.
Perhaps you weren’t there, and so you don’t know. As a candidate in 1980 (and by the Ds in 1984), Reagan was never portrayed as “thoughtful”, “intelligent”, or “articulate”. The Rs pushing other candidates (e.g. Bush I) and the Ds insisted that he was extreme, poorly informed (e.g. a prisoner of “voodoo economics”), dull-witted, and incapable of speaking without a script. In fact, in some debate situations, Reagan was far from articulate. I know because I watched the debates.
Perhaps you also don’t know that as CA Governor Reagan signed permissive abortion legislation that resulted in hundreds of thousands of abortions. Reagan later, as President, supported a pro-life amendment. Some might call that a dishonest flip-flop, but I think that Reagan’s views genuinely changed over the years.
Reagan’s reputation has grown with time, as well it should have. Nevertheless, as a candidate, as President, and in his immediate post-presidency he was seldom credited by anyone who wasn’t a staunch supporter with the virtues we so clearly see now.
I’m glad you are well disposed toward Reagan. Yet your tagline seems to exalt Rove. Surely you know Rove has made a career of being a Bush family retainer and that the Bushes were enemies of Reagan politically and on matters of principle. The Bushes also despised Reagan because he lacked the proper social and educational pedigree.
I think it is too early to evaluate Perry as a candidate. Unlike the others (and Reagan in 1980), Perry has a real day job. Perhaps he will begin to do better with the media, or he may not. That aside, however, I know people close to Perry, and they tell me he believes what is in Fed Up. Reagan would have approved of that book.
For now, any of Cain, Palin, Perry, Santorum, Bachmann, and, in a crisis, Newt, would be fine with me.
You’ve been eating meadow muffins.
Thanks, for the history lesson. None of that is news, nor does my tagline exhalt Karl Rove. Nice try though.
It is not too early to evaluate Perry as a candidate. Maybe it is for you, but the rest of us have already looked at his record and moved on. He is unacceptable and you people who insist on pushing him are going to put us in the same place the Mittwits did in 2008.
That isn’t what they said back then. In fact, Reagan’s opponents loved to lampoon his alleged “gaffes” (e.g. “killer trees”, “ketchup is a vegetable”).
I’m sure much of it was news to you.
How nice also that you think your tagline doesn’t indicate that you have a positive view of Rove. I’m glad.
As for Perry’s record, I doubt that you actually know much about it - the good or the bad - apart from what the MSM and other campaigns have fed you.
There are no perfect R candidates. Several, however, would very likely be good Presidents. That’s why I find most of the field acceptable. On the other hand, your kind of shallow partisanship is likely to yield a Romney nomination.
Fact. Reagan did lose his first debate against Walter Mondale in 1984. Reagan recovered to have a good second debate performance stating that he would not exploit for political purposes, his opponents youth and inexperience.
Fact. Perry needs to make his own recovery in the next debate at Dartmouth on Oct 11th. We shall see.
I do see Perry as a Reagan conservative, nonetheless.
What do I think? I think I may vomit!
Please, that other personality cult already beat the Reagan analogies to death going from silly to crazy, now the Perry-dactus?? Time to move on ..
Perry’s entire campaign has been one long “hold my beer and watch this” moment.
Can anyone name the highlight of the Perry campaign? Some great triumph or bright moment?
“Hold my beer and watch this” pretty much sums up the entire campaign so far.
The only 'shallow partisanship' here is from you. It is you who doesn't seem to care if a nominee is corrupt, as long as he fits some kind of phony model of what a 'conservative Republican' is. It is you who chooses to ignore the many red flags in Rick Perry's background. And it is you who tries to drag the name of Ronald Reagan through the mud by comparing him to a bag of excrement like Rick Perry.
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.