Skip to comments.Riehl: Is Rick Perry Done?
Posted on 09/23/2011 9:16:39 AM PDT by RobaWho
Everyone here in Palinville who looks forward to good hard competition will be relieved to know that Gov. Rick Perry was NOT drunk at last nights debate, all appearances to the contrary. Its just that before taking the stage he inexplicably chose to receive a Gardasil shot, one of whose known side effects is mental slowness.
I heard about the whole pre-debate immunization from Michele Bachmanns Twitter.I could be wrong on that. Its just the information I received.
But enough about my opinion of Perrys debate performance, lets hear Dan Riehls
(Excerpt) Read more at conservatives4palin.com ...
You may be right on the long term — BTW I enjoyed the conversation.
That's been my position all along. You'd be surprised how many Perry supporters' heads explode when they demand that I tell them who I support but I don't.
I've found Perry's position on ILLEGAL aliens completely unacceptable from day one. That he went before live television cameras and called us racists didn't help his cause but it did support my argument that he advocates for and panders to ILLEGALS.
One thing she’s got over Reagan is that she didn’t marry Nancy Davis.
“That he went before live television cameras and called us racists.....”
Completely tuirned me off of him. He might as well have worn a ripped t-shirt saying “I don’t want your vote you racist.”
As do I and in that order. I think any of the three could defeat Barry.
I enjoyed it as well, good day.
We've been called racists by the left for not supporting Obama. Now we're being called racists by Perry for not 'having a heart' when it comes to spending scarce tax dollars on ILLEGAL aliens.
I, and others have been working hard at FR to expose Perry for the fraud that he is but we could never have done it as well as he did last night.
I have been wondering for a while now - exactly WHAT is Palin going to do if she wins? That is assuming that she even bothers to enter the race.
I hear a lot of here’s what’s wrong, but I don’t hear any here’s what I’m going to do about it.
“We need to” is as empty a suit as “hope and change”.
Did you, by chance, happen to use reason, research, wisdom or common sense to think this “Quitter” issue through?
How exactly was a non-millionaire, chief family breadwinner, one married to a union oil field worker and Mom with 5 children, supposed to personally pay out millions (she didn’t have) in legal fees to defend herself against 17 (and counting) frivolous, George Soros inspired lawsuits (of which none ultimately prevailed), and effectively serve the interests of her state? By AK constitutional statute, and ONLY because of the strongest ethics reform laws of any state in the nation (ones that SHE ushered into law during his first year in office), not one single tax payer dollar could be used to pay any legal fees arising from these spurious, endless, politically motivated law suits.
Gov. Palin took the path of honor and valour, putting the needs and best interests of her state and family, foremost. She had few resources other than her work ethic to fall back on, no guaranteed job waiting awaiting her, yet she willingly took the selfless path in order to advance and protect the interests of the people she most cared for.
Perhaps, if she had George Soros type crony crooks supporting her, she could have operated like Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Are you suggesting Bill Clinton took the correct approach by not resigning, clinging to power, dragging our entire nation & the world through vile partisanship and gridlock, while lying though his teeth in order to retain his office at any cost, using the media as useful idiots to fight his battles for him, all the while turning the office of Presidency into a punch line for comedians?
The governing, moral principle you choose to ignore is this: Gov. Palin had truth and honor on her side, yet she took the selfless, honorable path and put the best interests of her state’s citizens, employees and families, first.
Bill (and Hillary) Clinton, had only lies and deceit on his side, yet he took the low path of character assassination by use of ruthless, pit-bull lawyers to preserve his lust for political power - and the hell with decency, honor or respect for his family, our nation or the prestige of the Presidency - he cared only for what was in his personal best interest.
Adversity doesn’t destroy one’s character, it reveals it.
Governor Palin retains the moral strength, courage, honor and high respect we hold for her today in part because she resigned, not in spite of it.
Thank you, Governor Palin. We proudly stand ready to help you restore our great nation to that “shining city on a hill’ we long for.
1) Knock off the profanity
2) Lose the tagline, a lot of folks on FR don’t like that term used in that manner.
Palin is my first, second, and third choice for Republican nominee for President, but as long as she doesn’t announce, I’ve had to look at the other candidates.
I had been edging towards Perry until I saw his performance last night. Apart from the overt gaffes and controversial statements he did make, I thought he was just stunningly inarticulate.
I’ve always liked what Cain says (although sometimes I wonder about how he says it). But the rest of the field is so mediocre and uninspiring that they’re managing to make Newt (the guy who sat on the couch with Pelosi) look like a viable candidate.
I sat there watching the debate, thinking “this is the best the Republicans can do?”
Until and unless Palin throws her hat in the ring, the answer to that question, God help us, is “yes.”
I’d vote for any of them over Obama, but the only Republican out there I really *want* to vote for is Palin.
Newt and Romney did the best and made Perry look bad by comparison. Still, maybe Perry still has an outside chance. McCain also was awful in debates. But, IMHO, the cards were stacked for him to win the nomination to assure a Democrat would win.
Perry damn well knows he’s done. Between calling patriots heartless, and the revelation that he has refused to withdraw his pro-choice position from the 2002 gubnatorial campaign, what can he have left to run on?
We don’t need two Romneys, in fact we don’t need one.
Perry would guarantee an Obama win.
He has no issues on which to articulate differences with Obama.
They’re both Pr0-Choice.
They’re both pro illegal immigration
They’re both pro big government.
They’re both pro vaccination tyranny.
They both refuse to sign the national gun rights pledge.
Palin has a strong record as governor, while Perry has a very weak record as governor.
We need Palin’s strength, and determination to root out the big gov corruption that Perry seems complacent on.
>> “As Mark Steyn says he is sick of Perry using demorat talking points.” <<
Amen, and it was great hearing Mark call Perry out on his Pro-Choice position.
Who is Riehl? Are we supposed to care? Let me guess, he’s a *blogger*,
>> “Sarah Palin, so far, has failed to best Rick Perry in the all-important “Who has declared themselves a candidate” category.” <<
And that has proven to be a wise strategy.
She has allowed the RINO fools to hack themselves to pulp, while she is spick and span.
The doofuses need maybe another two weeks of self anhillation and the stage will be perfect for the real candidates to step up (in both parties).
>> “The Republic is in danger and you want the top candidates to drop out?” <<
They are not top candidates; they’re the candidates that the Mediots have pushed on us; CHAFF!
They both have soft liberal positions on all the traditional GOP issues.
HEAR HEAR !!! This is that one election that comes around every other generation where the Republican candidate is guaranteed to win. Knowing that, we should take advantage of it and nominate a true conservative. Let's not blow it by nominating a Rick Perry simply because he happens to be from Texas.
If you support another ACTUAL real candidate, fine.
All the candidates are putting themselves out there and all of them are a darn sight better than obama.
I’m just telling you that no matter who is the front-runner, no matter who is nominated, someone on FR will call that candidate a RINO establishment hack.
“Now is a time for leadership, not echos.”
It’s ALWAYS the ‘time for leadership’ and of course a strategy of ‘do nothing different’ is bad.
BUT, you have not stated (a) who would lead (b) what the leadership strategy is (C) what that ‘different’ thing IS. Without concreteness, you are spouting vapid contentless rhetoric.
I would argue that you have folks running NOW who can answer a, b and c. Herman Cain for one. If you have any better answer, lets hear it.
Unless and until you get SPECIFIC, you are just spouting platitudes of little usefulness.
“If people havent seen Undefeated on Pay per View will be at Walmart soon on DVD they shouldnt make comments about Palin.”
By that logic ....
If people havent read “Fed Up” they shouldnt make comments about Perry.
If people havent read “No Apologies” they shouldnt make comments about Romney.
The Fed didnt call anyones bluff.
The Fed has been derilict in their duty to protect the border. Case closed.
“just that the 999 plan has zero chance and isnt well thought out. Anyone earning less than 50k a year would take it in the shorts.”
Actually, it is very well thought it. It fixes the massive issues and problems of the FAIR tax while moving us more towards consumption taxes. the FAIR tax, to get progressive, required a massive rebate scheme that is ripe for all sorts of mischief. And the rate was too damned high to be viable.
The answer is to split the difference.
Since it replaces both the income AND FICA, your assumption about the under 50K crowd is incorrect. More precisely, govt dependents and people who get welfare will pay into the tax based via the consumption tax. They are the only ones. for the working class eliminating FICA balances out that cost.
That all said, the Dems would demagogue the low rate onthe rich anyway. We do need a fix, and this would make our economy hugely more competitive.
“a state that has less population than many of the counties I have lived in.” This is such a red herring. Like the population is somehow important.”
Duh, it IS important. It’s a measure of the complexity of issues that a leader has to deal with. grizzly bears dont cut it. Palin has dealt with TWO budget cycles in a state smaller in population than the county I live in, with a budget probably not much bigger than LA county.
“Alaska is a geographical marvel.”
Great, but irrelevent to Palin’s experience level.
If you dont think most folks will be unimpressed with that experience, quitting as gov after 2 years, well, check the polls.
“Newt who flat out said zero is a socialist”
Newt nailed it.
Newt’s brain, Perry’s experience, Romney’s executive look & suit, Cain’s freshness, Bachmann’s passion, ...
gotta get it in one candidate tho...
“How exactly was a non-millionaire, chief family breadwinner, one married to a union oil field worker and Mom with 5 children, supposed to personally pay out millions (she didnt have) in legal fees”
The way other folks have done it is through a legal defense fund. Palin has a lot of supporters who would have contributed to that.
According to Rick Perry's OWN intrepretion of the 10th amendment (not MY interpretation, by the way), the 10th amendment stands for "States Rights", and the federal government has NO say over anything NOT directly referenced in the Constitution, instead we should "send it back to the states" to deal with and completely wash our hands out of it.
"Protect the border" is NOT listed as a federal responsibility in the constitution (yes, it does say the feds shall "protect states against invasion", but it also says feds shall ensure that NO person is "deprived of life" and that hasn't stopped the "States Rights!!!" crowd from insisting the feds can do nothing to regulate abortion, whereas states can legalize abortion for any and all circumstances)
Going by Perry's own logic then, "states rights" means its the responsibility of the Texas government to secure the border, not the Feds.
As Rick says, you either believe in "states rights" or you don't. He seems to think states have the "right" to do ANYTHING they want aside from securing their own border. He can't have it both ways.
Cute argument, but you can’t be taken seriously when you say ...
“”Protect the border” is NOT listed as a federal responsibility in the constitution”
‘provide for the common defense’ surely includes our boundaries and borders!
in fact, in a speech, Rick Perry himself stated that as one responsibility of the Federal Government.
your argument reminds me of those liberals who think ‘conservative small government’ equates to Somalia. Cute misdirection.
Amen! Awesome post. Thanks.
Guess that's why Perry backtracked on his comments that NY state legalizing gay marriage is "fine"
Perry fans don't seem too happy when Perry's defition of "states rights" to applied to other situations.
The Feds have been suing AZ for the last 10 years?? Geez, I didn’t know that!
Furthermore his stance on illegals (with the exception of tuition) is the same as Sarah Palin's.
I swear I remember seeing you on threads where Palin was being raked over the coals. I don't recall hearing you complain about that.
Huh? Palin already beats Perry hands down in every one of those categories. What's she gonna do - slam it in reverse?
Perry was on the Hannity show today, and doubled down on what he said about in state tuition for the children of illegals.
This, after the enormous embarrassment of last night.
He truly does not 'get it'.
Reagan was a great man, but he was a man. Not a god. I think he'd be the first to ask us to not treat him that way.
The comparisons that some have made between Palin and Reagan are entirely apt. They share a great many personality traits, and the track of their lives and accomplishments are on the same vector.
Palin is also completely candid about the fact that she has purposely followed in his footsteps. It shouldn't surprise anyone that she does and says things reminiscent of that great man.
Her nearly unprecedented popularity with the public is a strong indicator that she's learned well from her mentor.
Feds have been doing nothing in the past 10 yrs..bet you knew that
“Her nearly unprecedented popularity with the public...”
You had a semi-good rant going there until this...yikes.
You had a semi-good rant going there until this...yikes.
Name anyone who can draw a larger, more enthusiastic audience than Sarah Palin, or who has/had a coast to coast ground team of volunteers already organized prior to their entry into the primary?
Since we're only discussing popularity here, which of the declared candidates has sold more copies of a single book than she has? Which of them is so popular, that they were offered their own mini series on television? Who among them was more highly sought after for their endorsement during the 2010 midterms? Care to compare Sarah's Google hits to any other Republican politician currently running? How about number of Facebook fans? According to CafePress, Palin's gear outsells the rest of the field, combined (I've got the chart if you want to see it).
Few things about Palin are as unquestionable, as her popularity.
That’s a different slant. I agree. She’s a big celebrity. Lady Gaga has 43 million Facebook fans. Michelle Obama has 6 million. People love ‘em !
I thought you mean popular as a politician. My mistake.
Are you always such a snarky sourpuss? You know full well that I was drawing comparisons between Palin's popularity, and that of the declared candidates, because you more or less challenged me to.
You cocked your eyebrow when I said that Palin has a nearly unprecedented level of popularity with the public. I proved that she does. Now rebut what I said, or stand corrected.
Most everyone has been turning a blind eye for well over 10 years. At least Arizona is willing to step up to the plate and take it on the chin from the Feds.
States do define marriage law, that’s why saving traditional marriage has been a state-by-state battle.
If your point is that it was boneheaded for Perry say its ‘fine’ for New York to pass gay marriage - when he is opposed to gay marriage - agreed, but New York and all states indeed have the right to (re)define marriage in law.