It’s called vetting the candidate. It’s been referred to often by those who criticize Perry, and it’s said to be a legitimate exercise.
Obviously if there is anything in this article that is factually inaccurate, it should be factually refuted.
And that’s how we learn about our candidates.
Vetting - not sure you mean what you seem to be saying..
To the MSM - it means finding out everything negative that they can find out about a Republican candidate.
For Democrats - means finding out everything positive that they can find about the candidate.
Now let’s see - the MSM finds negative things about the conservative candidate but reports positively about the Democratic candidate...hmmm, seem like good news to me...
Well, you can take you vetting by the media and shove it up your throat!
True.
But when a Perry poster (I'll stand up to testify) posts an article with facts, it is assailed in the most blatantly disruptive manner. Details are meaningless and truth is turned on its head. Personal insults stand in for rebuttal or discussion of a candidate running for the GOP primary.
While alternatively what in years past were considered "crimes" of character or unwritten truths that someone must sign pledges, are now just fine and excused while a proven record of success is attacked and misrepresented as "evil."
There is no debating facts and records, there is only kill the messenger and "raise up" your candidate by tearing down someone else with lies. If you have to do that for your candidate, they are in big trouble.
The pack mentality is alive and well and American exceptionalism is fading fast.
Nothing here that disqualifies Cain at all...plenty that does with Perry..not supporting e-verify and supporting magnets that attract more illegals to his state...forget about it! He is done.