Posted on 10/04/2011 7:14:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
.....Drudge's editorial decisions replace Perry's message of solid, inspirational, conservatism with an inept, flagging candidate. And while Drudge doesn't exert the broad influence over the scattered media landscape that he did over a more concentrated media five or ten years ago, he still wields immense power, ....
Drudge's relationship with Romney's campaign manager is seen by some Drudge-watchers as a kind of Rosetta Stone, but I've never thought he was quite that predictable. Perry could have emerged on the page as the larger-than-life cowboy political hero his campaign depicts. Instead, he's the bumbling, cartoon version of that character.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I’m sure I’ll get panned here on the bash Perry thread - but I think you really need to educate yourself on his objectives with regard to the in-state tuition rates.
The rates are only applicable for CHILDREN of illegals, who came to the country by no fault of their own. Kids that went to 3 years of high school (because the feds FORCE our schools to accept them) and graduated from H.S. and are taking steps to become legal citizens. They have to qualify.
Perry believes as I do, that it’s better to provide in-state rates to kids and get them on their way to citizenship, then work and pay taxes and raise their children here legally, than to allow them to live and work in the shadows of society.
In a nutshell, the kids may be the offspring of illegals - but they are NOT criminal children.
tasty in the mouth,
But in the belly feels like gravel.(to paraphrase proverbs)
LOL.
Oh that’s good... I like it *snicker*
Oh, man, I don’t know where to begin with your assertions. Wow, you really are in the tank for Perry. Now, to educate you. I am the son of a Hispanic immigrant...let me clarify, a CITIZEN of this country. I didn’t get preferential treatment BECAUSE they deemed me to be white. So, if I went to Texas, would I qualify for in-state tuition as the son of an immigrant? Doubtful.
Now, Perry calling us who opposed his weak stances on immigration as “heartless” shows me that his priorities are all messed up. I am not heartless, I just resent those who BREAK the LAW coming to this country getting more benefits than those of us who are citizens. But more to your point:
Are you saying that the illegal aliens came to this country by no fault of their own? Then HOW did they get here? Most of these students are born here anyway, but have parents who are illegal, so that defeats your assertion. Finally, why offer in-state-tuition to children based on ethnicity? The problem you have is that this is blatant favoritism to one group of people and discrimination against another. I know it is hard for you to understand, but you and Perry are both DEAD WRONG on this issue. One final thing...what if they are “on the path to citizenship ONLY to get free tuition and then back out. then what?
And no, the children are not criminals, but their parents are by BREAKING the LAWS to enter this country. No wonder Perry is imploding.
Listen Pup... I never said the illegals who bring their kids here shouldn’t be prosecuted, but the kids - well, they are kids... they are with the parents. They wind up in school, think everything is cool and may not even know they are not citizens.
You’re just a negative person.
If you live in Texas for a certain period of time... WHITE, BLACK, PINK, YELLOW OR POLKA DOT... you would be deemed a resident and therefore be eligible for In-State Tuition (which isn’t free).
I’m not in the tank for anyone but Jesus.
I am a negative person? You know nothing about me. I am one of those kids...the difference, my father did it the RIGHT way. I understand that they are just, well, kids, but you never answered the rest of my questions in the last post. See, this is interesting...your candidate calls us heartless and you call me negative. Interesting tactic used by the Perry camp; this is why your candidate is tanking in the polls. Nonetheless, you are still rewarding one specific type of group over the rest. Why is that?
...when he said heartless, he didn’t say “conservatives”.
I did not take his statement as an all encompassing sweeping statement. He’s emotional about the plight of the kids... and I am as well.
Why are you taking what he said personally? As a Christian Conservative, I believe you shouldn’t persecute the innocent. Do you think we should?
Wrong, he said that those of us who opposed his measure were heartless. Do I need to prove it? Now, you have asked me several questions which I have answered, yet you fail to answer mine. I will wait for your answers before proceeding.
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.