by Jack Lee
Rick Perry entered the race a little late and of the existing candidates for president, he was probably the least known, but on the surface he looked good! A governor of a state that was creating jobs, their budget was in order. Perry was hailed as, a rock solid conservative. He was the kind of fiscally frugal guy the Tea Party had been waiting for and his popularity soared, long before the first debate. But, these presidential debates have been very informative, and its put a few chinks in Perry’s armor.
Last night in the Florida debate the conservatives were exposed to a side of Gov. Rick Perry they had not known or seen before and it came as a shock. He’s worse than George Bush or even Meg Whitman when it comes to illegals and a secure border. Both Whitman and Bush drew heavy criticism from the right on their illegal immigration policies or lack thereof. Turns out that Perry has a whole different take on immigration policy than most of us.
Let’s take a look at what has conservatives upset and wondering now about this Texas Governor: Perry once supported a bill that would have co-mingled Texas health insurance with Mexican health insurance. Kinda makes Romney-care look like small stuff when compared to a Tex-Mexcare. Perry was also in opposition to Arizona’s crackdown on illegal alien which the Obama administration opposed calling it unconstitutional – it wasn’t. Polling showed that well over 70% of Americans thought AZ was doing the right thing. Eventually Perry conceded that Arizona had the right to pass a law to enforce illegal immigration, but he doesn’t want that stuff in Texas. Given the population makeup in Texas I can understand why.
On “E-Verify,” Perry joins with his Texas business supporters who want and need the cheap labor. Liberals, and businesses that exploit illegal labor, have attacked E-Verify as unreliable, discriminatory, and it could threaten their profit margins, even though the rest of America pays dearly for this so-called cheap labor in many ways, such as education, crime, court and prison costs and welfare.
Perry was never a big supporter of a border fence; his side sees it more like the old Berlin Wall. This makes his position on the border more compatible with the far left than even AZ moderate John McCain’s. However, Perry is in favor of stopping drug smuggling and using the military to do it, if necessary. He just doesn’t think the “fence” concept was a good idea. One of his favorite quotes is, “It’s only good for the ladder business.”
Now this brings us up to his defense of a Texas bill that would have given taxpayer funded access to college for illegal aliens. This is a deal breaker for those who strongly oppose benefits for illegals because they say it’s rewarding law breakers, its an invitation for more illegal immigration and perhaps worse, it’s also a big step toward another amnesty program.
I wonder, is Perry just another politician saying what he thinks will get him votes or does he really believe this baloney? There are many campaign managers that think the Hispanic vote is necessary to elect a president and Perry is definitely saying what they want to hear. But, is this right for the nation?
Will we once again be faced with electing someone who is the lesser of two evils? As in, anybody but Obama? Gingrich, Santorum, Bachman, Huntsman and Paul, all gained a little in the last debate as Perry dropped sharply.
until last night Perry had my vote today I am looking and listening for the candidate to give my vote to. thanks Fox for this debate.
Frank, you’re not alone. Rick Perry died in the eyes of a many voters last night.
The problem with rejecting Perry because he is less than perfect is that then we are left with Romney. The Democrats would be very happy with Romney as the nominee, because Obama’s strategists have a secret weapon, call it the nuclear option, that they are waiting to unleash about 3 weeks before the general election, and that weapon will immediately render Romney unelectable.
Four more years of Obama. How would you like that, Jack?
Agree, we’re going to have four more years of B.O. Wasn’t sure about Perry before last night and now I’m sure he won’t get my vote.
Our only hope is to take both houses of congress and get Christie to run in 2016. Hopefully, there will still be something left of our country to salvage in 2016.
Re:”Will we once again be faced with electing someone who is the lesser of two evils?”
Sadly, that may be the case. At first I thought he had something going until I examined him closer. For me Perry is out for exactly the same reasons you just outlined.
I hate to say it, but if this country is going to go to straight to hell, I’d rather it be a Rat than a Republican that does it.
The very last thing the Republican party needs is another RINO in office.
If Perry is the Republican party, then why is there a Republican party?
Herman Cain is still my favorite.
Why voters think we will ever get a person to lead this country that meets all the criteria of everyone in a ideology. We are fortunate that we do have some strong GOP candidates running, and even the ones that are not considered strong in the polls have expressed better thoughts about Americas needs and direction than Obama. Also they are better vetted and backgrounds more clearly defined than Obama’s guarded past may ever be!
Lets start to realize that whom ever WE select as our candidate will be a better and more responsible individual than Obama would ever be toward our Constitutional rights and placing the needs of America first. The best WE can do is select a person of value that has expressed themselves in a clear and concise manner so we know what to expect, and not experiment with a failed European policy’s thrust at (or Up your choice) our personage as a model of HOPELESS Change.
We have gotten so caught up in ‘one size fits all’ type of politics we forget that the discussion and blending of thoughts are first and foremost the keys to success prior to being implemented, verse the current ‘insertion first’ than figure out why the pain later type of ‘trial and mostly ERROR of this lacking Administration
Along these lines, most people think we should vote for the most conservative person who is also most electable. Sounds pretty good, especially if they can replace Obama. And if we stopped right there it would be good enough.
Question: If the candidate who is most electable agrees with you on 7 out of 10 issues, but he lies when it suits his purpose, do we hold our nose and vote for him as the supreme leader for the GOP and conservatives? We may have to face that possibility. Then what do we do?
“Guarded past”? Obama’s past is well documented and an open book: bright boy, lawyer, law professor, senator and president.
You want to do some reading, and a lot’s been written lately, about certain segments of our population, and their absolute inability to concede the man his position in our society.
As for Perry, you may have to accept the fact that virtually no one (of any consequence) expouses your position on immigration.
Re Cretin Colgan:
NO!
PISTACHIOS!
FLOOR JACK!
RUBBER BOOTS!
EXCLAMATION POINT!
Jack I hope you did not get the impression I was saying said what you put into that scenario about 7 out of 10 and ignoring the lies.If my comment about ‘The best WE can do is select a person of value that has expressed themselves in a clear and concise manner so we know what to expect’ was misunderstood as holding one nose, no that is not what I mean. Hype and Lies is what got us in this mess to begin with. what I meant by my comment was, If Perry supports most of my requirements in a leader, but feels differently about one fraction of a larger issue, I have to weight that with my final voting decision. my vote would be based on I would understand him clearly and appreciate his honesty, even though I know that one facet would be a disagreement of positions. however if he is just stumping to garner a voting block, and I realize it through his past position and actions, he loses my support, period. However at this point I still believe All the GOP candidates would be better for this country than Obama.
As To Libby’s comment, I am not the great mind reader ‘Karmack’ I haven’t the ability to see through heavly redacted or missing transcripts and then try to convince someone it is a open book of information, I wish I had that ability, it sure would be a benefit in unraveling Obamas past.
No not at all Harold, I was agreeing with you and adding a little PS trailer to carry this to the next logical step. The short form you laid out for us is right. We should vote for the person who most reflects our values and what I said about, scoring 7 out of 10 ain’t bad for a candidate! That’s true, I would vote for that candidate.
We shouldn’t let a desire for perfect get in the way of close enough!
However, there are some moral issues that should be a deal kill. That is not to say we should be single issue voters, that’s a little different. What I’m talking about is some moral concept everyone pretty much agrees as reasonable.
The right to life group has been shooting themselves and the rest of us in the foot for years and its really hurt our progress. We could have won a lot of close elections and advanced conservative values if the right to lifers would have supported good fiscal conservatives that may have been a little left of their perfect idealism on this one subject.
So yeah, we still agree…I guess I was just trying to making it more complicated than necessary! lol
Gotcha Pie – thanks. lol Q must have a love thing for Palin, he sure gets worked up over her easy.
Quentin my old friend…. Perry is definitely not a liberal! lol Okay, he may be soft on illegals, but he’s scored far more conservative points to earn his place on the right. Although his support for Al Gore and illegals has cost him. But, we shall just have to wait and see as more truth comes out in these debates. I’m really enjoying them how bout you?
Soaps said….Four more years of Obama. How would you like that, Jack?
Reply: I wouldn’t. I’m willing to be flexible to a point. 6/10 agreements on the issues will get my vote, unless they lie, then 10 for 10 won’t get it.
I wish we could require candidates for the presidency to take a lie detector test and answer 3 basic questions:
Have you lied or cheated or committed a criminal offense to get elected to public office or promoted in business?
Do you believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Will you defend your country against all aggressors, both foreign and domestic?
This article pretty much sums up the main problem with the current Republican party. You have moved so far to the right that now anyone left of Sarah Palin on any issue is now called a “RINO.” You seem to see it as a drawback for a Republican candidate to voice positions which most people view as moderate.
I wonder if you’ve learned the wrong lessons from the 2008 election. John McCain didn’t lose because he was a RINO. In fact, was looking pretty good to a lot of people at first. He had a longer record than Barack Obama and presented himself as a moderate. (This trait is a feature for most people, not a bug.)
But then he selected his running mate, Sarah Palin, aka the Alaskan Albatross. If John McCain lived in Moderateville, then Sarah Palin was the Queen of Rightopia. Maybe McCain was trying to get away from his reputation as a RINO by selecting a running mate who would appeal more to the far right, but this was a big mistake because the far right isn’t a large enough voting base to decide an election. Palin completely stole the spotlight from him, and while she made a lot of fans she probably alienated a lot more people. And I believe she cost Republicans the White House.
I still think your best bet would be Romney. Some say he’s “boring” but I actually find him pretty likeable, especially compared to the rest of the lot. Despite this article, I think Perry still seems too far to the right for a lot of people. Or you could nominate Bachmann or Cain, either one of which would basically be Palin 2.0–ideological conservatives will love them, everyone else will be terrified of the idea of such a moron having their finger on the button. Neither of these two dummies has a chance in hell.
Romney, though, can appeal to a much broader base of people, and isn’t that what you should look for in a candidate for the leader of our country? At the very least, Romney doesn’t have the same history of overt bigotry that Bachmann and Cain do, nor their constitutional illiteracy.
Too funny. An extreme left wing ideologue presumes to give advice to conservatives based upon a distorted and extremely narrow view of politics and recent history.
Gee, thanks so much. We have been so very properly chastised!
Franky, I don’t put much faith nor credence in a person who calls people he does not care much for morons. Such discussion is always so enlightening and elevating, no?
Snore. The left is lowering the bar again. It is part and parcel of who they are. It is what the left is all about.
Like anyone needed another example.
Pie Guevara: “An extreme left wing ideologue”
Who now? Honestly, Pie, if you think I’m an “extreme left wing ideologue” then you really don’t know me, nor do you know much about mainstream America in general.
“presumes to give advice to conservatives based upon a distorted and extremely narrow view of politics and recent history.”
What did I say that was “distorted” or “narrow?” If you’re going to make judgments like this about me, all I ask is that you back them up with something.
Speaking of backing up your statements, I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence for a very strange claim you made a while back. You stated twice that the two union members accused of beating Kenneth Gladney admitted to doing so in open court. Twice I asked you to inform me where you got this information from, but you never responded to my requests. I have searched far and wide and I haven’t found this reported anywhere else, not even on sites that were in strong support of Gladney. If your claim is true than I will have to admit that you were right about this case, and that I was wrong to say that Gladney was not the victim of a beating. But since, as far as I’ve seen, no one other than you has claimed that the union members ever admitted to beating Gladney–and since this claim defies all logic, given that it would have ensured a guilty verdict–your claim seems to be a lie. Still, I don’t think it’s a lie you just made it up on the spot; I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you heard it somewhere and didn’t bother to verify it or give any thought to what the logical implications would be, because that’s how the right-wing rumor mill works these days. So I’d like to know exactly where you heard this bit of false information.
“Franky, I don’t put much faith nor credence in a person who calls people he does not care much for morons. Such discussion is always so enlightening and elevating, no?”
I don’t call certain people morons because I don’t care much for them. I call them morons because they have a consistent habit of being wrong on very simple facts, and they don’t seem to ever try to do anything to rectify this character flaw. When you constantly say things to the public that are obviously false, and you never admit it or make any effort to educate yourself so that you don’t do so again in the future, then you’re either a moron, a liar, or both. I think Bachmann and Cain fall into the “both” category.
And given the things you’ve called me and others before on this blog, I don’t think you have much room to talk. If you’re going to say I’m not credible because I called someone a moron, then you’re not credible either.
I heard the funniest thing on the radio just now: Sean Hannity accused Ann Coulter of “talking like a liberal” because she didn’t have a problem with Chris Christie appointing a Muslim judge. Coulter shot back, “You’re acting like a liberal by talking over me!” (Or something to that effect, I don’t have the exact quote.)
This kind of thing is EXACTLY what I was talking about the other day. Republicans have now moved so far to the right that now Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are accusing each other of acting like liberals. Conservatives have constructed this ideal Republican candidate that no real human being can possibly live up to. Perry isn’t harsh enough on illegal immigrants, apparently Christie isn’t harsh enough on Muslims…hell, even Reagan wouldn’t be considered good enough these days given the fact that he raised taxes a few times. There is no one who is far right enough to satisfy some people; every candidate has had to take a moderate position at some point, and it seems that in this race that’s considered having a skeleton in the closet. This only leads to a bunch of inter-party sniping, like Gate getting on Jack’s case for not being sufficiently deferential to Sarah Palin the other day. If you guys keep this up, us liberals don’t have to do much to stop you; your party is just going to devour itself from the inside out.
“Hannity accused Ann Coulter of ‘talking like a liberal’ because she didn’t have a problem with Chris Christie appointing a Muslim judge.”
Can I be excused for thinking that the GOP implosion is imminent? Or maybe derided for thinking that the doings of Hannity/Coulter have anything to do with anything at all?
Libby: “Or maybe derided for thinking that the doings of Hannity/Coulter have anything to do with anything at all?”
Unfortunately, these two have a whole lot to do with the current state of the Republican party. Many Republicans, to their credit, are ashamed of this fact. Unfortunately, many more have no problem with people like Coulter and Hannity being the mouthpieces for their movement. We’ve seen bloggers on this very site defend the history of bigotry and lies from these two. Sometimes they’ve gone to extreme lengths to do so, leading to comical moments such as Tina claiming that it isn’t racist to tell Arab Muslims to take a flying carpet or a camel instead of traveling by air. (Spoiler alert: That’s totally racist!)
Coulter also said a couple weeks ago that kindergarten teachers are “useless.” Because her job as professional hatemonger has contributed so much more to America…but I don’t want to go on too much of a tangent here.
Quentin: “Do you ever get the idea that guys like Pie will never give their ‘proof,’ or back upbanything they say? You were expecting Pie to treat others as he is treated, or at least be consistent?”
I no longer harbor anything so grand as expectations, only the tiniest of hopes.
“Coulter also said a couple weeks ago that kindergarten teachers are ‘useless’.”
Coulter, Palin, Bachmann … ignoramuses nonpareil … and doing unconscionable damage to the feminist cause.
But we’ll get past it.
Kindergarten is not useless. We agree there. It’s really helpful to get a child started in the right direction. I would like to see them in pre-school by 5.