Same here.
After stumbling performances in the first two debates and his appalling "heartless" answer in the third, my wife and I simultaneously turned to each other and said, "He's toast!".
We thought at first Perry was the seasoned, tough conservative governor who could knock Romney and Obama off and have enough vision and drive to dismantle the Liberal juggernaut and steer America back onto course again. He has become a huge disappointment.
We are sorry about how this is turning out. We had such high hopes for him but if he is wrong on illegal immigration, he won't fix those problems - and they are among our worst. He has done a lot of good work on the Texas border with what he has, but now he is hugely suspect in our minds concerning his overall end game.
He has nearly blown his chances with conservatives who had such high hopes for him. If he doesn't right his ship, pronto, he will go down with it for sure. Sad.
Immigration is a federal responsibility and Obama has done nothing. If you are talking about the instate tuition, then it was passed by a veto proof majority. (only 4 NO votes) The bill was passed in 2001 and the students must apply for citizenship and pay their own tuition. They get no financial aid of any kind. There are lots of legal hispanics in TX. The legislature would NOT have passed this bill without high majority support in their districts. This bill was tuition only and not for amnesty. This is strictly a state issue. I will point out that there are a number of other states with this type of situation and several have Republican Governors. Now, I don’t know what you expect him to do to fix “immigration” It is a federal responsibility. TX uses e-verify, just passed voter ID bill, and TX catches illegals and ICE turns them loose. Blame Obama if you want to blame someone. I am from TX, so know the situation there very well.
After stumbling performances in the first two debates and his appalling "heartless" answer in the third, my wife and I simultaneously turned to each other and said, "He's toast!".
Well then gather the family lap dog and cuddle in your luxury townhouse and tremble over a cup of Starbucks frozen coffee. Because Mitt Romney is your guy.
Tough Texans that like to hunt and support the 2nd amendment and drink beer and watch the NFL support Rick Perry and always did.
After stumbling performances in the first two debates and his appalling "heartless" answer in the third, my wife and I simultaneously turned to each other and said, "He's toast!". We thought at first Perry was the seasoned, tough conservative governor who could knock Romney and Obama off and have enough vision and drive to dismantle the Liberal juggernaut and steer America back onto course again. He has become a huge disappointment. .... Gritty
As I have posted on other threads, Perry became soft and lazy in regards to campaign preparations while Governor of Texas. His opponents were too weak, he did not have to try very hard to get reelected and he even blew off debates altogether leaving his opponents to debate without him. Yet, he still got reelected.
Perry was still lazy in the Presidential campaign, probably overconfident with his lead in the polls, and I read that he had declined to engage in any special debate prep before the last debate or, more accurately, the latest "30 Second Sound Bite & Gotcha Contest".
In the last debate, it was all "Attack Perry!, Attack Perry!" and the unprepared Perry faltered. He uttered "heartless" so, "He's toast!".
So, the slick talker, Mitt Romney has risen to the top of the polls.
But, what about the new conservative darling, Cain?
As Sarah said in her Greta interview, the media puffs a particular candidate up only to set him up to shoot him down later. Now that Cain is on the radar screen, he will be the next target. Imagine how Cain would do if he were under constant attack and he were held to the unforgiving standards that Perry was held to. "He said heartless. He's toast!"
It seems that many FReepers feel very strongly about the "gay soldier" debate episode:
Obama rebukes GOP candidates for not speaking up for gay soldier
Many FReepers really let Obama have it on that thread.
Well, guess who thinks Obama was right and you were wrong:
Cain Agrees With Obama on Gay Soldier's Booing
In the article, Cain says that "Well, the thing that’s being overlooked is that, in the heat of a debate, when you have exactly 60 seconds to answer any question" and that he "should have responded to the booing, particularly if it was directed toward someone serving the country."
I am not arguing for or against the "gay soldier" incident. What I am pointing out is that, if Perry had said ANYTHING, "in the heat of a debate, when you have exactly 60 seconds to answer any question" against the booing, Perry would have been ripped apart as "pro-homosexual agenda" by those who are looking for any excuse and every excuse to rip him apart.
Perry, as someone that has actually governed for 11 years, actually HAS a record. Due to his lazy campaign prep, he has been very inarticulate in defending it. (He needs to change that or die politically in the race.)
Cain, on the other hand, has NO record and campaigns on the basis of attacks and pandering: Whatever Cain thinks that people want to hear, that is what he says.
If a hunting camp had a racist name before Perry was born and Perry's father painted over that name on a rock years ago after leasing it, if the Race Card is what Cain thinks that people want hear, the Race Card is thrown out by Cain:
Cain: Name of Perry's Hunting Camp 'Insulting' to Blacks
What about "hard issues"?
Cain throws out pro-Israel tough talk because conservatives want to hear it Cain but had not even studied the subject deeply enough to know what "Palestinian right of return" meant.(The "Palestinian right of return" is a term used by the Palestinians to signify the long-held Palestinian demand that ALL DESCENDENTS of 1948 Palestinians had a right to return to Israel which, of course, would mean the automatic death of Israel. That "Poison Pill" has been around for decades.)
Yet, although crucial to understanding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the uniformed Cain first heard the term in a FOX News interview:
After being told it was about Palestinians returning, still clueless about the long and complex history of that Palestinian position, Cain declared he was "for it".
Cain is all red meat and no substance.
VIDEO: Herman Cain thinks Palestinians entitled to right of return
The winner in all this has been Mitt Romney.
Maybe that was the Romney/Cain game plan all along.
======================================
Herman Cain in 2011
======================================
Herman Cain in 2008
Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,
By HERMAN CAIN
Published on: 02/03/08
The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.
My vote is for Mitt Romney.
History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.
Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.
That's what leaders do.
Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.
Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.
On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.
He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts — a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.
That's not leadership.
I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.
Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.
Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.
This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.
Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.
But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.