Skip to comments.Perry mixes up the dates of the Revolutionary War
Posted on 10/12/2011 6:54:59 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Rick Perry's troubles weren't limited to the debate floor on Tuesday night.
After the Washington Post/Bloomberg forum, the Texas governor made an appearance at a Dartmouth College fraternity house, where he appeared to mix up the dates of the Revolutionary War.
The gaffe occurred when Perry was asked about states' rights during a question-and-answer session at Dartmouth's Beta Theta Pi fraternity.
"Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom," Perry said, per ABC's Arlette Saenz. "As a matter of fact they were very much afraid if that because they'd just had this experience with this far-away government that had centralized thought process and planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away from that kind of onerous crown if you will."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Is there any audio or video evidence? I can already tell that the line in the article is not transcribed correctly, where the word “if” is written instead of “of” (o and i are right next to each other.)
So is there any proof that he actually said it, and it wasnt misheard or the writer just made it up? And shouldnt someone make sure their writing is flawless before they cast judgement on someone else’s (supposed) mis-statement.
But it is interesting, having read the dabte thread last night, that Perry looked to have a good night, with good answers; and now all of the people who didnt like him to begin with are trying to say he had a bad debate or bring up something stupid like this.
Pretty goofy 'trick', I know, but I can always immediately recall the 'century' in which a given date occurred.
YEAH and CAIN thinks his
economic mental giant Rich Lowrie has moved to Texas.
But hey that apparently happen in the last two weeks. cain can’t remember where his econ advisor lives. Oh that’s ok. Cainiacs don’t care.
I want to see a Post/Thread on Ron Paul’s “eyebrow malfunction”. It was the most entertaining thing in last night’s debate.
I don't get it. The guy's a good Christian, a family man and faithful husband. He's pro-life, pro-second amendment, a strong advocate for smaller governemnt. He's actually very tough on the border and realizes that we're just spinning our wheels trying to deal with illegals who are already here until we secure the border. He's the only Governor to take on TSA and the EPA. And yet many, many Freepers call him a RINO! It drives me crazy.
“Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom,”
Purists might quibble that at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787, the U.S. capital was Philadelphia. While the Constitution alludes to a “District” that would become the new capital, no one knew its location or name until 1791.
But this misses Perry’s larger, quite correct, point: the Founders never envisioned the central government/national capital being the fount of all wisdom. Apart from the hypocrisy of the MSM’s ignoring equivalent, much larger gaffes on Obama’s part (most 1st graders know there aren’t 57 states), this kind of nitpicking betrays the pointed lack of interest by MSM reporters in even trying to intelligently understand what Perry is trying to say as opposed to just trying to take cheap shots to take him down. Were they to engage in the equivalent behavior towards Barack Obama, they would immediately be accused of racism.
He knows that we don’t have 57 states, doesn’t he?
OMG I was dying laughing about that.
In fact, one FReeper said it was like a catapillar < paraphrasing > and I spit a big gulp of mt dew on my keyboard and choked I was laughing so hard.
I told that FReeper they owed me a new keyboard.
Now I’m rolling again ~ catapillar ~ LMFAO
Thanks for the hilarious reminder ~
All correct. Part of why I've voted for him three times as Governor. But you are leaving out a most important part.
He is TERRIBLE in the unscripted open mike ambush - which is pretty much what the debates are. I know people that have spent time with GWB and Perry both. And they say the same thing about both of them - they sound entirely different in a private one-on-one conversation than they do when a mike is thrust into their face and they have to start talking.
While it makes little difference to me, and to many people on this board, many if not most of the sheeple are greatly effected by how ‘slick’ the answers are. That's what got zero elected, that's what kept clintoon in power even when he was caught in a scandal that should have sent him to jail for perjury. And it was Reagan's ability in front of the unscripted open mike situation that allowed him to be popular AND conservative.
And as I have said before, sadly I don't think we have a half a Reagan on the national scene.
the vast majority of college students wouldn’t know anyway. another reason to raise the voting age to 21 except for active duty military.
Sorry guys, he’s another W. “Compassionate conservatism” (under another name) with a sloppy, slow tongue, and all....
That may roll in Texas, but the USA AIN’T TEXAS.
Ha! That (shamefully) is the inverse of what we have now - all >18 may vote EXCEPT active duty military.
I would bet that if he’d waited to announce until AFTER Sarah Palin announced that she’d declined to run, half of the most vociferous critics of Perry would be supporting him! The other half are wolf’s in sheeps clothing shilling for Romney or they’re Ron Paul true believers.
Who had six wives. And was therefore obviously a Mormon.
All Mormons are Romney supporters.
George Washington therefore would have supported Rick Perry.
Sort of like the old 57 states thing...
OK...I understand. You don’t want me to confuse you with the facts since your mind is already made up. Is that right?
Case in point:
You have already decided to support Rick Perry. You have decided that you will brook NO criticism of Rick Perry, no matter how slight.
I, on the other hand, have not decided who, if anyone, i will support, and I honestly do not give a sh!t who criticizes Rick Perry. In fact, I don't give a sh1t who criticizes ANY of the current presidential candidates, and I reserve the right to criticise any and all of them whenever I wish.
I will PROBABLY vote for whatever loser the repugnicans nominate (unless it's Romney, Paul, Trump or Bloomberg) because he/she/it will almost certainly be a better president than the person currently infesting our Whitehouse. However, choosing to vote for a repugnican candidate simply because there is no one better available does not obligate me to celebrate or actively support said repugnican.
But, you go ahead and keep making excuses for "your" candidate - the one about whom your mind is already made up. Work hard to rationalize away his weaknesses and excuse his past actions. After all, we wouldn't have ended up with Obama as our president if a large number of people hadn't chosen to worship him instead of holding his feet to the fire.
What happened? Did they fall off his face or something?
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.