Posted on 07/23/2011 1:57:55 PM PDT by AmericaTalks
I’m not for Perry but I am for the truth.
Perry supported Gore in 1988 - when Gore was still anti-abortion. Perry swapped to Republican in 1989, before Gore became a pro-abortion. Gore swapped when he ran with Clinton.
In 1987, this is a year before Perry supported him, this is what Gore wrote about abortion:
“During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it’s wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to further this goal.”
So just be careful saying Perry supported a pro-abortion Al Gore. He didn’t. He supported an anti-abortion Al Gore.
I’m not for Perry, but I don’t like to see false information flying around. I fear Perry is more RINO than conservative - I’m still studying him - but he has always been anti-abortion and has never supported pro-abortion people.
Let’s please give credit where it is due.
The ACU website shows pro abortion votes by Algore in the Senate from 1985 onwards.
"Assurances" from Algore are meaningless.
Algore went over to the dark side on abortion in 1985 when he entered the Senate.
You taught me something. Then maybe that is why he had to write that letter when he ran for president - he may have already been getting hammered for pro-abortion votes.
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll do my own homework on it. If Gore was already voting pro-abortion when Perry became his Texas campaign chairman, that speaks very badly for Perry.
Now practice what you preach.
The truth is finally coming out. I’ve been listening and reading about Perry from Texas residents and most of what I have learned does not support his conservative credentials.
Here is a fact for you, honey: neither Palin nor Perry have declared. Now practice what you preach.” <<<<
No one I know would be your “honey”, so drop with that kind of dream you’re having and grow up.
To your point: Palin has been non-stop not running for months and months longer than Perry has been not running. At least when you poke him you hear him speak, and see that he is alive, politically viable, visible, working, walking and talking, and growing money enough to declare, as opposed to the alternative life on tweet, doing absolutely nothing but buying homes, trademarking, and looking ahead to more lucrative deals and celebrety.
But bless your little heart for trying to be 'objective'.
She says Perry is running when he not yet is, while she says Palin isn’t running when she not yet is. “ <<<
For the time being Perry looks far more definitive about running than Trademark. It’s an easy error to make in Perry’s case. The one’s saying Perry is running are the one’s actually investing in him now to not only run but to win against Obama, with the kind of money to make it happen. To that, add Musharraf. Who says Trademark is running but for you guys, and of course the Leftists, who would no doubt pay her to run against Obama themselves?
” So its Palin’s fault Perry can’t generate any media attention. “ <<<<
huh?
You’re reeling in outer space again making up destinations for some limp point you’re helplessly trying to steer toward in order to salvage Trademark who is not running, nor in any way indicating she will. Palin affects no one’s media attention that I know of, except maybe Bristol’s. I said, Perry has been “not running” for a lot less time than Sarah has been “not running”. That point has nothing to do with media attention anywhere in it. It’s just fact.
It’s sad when ypur own side is a bunch of liars isn’t it.
frankly I’m tired of all the liars on both sides.
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.