Posted on 08/14/2011 9:07:45 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Would it make a difference if he was for walls in developed areas and for using troops (including predators) to patrol the rest?
Like many I have been trying to learn the truth about Perry’s positions. I was freaked about the “Forcing!” “Mandatory!” Gardisil thing until I learned he allowed parents to opt-out and made opting out even easier by putting it online.
Oh just wait until the Austin rumors gain MSM traction... wait until you hear the crying!
Maybe, but if tens of millions of illegals get the right to bring in their families and vote, that will guarantee leftist control of all 3 branches of government forever.
Obama and the GOP nominee favoring such a future would be sad. Maybe Perry will clear this up, but it's a big concern for me.
Enforcement of current law is not "restrictionist immigration policy." As to popularity, most polls I've seen indicate the majority supports cracking down on illegal immigration. Where do you get your "not popular" conclusion?
It is for me too.
Perry is an enigma. He was for Voter ID (signed into law) but also for the “Texas Dream Act” (signed into law).
I get my conclusions from election results.
Polls are very, very subjective. Poll "enforce the law", you do good. Poll "send Juan and Maria home, cut your own damn grass, wipe your own damn baby's ass" and the numbers don't look so good.
Many candidates ran on variations of "build the fence, let 'em auto-deport, punish the bosses" from 2006-2010, for the Presidency, for the Senate (in primaries), for Congress.
They all lost.
AND, they all lost in places where their platforms should have been most popular.
That's how I read the tea leaves. YMMV.
Demonstrably false! My congressman won easily, and so did many other anti-amnesty candidates.
And if your premise were correct, this nation would be doomed forever.
Yes, I know a congressman can win while opposing amnesty. It's just that a congressman CAN'T win with a program to do anything else, of a meaningful nature, to stop it.
As far as statewide or nationwide races - don't make me laugh.
I think that’s a good way of describing him. From what I’ve heard about him, he looks fairly good one moment, and absolutely abysmal another moment.
This time around, I’d rather try to minimize the down moments.
We can’t afford to gift Leftists with our politician’s lapses in judgment.
Sounds like you and I do not share the same political goals at all.
Maybe the GOP elite would like to sneak in another GW Bush, who, if he had succeeded in 2007, would have ensured an Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Sotomayor/Kagan style government (or worse) forever, after about 10 years of family based immigration, naturalization, and bigger swarms of illegals. A big leftist voter majority is not going to allow economic or personal freedom, or anything else that conservatives care about.
I have not made up my mind about Perry. Would he push for a national Dream Act? He would do well to clear up his immigration plan to voters like me.
You may be ready to surrender, but I will not.
You've got to Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the positive
E-lim-in-ate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mr. John McCain
Unless it’s on his foot.
You’re a virtual Doug from Upland aren’t you. ;^)
When is the last time a candidate who wanted to do something about illegal immigration got the POTUS nomination from a major party? Eisenhower?
It's important to vet the candidates before the primaries get too far along. Otherwise, McCain 2.
Don't even think party. Think policy. If you legalize large numbers of poor uneducated illegals they will immediately be eligible for $$$ in food stamps, tax credits and other poverty program benefits, And when they get the right to vote and they are given two choices as campaign promises:
1) capital gains tax cuts, or
2) federal stimulus money for food stamps, unemployment comp, medicaid, public schools, more tax credits,......all paid for taxes on others but them.
There is NO f-ing way they are going to relate to capitalism
And why do you think that is?
Ping!
The same reason we have a 16 trillion debt. We nominate and elect the wrong people, because we don't pay attention until it is too late. And I include my past self in that. I voted for GWB twice for governor and twice for POTUS. Of course I was not going to vote for his opponents either, but I had no idea that he would try and nearly succeed in foisting 10s of millions of new leftist voters on us.
I keep reminding people that indifference to illegal immigration makes eventual amnesty more and more likely, and that is tantamount to absolute leftist control. In my view, if nobody listens, the USA (and the world) will have a very dark future.
Maybe we are letting the wrong people (GOP bosses, dem crossovers) control the GOP primaries. And we the people do not demand the right questions and answers of candidates. The media is probably not going to help us find out. At the Iowa debates they asked about campaign staffs but did not have enough time to ask the one immigration question to all of the candidates.
Since the GOP has not nominated a candidate who takes our borders and immigration policy seriously in 50 years, we don't know how a decent POTUS candidate would do. And your confident assertion that such a candidate would "make you laugh" does not convince me.
And you know who the biggest winners would be if a huge majority chose #2. Politicians who hate traditional American values, and not just economic values.
From what I have read up on Perry so far, I must agree with your assessment at this point...
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.