NOOOOO!!!! You will vote for the Rick Perry!!!!!
Posted on 09/04/2011 10:54:37 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
You've been here since 1999?
You’re comparing Israeli security measures with Texas’s 1200 mile river border?? Please tell me you’re joking.
Another choice that is strong in one regard is weak in another. There is no perfect candidate running. Perry, despite his flaws, bears several advantages over the rest of the field.
When all is said and done, his merits outweigh his flaws heavily. This is why he's ahead in the polls. It's not 1970, when we had to wait on the big three networks and a few newspapers to start circulating someone's record. Now, we have more data than we ever did 40 years ago, available at the click of a button. So, the 'getting to know you' period has compressed immensely.
The other candidates, Mittens especially, had their chance. If they were going to catch fire, they would have already. American history is what it is. Americans prefer governors, generals and Vice Presidents. That's why Romney is still leagues ahead of the superior conservative credentials of Cain or Bachmann or Santorum. It's why Perry is pulling ahead of all of them combined.
Perry may be flawed, but he's also thoroughly tested. More so than the other candidates combined. He doesn't pass every test with flying colors, but there's measurable information in every category. After imagining that the blank slate of Barack Obama would turn out in a fairy tale happy ending, there's something comforting about knowing you have a veteran on your hands, even if his performance isn't ideal.
"Ideal" is a mirage, chased by people too afraid to admit that real life forces real compromise. Even then, Perry has shown that he can be pressured out of making a mistake. Most of the biggest hits on his record are things he *almost* did, but didn't. So, as long as we can apply the right pressure, it's at least demonstrable that he response to the will of the people. Again, in sharp contrast to Barack Obama.
So, your concerns are noted, but Perry isn't going anywhere but up. He's certainly not going to be overtaken by Jon Huntsman.
Your comment in the last sentence is completely out of line.
I'm not comparing Texas to Isreal, read my post more carefully. Words have meaning. I don't think I picked them improperly. The context of the post is to ask to what degree Perry is willing to go to stop illegal immigration.
Feel free to answer because I have not seen one Perry supporter offer up anything but ad hominem attacks or suggestions that anyone that does not support Perry should go away.
Move on everybody. There is no problem with border security. It is not an issue in this campaign. No need to ask any candidates what their position is on this issue.
Well, since Perry has VERY CLEARLY stated his position, which is the EXACT SAME position Sarah Palin has stated very clearly...why are we still having to listen to this bucket of democratic lies and horse manure, over and over, and over again!
If illegal immigation is a federal matter and the states can’t do it, then the state shouldn’t educate and feed them either.
Specifically, what is their position. I gave you a starting point. Is that his position?
1. Mobilize 100,000 or more national guard troops to the border until effective border secruity measures are in place.
2. Immediately start construction of those border security measuers
3. Adopt a policy that not one person will enter the country illegally.
Are those three correct. If not, please identify which are not and what alternative position Perry advocates.
This is not a difficult subject to break dow. The obfuscation in this thread is deafening.
That's a fair question, and a fair point. A lot of Perry supporters are a little battered these days from running the Palininsky gauntlet, but we should always try and answer reasonable questions reasonably.
The most reasonable answer is that he hasn't reasonably addressed exactly what he would do yet. Some will tell you he wants open borders and amnesty, others that he's going to have troops at double arm intervals at the borders.
Truth is, the Republican Party in general, and the Presidential candidates in particular, avoid this topic like the plague. The only ones who seem to to 'score well' on this topic are the ones with short resumes, hailing from northern states. I wouldn't trust any of them, Perry included, to do anything more than shuck and jive the issue until there's more public pressure to do something. Tom Tancredo proved that going hard on this issue is an electoral loser, and the rest will be gunshy until it's proved otherwise.
Not the best answer, I realize, but it is what it is. I don't really think there's a GOP candidate out there I couldn't write this same post for.
You get an A for that answer. Actually, that qualifies for the post of the month award.
How many times are you going to post the EXACT SAME response?
Since Texas has a river (admittedly really low in spots), I’ve never favored a fence.
Your argument that people can climb it is silly though.
In computer security we talk about raising the costs of intrusion. We can’t prevent intrusion, but we want to raise the costs to a point where it is no longer attractive to try. If I’m guarding the recipe for coca-cola or KFC, or personal financial data, I spend a lot because their worth a lot. I don’t spend a lot to protect personal emails, because Sally emailing Peggy for lunch is not going to entice hackers to spend a lot breaking in. I need to raise the bar enough that the costs exceed rewards.
I can spend a lot on a fence that will make it really expensive to climb. I can make it unclimbable, 20’ high, and put concertina wire on top. Sure, if somebody brings two 30’ ladders and a bunch of other gear, they can get over it. They’ll also stick out like sore thumbs and give BP a chance to respond. Surveillance just became real easy, and the costs of crossing just skyrocketed.
You doubt it? Look at the Israeli fences or the fences around compounds in Iraq and Afghanistan.
BTW, you might not recognize this, its called a conversation. It happens sometimes when you don’t robo-post.
By the way, which Perry donor gets the exclusive non-compete contract for this?
Just kidding...I joke. Per earlier, I don’t favor Perry, but I also don’t favor a fence in Texas (God gave us a moat).
I did not say just give up FRiend. I want federal forces on the border with weapons and support with ROE to shoot to kill, and I want papers to be required and illegals marched to the border and deported if they are illegal aliens. It is not the job of the state forces to do that.
Or if it is, then we in TX do not need the USA and we can just have our own republic again, that would be fine. The USA Fed Govt is definitely a net taker from Texas under Obama. We fortunately do not get all the Fed govt we pay for.
NOOOOO!!!! You will vote for the Rick Perry!!!!!
As Bachmann rose in the polls against Romney and won the Ames straw poll, the Rick Perry charge into the campaign began.
It was as if Perry was sent into the game to take the air out of Bachmann’s challenge to Romney, who I still think is the man the insiders want, unless Perry is their new annointed one.
Red flag for me, too.
AZ SB 1070 is likewise facing an uphill federal court battle having had key provisions blocked and that stay upheld by the 9th circus.
Perry is not for giving up.
Looks mighty easy to tunnel underneath...
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.