NOOOOO!!!! You will vote for the Rick Perry!!!!!
Posted on 09/04/2011 10:54:37 PM PDT by Brian_Baldwin
Personally in my opinion, each State has the right to decide how to handle illegal immigration and allocation of the law and State rights to such illegal aliens in the event that the Federal government refuses to follow the constitutional and legal obligations under the law. Having said that, I still feel that, the Federal government should complete the fence as was agreed upon and that each State certainly does not have the right to refuse the fence nor should they be in the business of taking on the debt to built it themselves.
Having said that, my opinion, and of which I would hope fellow citizens of my State would share (too many do not, but I guess that is democracy and representative government), is my personal opinion that illegal immigration is a threat to our very principles of constitutional sovereignty. No accordance should be given to it, no allowance, no favor. Period.
Illegal immigration is not my primary, single issue of importance. I am not a single issue voter. During this time, the issue of most importance to me individually is the economy of our nation. I have four issue of which are important to me during this election cycle, and of which will continue to be of importance to me until a resolution to my concern puts these issues to rest:
(1) Jobs, the debt of our nation, the falling value of the US dollar, the stability and growth of the stock market and the GDP, the decline of domestic industrial production and exportation of industrial and military technology, in other words the economy and the current state of economic decline …
(2) The war on terrorism, the threat from modern politicized Islamic fascism, and the strength of our military readiness in face of …
(3) Illegal immigration, which is a serious violation of our constitutional sovereignty, the sanctity of our democratic vote, and without hesitation I am not speaking of Russians, or Chinese, or those from India or Europe or others who have not had the blanket luck of being directly adjacent to the borders of the United States, nor am I speaking to political or social refuges whether they come from far or just over the border, but rather I qualify that I am specifically and without any racial motive speaking to the invasion of large numbers of uneducated Mexican class who are not interested in assimilation but have many other personal or even ulterior motives of which we can no longer consent to in the name of helping the poor, nor tolerate the crimes, nor allow the security threat to remain in the face of drug cartels who would also assist Islamic terrorists …
(4) Crime – which in notable part is also linked to issue number 3 and 1 ...
All of these issues are of vital importance to me. I am not a single issue voter and frankly I do not want to hear statements that try to claim so. Having a stance on these issues is larger than any of that. If a candidate does not speak in terms of these issues, but holds an opinion so directly counter to my vital concerns and voices it in such a manner, I simply cannot support such a candidate.
The other day, it came to my attention that candidate Perry, whom until then I was very enthusiastic about, does not, and has publically stated he will not, support the border fence. I have researched and found that what was being told to me in this regard is, in fact. That he does not support the fence, that he supports in-state tuition and other rip-offs to legal citizens, that he did not stand with Arizona.
Now that the truth has been verified, I cannot support Rick Perry. I have noticed that Mitt Romney is publically taking a counter position, and pointing out we must stop providing incentives that promote illegal immigration, that as governor he vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition, and he has now publically called for the building of the border fence as a priority. No doubt, others may say that Romney is simply making such public statements in the face of Perry’s surge in the polls among conservatives after the Perry announcement for candidacy. There could be truth in that, but it doesn’t change the fact that Perry, even as recent as this week, made statements in relation to the illegal immigration question that simply eradicates any chance of a personal consideration on my part to vote for his candidacy. Period.
I don’t care what Perry supporters say, I think we are now going to see the typical and historic pattern that occurs during the Primary contest which is, you see a candidate who is in part unknown emerge during the Primary, who may even initially surge in the polls and in support by the Party members, but as we learn more about the candidate we simply realize that perhaps another choice would be more wise.
I believe this is exactly what is going to happen here. I believe the surge in support for Perry, due to this Achilles’ heel in regards to his stand on illegal immigration, will notably wane his support to the benefit of other candidates.
I also understand that Michele Bachmann has made similar public statements to those of Romney, that she has a firm stand regarding illegal immigration which I support and thank her for, and of course I have already had a liking for her candidacy and this only reinforces it.
My personal opinion is, understandably, not of importance and simply posting such an opinion can seem pompous. I am only using my personal opinion in this regard to example what is no doubt likely about to happen, the gut on it, which is -
- that the Rick Perry candidacy is going to fail, unless he dramatically changes his stance on this. And even if doing so to members of the Republican Party who are really making the difference, and that is specifically the conservatives, even a dramatic turn around on this issue may not be enough.
Politics is a tough game. Actually, it is not a game. And it can be very dirty. That is how it is. One candidate will attempt to defeat another through exposure of the other candidate. Exposure can come in terms of personal attacks. But this is not a personal attack, not by any of the other candidates who would benefit through a decline in support for Perry. Truthfully exposing opinions and where a candidate stands on an issue, even if done as part of defeating another candidate, is expected, and is how politics works. It is not fun. Not for anyone. It is how it is, and it is serious business.
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.