How great does she look in those heels? Enough said.
Your candidate is?
For the next year, be very, very careful about your sources of information. Rick Perry is NOT against a fence, but wants to use a fence in a smart way along with the National Guard. This is in line with a conversation I had last week with someone high up in Homeland Security. A fence on its own isn’t the only answer. You wouldn’t believe the complicated systems that are in place by illegal drug and human traffickers. You can count on Rick Perry not being quoted correctly, ever.
And, now that I’m on a bit of a rant, why does the MSM and anti-Perry people expect us to not give Perry credit for a healthy Texas economy but want us to believe that after 2.5 years, Obama has nothing to do with America’s economic semi-collapse??
Wow are you asking for it. The Perry Camp is not going to be happy with you.
Oh for pete’s sakes...not this same crackpot bag of lies about immigration reform!
How many times are we going to have to hear this krap?
State which politician you back and get ready to rumble..(and it better not be Romney)
The illegal alien problem is a federal problem. States do not seal the nation’s borders. The US government enforces the borders. Fences do not work, its a waste of money. Patrols and law enforcement are needed on the borders, and within the nation, to force illegal aliens out. One cannot stack the dead bodies of illegal immigrants into fences made so high until they can no longer cross over. They can always cross over, under or through. What we need are policies to make then leave (not entice them to stay as per Obama policy).
How great does she look in those heels? Enough said.
I really don’t care for the phrase, “Having said that,” and you seem to say it a lot. I like Rick Perry. And you have not convinced me that he isn’t our man. So thank you for your opinion. Now go away.
I really don’t care for the phrase, “Having said that,” and you seem to say it a lot. I like Rick Perry. And you have not convinced me that he isn’t our man. So thank you for your opinion. Now go away.
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.
If illegal immigation is a federal matter and the states can’t do it, then the state shouldn’t educate and feed them either.
Man! Are the Perry people flailing on this board? I’ve seen every comment on this thread from “Of course Perry is for a border fence, anything else is a gd lie” to “Of course Perry is against a border fence and here’s the reason why”...can a little clarity be reached in this chicken coop?
______________________________________
Perry says no to border fence
Sep 04, 2011 9:10 PM CST
NewsChannel 10
Amarillo, Texas - Governor Rick Perry says no to a border fence. The Presidential hopeful told hundreds of people in New Hampshire he opposes a physical barrier between the US and Mexico, saying it would be ineffective and take too long to build.
He said, “1200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso two things how long do you think it will take to build that, and then if you build a 30 foot wall from Brownsville to El Paso the 35 foot ladder business is real good, you got to have people on the ground.”
The comments produced only one angry shout, exposing a long simmering clash with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.
He’s been criticized for signing legislation that gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition at Texas universities.
________________________________
Who’s going to be first to claim that Perry is lying about Perry? LOL! If you want something to get angry about, think about this...it’s rapidly becoming clear that Perry has more foggy decisions in his past to account for THAN ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES COMBINED, you may not like it, all the allegations may not be fair or true, but this is YOUR candidate and calling everyone who questions his past an anti Perry troll does NOTHING to clear it up.
I highly recommend his interview with Mark Levin. It's 15 minutes and covers a range of things including a lot on immigration.
Before I get to what I've learned about Perry, I would hope you give the same litmus testing to all candidates. On immigration, you'll likely find them wanting. Numbers USA rates Bachmann B-, Cain C- and the others, Palin included, D or below.
You say Perry's opposed the fence in his own words and yet that's not accurate. You'll hear that in the Levin interview. He's consistently and repeatedly advocated for "strategic fencing," such as at metropolitan areas where it has been useful.
He prefers National Guard on the border until 4,000 more border patrol can be added--3,000 in TX, 1,000 more from El Paso west to San Diego. He supports use of aerial assets including helicopters and drones. Why? Because a "surge strategy" using the Texas Ranger has worked in Texas against cartels.
He knows even where there's a double fence today, like San Diego where I'm located, illegals still climb over. He also knows cartels build sophisticated tunnels underneath. Here's an example in Nogales a couple weeks ago. Fencing is on part.
In the interview, he rightly points out fencing everywhere is expensive. In 2007, Congressional Research Service placed the cost of only 700 miles worth at $50 billion excluding both labor and land acquisitions. CRS 2007 numbers)
That'd make a terrific union "make-work" program and an EPA nightmare. San Diego's double-fence had a gap across "Smuggler's Gulch" for years because of environmental wrangling. I'm sure the regulatory issues could be lessoned under any of the candidates running as EPA critics but it'll take an act of Congress to make it happen just as it did with "Smuggler's Gulch."
The Rio Grande is critical for Texas agriculture and forms the entire border between that state and Mexico. What's the impact of fencing it all off from Texans, effectively ceding the waterway to Mexico? Perry knows this and he's trying to be practical: boots on the ground, eyes in the sky, fencing where it makes sense, no amnesty (including no federal Dream Act) and no citizenship as part of any guest worker program.
Perry's cracked down on human trafficking (HB 1372, 4008 & SB 11 of '07), he's increased border security (Rangers on the border; HB1 of '07), enacted tougher employer sanctions (HB 1196 of '07), gone after document fraud (HB 126 of '07) and signed Voter ID.
Unlike candidates with just rhetoric on the issue, we don't have to wonder what kinds of things Perry might do on border security as president. We can see what he's done and where he's always stood.
I noted the most "pure" candidates according to Numbers USA are those with the least record. I find that troubling.
I saw in the NH town hall, Romney's now trying to run to the right of Perry on immigration (full fence, no in-state tuition). Is that believable? Not to me but we'll see if it works for his campaign.
After you've investigated Perry you may still find him unacceptable on immigration grounds. I'm sure you won't be alone.
That's fine as long as it's on his actual record and positions rather than alarmist spin or what the AP and others misreport.
I don't find him to be Obama, McCain or even W.
I highly recommend his interview with Mark Levin. It's 15 minutes and covers a range of things including a lot on immigration.
Before I get to what I've learned about Perry, I would hope you give the same litmus testing to all candidates. On immigration, you'll likely find them wanting. Numbers USA rates Bachmann B-, Cain C- and the others, Palin included, D or below.
You say Perry's opposed the fence in his own words and yet that's not accurate. You'll hear that in the Levin interview. He's consistently and repeatedly advocated for "strategic fencing," such as at metropolitan areas where it has been useful.
He prefers National Guard on the border until 4,000 more border patrol can be added--3,000 in TX, 1,000 more from El Paso west to San Diego. He supports use of aerial assets including helicopters and drones. Why? Because a "surge strategy" using the Texas Ranger has worked in Texas against cartels.
He knows even where there's a double fence today, like San Diego where I'm located, illegals still climb over. He also knows cartels build sophisticated tunnels underneath. Here's an example in Nogales a couple weeks ago. Fencing is on part.
In the interview, he rightly points out fencing everywhere is expensive. In 2007, Congressional Research Service placed the cost of only 700 miles worth at $50 billion excluding both labor and land acquisitions. CRS 2007 numbers)
That'd make a terrific union "make-work" program and an EPA nightmare. San Diego's double-fence had a gap across "Smuggler's Gulch" for years because of environmental wrangling. I'm sure the regulatory issues could be lessoned under any of the candidates running as EPA critics but it'll take an act of Congress to make it happen just as it did with "Smuggler's Gulch."
The Rio Grande is critical for Texas agriculture and forms the entire border between that state and Mexico. What's the impact of fencing it all off from Texans, effectively ceding the waterway to Mexico? Perry knows this and he's trying to be practical: boots on the ground, eyes in the sky, fencing where it makes sense, no amnesty (including no federal Dream Act) and no citizenship as part of any guest worker program.
Perry's cracked down on human trafficking (HB 1372, 4008 & SB 11 of '07), he's increased border security (Rangers on the border; HB1 of '07), enacted tougher employer sanctions (HB 1196 of '07), gone after document fraud (HB 126 of '07) and signed Voter ID.
Unlike candidates with just rhetoric on the issue, we don't have to wonder what kinds of things Perry might do on border security as president. We can see what he's done and where he's always stood.
I noted the most "pure" candidates according to Numbers USA are those with the least record. I find that troubling.
I saw in the NH town hall, Romney's now trying to run to the right of Perry on immigration (full fence, no in-state tuition). Is that believable? Not to me but we'll see if it works for his campaign.
After you've investigated Perry you may still find him unacceptable on immigration grounds. I'm sure you won't be alone.
That's fine as long as it's on his actual record and positions rather than alarmist spin or what the AP and others misreport.
I don't find him to be Obama, McCain or even W.
The honorable Mr. Perry overcomes and defeats your kind every day and will continue to do so from here on out to the nomination. Personally, I'd vote for just about anyone other than Obama right now. And whoever can make it through the Republican primary will get my vote. I keep hearing “we can't keep voting for the lesser of two evils”, but to me, in this election, Obama is SO evil, socialist, spends so much, keeps proposing new taxes, no jobs, new wars, with Obamacare, and with what we've seen he's given us on the Supreme Court and with his Czars, AG pick, etc, he needs to be gone. I've skipped local and state elections before because both candidates were horrible (NY), but I want Obama gone. I never thought I could think any lower of a democratic President than I thought of Carter or Clinton— until now.
What a LOAD.
Nobody is going to be pure. I have many reservations about Perry, but Im not a single issue voter. Haven’t made a decision... looking forward to seeing how he thinks on his feet.
Good post.
In all the hoopla of a fairly well laid out Perry campaign, it’s apparent to some that Perry is not the perfect Conservative. He is a career politician who skillfully manages to take both sides of a number of issues. As is the case with most career politicians, the best way to determine what are the core beliefs of the candidate is to look at their record and who their top advisors and supporters are.
On illegal immigration, Perry’s extensive record and results as Governor of Texas have seen an explosion of illegal immigration. Like a number of establishment Republicans, I do believe Perry sees illegal immigration as something which should be used, both for labor and as a means of appealing to an increasingly large block of voters.
Further evidence of Perry’s beliefs can be interpretted from who is team is, such as Dave Carney, a person who has been called “the most important person in Perry’s presidential quest”.
http://teamgingrich.blogspot.com/2011/05/dave-carney-of-new-hampshire-to-be.html
Go to the video clip in this article
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2011/09/ap-apparently-misleads-readers-on.html