Posted on 11/17/2011 5:52:50 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has challenged the women conservatives love to hate — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — to a public debate next week.
In a letter obtained by The Hill, Perry requested that the pair meet for a debate during Perry’s visit to Washington next week to compare the plan he rolled out this week to “Uproot and Overhaul Washington” with the current system.
“I think it would be a tremendous service to the American public to see a public airing of those differences,” he wrote. “Let the people decide.”
Perry’s challenge comes just days after his roll out of his plan to reform Washington. A central piece of his plan is a part-time Congress with half the salary and office budgets.
“After increasing the debt by $4 trillion in less than three years no one can truly believe that Americans are satisfied with business as usual, and that a permanent political class in Washington can get us out of the mess you and your colleagues have created,” Perry wrote......
......Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told The Daily Caller that the minority leader will address the challenge in her weekly press conference Thursday morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate ChangeThis ad is part of the "We Can Solve It" global warming ad campaign sponsored by former Vice President Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.
It is no secret that Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich don't always see eye to eye, but they do agree that on the issue of climate change, we must take action now.
Please join more than one million others who know it will take all of us coming together to solve the climate crisis.
I do not hate Perry as a person, but what he was involved in should disqualify everyone who was a part of pushing it from any position in government.
Ever.
They took Kelo Vs. New London and tried to do it on a grander scale, compounding it with an attempt to prevent future generations of Texans from widening roads that are the major transportation arteries in some areas.
That's not okay.
You don't get to just say you made a mistake, and you can't bluster your way into getting other people to think it was okay, It was not and it should be a career killer for all involved.
So that is where a lot of us are with Perry. It isn't him as a person, it is everyone that was involved with the TTC fiasco.
That will also include Giuliani, should he try to get back into national politics.
He debated KBH but passed on White.
I would’ve done the same.
White was a joke bc he wasn’t real. He tried to pretend that he was to the right of the gov which was a start to finish lie, just to get in there so he could be what he really was.
In SFNan you have a proud, admitted leftist, and not only that, she ran the House and look what they did to us...
She doesn’t have to accept if she doesn’t want to, for whatever reason, and Perry knows it.
This is done to make a very valid point...
Debating is Perry`s strength
A really big and long standing stance of Newt Gingrich, pro-Global warmer.
1989: Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) co-sponsors the ambitious Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078), which finds that “the Earth’s atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants resulting from human activities, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use, and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions,” that “global warming imperils human health and well-being” and calls for policies “to reduce world emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20 percent from 1988 levels by 2000.” The legislation recognizes that global warming is a “major threat to political stability, international security, and economic prosperity.” [H.R. 1078, 2/22/1989]1992: Gingrich calls the environmental proposals in Al Gore’s book Earth in Balance “devastatingly threatening to most American pocketbooks and jobs.” [National Journal, 9/5/92]
1996: At a speech for the Detroit Economic Club, Gingrich mocks “Al Gore’s global warming,” citing “the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history”: “We were in the middle of budget negotiations; the football games were coming up and we noticed on the weather channel that an early symptom of Al Gore’s global warming was coming to the East Coast. And it does make you wonder sometimes, doesn’t it, how theoretical statisticians in the middle of the largest snowstorm in New York City’s history could stand there and say, ‘I don’t care what it’s doing. It’s going to get very hot soon.’” [FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/16/96]
1997: As Speaker of the House, Gingrich co-sponsors H. Con. Res. 151, which notes carbon dioxide is a “major greenhouse gas” that comes from “products whose manufacture consumes fossil fuels” and calls on the United States to “manage its public domain national forests to maximize the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” [H. Con. Res. 151, 9/10/1997]
2007: Gingrich calls for a cap-and-trade system with tax incentives for clean energy. “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
February 15, 2007: “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” [Frontline, 2/15/07]
In a debate on climate policy with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich says “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere,” and that we should “do it urgently.” [ThinkProgress, 4/10/07]
In a Washington Post chat, Gingrich rejects a cap-and-trade system, saying it “would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” He says he supports “tax credits for dramatically reducing carbon emissions.” [Washington Post, 4/17/08]
2008: In an advertisement made for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, Gingrich sat with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and said that “we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.” [We Campaign, 4/18/08]
“I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.” [Newt.org, 4/22/08]
April 4, 2009: “And now, in 2009, instead of making energy cheaper—which would help create jobs and save Americans money—President Obama wants to impose a cap-and-trade regime. Such a plan would have the effect of an across-the-board energy tax on every American. That will make our artificial energy crisis even worse—and raising taxes during a deep economic recession will only accelerate American job losses.” [Newsweek, 4/4/09]
I’m actually a little amazed at your stance.
You claim you’d vote for Newt Gingrich, but no way you’d vote for Perry...
That’s really pretty stunning.
Can you present the top 5 reasons you’d vote for a Gingrich over a Perry? What are the compelling arguments for you?
Your research into Newt must present a COMPLETELY different picture than the stuff I know and have read.
And I’ve got a lot of it.
Would you like me to forward you some of it to you?
Which were......? I know, why don't you start and then I'll add my comments.
Perry says it isn’t his strength, and he should know.
BTW, your Palin or bust tag...guess it’s bust.
Contract With America: The Betrayal Begins
Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave
Newt Gingrich Rides the Third Wave
"In 1994, Newt Gingrich described himself as a... fan of the ideas espoused in the book, The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler, in which homosexuality, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, and abortion are all viewed as perfectly normal and even desirable. He said that in order to understand him, you should read the book, The Third Wave by Toffler. This book is written from the perspective of someone who is writing a letter to America’s Founding Fathers, in which he describes the Constitution and the principles of limited government that guided our Founding Fathers as becoming increasing irrelevant, and obsolete, and hence in need of being radically redesigned and replaced!....When Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House in 1994, he recommended The Third Wave as required reading for all of his Congressional colleagues!"
Reminder: Newt Gingrich Teamed Up With Hillary Clinton, Wanted Government MANDATED Health Care
Flashback: Newt Took $300,000 From Freddie Mac to Stop Congress From Making Much Needed Reform
Newt's record is as bad if not worse than Romney.
Newt is for amnesty and in June 2011 Debate Newt Gingrich called Americans Heartless for wanting to deport 20 million illegals.
"GINGRICH: No, but let me say this, John. No serious citizen who's concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in which you're either for totally selling out protecting America or you're for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way. There are -- there are humane, practical steps to solve this problem, if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly."June 2011 Debate Transcript
The Texas Trans-Corridor project never happened. Admittedly, there was a huge outcry against it - primarily from ranchers and large landowners. Gov. Perry weighed the situation and it never happened.
If this project had materialized and got underway, you'd have a much stronger argument. Just like the weak Gardasil accusations, NEITHER of these programs actually happened. Perry listened to the voice of the people. Contrast that with Obamacare, which was shoved through despite the public's overwhelming opposition.
Sure, but (i) he’s not our candidate yet and (ii) Nancy Pelosi won’t be his general-election opponent even if he wins the nomination.
It never happened because people like me and my local state legislature and thousands of other Texans worked damn hard to block it.
And we did.
Yeah probably...no politician or human is without some kind of sin....I look at today. We all have past mistakes.
I have given Perry strong consideration (you thought that I hadn’t just because I pointed out that he should prepare for GOP debates instead of challenging Pelosi to a pointless debate?), and if in the end it’s between him and Romney I’d support Perry. But (i) Pery is far from the only pro-life candidate in the primary field and (ii) being pro-life is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for me to support a candidate for president.
Knowing Newt....he had other motives for why he went along or why he said something. I really believe the man is a true patriot and i think Newt is the kind of person who keeps his friends close, and his enemies closer.
I doubt he thought she'd debate him.
Those who couldn't see that (dumb.)
Geez, Larry, you're getting your mustache hairs all over this thread.
And no the outcry was not “Primarily from ranchers and large landowners” you can stop with the class envy “large landowner verses everyone else” crap right now. Hell, I knew the housing market was going to crash and I was renting at the time.
How Kennedyesque of you.
The outcry was from everyone who cares about the right to own property and due process.
The it never happened sh!t aint gonna fly. It started to happen ... and was stopped dead cold. And the Stoppee ain’t ever gonna hold national office.
I’m $ure he had plenty of other motive$.
That is the whole point being made. These politicians have made millions off the taxpayers by abusing their position and connections. They get by with it because they exempt themselves from the laws they pass.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gingrich-made-big-bucks-pushing-corporate-welfare
Sorry to say this, as I would actually love to see someone debate pelousy straight up, but this reeks of desperation and publicity stunt.
I've been pondering this 'challenge' for quite a while and I just don't get it.
[And for the Perrybots, yes I read his letter.]
Pelosi isn't The Speaker so she doesn't control the House, or 'the purse'. So what's the point? Even if she accepts what will it prove? Including if he 'beat her' in said debate, what.....?!?
Really, did I miss something and Perry is now running for the House of Representatives from Nan's district? Heck if he wants a One-on-One debate with a pertinent RAT, challenge Obama. He's the one ignoring congress, the Constitution, the laws, spending the USA into oblivion, and acting like a tin-pot dictator.
Or if he's afraid of the smooth talking Barry, then at least challenge a RAT with some power, like Harry Reid. But San Fran Nan?!? That does not compute.
This 'challenge' to a now non-important House Rep. reminds me of that old lawyer joke:
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.It's like Perry is 'Pounding The Table', just screaming for attention, to get his name back on page one. Nothing else makes sense.
When the law is on your side, pound the law.
When you have neither, pound the table.
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.