Posted on 12/14/2011 11:26:05 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Here is a quote and a link.
“The federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty. The Texas educational residency bill was vastly different.” — Rick Perry
http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-rick-perry-on-illegal-immigration-2/
Yes, really:
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2971.page
http://www.commongroundpolitics.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=39025
http://mediamatters.org/research/200804100009
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/6847
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2120549/posts
BTTT.
I echo your sentiments.
HA ! Dream Act?
I really don't see how you can say that with 2/3rds of the electorate undecided or looking for someone else. And didn't you read in the article above, how uncommonly interested and engaged the electorate is?
But you keep working on your "unpopular" Perry message to help your guy (gal).
Because Perry and Romney campaigns said so. And they would say so unless it’s the truth, right? LOL!
That must have been SOME pretzel!
I might owe you an apology from comments I made a few months back about Perry being dead in the water.
If he pulls this thing off and rises out of the Bachmann/Perry/Santorum group to be the viable challenger to Romney, then I’ll support him over Newt. As much as I’m not a fan of Perry, there’s really no contest in the amount of BS coming from him versus the massive amount coming out of Newt and Romney, who have mastered talking both sides of an issue.
And the Perry people seem less rude and obnoxious than the Newt people (as you can evidence from this thread).
A word of caution though. The Newt people see what’s going on. I believe they have a plan in place to stop Perry. Depending on how tomorrow’s debate goes, Newt will probably try to get with Santorum for that Lincoln-Douglas style debate they agreed to in principle. The purpose of it would be the same purpose Gingrich did a one on one with Huntsman. Huntsman was made to look good so that he would cut into some of Romney’s support in NH. Likewise, in a Gingrich-Santorum showdown, Santorum would be made to look good to cut down on the surge of Perry, dividing up the conservative vote that would be a challenge for Newt.
If they agree to this kind of debate, then I think Perry has to challenge Newt to a one-on-one. It could be next week, or the week the Newsmax debate was to take place. It would keep Perry in the news, and with a decent performance, would minimize advantages Santorum would get. But at the same time, it exposes Perry to his weakest format, a 3 hour debate.
20 days to correct the monstrosity. Maybe people will come to their senses and jump back on the Bachmann bandwagon. She’s my horse in this race. But if not her or Santorum, I’d be able to cast a vote for Perry without throwing up, which I could not say about Newt.
....but there is still one debate before Iowa....
Not good news for Perry.
In that case, sorry to disappoint you. Iowa is looking rather HUGE for Newt. And it is growing daily.
This is the Primary season. The bulk of the electorate is always unaccounted for. Among Primary voters, is where Gingrich is doing the best right now.
You will see what I am saying next January, and Perry is still way behind in spite of his big effort to put all of his marbles in Iowa. He is running out of time and money.
Personally, I think Newt is taking on water - fast.
Gov. Perry has his 2 week road trip (with a break for Christmas) scheduled. He has a press bus following his bus.
Newt can’t seem to close his mouth and that is a good thing. There is a lot of material to wade through. I hardly think his “brain” will rule the day or the election.
But thank you for your suggestions and words of warning.
"I believe Paul can trip up Newt here, and that's great news for Romney because Newt is done if that happens."
So Newt is "done" if he comes in second?? Okay....
Watch Rick Perry. He's going for a top three finish, and that could be to Romney's expense."
That means Iowa comes out Paul 1, Gingrich 2, Perry 3, and Romney 4. But then it goes on:
"If Romney were to come in fourth, that would be awfully hard to recover from, given potential spillover in New Hampshire."
So Romney is done, which seemingly would make Gingrich the huge favorite in New Hampshire. But we've already been told that coming in second in Iowa would knock Newt out as well. So if we put this all together, and assuming the unnamed Republican in question doesn't think Paul can win, then he's basically saying that Pauls wins Iowa, but he can't win the nomination so don't count him. The guy who comes in second (Gingrich) is out too, and the guy who comes in fourth, Romney, is out as well. So....if Perry comes in third, he's got it all wrapped up in New Hampshire, and Romney and Gingrich are both out?
That makes even less sense given that Perry is around 1-2% in New Hampshire. A third place finish in Iowa somehow vaults Perry from being an afterthought in NH to jumping ahead of both Romney and Gingrich?? If not, then neither Romney nor Gingrich could be considered "out" based on their finish in Iowa.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html
Seems to me this quoted, but unnamed, GOP operative might have something to do with the Perry campaign....
A far more fair analysis is that if Perry finishes third, and the top three otherwise are Paul, Gingrich, and Romney, the best case scenario for Perry is that Bachmann and Santorum are both done, and he gets their support to make a move in NH as sort of a consolidated social conservative candidate. But calling either of the two frontrunners "done" based on Iowa is just stupid, because neither of them has bet the farm on winning there anyway.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2813320/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgdzZJePL04&feature=share
Perry was outstanding and received the loudest sustained applause of the night [1:20]
Newt is not a conservative, just a political animal on our side but he has said even over the last year so many off the wall unconservative things. He is not strong pro-life or pro-second amendment and he's not even pro-small government. He thinks, like Romney that the answers lay in government action.
He praised Perry for his book Fed UP but unless he's had a true conversion there is no way to tell which statement he has made over the last two years is from his heart.
By the way, the first Caucus is Jan 3rd. You could have 3 different winners in the first 3 states turning a Florida into a free for all. Newt/Romney/Mitt.
If Newt comes out in the end as the man I will back him but everyone wanted us to back Cain and he dropped out. Where would that have left us? Romney.
And if he tries it will be very telling.
How many times can you say, “I was fooled” ?
I means things are F-L-U-I-D.
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.