Nugent says "Run Rick Run"

The Washington Times ^ | June 1, 2011 | Ted Nugent

[HerrBlucher]

Good friend and Texas Gov. Rick Perry should remember that now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

Now is that time, Rick. Run for president.

Indeed, the other GOP candidates are good men and women. Many thoughtful Americans have confidence that each of them would set a new, critically needed, much improved and responsible direction for America - the opposite of President Obama’s course.

Though it’s still very early in the campaign season, no one in the field of candidates is electrifying GOP voters. There is little buzz or excitement.

Candidate Perry would provide campaign electricity. In the words of the Gipper, it would be morning in America once again with Rick Perry running for president.

Rick is a true conservative, and a powerful and popular one. He has never lost an election and remains the only person to have won the Texas governorship three times in landslide elections.

[Vision]

"My governor shoots coyotes. What does yours do?"

Mine tells the world Bush is more dangerous than Bin Laden.

[hoagy62]

"My governor shoots coyotes. What does yours do?"

I'd prefer the one that shoots moose, elk, and caribou.

[Hugin]

I'm liking Perry better every day. He not only didn't back off the Fed, demaning a full public audit, but he also rejected the global warming hoax, noting that fraudulent data had been used. Then he topped it off by saying he would have vetoed the debt agreement.

I’m not ready to put on the bumper sticker, but I'm pleasantly impressed.

[TChad]

and he is published from time to time

Nugent is a regular opinion columnist for the Washington Times. Recently he has been writing about two columns per week.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/opinion/nugent/

[DRey]

Your governor shoots moose, elk, and caribou? REALLY?

[Raider Sam]

Sean Parnell?

[ansel12]

Don't you know, there are a fair number of folks who won't support anyone but their anointed favorite and who will unabashedly tell you that they would rather let Obama be President another 4 years than have a "RINO" in the White House.

You sounded EXACTLY the same when you were pushing Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney here.

[hoagy62]

I wish. All MY governor does is shoot down opportunities for new businesses to come into the state due to screwed-up tax laws and high taxes.

Oh...and she got her governorship by fraud.

Thank the good Lord she decided 2 terms was enough.

[Sudetenland]

In what way does that in any way negate the validity of the argument? Do you think either Romney or Giuliani would have handled the economy in a remotely similar way to how Obama has handled it? Do you think that either one is close to being as hostile to our Constitution as Obama?

What Obama has done to this nation has not touched on any traditionally conservative issues--those over which we have the greatest differences with with most RINOs. Obama has not wreaked the havoc he has because of anything he has done on abortion, guns, or any of the other traditional conservative issues; it has been his fiscal policy, domestic spending, war against private enterprise, and ignorant and naive foreign policy that have damaged our nation.

For all their flaws, neither man would have been as destructive to our nation. McCain would have been far better than Obama even though he is nowhere close to what I believe in on many issues.

It is the worst kind of willful stupidity and pig-headedness to insist on perfection, because first, that candidate doesn't exist, and second if he/she did, he could never be elected. Were Ronald Reagan to rise from the grave and begin campaigning for the presidency today, most of the haters on this forum would label him a RINO and reject him--you would reject him. Soft on abortion and gay rights, soft on illegal immigration, compromised on the budget with Tip O'Neal, soft on gun control--even supported the Brady Bill and the AWB. Deny it if you dare.

Perry is about as conservative as they come and , short any real damaging issue arising, the best candidate Republicans have--excepting, perhaps, Sarah Palin and I don't think she can be elected. It's a cinch that Paul won't come close--is absolutely unelectable.

[Rightly Biased]

Hoagy said “prefer” not that the moose shooter was thier Gov.

just sayin

oh and mine shoots Coyotes

[ansel12]

As you attack freepers for being conservative, it helps people to know that you are a liberal that has been pushing Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney, and attacking conservatives here for years as you push the more liberal candidates.

You even promote Giuliani and Romney in that post and make your usual attack on Reagan, social conservatism, and freerepublic.

[Sudetenland]

I will only say that I have NEVER "pushed" Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, only defended them from dishonest attacks from liars like you. I don't ever attack "conservatives," I only attack liars, people who simply can't articulate any positive defense of the people they support so they intentionally lie about other candidates.

Neither Rudy nor Mitt have ever been my choice of candidates, but you don't really care about the truth, do you?

That's okay, I know you and those like you just can't help yourselves in lying. That makes responding any further to you pointless. Enjoy yourself in your alternative universe.

[newfreep]

Pam Geller evicerates Dick Perry on his muzzie-lovin’ habit.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/08/adios-mofo.html

Throw in
- his “close” work with ACORN
- open-borders (”a wall is ridiculous”)
- Pushed Mexican-TX-NorthAmerican Trans highway
- increased debt for TX
- 1988 Gore manager (during Reagan’s presidency)
- His “PerryCare” moment
- and so much more....

Perry - just another RINO elitist!

[ansel12]

You seem to stay with basically the same post, anti-conservative, anti-Reagan, anti-freeper.

‘”I see, pull out the old Liberal trick of denying facts and accusing others of using “old democrat tricks because you lack the ability to engage in an honest debate on the issues.

You Rudy and Mitt haters just can’t admit the truth, your hatred of both candidates is irrational. You cannot hate someone you don’t know and claim to be a rational person. You can hate their ideals and their policies, but this visceral hatred of the men is un-Christian, un-Conservative, and irrational.

This new breed of so-called Conservatives would be calling “Ronaldus Magnus” a RINO and you constantly violate the Eleventh commandment he gave the Republican party. Speak no ill of your fellow Republicans.

Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave at the words Rudy/Mitt haters spew around here. What a petty bunch of self-righteous, self-appointed, guardians of so-called Conservative thought. You three should be ashamed of yourselves!
81 posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 8:05:07 PM by Sudetenland”’

[Sudetenland]

Yep, I said that and every single word of it is true and not a single word of it is "anti-conservative" in anyway, sport

What it is "anti," is anti-pseudo-conservative hate-mongers, such as yourself.

I'm glad you posted that. It enables everyone to see the lies you have been telling about me.

I neither promoted nor embraced Rudi or Mitt or their policies, I attacked people, such as yourself, who lash out emotionally with hatred and anger rather than use rational, factual arguments for their positions . . . just as you have done on this thread.

You do understand what is meant by the phrase, "so-called conservatives," don't you? It refers to self-anointed police of purity of thought and ideals. People like you who arrogate for themselves the right to decide who is or is not qualified to be conservative, while using the tools of the left to vilify those who fail to meet your personal standards of purity.

Ronald Reagan would be spinning in his grave at what you and others are doing under the label of "conservative."

Ansel112 your party will be the party of the few--very few--because your intolerance will eventually eliminate any candidate except yourself.

God save us from the self-righteous.

[ansel12]

A Romney/Giuliani liberal, that fights to move the Republican party to the left, you do not know conservatives, or conservatism.
Here you are describing Mitt Romney as a conservative.

To: txnativegop
Tell me again why you don’t consider him a Conservative. I really would like to know.

As for your question, he’s strong on defense, strong on the economy, has a successful business background and would not be making the kind of moves that President O is making-to the applause and new found admiration of McCain.

He is a strong family man of very high moral character who is not shy about his faith and how it strengthens his convictions. He believes in capitalism and is pro-business and low taxes.

That should suffice for starters. This was a cracker-jack speech and proves that he remains a very viable candidate for 2012.
14 posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 3:30:58 PM by Sudetenland

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"A lot of conservatives respect Nugent’s political opinions, and he is published from time to time so, I guess his opinion does matter......Simmons, not so much."

Nugent has a hunting show that many people in all walks of life watch, and Gene Simmons (unfortunately) has a reality show that is obviously followed by many, or it would be cancelled. Both of these guys and their opinions reach a large swath of voters.

[magritte]

If you don’t think Romney or Giuliani are the spawns of Satan, that’s enough to make you a blood-drinking socialist commie pig in the eyes of the self-righteous more-conservative-than-thou types on FR. They believe it’s perfectly acceptable to lie about anyone they don’t like in the political arena, and if you call them on their lies, they spew a standard litany of “you’re a Romney-lover” type invective. No point in engaging them.

[ansel12]

You really seem to dislike freerepublic.

[Sudetenland]

First, I would note your absolute silence on everything I said in the last post. You have once again proven your inability to articulate your side or to prove any of your FALSE allegations against me. Once more, you use the typical argument technique of switching targets when confronted by your lies. Congratulations, you have proven my point.

As for this post, again, show me one single thing in that post that is in anyway inaccurate.

You won't, because you can't. Everything I stated was completely factual and at no time (need I say "again") did I come out in support of them, I merely defended them against your type of guilt by association, smear by implication, and emotionally charged empty attacks.

I thank you once again for proving my point for me.

YOu're not very good at this, I think maybe you should stop making a clown out of yourself in public.