Posted on 07/06/2011 5:23:22 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP
More than any other potential GOP presidential candidate, President Obama fears Texas Gov. Rick Perry. That's because Perry is the only one who can devastate virtually any Obama claim.
Take the whine we hear most often from the President: That President George W. Bush handed him a terrible economic situation. As USA Today reported June 2: "[White House spokesman Jay] Carney noted that when Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, he faced the worst economy since the Great Depression. Obama also inherited the biggest budget deficits in history, from a Republican President—George W. Bush—who had come into office with budget surpluses."
A full two and a half years after taking office, Team Obama still blames Bush—for everything except the fall of Adam. Well, there is one other elected chief executive who inherited a Bush economy: Rick Perry, as governor of Texas. And yet I have never once heard Perry whining that the state would be doing so much better if it hadn't been for the policies of his predecessor.
To use a football analogy—I mean, we're talking about Texas—it's not who hands you the football and it's not where the ball is handed to you, it's what you do with the ball after you have it.
Rick Perry took the ball from Bush and scored an economic touchdown for Texas. Obama took the ball from Bush and fumbled it—repeatedly—giving the other team a chance to score a touchdown.
Which brings us to the Obama vs. Perry records on the economy. What has happened to some of the key indicators of economic well-being since Obama has been in charge (roughly January of 2009 to June 2011)?
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
“You’re seriously suggesting that Perry’s intent with the HPV vaccine was to promote promiscuity in teenage girls?”
It’s documented that when condoms are handed out guys get leverage over girls, basically saying that the schools now support their sexual proclivities.
I don’t see why I should conclude differently in this case.
“There is one little hitch in your theory. Texas law forbids Perry from stopping an execution for longer than 3 days.”
It’s 30 days, but your point is valid. However, it doesn’t matter...Obama is daring Perry to step in, even if just for 30 days - Perry cannot, of course, step in without losing any chance of becoming president...even for the 30 days.
That’s why it seems to me that Obama wants to strengthen Perry relative to the rest of the field, and it seems to be working, at least on this site.
“You had better hope Perry gets in. De Mint isn’t going to run. Cain doesn’t have a chance and while I like Bachmann, I don’t think she could beat Obama which is the ultimate goal.”
Like I said before, I don’t fear the Republican losing...just as we didn’t fear Reagan losing in 1980, even though he was considered more of a kook than Palin and Bachmann combined, going into that campaign.
I’d rather run someone that I can TRUST to be a conservative. I had enough with Bush-41 and Bush-43, and don’t need someone that cannot even deliver (and face it, didn’t really try to deliver) on Sanctuary Cities.
“I haven’t made up my mind about Perry, and I think the way he handled the Gardasil issue was a mistake. But if that is the worst you can say about him, I’ve got to say that he looks pretty good... “
That is a pretty big screw-up, in my book, as he was basically trying to make health and sexual decisions in place of parents. It would have been OBVIOUS to a real conservative to stay clear of that area.
But no...I do have much longer list of problems with him, having to put up with him for over a decade now.
Lame lame argument
I think the time period has been lengthened because I remember when Bush was gov. they said he could only grant a prisoner a 3 day extension. The libs gave Bush a lot of grief over that.
“Lame lame argument”
What was lame was that Perry NEVER had to run against a conservative to be governor or to stay governor...and he sure as heck didn’t govern as a conservative.
It just showed how INEPT the Republican Party is here in Texas.
I also lime Santorum quite a lot, too. He’s just not the type of candidate I am looking for. Especially considering his trouncing 4 years ago. He was a good senator. He just lost the voters. Looking for executive experience and ideological leadership that can expand the tea party ideas further in the electorate.
Bs...just like the didn’t vote for Bush in 00 and 04? You have no sense of history. While illegal immigration is a important issue, which I think will be settled in a state by state fashion (e.g Arizona); most people do not vote solely on that one issue. I vote on defense, economic views, constitutional appointments and the rule of law....for president. NOT one of them, but each in comparison. You can vote in the primary any way you want but to historically say that is just ignorant.
I don’t know. I see the media, and now Obama, playing up Perry just as they played up McCain going into 2008. They MUST see weakness in him, as I certainly do.
Others have said that the Dems will simply wrap the Bush’s around his neck...due to their similarities. That may explain a lot. I have NO DOUBT that if Perry was really feared, he would be getting the Palin treatment...but he is not (and he’s done more stupid things than Palin ever did).
I think Perry and Palin are in close communication. Only one will get in the race and whichever one that is will win the Republican nomination. My gut tells me it will be Perry, not Palin.”
I had exactly the same thought.
Palin and Perry were together at a prolife event in Austin in April 2010, and they were very comfortable together then; they known eachother for year as fellow governors and are sympatico on many issues. There is no way they would step on eachothers toes. Perry would consult with Palin before making a decision. Palin may well prefer the kingmaker role. We shall see. Perry/Palin ... who knows?
Perry is a fiscal and social conservative.
He’s more conservative than any of the Bush clan.
Sure you can nitpick his record, but any 10-year governor will have a record you can nitpick.
“So do we REALLY have to chose a person who has done some pretty WEIRD stuff, as viewed from conservative eyes”
Any candidate has some ‘weird’ stuff on them. Paulbots hate Cain for the crime of doing a stint with the Federal Reserve. Bachman actually supports farm programs - shocking, her district is so urban (/sarc). And so it goes ...
“can can nominate someone we can TRUST in the White House.”
Fine. Support the best candidate you can. I can assure you that there are many good choices running and more than one you can trust to be mostly solid.
They hate Palin because she is Conservative...not Republican or Liberal. But to me, it’s ultimately the court justices and the general well-being of the economy and country....they determine the long-run of this country.
Republicans sat out 2008 because of McCain, not because of Pres. Bush. GW Bush won 2 elections in a row.
Which state that Bush won will turn against Perry?
Why did reliable Virginia turn against McCain?
Perry has a great opportunity to win should he get in. So does Palin. Palin, Perry, Santorum, Bachman, and Pawlenty are all proven by their records to be pro-life, pro-God, pro-gun, pro-America, pro-fiscal responsibility conservatives. All have problems of one type or another.
We make a terrible mistake injuring one conservative to advance the cause of another.
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.