Rick Perry's Confederate past [Salon "exclusive" that gets it wrong]

Salon Exclusive: The Texas governor's uncomfortably close ties to groups that glorify the Lost Cause

Rick Perry made national headlines in 2009 when, during a speech to a Tea Party group, he floated the possibility that Texas could secede from the union. But the governor's substantive ties to the neo-Confederate movement may be deeper than previously known.

A 1998 voting guide published by a leading neo-Confederate group and obtained by Salon not only endorses Perry for lieutenant governor but also describes him as "a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans." Perry's office did not respond to a request for comment about the governor's possible membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

This is the document, published by the League of the South on its website DixieNet.org; it was unearthed by Edward Sebesta, a Texas-based independent researcher and co-editor of "Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction." Click the image for larger size.

UPDATE 7/14/11: Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier issues this denial: "[T]he governor never joined that group nor has he ever paid any dues to it."

I've asked her if he has a position on the pending license plate issue, and if I hear back I will update this post.

Some people have “never vote for a Bilderberg” as a rule, and have for years.

And some people have “never vote for a Rove candidate” after what he did to Christine.

And Perry is both.

Some people like my wife will never vote for somebody who supported a pro-abortion candidate for President, like Perry did in 2008. I bet there are a lot of interesting rules like those out there.

Many gay conservatives (fiscal at least) find a home behind the scenes as consultants. I was wondering if that was a possible source of the rumors, that friendship.

This is my take on the Perry is gay rumors: It's partly the liberals trying to mock him, it's partly people making fun of his vanity and always appearing to have every hair in place (aka Governor Hairy), and some of it is to poke fun at Texas A&M and Perry's days as a cheerleader, or "Yell Leader" as they are called.

People in Texas like to poke fun at other Texas universities - Aggie jokes are basically Pollack jokes with the Aggie switched with a Pollack, etc. Somewhere along the way you have some people who take all of that and try and wrap it all up into one package and present it as Perry being gay. The other day Cincinatus' Wife or somebody else posted an article from one of the main people who are behind the drive to label Perry as a homosexual, without realizing that the article was from somebody who pushes the Perry = gay agenda and that the article was meant to bring the rumors back up in a subtle way.

Perry has done a lot of sleazy things for his friends, he's pushed a pro-illegal immigrant stance for the better part of a decade partly due to his richest donor, and has done many things to piss conservatives in Texas off, including myself, but he is not gay. If he were gay, we would have already seen photos and have actual eyewitness accounts, because Perry has been living in Austin for nearly 20 years and it would not have stayed hidden.

You are mixing your own metaphors.

You said "You think that every single politician has to win an election by lying about their opponent? "

You actually want an answer I guess ~ it's pretty obvious that I know Republicans do not have to lie, but Democrats always lie.

Your question is general about "every single politician"!

If it only applies to Democrats the answer is "no" ~ since the other side aren't telling lies.

This business about honest disagreements is nonsense ~ on one side the baby is dead. On the other side the baby gets born.

And it goes that way for all the Democrat policies and standards. Death, disease, destruction of society and the rule of law, destitution, etc.

No doubt somebody could climb out of that pit but why would we want to run him or her for office as a Republican when we have millions of others who've worked long and hard and have no pits to climb out of and who could do the job as well as or better than the Democrat/ex-Democrat?

As everybody must know by now Google.com has ways to control the pictorial presentation of any politician.

Where there's a suggestion a candidate may be light in the loafers they can select to show only the pictures of sublime domesticity and meetings with young women on the beach. Fur shur they will suppress the pictures of the candidate with men's swim teams, guys in speedos, all male parties and the like (they did that for Coons in Delaware BTW).

Or, if Google.com doesn't like a candidate, they might show 5 pages of "candidate head shots" before the first picture of a woman shows up.

Barney Frank, BTW, a well known homosexual, goes only 3 pages before a woman shows up!

Once I'd figured out that Google.com can control what pictures get revealed on the internet, I realized that such evaluations (how many guys, how many women, who has clothes on, who is nekkid, are there kids in there) are probably pretty useless except to this extent ~ that what Google.com wants you to see will help leftwingtard homosexual candidates, and hurt Republican heterosexual candidates.

That's their corporate bias!

Rick's collection is almost all headshots of him, and that goes on for 5 pages! I don't think the gay blades at Google.com like Rick very much at all!

What I’ve read regarding Perry has been somewhat disturbing, but not being Texan I don’t have firsthand knowledge. I see what Texans have posted here, regarding illegal immigration and that weird attempted landgrab via eminent domain for the TTC, and those two alone set me on edge. Then, I see “evangelicals” urging Perry to run, a huge prayer vigil with him as apparent centerpiece ... it’s discomfiting, to say the least. Then, there are the gay rumors lurking about.

If he’s the force to be reckoned with that some purport him to be, he needs to have a thorough public vetting much as Sarah Palin has had. Air it. I don’t want another ringer sliding in there, too much is at stake. My heart is with Sarah, but there may be need for a backup candidate. I hope not, but it’s possible.

What I'm doing is setting the thread straight.

Could you set us straight on why you think it's okay that Perry supported a pro-abortion candidate like Giuliani in 2008? I posted this in another thread and since then you started this thread and posted a bunch, and so it's probably gotten lost in your "My Comments" listing, but I'd like to at least understand where you are coming from, so I'll repost it here to save you the hassle of going back several pages. I know you are a very busy woman, because you are a posting machine when it comes to new Perry threads, but hopefully you will see this:

In several threads, you have defended Rick Perry campaigning for Rudy Giuliani in 2007-2008 for President because you said Giuliani was strong on national security and crime. From what you have said, you clearly believe that it had nothing to do with Giuliani's lawfirm helping to try and get Perry's corridor built and everything to do with Giuliani's national security or law enforcement stances. In addition to those stances, he also happens to support abortion, gay marriage, and gun control which means a lot of us here do not care for Giuliani which is why we consider Perry's support of him to be a serious flaw.

There had to have been a threshold reached where you as a Christian, a woman, possibly a mother, and most likely a pro-lifer decided you were going to defend Rick Perry's campaigning for Giuliani for President. I don't see you making that decision lightly.

What did Rudy Giuliani say about national security or law enforcement that made you defend Rick Perry's support of him, and made it okay for Rick Perry to set aside his pro-life beliefs and campaign for Rudy Giuliani for President?

Well, so long as you now admit that you said that "Democrats always lie", rather than pretending I made that up.

I should have continued to use "democrat" in front of politician, to make it clear I was questioning the specific claim you had made.

And no, I do NOT believe that every person who has ever run for office as a democrat has lied about their opponent. In fact, I believe, and have good evidence, that many people who happen to be democrats actually run based on their own beliefs, and get people to vote for them based on those beliefs, and not by lying about their opponent.

And of course, there are many places where a democrat would not have to lie to win an election, because they represent majority democrat constituencies.

And further, what prominent democrats do today is not an accurate reflection of all the southern democrats from decades ago.

Now, on a general note, I happen to believe that most politicians, or their campaigns, either shade the truth or make false or deliberately misleading statements about their opponents. I don't like it, and I call people I support on it when they do it, but it isn't uncommon.

I also believe that democrats, especially modern democrats, do it a lot more often than republicans.

But I reject your stereotype claim that every democrat who ever won an election lied about their republican opponent in order to win.

Some people like my wife will never vote for somebody who supported a pro-abortion candidate for President, like Perry did in 2008. I bet there are a lot of interesting rules like those out there.

......."During his time in Congress, [Al] Gore was considered a "moderate" (he referred to himself as a "raging moderate") opposing federal funding of abortion, voting in favor of a bill which supported a moment in silence in schools, and voting against a ban on interstate sales of guns. His position as a moderate (and on policies related to that label) shifted later in life after he became Vice President and ran for president in 2000…”…… Source

The post you are responding to didn't have anything to do with Al Gore or 1988, it had to do with Rick Perry supporting a pro-abortion candidate by the name of Rudy Giuliani in 2008, and you posted this exact same response in two different threads to posts dealing with Rudy Giuliani. That was a horrible attempt on your part to try and spin or confuse the discussion. Just horrible. I hope you're not getting paid a lot to post these pro-Perry threads or to try and divert the discussions, because your bosses are not getting their money's worth.

I'll ask again, although you'll probably post a link to something Al Gore did or to that Texas Dream Act thread, but here goes:

You defended Rick Perry campaigning for Rudy Giuliani in 2007-2008 for President because you said Giuliani was strong on national security and crime. From what you have said, you clearly believe that it had nothing to do with Giuliani's lawfirm helping to try and get Perry's corridor built and everything to do with Giuliani's national security or law enforcement stances. In addition to those stances, he also happens to support abortion, gay marriage, and gun control which means a lot of us here do not care for Giuliani which is why we consider Perry's support of him to be a serious flaw.

There had to have been a threshold reached where you as a Christian, a woman, possibly a mother, and most likely a pro-lifer decided you were going to defend Rick Perry's campaigning for Giuliani for President. I don't see you making that decision lightly.

What did Rudy Giuliani say about national security or law enforcement that made you defend Rick Perry's support of him, and made it okay for Rick Perry to set aside his pro-life beliefs and campaign for Rudy Giuliani for President?

Sorry troll.

You are correct I confused two of your trolling topics — Al Gore and Rudy Giuliani.

Al Gore the conservative Democrat before he wasn’t.

Rudy Giuliani the conservative national security candidate.

Up most of the night with an elderly dog I’m sitting, who managed to “fall in the pool” during his midnight “walk,” just to make things more interesting.

Rudy Giuliani the conservative national security candidate.

Rudy Giuliani is not conservative.

Every Perry supporter I know has said it was a bad judgement call for Rick Perry to support Giuliani for President, save for you. Something had to have clicked for you to defend Rick Perry's support of Giulaini for President, and I'm just curious what it was.

I’m curious how far you want to go with a “whispering” campaign against me troll.

Why don’t you tell me - answer your own “question”..... I dare you.

Let’s see how far down in the crapper you like to swim.

I’m curious how far you want to go with a “whispering” campaign against me troll.

Why don’t you tell me - answer your own “question”..... I dare you.

The only campaign is you trying to whitewash Perry's record and post as many pro-Perry threads as possible, and once again you're trying to change the topic or avoid the issue.

As for the question, I can't answer that question from your point of view - I disagree with you that Rudy Giuliani is conservative. You can't be conservative and have pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control views, it's just not possible to be conservative with those views. I don't care what anybody's stance on national security or law enforcement is.

Now if I misunderstood you and you want to know why I think Rick Perry campaigned for Rudy Giuliani, well I've told you that elsewhere several times, but for those in the thread who don't know, at the time that Rick Perry was campaigning for Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani's law firm was still trying to help Perry and Cintra get his corridor built - it was on the start of its death spiral after Texans soundly rejected Perry's ideas about their land, but it wasn't quite dead. Giuliani was trying to help Perry, and Perry was trying to help Giuliani. Typical you scratch my back/I'll scratch your back Texas politics.

Regardless of which idea you believe - that Giuliani was conservative and had stances that appealed to Rick Perry, or my view they were working to get Perry's corridor built and Perry was paying Rudy back, in the end, Rick Perry set aside his pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and anti-gun control beliefs to support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani for President.

Andrea Tantaros & Bob Beckel discuss Rick Perry & Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani: "The Republican Party will be much more successful if we get the heck out of peoples’ bedrooms – let these things get decided by states and stick to our economic conservative roots." [paraphrased]

I post facts and occasionally give my opinion. You attack ME and troll my threads. You run around FR printing half-truths and outright lies. I have no time for you.

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.