Posted on 07/19/2011 4:39:17 PM PDT by truthfreedom
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — In spite of his thundering speeches against big government, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a troubled relationship with the tea party, a rift increasingly obvious as he gets closer to a presidential bid.
Tea party groups from New Hampshire to Texas are collaborating to criticize Perry's record on immigration, public health and spending and his former affiliation with the Democratic Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
” That’s exactly how we came to have Obama in the WH.” <<<
Ah, but NOT FOR THE SAME REASONS. There, fixed it.
Yes the reasons are the same. Same as the reason we have a Dem as governor of CO.
Both Governor Owen (R) and President Bush (R) were wishywashy R’s, paving the way to the destruction of the republican Party. Owens in CO, Bush on the national scene.
Perry is nothing more than George Bush the Third.
Everybody says we can’t do worse than Obama. I think we might.
Electing Perry would test that theory, because he will pave the way for another Socialist
Okay tell the truth. You are a liberal Democrat afraid that Perry will run because he could beat ZERO!. The majority of these articles came from liberal rags in TX or from Democratic sources. Either way, you have an axe to grind.
” Perry is nothing more than George Bush the Third” <<<
I don’t know about that. Look at all those “MISS ME YET” signs that were a bullseye gage of American opinion longing for the Bush imperfections. Maybe a saint can win a general election in ‘12, maybe purity will fly to the top of the voter issues, but I doubt it. Ballot levers will be pulled for one issue—to avert fiscal collapse entirely, and Perry leads that pack by every measure, he can stuff Romney, match Obama in money, and take the Independents who will decide this race.
You are way off. I probably posted more threads about Christine O’Donnell than any other candidate.
Here’s just one more thing to hate about Rick Perry, he was a Democrat, was Al Gore’s Campaign Manager in Texas, and Karl Rove switched him to Republican in 1989, and was Perry’s Campaign Manager in Perry’s run for Agriculture in 1990.
Seeing as how Karl Rove and his buddies tore Christine apart, I said I would never support a Karl Rove candidate.
I don’t care if Rove and Perry have been fighting. Perry is a Karl Rove Candidate.
Since you already know Rove worked against Perry in the 2010 Republican primaries, you are just lying about Perry and Rove's relationship because you don't like them.
At least be "truthful" about your dishonesty.
But if he says he is dishonest he would be telling the truth which means he can't be dishonest cause he is telling the truth and eep ork ting sproing bang!
Didn't some computer on the original Star Trek blow a gasket pondering this unsolvable semantic paradox?
Palin would win over Is and Ds, without Ron Paul. I suspect that the Is and Ds that Palin would get would be different than the Is and Ds that Paul would get.
I’m not arguing even that Palin would need Ron Paul’s D’s and I’s in addition to her own D’s and I’s.
I don’t care what polls say, women will be voting for Palin. All rural white women, all lower middle class white women, all hs or less whites. And I think she would draw huge numbers with those groups. Ron Paul would help with fans of indie rock. Ron Paul would help with 18-29.
The Perry people say that every time.
I even said i don’t care if Rove and Perry are feuding, he did manage his campaign, and that makes him a Rove Candidate.
I explicitly defined my terms, and I was not interested in the current state of friendship between Rove and the various Rove candidates. There are a lot of them, and they are all unacceptable.
Rove’s influence on the GOP has been bad. We want nothing more to do with Karl Rove and any of his candidates. The Karl Rove brand is “Fake Conservative” and we don’t want any more of that.
Great post.
Rove managed his 1990 campaign for AG. Rove, along with other members of the Bush administration worked to defeat Perry in the 2010 primaries.
He's a "Rove Candidate" only in your Paul-addled brain.
I buy the theory that Palin/Bachman fight it out and split votes between them. This advantages Romney who Bachman is leading in some polls, gaining in others. One of the girls emerge, Romney is in, and now comes Rick Perry for a three way race. This is where Rick is capable of not only bringing his own in, but taking from Romney and from one of the girls, for the win.
Bachmann won’t last until the primaries. If Palin’s in, give a lot of Bachmann’s to Palin. More of Bachmanns would go to Palin than anywhere else, but I don’t see Bachmann as a factor in January 2012, especially if Palin is in there.
Ron Paul will get 10% at least, everything is ahead of where it was last time, any analysis should include him.
My analysis. (if) Palin get in, Palin gets most of the tea party, plus regular Republicans (who might be more “establishment” than “tea party”) Paul has his people, plus some tea party. There will be an “establishment” candidate(s). If Rick Perry is one of those candidates, he’ll be one of those candidates. Mitt Romney is the frontrunner establishment candidate. Cain and Bachmann would likely be out if Palin runs. The tea party will not support Perry.
I’m Tea Party and I want a winner in the General. Period. Independents will not go Palin/Bachman/Cain when they cross over into our primary or they would be Republicans already. Those three will split only the Tea Party and never win in the general election. None of the three will get Independents, none of the three will get the Rino’s. The race will be between Romney and Perry and Palin/Bachman survivor for the nomination. I believe Perry traverses all the tiers best and that he can win the general election.
You must have slept right through the 2010 midterm elections.
I can’t imagine Perry being strong in areas outside the South. We’ll win the South.
You mention the tea party runoff. I think the tea party is mighty, and wouldn’t be picking Perry. I don’t think the tea party is going to be backing Perry, and I just don’t think Bachmann is going to be there come primary time, which means Palin, but if Palin isn’t there either, that means Ron Paul.
I would assume that a Paul / Perry / Romney race would probably be more to Perry’s liking than a Paul / Palin / Perry / Romney race.
How did I know this was an MSM article before even looking?
How about when Associated Press gets itself all twisted up in claiming he’s dividing the Republicans? That’s an early sign maybe, like the first robin of spring. Rolling Stone will be more like the sweet daisies of summer.
” You must have slept right through the 2010 midterm elections. “ <<<<
I don’t know anyone who thinks the mid terms were about Palin/Bachman/Cain for president.
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.