Left And Right Going Nuclear On Rick Perry

Investors Business Daily ^ | 8/25/11 | DOUGLAS MACKINNON

[Deb]

That Tea Party cartoon is fantastic.

[Deb]

If you don't think Texas is the "big leagues" you know nothing about politics. The Texas Democrats and media are as vicious as any in Washington and they've been hired by MSNBC to trash Perry 24/7.

When Sarah announces she's not running and endorses Perry, all the hatred she's endured from the Left will be transfered to him.

[GSWarrior]

The level of hysteria and demagoguery emanating from the left is a good indicator of Obama’s re-election chances.

[PhilDragoo]

Mark Davis in for Rush today referenced Peggy Noonan criticizing Rick Perry.

I chased it down:

Perry's Popping-Off Problem

I have recently posted links to Ronald Reagan in 1964 on behalf of my (and YAF's) candidate Barry Goldwater:

Ronald Reagan - A Time for Choosing (October 27, 1964)

We today have Rick Perry to contrast with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman.

We may, on the 3d proximo, have Sarah Palin as well.

Would we not as Americans be infinitely better served by either of the two latter rather than the two former.

Peggy Noonan has long ago cashed her cheque.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny--Obama, the dustheap.

[Impy]

Are there good, honest conservatives that just don’t like Rick Perry? You bet.

Nice to make your acquaintance.

Some of us just like the truth. Perry's lie that Gore wasn't a liberal in 1988 (he needs to man up and admit he was wrong to support him not spin) and his soft Bushesque position on immigration are problems for me. Perrybots are really ticking me off posting the same spin BS over and over and over. It's like talking to a wall trying to correct them. And eventually they just Yankee bash you if you ain't from the South.

[Grunthor]

I am not sure I would consider myself a “Perry” or anyone else “bot” however I will at least be honest with you and say that;

A) I know about Gore, Gardisil, illegal aliens (a subject on which Perry is far better than his detractors will admit) ad nauseum.

B) I don’t care.

C) Beating Obama is job numero uno and if Perry continues to show that of the two best candidates polling against Obama HE is the most conservative? He’s going to have my vote.

One caveat; I did post earlier today that this whole race could get shook up if Palin jumps in, or if she endorses Perry. I don’t see her endorsing Romney and no one else in the race is doing anything but spinning their wheels.

[CynicalBear]

>>It’s all about G-d, liberals hate Him and refuse to submit to His will.<<

About God? Submit to His will? Let’s look at where Perry sits with that. Perry has a huge problem with his support for Muslims.

Here’s just one quote from Perry that will illustrate.

“It is a great honor to be in the presence of the Imam of 16 million Muslims around the world, a global humanitarian leader, a man of peace with a pluralistic vision for people around the world, His Highness, the Aga Khan, the 49th Hereditary Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims. Your Highness, on behalf of 23 million Texans, and over 600,000 thousand Muslims living in Texas, I extend our heartfelt appreciation for your 50 years of great international leadership. We are delighted to welcome you to the Lone Star State and participate in the celebration of your Golden Jubilee. I am also grateful to the many federal, state and local leaders in attendance tonight. By their presence, these special guests convey the profound respect that exists in the Western World for His Highness’ work and leadership.”

Now here is what scripture says about someone who gives credence to someone who “preaches another gospel”.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Muslims preach “another gospel”. Here’s what God says about supporting someone who “preaches another gospel”.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Notice the “partaker of his evil deeds”? Perry has put himself in a very dangerous position. If he is “partaker” then I would propose that anyone who gives him the same deference is also a “partaker”. I will not support Perry for that and other reasons. I would suggest that anyone who professes Jesus as savior be very careful about supporting anyone who gives Muslims the type of support that Perry does.

[Impy]

Oh Sorry, I wasn’t calling you one.

Most of them seem to be from Texas, odd since about half of Texas freepers hate Perry’s guts.

ABO sounds good but the thing is if the next Prez is another Bush the whole viscous cycle starts over again.

I lean towards Bachmann but am open if circumstances change. I don’t believe she would have a harder time winning than Perry.

[Grunthor]

I like Bachmann’s values and stands on the issues. I don’t like her chances as she is fading fast. Perry got in and much of her support withered.

My dream President is Herman Cain. He’s not going to win the nomination this cycle. It’s not going to happen. At this point (imo) we have choices between a NE liberal, a Texas moderate, a Texas nutcase, and a badly fading midwestern mom.

There is only one logical choice.

[Impy]

I disagree. She can win Iowa in fact she should be favored to. If she takes Iowa and Myth takes NH Perry would be the one in trouble. Perry is the flavor of the month right now and the “new guy” in the race.

[Grunthor]

Apples/Oranges, I was speaking strictly on a national race, when you correctly talked on state by state races. Sure she could win Iowa.

How many politicians have won Iowa in the past and not won the nomination of their party?

Even if she wins Iowa, no one would be shocked at that. She’s supposed to win it. Then Mitt wins New Hampshire. He’s supposed to. No one is going to read very much into that. If Perry came in 2nd in both states, then wins South Carolina?

Turn out the lights, he’ll damn near run the table.

[BillyBoy]

>> A) I know about Gore, Gardisil, illegal aliens (a subject on which Perry is far better than his detractors will admit) ad nauseum. <<

On illegals, if you want to me admit Perry's rhetoric sound far better than his detractors give him credit for, sure. This guy knows how to work a crowd at a tea party rally and if I hadn't researched his record I'd think he's a great conservative from listening to his speeches. But if we're going by ACTUAL policies, Perry's track record on illegal aliens has been abysmal. Freepers were claiming Huckabee was for open borders, and his track record wasn't nearly as bad. (you won't find any videos of Vicente Fox personally thanking Huckabee for "leading the way" on handouts to illegals or find a clip of Huckabee discussing the possibilities of an international health care plan for the people of Arkasas and Mexico). Perry gets a D- on illegal immigration for good reason. If we're judging candidates purely by a reliably conservative record, Perry lags behind Bachmann, Cain, McCotter, Santorum, and possibly even Roemer and Gingrich. He'd better than a full-fledged RINO like Huntsman, Romney, etc., but that's about it. He's far from ideal and has been a mediocre right-of-center governor who is just conservative enough to win in Texas.

>> C) Beating Obama is job numero uno and if Perry continues to show that of the two best candidates polling against Obama <<

Again, polls show all four of the "leading" candidates are competative with Obama and in a statical margin of error, so I don't see any evidence that Perry is more "electable" and is the only one who can beat Obama. It seems to the Dems used this kind of logic when they nominated party hack John Kerry of Massachuttes on the belief that he was "more electable" simply because he continually won against token opposition in a safe state for his party. If we rank the candidates based on their track record of winning TOUGH elections against POWERFUL Democrat opposition, Perry again comes out poorly. I'd rank Bachmann, Johnson, McCotter, Romney, and heck even Santorum (he got destroyed in 2006 but his 2000 win with Gore on top of the ticket in Pennsyvania was pretty impressive) as "more electable" than Perry. Let's see Perry win under THOSE circumstances in states like Minnesota or Michigan where the Dems far outnumber the GOP. He's never been tested in an election like that.

So on both scales, Perry measures up pretty low on my criteria and I'd rank almost a half dozen candidates as superior to him. But when I discuss this with Perry fans, they'll accuse me of worshipping either Palin or Ron Paul and insist I'm a "purist" who wants "100% perfection" (no, I don't think anyone is perfect, including Bachmann and Cain, and I certainly don't think Sarah Palin's endorsement record is perfect although many Rick Perry fans seem to think it is). Impy's right, trying to cite reasons to many Perry fans why he is not the best choice is like trying to bang your head against the wall. They'll ignore the facts presented and start throwing out straw men like "You're waiting for Sarah, aren't you?" and "You must hate Texans"

>> At this point (imo) we have choices between a NE liberal, a Texas moderate, a Texas nutcase, and a badly fading midwestern mom. There is only one logical choice. <<

And at this point in 2007, the mainsteam media (and a whole bunch of freepers parroting the media favorites) insisted the ONLY options were a NE liberal playing conservative (Romney), a mid-atlantic liberal (Giuliani), and so-called "southern fried Reagan" (fmr. Senator Fred Thompson). According to the "experts", NOBODY else had a chance at the nomination. How'd that work out once the ACTUAL primaries started? The two highest polling pre-primary candidates (Fred & Rudy) went nowhere, it became a 3-way race between Huckabee, McCain, and Romney. I'll wait to see how things play before buying the "Only Romney & Ricky have any chance at the nomination" game. I wouldn't be surprirsed if it looks quite different by the time my state gets to vote. Too many freepers let the mainsteam media pick their candidates for them.

[carjic]

Must be because we voted for Perry for Governor. But in all fairness, it was because “At least he was better than the other choices”. Not true when Palin gets in. Not even close.

[nolongerademocrat]

I am personally a Palin supporter. However, don’t you agree that it is fair to say that liberals generally go after conservatives because they hate G-d and refuse to submit to His will? For me, it is not about Perry specifically, he only happens to be the conservative that they are going after today.

[Impy]

Doubt it.

I predict if Bachmann wins Iowa she will rightfully be established as the conservative alternative to Romney and Slick Rick will be the one out in the cold. I don’t think there has been a Republican nominee in modern times that hasn’t won either Iowa or NH. Clinton did it on the rat side in 92.

Not buying Super Perry’s super electoral prospects in either the primaries or general election. Him being new he hasn’t had time to be tarnished by the scrutiny yet. I’m certainly not giving up and coronating this guy long before the first votes are cast. It’s distressing the amount of people willing to do so.

[Grunthor]

“Not true when Palin gets in.”

If.

[Grunthor]

I agree with you that his nomination should not be considered a fait accompli, I was simply saying that as things stand “right now,” the logical choice (imo) is Perry. Things could change next week if Palin gets in.

Monkeys could also fly out my backside, but you never know.

[Grunthor]

Oh and about Iowa.....

“Two more polls have found that Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has moved past both U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts to lead the Republican presidential pack in Iowa, site of the first caucus battle.

A poll of likely Republican caucus voters, taken by Magellan Strategies and released on Thursday, found that Perry topped the field with 24 percent with Bachmann, who won the Iowa Republican straw poll held in Ames two weeks ago, in second with 22 percent. Romney remained in the mix in third place with 19 percent.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2769565/posts

[hopespringseternal]

Or maybe we don’t think Perry is the conservative you do and want Palin to save our country.

I believe Palin "gets it" far better than Washington in general and Rick Perry in particular. Perry is not my first choice or my second. I could go on about his shortcomings but I won't because he is better than most of the GOP field and very likely to beat Obama soundly.

I can't see myself voting for him in the primary, but it would be stupid to erode the support of someone who it seems very likely will be the GOP nominee by posting half-truths and distortions (not that you have done that but I have seen plenty of it.)

[CynicalBear]

>>However, don’t you agree that it is fair to say that liberals generally go after conservatives because they hate G-d and refuse to submit to His will?<<

Well, that would be a nuanced statement. To a Spirit filled Christian that statement would be absolutely correct. A Spirit filled Christian understands that all of the reasons a person adheres to liberalism have their base in going against the principles of scripture. From taking care of widows, poor, and infirmed to upholding Biblical morality it’s Christians as a group that are instructed to do both. Liberals on the other hand try to relegate that responsibility to government. Many who think they are doing the Christian thing by promoting socialistic programs like taking care of the poor are being deceived but don’t realize it.

So I would say your statement is correct but the only Spirit filled Christians would truly understand it. The battle is a spiritual one that needs to be aimed at the deceiver.