Perryphobia

Politico ^ | August 26th, 2011 | CURT ANDERSON

[shield]

A wave of fear has come over Washington — and it’s not the earthquake or the hurricane. Self-appointed Republican elites, fretting Hill Republicans and left-wing carnival barkers all have one thing in common: Perryphobia.

It’s an acute condition, with different manifestations. But it has the same root cause – arrogance toward Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Let’s get this straight — with Congress being as popular as cholera, they think they are going to hurt Perry’s chances by dissing him? Really? Congress is at an all-time low, according to a new Gallup poll, with only 13 percent of Americans approving of “the way Congress is handling its job.”

The fact is that a candidate seeking support from actual humans who vote would be smart to distance him or herself from Congress — and cholera.

Anyway, the arrogance of the left is easy to prove. And it is even easier to prove that they are in full-out Perryphobia. A random sampling of left-wing oracles this week produces these gems: Ed Shultz calls him a racist; Rachael Maddow says he wants to “lynch” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Chris Matthews insists that “he looks like a clown.”

Now for Hill Republicans, whoever they are. A Politico story, “Rick Perry’s loose lips worry Hill Republicans” put Perryphobia on full display.

Let’s start with the left, because that’s easy. Liberals — roughly 20 percent of America, fortunately — are generally very willing to tell you that they know more than you do. If you don’t believe that, try a field experiment today and you will see.

But liberals don’t just talk the talk, they walk the walk...........

[LomanBill]

>>and not really relevant to Perry.

 

The fraudulent means by which our national infrastructure was looted isn't relevant to a presidential candidate - are you serious?  Maybe it's not relevant if he's running for president of an oligarchic kleptocracy; but he's [allegedly at least] running for president of our Republic. 

 

A Republic is a system of governance characterized by the Rule of Law.

Is Perry going to demand that laws against fraud be enforced; and that those responsible for the systemic corruption of our economic infrastructure be prosecuted to the full extent allowed by the Law?

 

What has Perry had to say about the sub-prime rape of this Republic?

{crickets crickets crickets crickets}

 

BOHICA for the ACORN gravy train?

If all Perry brings to the table is an empty prayer on a street corner and another another 12 years of this...

 

"Oops, Wall Street got Drunk"

 

... along with an administration whose SEC who couldn't find their own arse with both hands and a SQL script telling them exactly where to find it - then NO SALE - because evidently the RINOs running The Party(tm) haven't changed their spots at all.

 

 

 

[CajunConservative]

In discussing the primaries discussions it would be more honest to let people know that you are not a Republican but a leader in a third party. It’s your right of course but be honest.

I’m a lifelong registered Republican. I’m not involved in the party stuff but I do vote for the best possible candidate that I believe will actually WIN. I’m not ashamed of that either because not all of them are evil and out to destroy the Constitution.

When it comes to politics, strategy is also as important as ideology. Third parties have cost the US more than they have helped. I have nothing against them in local and even state elections but until there is a viable party with enough winners in the legislature, a third party candidate will never win the WH. IF by chance they do, how in the heck will they get their agenda passed with zero support in the legislative branch?

[EternalVigilance]

You don't see any hypocrisy in personally attacking me in this way when I have my real name, along with my political affiliations, on my homepage, and you don't?

But, in any case, if you think I'm going to post all that in every post I make on FR, you're being silly.

And if you think this is nothing more than another Republican website, perhaps you should revisit what it says on the FR homepage:

Welcome to Free Republic!

Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

[bfree]

You seem like the troll, not GOP youth.

Cheers

[shield]

Go over to DU...see if they don’t act like the FReepers spamming Perry threads...

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

What matters is what actually gets enacted into law.

Why is La Raza complaining about so much of what has actually been enacted into law?

[dragnet2]

Not the issue.

The issue is Perry attending an organization which is 100 percent pro-amnesty and pro-open borders and pro illegal alien, while giving speeches and bumping bellies with them, does nothing but lend credibility and credence this racist organization.

[Oceander]

Let's address some of those points, shall we?

1.  Border Walls

A border wall is the heighth of stupidity. One would have hoped by now that the lessons of the epic failure of the Maginot Line would have filtered down to all but the most benighted levels of society. Or the lessons of the Gaza Strip Barrier, which was undermined with a 800-meter tunnel about a year after the barrier was completed. Then again, maybe it has.

The extent of my disagreement with Perry on this point is that I would go even further than he: a border wall is a stupid, pointless, idiotic waste of taxpayers' money, a precious resource that is in very short supply.


2.  Immigrant Worker Programs

I also agree in principle with the idea of an immigrant worker program, particularly one with robust requirements for registration and periodic reporting to an immigration office, largely for one simple reason: it would make it exponentially easier to keep track of everyone who enters the US but who does not intend to immigrate, and that would it turn make it exponentially easier to find those immigrant workers who are causing problems, committing crimes, or otherwise becoming a net burden on society.

The alternative, which is what you are implicitly supporting:  the armed closure of the border and use of armed force to hunt down and deport anyone who hasn't obtained one of the limited traditional work visas we presently issue, would make every conspiracy theorist's worst nightmares about Team Obama look like pleasant daydreams by comparison. An armed border wall inevitably degenerates into what the Berlin Wall became:





If that is what you are in favor of, then I pray that the Good Lord take pity on you and your soul when you pass.

This issue becomes particularly acute in the border states because many of the residents there are perfectly legal immigrants from Mexico who - notwithstanding that they may dislike the illegals for making a mockery of the legal immigrants' patient wait for a visa - do not want to see their old neighbors, and possibly their kin, hunted down through the streets of every town in America and shot like dogs if they try to escape.

I cannot imagine any non-psychotic human being wanting to do that to others.

Given that this is an acute issue in the border states, I would expect the border states to be taking much more proactive approaches to the issues and trying a variety of different approaches - sometimes conflicting approaches - to dealing with it.


3.  TARP Bailouts

This is such a complicated subject, in part because many of the problems were initially caused by other government distortions in the market-place (e.g., Citigroup and the crony capitalism that for decades has kept that misbegotten whore from being broken up by a receiver or a bankruptcy court), and in part because it wasn't an a priori bad idea under all possible circumstances - i.e., the argument really is about the scope and scale, and not whether or not to do it at all, so I'm not going to get into it here with you - the required level of discussion is too sophisticated - and will say that a deeper understanding of an individual's views on TARP is needed before one can say thumbs-up or thumbs-down on someone who supported that program.


4.  HPV Vaccine

Everyone makes a mistake now and then, and this was a relatively ancillary issue in any event. Finally, he saw the light and has now reversed course and admitted his mistake. Regardless of whether or not you want to smear him with the pandering charge because of the timing of his recantation, at least he's capable of recognizing - and disavowing - his mistakes, something that neither Romney nor Obama is capable of doing.


5.  Gay Marriage

Perry never said he was fine with gay marriage in and of itself, and all I will do is say that it is rather disingenous of you to say otherwise. What Perry said was that as far as he was concerned, it was a state issue, and that he was fine with New York exercising its prerogative as a sovereign state not under his, or Texas', control to go ahead and make whatever stupid mistakes it wanted to.

I wholeheartedly agree with Perry on the issue of states' rights and the ability of individual states to make almost any stupid, idiotic mistakes they want to. What matters most is that these mistakes not be foisted on the entire nation by one state alone.

I am equally shocked to find so many self-anointed conservatives so adamantly opposed to states' rights. Considering that these same self-anointed conservatives will argue states' rights when it comes to their own pet causes, I cannot but detect the subtle but overpowering stench of hypocrisy. The rights of the states to act as independent sovereigns in all areas that the Constitution did not explicitly take away from them is not a doctrine that one can selectively apply just to those causes that one favors.

Finally, I would just point out in passing that, because conservatives were too blinkered to actually see the reality behind what was going on, and therefore bitterly opposed everything starting with the so-called civil partnerships, that liberals have come well-nigh to actually destroying the concept of marriage qua marriage in this country.

The bottom line is this: under the ordinary, garden-variety rules of partnership law, partners can bind themselves to have greater obligations vis-a-vis each other than spouses have to each other under state marriage laws. Thus, it would have been a matter of mere triviality to have channeled the movement for some sort of recognition of gay relationships into the civil partnership cul-de-sac, where it would have sat and not have become such a threat to the concept of marriage qua marriage because the simple rejoinder would have been "you have exactly the same sorts of legal rights and disabilities under the civil partnership law, what else do you want, some silly sort of label?"

But that didn't happen and, as a result, conservatives have been significantly instrumental in abetting liberals in the destruction of traditional marriage qua marriage because they were too blinkered to actually spot the real strategies and tactics needed in this area. They also seem to have forgotten the real reach and logically necessary implications of the Biblical injunction to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

The issue is Perry attending an organization which is 100 percent pro-amnesty and pro-open borders and pro illegal alien, while giving speeches and bumping bellies with them, does nothing but lend credibility and credence this racist organization.

I admit that attending that function was a boneheaded move on his part -- but even more so, because he reaped no political benefit from doing so (which is the point I've been trying to make, albeit unsuccessfully thus far).

[dragnet2]

Everything up front, speeches etc, are window dressing.

This is for votes, back door deals are concocted, promises made, winks, nods, hand shakes, assurances, closed door proposals/plans, etc. This is why politicians go to events such as this.

It's a stamp of approval for an organization 100 percent in approval of open borders, amnesty, and illegal aliens. Their agenda is inordinately clear.

Why did Perry go to the racist organization La Raza?

In a nutshell...You get my support, I get yours. You scratch my back, I scratch yours.

[grey_whiskers]

Nope, not on this site.

As the owner of the site has said, Free Republic is PALIN COUNTRY.

So when I see people trying to talk up an impostor like Perry...I'm gonna point out his policy flaws and his character flaws.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Do as you wish, but insults don’t help your cause, whatever your cause is.

Yeah, you're a troll.

Re-read your post #59, Your remarks are in italics:

Perry can’t surf. His (D)epends are bloating with RINO Piddle.

You're obviously a coprophiliac. Seek help.

Accusing a fellow freeper of felony sexual perversion and then admonishing others about insults.

Yep.

Perry supporters are trolls.

Cheers!

[CowboyJay]

"Go over to DU...see if they don’t act like the FReepers spamming Perry threads..."

Why don't you. They seem to like democrats and retards over there. Perry should count for both places on the quinella ticket.

[smoothsailing]

You aren’t particularly bright, are you?

[shield]

Grow up, take your meds, and stop the name-calling.

[Fred]

major ping to Jimrob

[Fred]

Nice work, looks like Perry pesticide for the perrytards

[Cheetahcat]

“major ping to Jimrob”

?????

[Oceander]

Who gave the following answers in an interview:

Q:  Do you think they all should be deported?

A:  There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Q:  To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

A:  I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

Does it change your answer if I say that I quite agree with those views and the immigration policies they imply?

[Fred]

I am referring to the photo.