Posted on 08/30/2011 9:43:21 AM PDT by CA Conservative
Raleigh, N.C. – If there was any question that Rick Perry is the new Republican presidential frontrunner before now, PPP’s latest poll of South Carolina confirms it. A week ago, PPP showed Perry jumping to a narrow lead in first-caucus Iowa. Now, he has a double-digit lead in what will likely be the third-voting state. Perry tops with 36% to Mitt Romney’s 16%, Michele Bachmann’s 13%, Herman Cain’s 9%, Newt Gingrich’s 8%, Ron Paul’s 5%, Rick Santorum’s 4%, and Jon Huntsman’s 2%. This is a sea change from when PPP last polled the race in June, with Perry not included. Romney led with 30% to Cain’s and Gingrich’s 15%, Bachmann’s 13%, and Paul’s 10%.
If Sarah Palin joins the fray, it has no impact on Perry’s dominance but a lot on Bachmann’s standing. Palin would place third at 10% behind Perry still at 36%, Romney at 13%, followed by Cain’s 9%, and Bachmann and Gingrich tied at 7%.
(Excerpt) Read more at publicpolicypolling.com ...
Protecting us from actually having an electable candidate?
“Deconstructing Reagan? Really? Good grief.”
You overreact, DoughtyOne, the point being made is that there is no “perfect” candidate.
We all just the seek the best possible one.
Were FR online 30 years ago there would undoubtedly be FReepers listing Reagan’s shortcomings and calling those who support him RINOs. Do you deny it? He had some baggage.
I am not deconstructing him. I am telling the truth. He is still the best President of the 20th century as far as I know.
If I won’t support Perry, what would make you think I would support Romney?
I’ve addressed his own record. If the information bothers you, reconsider your options.
Yes, they did hide that comment way down in the second short sentence. ;^)
Ouch! ;^)
Watch out! There’s a tough guy here on FR that physically threatens people who point out as great as we was, Reagan was not perfect.
I rather look at it as demorats are following those of us Republicans who see that Perry is not the man for the job.
Grunthor, I may not be completely fair, when trying to counter nonsense, but I try to be as fair as possible.
It was nice of you to respond in that manner and I appreciated it.
You obviously have never driven I-35 through San Antonio, Austin or the Metroplex during rush hour. There is no way to widen or improve the existing right-of-way enough to handle the amount of traffic they currently deal with.
You think it’s a Conservative move to plan a new massive right of way across the state to take over 70,000 acres by eminent domain?
Using eminent domain to take private property and give it to a private business a la Kelo is a perversion of the process. However, property has always been taken via eminent domain for public uses such as for parks, roadways, railroads, etc. There is nothing unconservative about that, as long as just compensation is provided.
You think it’s a good Conservative policy to refuse to support a fence or wall on our southern border?
Do YOU think it is good conservative policy to put up a barrier that would deprive thousands of Texans access to their property or would prevent them from accessing the only major water source available to them and to their livestock?
You think it’s a good Conservative policy to refuse to repatriate illegals, give their kids here rights U.S. Citizens from other states can’t even get. Really?
Care to specify what rights the children of illegals can get that US citizens from other states can't get? And don't bother saying "in-state tuition" - that has already been thoroughly debunked. Any citizen that met the same criteria (attending Texas schools for at least three years, graduate from a Texas high school, live in Texas for at least 12 months immediately prior to applying for college) would also get in-state tuition. As a matter of fact, Texas law makes it easier for US citizens to qualify as Texas residents for in-state tuition. You or your family must merely live in Texas and be employed for 12 months prior to applying - the requirement to attend Texas schools and graduate from a Texas high school do not apply to US citizens.
You think it’s a Conservative idea to state that every young girl must provide evidence of having taken the Gardasil regimen, unless their parents step in to object? Really?
I really was not thrilled with this, but Perry has admitted he made a mistake in how he handled it. But keep in mind that almost 30,000 people per year are diagnosed with HPV-related cancers. So while I don't agree with the method, I do agree with the concern.
You think it’s a good Conservative idea to toss the whole Gardasil determination process on it’s ear, by making parents look like some sort of animal if they don’t get the Gardasil regmine for their girls, thereby causing more young girls to have to submit to something that caused over 100 deaths and thousands of immune deficiency problems for other girls? Honest?
I think parents should have the right to decide if they want to immunize their daughters for this. But the number of deaths allegedly associated with the vaccine, while tragic, is very small. Keep in mind that they estimate that vaccinations for chicken pox caused 100 deaths per year until recently. Deaths from chicken pox are pretty rare, but almost 5,000 women per year die from HPV-related cervical cancer. So your argument about the supposed danger of the vaccine is flawed, unless you oppose ALL vaccines on the same grounds, seeing as many mandatory vaccines have a much higher death rate.
This is a guy you think is Conservative?
As Sarah would say - "you betcha!"
Falling on deaf ears....only hearing what they want to hear.
BIG AMEN to that, brother!!!
As I have already stated on this thread, if this were April of 2012, and Perry had achieved the nomination, it would be one thing to back him from there on out.
It’s another thing entirely to back him so stridently in August of 2011 that some of us are even willing to champion the idea that valid Conservative candidates should drop out now.
There are valid true long term Conservatives out there who deserve our support. That’s where our emphasis should be right now.
Instead, we’re championing a man who has put his foot in his mouth as often as Joe Biden has.
You can’t see a Conservative having a problem with this?
“There are valid true long term Conservatives out there who deserve our support.”
Which one of those are you supporting in the race?
Re #135:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I don't wish for or against her endorsement. And if she's going to jump in, she might want to do so in short order.
There was also an opt-out clause, which stated if the parent or guardian didn't want the student taking the drug, they weren't required to do so.
I doubt he even wins Michigan. Why? His father was governor fifty years ago? Big deal.
WARNING:
RED SOUTH just blew a gasket.
Our governor was elected to a VERY red state here in tN, but he is no Conservative. that is a bad argument. Follow his record; he is a RINO.
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.