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 ...
Do you think the info at my link was longer than the info at your link? Did you point me to something specific?
Texas has had a pro business environment for a long time. Perry didn’t come to the rescue of the state. It was decent before him and probably before Bush. It will likely be decent long after Bush and Perry.
It’s my take that Bush and Perry probably did some thing to better the state after Richards, but how much credit does Perry really deserve here?
I picture Perry in a little blow-up dingy in the middle of the ocean, with his rubber duck. A big ocean liner goes by tooting it’s horn. Perry picks the rock with a note he wrote months ago and hurls it as hard as he can through a window. The note is passed to the captain. It says. “I have kept this waterway strong and safe for you. I want to be captain.”
Uh, no thanks.
Proof? Proof? "'What is the truth?' said jesting Pilate /And would not stay for an answer." -- Browning
No, really, in a state where there's no legal requirement to show where a lot of a candidate's support comes from (certain forms of financial support aren't reportable, and direct donations are not limited), what would constitute proof of a quid pro quo arrangement? I've already pointed you to the Chronicle article about the millionaires boasting to KBH that they've got "good money invested in Rick Perry" and that they intended "to get [their] money's worth". That not enough?
How about this press release from Tyson Foods, showing Rick Perry supporting Tyson Foods with a political letter requesting reduction of USG support for ethanol, which was raising Tyson's feed costs? Do I have to produce a letter from Don Tyson to Rick Perry saying "I'm calling one of my chips here -- do this"?
Tyson Foods 2008 Press Release: Ethanol.
As for the narrowness of Rick Perry's circle of contributors, and his concentration on rich people, here's an article from the (not notoriously liberal, and I've read them a lot in the past) Ft. Worth Startlegram, talking about Perry's m.o. in collecting backing:
And here is an NGO report on the same sort of thing. Unless you think all NGO's are biased to the point that the only "trustworthy" source on something is Rick's own statements and recordings of his voice saying them. Link:
If you're totally committed to Rick Perry so that it doesn't matter any more what anyone says or what anyone can produce in the way of evidence that Rick Perry gets ahead by going to rich people and proactively compromising himself in pursuit of political money, then let me know and we can stop talking about him.
I’m totally committed to taking my country back from the likes of Barrack Hussein Obama and I happen to think that Rick Perry is just the man we need to get that started!
“The statists believe in a powerful, activist central government that advances a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion. They hide behind misguided notions of empathy and push token talking points about fighting for the little guy, all the while empowering the federal government to coercively and blatantly undermine state, local, and self-governance.” pg. 320
“The truth is, I don’t care what party the statist is in. The fact of the matter is, it is the statist, and those who support or enable him, who is the problem. For too long he has undermined this country by empowering the national government at the expense of liberty. An America defined by the statist in Washington is an America doomed to fail.” pg. 338
(both quotes from Perry, Rick; (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington.
Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with ME because he has NAILED what I’ve been posting about on this site since March of 1998!
That’s alright DO. I gave it my best shot and you seem to have your mind made up.
I like you too so, I’ll drop it out of FRiendship.
See ya round the board.
Oh, you never told me who you were hoping for?
Thank you WolfCreek. This involves a number of concepts and things a guy holds/does when he is or is not a Conservative. One thing that can look like an isolated minor mistake, can tip off a wealth of insight into a whole category of problems. I’m not going to be able to explain my evaluation process to your satisfaction. I accept that. I can still remain your friend.
I appreciate your efforts feeling the way you do. I think it’s admirable of you to give it a go. I hope to see you around too.
Rather than give you a name, I’d rather tell you that I am supporting people that seem to have the same core beliefs that I do.
At this point in my life, in light of our national condition, I would hire a person off the street before I would hire some of the characters trying to say they are fit to lead Conservatism. Of course I wouldn’t, but that’s how firmly I disagree with some of these people.
This runs much deeper than some folks think.
I have certain criteria.
1. They must demonstrate a full solid grasp of Conservatism
2. They must demonstrate the willingness to pledge allegiance to it, and a devotion to follow through.
3. They must be able to explain the global drift over the last 100 years.
4. They must understand why Israel
5. They must swear to be true to, and peruse Conservatism in every matter they address, for every waking moment from the moment they are sworn in until the next guy is.
To put this into terms you may be able to identify with, today’s modern women are not the only people who won’t settle any longer.
We are still talking about politicians, right? ;o)
Best of luck!
Distort as you will but I never made most of the comments you attribute to me or have any of the beliefs you claim. That is when you know your opponent is losing it, when he has to resort to lying about what you have said.
There are no conservatives acceptable to you that much is clear, not one. Unless they have NO chance of winning then you might relent.
Only Reagan is a conservative? NO one else?
You aren’t a Republican at all are you? Its ok, you can admit it. Why would you even care what a RINO is if you are not even a Republican?
You’re hawking Perry, and didn’t know there were Conservatives in the race? ;^)
You want a secular canonization of the wannabe philosopher king. The GOP will be about the business of electing a conservative POTUS which paleoPaulie can never be since he is simply an exaggerated dime store libertarian who hangs with the likes of David Duke, Stormfront, Alex Jones and the 9/11 Troofers. He is a crackpot and the GOP and America know it. Come January 2013, El Run will be merely an historical curiosity and an exhibit in the Museum of the Politically Ludicrous.
BTW, what has the surrenderman DONE during this, his last term in office when the GOP caucus put him in a poition to do something about the FED RESERVE. All he wants to do is bloviate and pose for holy pictures as usual (as with pro-life, marriage, fiscal conservatism, and his nutty ideas about issuing letters of marque and reprisal in the 21st century).
If Paul marched down and declared himself a pro-life dictator and actually ACTED accordingly it would certainly be an improvement over his track record of posing for holy pictures only while DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than denying his ability to do anything. He is a crackpot. He is a fraud. If Paul claims to want to lower taxes, that does not make tax reduction a Paulistinian position that is not shared but somehow "stolen." He is a crackpot and he and his enthusiasts will not be missed.
Just keepin it real, DO.
I’d have it no other way.
You be my conscience, but don’t let it unsettle you if I go my own way from time to time.
;^)
He is probably allergic to the interstate highway system since even Eisenhower dubbed them (you paleosurrendermonkeys and sockpuppets should pardon the expression) "National Defense Highways." To prevent seagoing disasters near our coasts or not to prevent seagoing disasters near our coasts??? What would Lysander Spooner say? Or the pre-religious Murray Rothbard? Or Llewellyn Rockhead? Or Justin(e) Raimondo of that fount of foreign policy wisdom (here all paleos genuflect before the gay libertoonian antiwarlord)??? Or David Duke???
BTW, people madly supporting Ron Paul the anti-Reagan 1988 POTUS nominee of the Libertoonian Party (who thereby sought to elect Michael "Snoopy in a tank" Dukakis to pre-emptively ruin America and its defense structure) ought to watch trying to steal the label RINO. Come to think of it, of all POTUS candidates, Ron Paul most resembles then image of Dukakis as "Snoopy in a tank" and the policies of same. You support this imbecile and have the nerve to sling around the name RINO at those who don't and won't and won't have to in any event???
Your continued harping on trivial bits makes your stature diminish
That may be a good thing. I’d appreciate it if you would tell folks so they’d quit FReepMailing me with kudos.
In my thirteen years here, I’ve never generated more favorable FReepMail from one thread.
Deal but, only if you do the same.
Wait just a minute there...
;^)
>>>As governor [Sarah Palin] urged her state senators to push acceptance of the Law of the Sea Treaty. <<<
This is the letter she wrote. Sounds reasonable.
http://globalsolutions.org/files/general/Palin_LOS_Letter.pdf
This is a FR thread on the subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2568313/posts
>>>I do need to know more about [Herman Cain], but I could easily see him as a V.P. selection. <<<
Why not President?
>>>I am saddened to see you state that you think his race would cost him Republican votes.<<<
You already lowered him to the VP slot. For what reason? Why only VP?
>>>. . .there is a real advantage to lofting a man like Cain. It would demonstrate once and for all that Republicans were not racists, it would loft a man back youth would be well to emulate, and his business instincts would be a real asset to him, or his president.<<<
Are implying we should vote for him because he is black? I am opposed to affirmative action. It is a racist ideology. Maybe we should just consider his qualifications, which are considerable, as you wrote:
>>>He has worked for a number of top corporations<<<
He also served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
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.