Posted on 09/01/2011 6:46:10 AM PDT by Hawk720
As he has risen to the top of national Republican presidential polls over the last few weeks, Rick Perry has been forced to confront his past — including the years he spent as a Democrat.
In particular, Perry has been fielding uncomfortable questions about his support for Al Gore in the 1988 presidential race. Perry, who did not switch to the Republican Party until 1989, served as a high-profile Texas supporter of Gore’s presidential bid.
More than two-decades later, as the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, Perry frequently cites Gore’s support of the Strategic Defense Initiative, a Ronald Reagan-era anti-ballistic missile proposal that later came to be known as Star Wars.
“I was a Democrat in my days in the Legislature in the 80′s and I was under the false idea that somehow or another that conservative Democrats could save the Democrat Party. They couldn’t,” Perry said in an interview with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity on Tuesday. “Al Gore appeared to be the most conservative — a strong Strategic Defense Initiative guy — and frankly we thought that he would be the most conservative Democrat. You, know, we were wrong.”
Last weekend, at a campaign appearance in Ottumwa, Iowa, Perry called Gore a “strong Strategic Defense Initiative proponent.”
But Gore’s support for the Strategic Defense Initiative while he was running for president in the late 1980′s was not nearly as enthusiastic as Perry implies.
In fact, just weeks before Gore launched his presidential bid in the summer of 1987, he dismissed the defense proposal as “an electronic Astrodome over the United States” in an interview with the Associated Press.
In a January 1988 interview with Florida’s St. Petersburg Times, Gore was asked whether he would support increasing research funds for the initiative. His response: no way.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I’ve gotta disagree with you on Perry, Tarheel.
Time will tell, of course, but I’ve seen nothing yet that says his pro-life, pro-God, pro-Gun, etc. positions are anything but real.
And the few strikes he’s made: Gardasil, texas highway, and support for an illegal immigrant fence all are explainable.
Nothing says “covert keynesian”, “marxist”, or “abortionist” to me.
With some, that may not necessarily be true. With the abundance of information on Perry's record that proves he is a Chameleon and is not to be trusted, they see it -- it's been posted all over these pages -- they just don't care.
As in the Gardasil caper perhaps...
I read part of 56. I think they left out the part where he quieted the seas and walked on water.
If someone wrote that kind of carp about me, I’d tell them to burn it.
Here, for my bio...
“One day, I stubbed my toe. I looked down, and there was one ant moving over another ant, and for one brief moment they formed a cross. I knew right there it was a message from God, and I had to run for public office.”
Excuse me while I go get some pepto...
Rick Perry made it his problem. FReepers didn’t.
Ha haaaaa!!!
May it be that one day ALL polluticians have to explain why they were DemocRATS.
That's exactly what I thought when I read that comment. The problems with Perry's past are of his own creation. Not ABC, not conservative FReepers, no one but Perry.
They're saving that for the debates....tidbit will be rolled out the day before to set the stage for Perry's-Here -To-Save-You act. ROTFL.
Touching----and don't worry I'll file it away for when David McCullough writes your bio.
What we see here are a lot of posters who are ready with the long knives to attack the candidates who are committed to running. They attach Perry, but they don’t admit on the same post who it is that they see as the winnable alternative.
Frankly I like Bachmann, but I don’t see her winning the nomination. She is clearly out of her league running for president. Ron Paul is out of his mind and won’t garner 1% of the vote even if he were the nominee. He’s frankly just scary, as are his supporters.
Palin would be my first pick, but at this point, I don’t see her running and at this point her negatives might just be too high to get elected and her entry into the race would take away from the other candidates and effectively hand the nomination to Romney, who will win because the Conservatives will never gel around anyone.
I see Perry as a pragmatic Conservative. He is conservative at the core, but in running a State the size of Texas, you have to be pragmatic in some of your decisions.
Overall he is by far the best candidate in the field and my prior unwavering support for Palin as the nominee has been wavering since Perry jumped in. I believe he will not only get the nomination but will beat Obama by 40 states. That is, unless the Perry haters like we have on this forum succeed in undermining him.
The MSM is doing everything they can to smear him. We have a lot of posters here who are doing the devil’s work.
That’s funny that you posted the picture of good/evil Spock.
We have a guy in the office who just came back from vacation with a new goatee/mustache.
We’ve been calling him evil Spock since
I’ve got to agree with you, Marlowe.
Nothing about Perry or his history says “Covert Marxist.”
Nothing says “Covert Abortionist.”
Nothing even says “Covert Keynesian.”
Perry’s problem is that in his 3 terms as Texas Governor he made a few mistakes, so therefore, he isn’t perfect.
That must mean that someone among Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, Cain, or Gingrich must be perfect. I don’t know which one that is, and those who hate Perry won’t tell you who they do think is the perfect one.
I do know that disunited conservatives had to settle for McCain last time around.
I will NOT settle for Romney or Anti-God, Pro-Gay, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Evolution Huntsman.
Run one of those 2 and Obama will win again.
Ultimately, I see the same drift you do from a Perry term as President. He’s certainly not going to buck the conventional Democrat/Republican establishment. “Suck eggs Tea Party members... who gives a damn what you folks think?” Alas, that’s the bottom line.
Hello?
No doubt about it. We’re all responsible for our own actions.
Conservatives take ownership.
Is someone we know owning up to their actions? No. Tell you anything...
Probably a smart move. Liz.
The first debate with him in it should be interesting next week. I’m sure none of the other candidates will want to talk about what we’ve been discussing. I guess Mitt Perry’s team can blame them too for his sordid past.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,.,.,.
Ok so you let Obama continue. Perry may not be great, but a whole let better than Obama.
N-i-c-e take———Perry’s MO is looking more and more like the Loser MO Giuliani used. It’s all about saying one thing and doing another.
Gulie kept “saying” he would not enter early primaries and caucuses (where those dreaded conservatives lurked). But he entered and lost all of them.
Gulie said he was “saving himself” for Fla where all the new york snowbirds spend the winter.....registered to vote in two locations.
Giulie campaigned 63 days stright in fla and came in a distant third. He spent about $60 million and got zero delegates.
Perry did not enter Iowa——but manipulated the vote from afar-—that was supposed to put him over the top. Instead he got 700-800 votes....while Iowa winners who did the right thung-—spending time and money there-—— got 4000 votes each.
Exactly why we need to step back and gain perspective.
By your own standard, the actual voting, Perry could prove himself to you if he wins.
Is that correct?
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.