Posted on 09/02/2011 6:43:37 PM PDT by Clairity
Well, I can’t see a damn thing there that I disagree with, although it’s weird that I should read this in the NY Times of all places.
It’s almost as though they printed that, knowing that I would read it and warm up to Rick Perry. They wouldn’t do that on purpose, would they?
Not true at all. Gore was doing the global warming thing and plenty more in the early/mid 80s. Some of it even earlier, and he did not hide it. It was known.
I’m a Palin guy so to avoid arguing, I invite you to look it up for yourself. Gore has been that radical far longer than you may realize. And history proves it.
Some links would be nice to support your allegation, since you don’t have any, that indicates to me you have not done your research. In any case, Perry said Gore has gone to hell. More importantly, Perry has a 10 year record of governing, several years AFTER his association with Gore that renders that association moot, just as Bachmann association with Carter is moot, and Reagans’s association with democrats was moot.
If you don’t like Perrys governing record, fine, that is a legitimate reason to reject him, but it is not legitimate to ignore that record and simply reject him because of his long past association with Al Gore. David Horowitz was a card carrying commie and now he is a conservative blogger who’s opinion matters to many here at this board. People change, its called life.
I agree, too. However, I do have mild concerns that the Great Unwashed Swing Voters may be “scared” by this, so I think he has to craft his message in such a way that focuses on jobs, and explains that these are long term concerns, and why he feels that way, but, until we get America back to work, its not worth discussing.
Oh, I have indeed done research. As a Palin supporter I did not provide a link and said to do your own research specifically to avoid bias on my part and let you see the truth for yourself without my instigating a flame war.
I have spent several years writing on eco/landuse issues in the late 90s/early 2000s. The facts are there. History is what it is. You can seek it out or ignore it. But you have been made aware. What you do is your choice.
Post a link, or send by freep mail, I promise I will not be offended, and I don’t do flame wars. That said, even if he was an envirowhacko back then, Perry has since recognized that, AND more importantly, has a ten year governing record to look at thus rendering his past association with Gore moot,just as Bachmanns past association with Carter is moot, and Reagans past association with the dem party was moot.
With enemies like those to prop him up, he doesn’t need friends.
LOL!
Great visual. :)
Governor Perry ‘s Islam Connection (The Truth)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2771822/posts
Trying to paint hims as an Islamist is just more dirt is enemies are throwing at him, hoping some of it sticks.
He is a great friend to Israel also.
Living in England you are missing the most important point: ELECTABILITY.
Republicans have to nominate a conservative who can win and beat Obama. And that’s Perry. Period.
Splitting the conservative votes would help Romney become the nominee and Obama will beat him, net result: 4 more years of Obama.
Focusing on “what’s wrong with Perry” totally ignores the FACT that Obama is a million times worse than any of the Republican candidates. The Democrats want to take out Perry in the primaries, because they know Obama would lose to him. Some misguided conservatives are playing into the Dems hands by attacking Perry, because while he is 90% conservative, they are either waiting for a “perfect” conservative, who doesn’t exist, or have a pet candidate who doesn’t have any chance of either getting the nomination, and most certainly no chance against Obama.
The NET result of course: 4 more years of Obama.
No real conservative could really prefer that, yet there have been quite a few posters here who posted that they would prefer Obama to Perry — you figure out how conservative they really are.
Excellent! Post of the week. It could be a campaign slogan.
Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, by Rick Perry.
“I do have mild concerns that the Great Unwashed Swing Voters may be “scared†by this”
This is exactly why the NY Times is publishing it.
Dems have a memo out to paint Perry as “extremist”.
Bill Burton: Rick Perry ‘dangerous,’ potentially ‘devastating’ for America
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62180.html
“In his weekly memo for the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, former White House spokesman Bill Burton signals that the first wave of Democratic attacks against Rick Perry won’t be about character, land deals, the HPV vaccine or any of the other early oppo hits on the Texas governor.
The early Priorities USA attack line against Perry is simpler: He’s too extreme to be trusted with the White House.”
I know you must know, but he signed it into law. Texas now is one of ONLY 7 states that makes you show a valid government issued ID to vote.
You have my vote.
To those people heterosexuality and the belief in God is a radical idea.
I am not disagreeing in the slightest - to me Perry is a solid choice, and I have a couple hundred riding on him being the next POTUS (so sue us, US elections are a spectator sport and rather heavily bet on here)
What I am saying, from many years working for the conservatives here in a district that has voted Labor since the Labor party was invented, is that we (yeah - I include me, I write a lot for US sites, and it is amazing how you can slide an endorsement in to even the least likely place) need to be able to counter the talking points on Perry (or Palin, or Bachmann, or even, god forbid, Romney).
Even our tireless cut and paste anti Perry trolls here help some - they punt out the stuff that the MSM is going to push hard against Perry.
I am certain Perry will be the next POTUS, unless Palin runs. If Sarah runs, she will get the nomination and lose the election - and I mean no disrespect there to either her or any Palin supporters. I like, admire and respect the lady immensely, but she is, in my book, not yet electable for three reasons.
Lack of experience - which may not have mattered in 08, but matters to a lot of people now thanks to how the current inexperienced one has worked out - and the sheer negativity of her name among certain sections of the electorate - the ones that decide elections. And the final reason - cynical as it may sound - is she is a woman. Y’all just tried a black president. You honestly think a woman will take his place? People are going to want to go back to the boring white guys for a bit. We had probably the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill in Margaret Thatcher - and being a woman has been the kiss of death to political aspiration ever since.
Sarah is still young (and yeah, I feel old writing that!). 4 or 8 years in a senior cabinet position certainly won’t hurt her chances to become president.
Right now, though, Perry is my pick. It depends on him grabbing a decent VP though (and I haven’t clue one about the potentials) - though I doubt he is so insecure that he will worry about his VP overshadowing him.
As you say, I am in the UK, so really have not much stake in this. But sometimes, being an ocean away lets you see a little more clearly.
They are hoping the majority of the country that fear an Obama second term like the plague will buy this tripe and vote for a weaker and less principled candidate.
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.