Of course she would. He is a mainstream conservative candidate with more executive experience than anyone to run for the office since Ronald Reagan.
I have no problem with people criticizing or disliking Perry. There are positions he has taken that I don't like either, but the slanderers on here (and they are easy to spot), are not helping the conservative cause at all.
Some may have deluded themselves into believing they are somehow helping Sarah with all this non-sense.
My guess is others are merely disruptors from the left who are taking great joy in seeing us at each other's throats.
I wonder which one is Moby?
I would bet you a million dollars that if Palin is not the nominee, she will campaign for Perry and campaign hard. What are you going to say then?
Of course she would. He is a mainstream conservative candidate with more executive experience than anyone to run for the office since Ronald Reagan.
I have no problem with people criticizing or disliking Perry. There are positions he has taken that I don’t like either, but the slanderers on here (and they are easy to spot), are not helping the conservative cause at all.
Well said. I have had enough though....
The same logic should apply to all... evenly across the board. These distorted assaults on Perry’s record are something I would expect to see on CNN or MSNBC - not free republic.
Pulling out crap like a letter from 1993 or helping Gore when Perry was a Texas Blue Dog while ignoring Palin’s respect for Hillary fails by their own reasoning.
Kicking Perry for his policies towards illegals while ignoring her endorsement and campaigning for McAmnesty just last year fails their own purity test.
These “conservatives” would spit on Reagan if he announced tomorrow. That is a fact arrived at by logical reasoning using their own logic for spitting on Perry.
1. Which posters are "slandering" Perry as opposed to pointing out his numerous deficiencies as a conservative standard-bearer? We're talking about the difference between "slander" and criticism here.
2. Why should they be easy to spot, if they're laying on obvious criticisms that are obviously valid about an obviously flawed candidate? All the candidates have warts -- it's just a matter of looking them over to find where the warts are. Do you have a good way to discern motive in a critic? Obviously you do, since you say slanderers are "easy to spot."