Posted on 09/06/2011 9:24:21 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Perry could crash and burn between now and the time a nominee is chosen. But if Perry can't beat Obama, then no one can, and I just don't believe that.
Your post seems to ASSUME Perry would not have vetoed the bills unless he got money.
Do you have any objective or factual support for that, or is it just a feeling?
If he was going to veto them anyway, I say, take the bucks.
They are all for sale including Palin when she was Governor and even now with her contract for FOX news and her speaking engagements. She even joined McCain’s campaign and “sold out” some of her prior positions to be his running mate and move up in the political world.
I’m more interested in who is influencing them since beyond maybe a local election all are beholden to someone.
Texas state law at the time prohibited donations during the legislative session. Perry had just become Governor, and was up for election for that slot in under 2 years.
So, as soon as the law allowed, he started receiving campaign donations. Not surprisingly (except apparently to people who dislike Rick Perry) he got money from people who liked what he was doing.
Have you ever noticed how on FreeRepublic, someone will post something really good that some politicians does, like Wilson shouting “You Lie”, or voting against the stimulus bill, or something. Then you see people say “That’s great, I think I’ll send him some money”?
But if you listend to those complaining about Perry here, that act of sending money to people who are doing what you want is corrupt, evil, and should be stopped.
Actually, that was the purpose of Campaign Finance Reform (CFR), the dispised bill pushed by McCain that tried to limit political contributions, cutting people off from giving as much money as they wanted to people who did what was right for the country.
Perry has long been for lawsuit reform, something most conservatives support strongly. So it’s hardly surprising that “Texans for Lawsuit Reform” would want to support his re-election campaign.
Every donation to a politician has the same purpose — to get laws passed or blocked as the donor wishes. Nobody gives money to a politician to do something the donor DOESN’T want; donors don’t give money to candidates who don’t vote right on the issues. We all send e-mails to our representatives, threatening NOT to donate if they don’t vote “the right way”. We all stopped giving money to the RNC when they backed people who kept voting wrong.
Show me a candidate who self-finances their campaign, and I’ll show you a candidate who is “not for sale”. Every candidate who raises money is going to send e-mails that tell exactly what they will do if elected, and then ask you to pay them donations for those promises. That’s “for sale” — If you elect me, I’ll do this, and this, and this.
Of course, that’s under YOUR definition of “for sale”, meaning the way YOU are using the term. “For Sale”, when we aren’t talking about actual bribes which are illegal and land you in jail, is really just what people who don’t like a politician say to try to smear them.
Which is why the “for sale” label on Perry comes from his democratic opponents, and the lawyers who hate tort reform. If he took money FROM the lawyers, and didn’t veto the bill, they’d be quite happy.
Palin has said repeatedly that she doesn’t want to be VP. If she doesn’t run for President, I think she’ll be much more effective getting dozens of others elected who support her plans, which hopefully will also be our nominee’s plans by that point.
Don't they all? :)
Seriously though, I suspect her role in the 2012 election cycle will be as you suggest.
She will endorse and campaign for candidates she sees as "TEA Party Patriots", much as she did in 2010.
This time she will have the experience gained from 2010, and I expect her to be more cautious and selective in her choices.
They don’t.
Keep in mind that, barring divine intervention, Obama’s record will be MUCH worse by this time next year. Assuming he still occupies the White House.
To what four bills do you refer? I can not make a decision on a man based on his opposing four bills unless I know what he opposed in those bills.
I sure don’t. Insurers should pay doctors more promptly and I think the definition of mentally retarded has been expanded.
Over the years I have enjoyed and agreed with just about everything you’ve posted. This time I’m going to have to part ways with you.
I guess you’re saying everybody who takes a paycheck is for sale.
Sarah Palin will not go through the same hell as four years ago for the second spot on the ticket twice running. Ain't gonna happen. If Sarah runs, she's all in.
Full disclosure: at this moment Perry isn't my first or even my second choice (those would be Bachmann and Herman Cain). But if he's the nominee, he'd be better than Barack. I do get tired of having to say that about Republicans, however.
>>Insurers should pay doctors more promptly <<
That is what contracts and, if necessary, lawsuits are for. There are already laws that can be applied. We need no more laws for that.
Regarding the death penalty and the retarded, it is like basing all abortion laws on pregnancies due to rape. Suddenly they would all be the result of rape.
If you get my drift.
The bar is already so high before someone is executed for a crime that, frankly, I don’t care if they were stark raving mad when they did the crime. The “death penalty” crimes should carry the death penalty regardless of the mental state of the convicted perp.
Heck, in my book, anybody that commits first degree murder is both retarded and crazy, among other things.
—I think the definition of mentally retarded has been expanded.—
By the way, to be clear, I believe that if the guy in “of mice and men” had actually intended to kill the woman under the definition of “first degree murder”, he should be executed.
But then, if I ever had any serious charges brought against me, whether I was guilty or innocent, it would be the last day (or month, and I apologize in advance to those who paid my bail) I ever saw the US.
Just go to youtube and search never talk to the police.
Interesting that prior to tort reform, OB/GYN's were being driven out of business due to lawsuit abuse and the resulting unaffordable malpractice insurance premiums. Now our small town has two doctors who will deliver babies when there were none before.
see post #26. :)
Can I wait until I vote for Rick Perry for President?
LOL, I deserve that! My apologies for the snarky comment, I initially misread your post as an attack on Perry.
No problem...I knew as soon as I hit the Post button that my initial comment didn’t come out right. I was really slamming the media that DID NOT report on TheZero’s multitude of “present” votes...I just didn’t paint a very good picture.
We absolutely need someone in office that is willing to say NO. While I’m registered independent, I’ve never considered the Left’s label of “The Party Of NO” for the Republicans to be a derogatory comment. I’m a parent and NO is an important word in my/our family vocabulary. :-)
That is so true. This guy Perry has a record of doing it, and so far he looks like the best in the field. We'll see. I'm interested to see how Perry handles the upcoming debates. As the frontrunner he'll be under attack. How he responds should tell us alot. :)
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.