Posted on 09/08/2011 3:41:18 AM PDT by justiceseeker93
On Social Security, it wasn’t part of a plan of his. He didn’t bring it up, the moderators did.
And while I loved his answer, I’m not saying it doesn’t cause POLITICAL problems for him which he will have to address. But he was asked about what he said in his book, and he didn’t back down, he stood by his words. That was the ONLY right thing to do.
There was no way in that debate format he was going to get to explain how to fix social security, and if he got 3 sentences into a 10-sentence fix and got cut off, it would hurt him.
Anyway, I’m understanding the strategy now. Certainly he’s not going to lose the republican primary simply by pointing out what we all know — Social Security is unsustainable and needs to be fixed.
But look what the detractors are saying — not that he was wrong (although they do reject the “Ponzi” name even while not showing how it isn’t) but that by raising Social Security, he will be “unelectable in the general election”
Note that well — the same argument the moderates ALWAYS use against conservatives: We can’t pick them, because they will lose in the general election. They’ve been doing it to Palin ever since the VP race.
Now, a combination of the same people who attacked Palin, and some Palin supporters, are trying to build the same argument against Perry — the “unelectable” argument. That certainly helps Romney most, since for some strange reason most people think he’s electable.
But in addition to helping Romney, it’s the only way to get Perry back down to earth, to clear the field for a Palin run. Now, I know that when Palin enters the race, we are told Perry will be a forgotten memory anyway, so I’m not sure why it is important to clear the field. I’m sure Palin doesn’t feel that way, she will enter the race if she KNOWS she can win, and won’t worry about Perry.
But I think a few of her supporters are afraid that she will see Perry with a big lead, and decide he’s good enough, and so they want to help her in her decision by tearing him down as much as possible.
That’s just speculation, of course. It could also be Paul supporters who just don’t like Perry’s conservatism.
But you can see the real problem — Millions of Seniors are dependent on the social security checks. And they all can vote.
People dependent on government, who get to vote for the people who decide on those dependencies. They vote to protect the money they depend on. If the democrats succeed in getting 51% of the people hooked on government handouts, our government will fall as the majority keeps voting themselves more and more money.
-——He didn’t bring it up, -——
Ahh yes but he had a prepared position to present his agenda when the opportunity came
Fortunately, it is NOT an either/or choice. I won’t vote for romney either, but for you to just stay home and not vote at all means I don’t want to listen to any griping afterward because you chose not to participate up front!
JC
I stand firmly by my statement.
Are you so naive to think if he were the son of a plumber he would have accomplished so much? If your answer is yes, then you need to go out and drink from the fountain of fairy water and start attending the school of hard knocks.
After graduation, you too will understand the real world and how it works.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
i am not goint to vote for romney. and there are a lot like me out there. just because a candidate says something in order to get your vote, doesn’t mean that they mean it. we’ve been lied to before. his record speaks a lot louder than his words.
i will not support a ‘trust me’ 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.