Posted on 09/12/2011 10:35:37 PM PDT by Borough Park
As Perry Rises, G.O.P. Elite Look Toward Romney By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
TAMPA, Fla. — The rising presidential candidacy of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is stirring excitement for many Republican voters but is creating unease in some quarters of the party’s establishment, particularly over his views of Social Security, which are at the root of an intensifying competition with Mitt Romney.
The decision on Monday by Tim Pawlenty, a former Republican presidential rival, to support Mr. Romney’s campaign signals the beginning of an effort by some party leaders to try to slow the ascent of Mr. Perry — or to push him to explain positions that are considered provocative.
In announcing his endorsement on Monday, Mr. Pawlenty said he believed Mr. Romney was the only candidate with the “unique qualifications to confront and master our severe economic predicament.” The judgment of Mr. Pawlenty, who dropped out of the presidential race last month, was carefully watched by some Republicans because he knows both men well.
The endorsement was a visible marker in a quietly continuing battle for the soul and direction of the Republican Party between traditional party leaders and grass-roots conservatives. To some degree it is a clash of styles and of principle versus pragmatism, but it also encompasses foreign and domestic policy differences, some of which have surfaced as the presidential campaign has intensified.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Not true. The Governor can NOT force to buy insurance that covers Gardasil vaccine. He also could NOT force everyone in TX to buy instate tutition for illegal aliens. They had to pay for their own. The Legislature passed the bill with only 4 No votes. Perry merely signed it into law.
If Reagan ran today, this crowd would destroy him like Perry. He signed the Therapeutic Abortion Bill in '67 and raised taxes as Gov. As far as I am concerned, Romney needs to go and then Obummer. I don't see any flaws in any of the candidates running that are not crippling in beating Obummer other than Romneycare.
Who are these so called “GOP elite” anyway? The article doesn't identify them. It just names one low level Illinois politician. The point the article makes over and over again is that these so called “GOP elite” don't think Perry can appeal to “moderates and independents”.
The NYT is clearly trying to attack Perry and create internal divisions among Republicans. But the article is so poorly written and confused that it just makes the NYT look stupid. As usual.
His view is that it is structurally unsound and in need of reform to keep it from completely collapsing. Everyone else has the same view - including Romney, who said it was being run like a "criminal enterprise" vs. Perry who said it was being run like a "Ponzi scheme." Okay, they don't like Perry's terminology...say he just says something more generic like it is in "bad shape" - what does that change about the problems with the program? Absolutely nothing! The "controversy" over his comments are complete nonsense.
He's said that one of the reasons for issuing the executive order was to force insurance companies to cover the vaccine so that more people would have access. After his executive order, a family couldn't buy insurance without buying coverage for the vaccine.
He did force everyone in Texas to subsidize the education of illegal aliens. Having a difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition represents a subsidy on education for people who live in the state. Everyone who pays taxes in Texas pays for that subsidy. By signing the law, he forced them to pay for the subsidy for illegal aliens.
There are plenty of “GOP Elite” looking towards Perry, too.
I’m not sure what Romney was trying to accomplish in that debate last night. He seemed to fade into the background. Just appeared to be sitting back and letting things unfold. He’s well prepared, but he doesn’t generate much enthusiasm. I’ve been very skeptical of the idea that he might be in cahoots with Bachmann, but last night she appeared to be in kamikazi mode toward Perry. Still seems unlikely to me though.
Newt dominates these events rhetorically. Too bad he didn’t travel a different path in days gone by. No matter how well he does in the debates, nobody wants him as the nominee.
I’m a Perry supporter, but I haven’t been impressed with his performances in the two debates he’s been in. He was a little better this time, but he just strikes me as not being very verbally facile. And probably never will be.
Cain has improved a lot over the course of the campaign so far. His presentation of that 9-9-9 plan seems a bit gimmicky although the plan itself may be a good idea.
Santorum is good on the issues, but lacks even a trace of the charisma necessary to win the presidency.
Something about Huntsman irks me. I have a feeling he would irk me even if he were just reading names out of a phone book. Heck, he wouldn’t even have to say anything; he could irk me just by standing there.
I’ve seen Bachmann be very good in the past, but last night she just looked desperate.
Ron Paul remains Ron Paul.
Your summation of the candidates is a pretty good one. I agree in general with your impressions of the debate.
You speak with much wisdom my friend...
The GOP Elite, MSM, RINO turds and all those Dems trying to push Romney up our rear ends can pound sand.
I will NOT vote for Mitt under any circumstances.
NO more RINOs. NOt now not ever.
REAL conservatives or go fish.
The Republican rank and file don’t want either one.
DEAL WITH IT!
I haven’t seen the debates.. do you know if mccotter is getting any face time?
Once called the “Rockefeller Wing” of the GOP.
“His presentation of that 9-9-9 plan seems a bit gimmicky although the plan itself may be a good idea.”
Cain is a good guy and a smart business man, but he isn’t ready for primetime.
His 999 plan would tax the rich at 9% and the poor ( who have to spend all they earn to get by) at 18%. There is no way he thought that one through.
I missed where the rich were exempt from 9%.
Both Mittcare and Perry are unacceptable.
Perry appeared rattled on the HPV and immigration assaults. Perry handled Social Security and stimulus assaults well and delivered a few very well timed bumper stickers in those exchanges where I actually thought I was listening to Bill Clinton (delivery, not rhetoric). As a whole, I thought it was a wash for Perry.
They will have less money spent subject to sales tax as a % of total income. If you can't see that then you aren't seeing the big picture any better than Cain did.
Yes, Mitt Romney looks like a President, but he's a two-faced RINO. Michele Bachmann is attractive and smart as a whip, but she sometimes says... some odd things. Rick Perry talks a good game, but he's more than a bit slippery. Newt Gingrich is a brilliant theoretician, but he has a matched set of Samsonite travel cases for personal baggage. Herman Cain... is great. Okay, I really like him, but he's rough around the edges, policy-wise. Ron Paul is a hero of free enterprise, but his foreign policy belongs in Happy Acres, preferably under heavy sedation. John Huntsman ...well, he should be a Democrat.
The point is that almost anyone would be an improvement over what we have now in the White House: an unrepentant Marxist who detests everything and everyone that ever made America great. I'd vote for Adam Sandler before Obama, and most of his movies sucked. But at least he's a Republican.
I still can't believe so many are giving Perry a pass for this, WFTR. Amazing to me. It is one of the most important issues of the last few years.... the rule of law and not rewarding people for breaking our laws seems to be irrelevant all of a sudden. Sad.
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.