VR, it’s amazing how far so called ‘Conservatives’ are willing to go to defend the indefensible.
They ignore the fact that their candidate took one hell of an anti-conservative position RE: Guardasil, regardless of how it shook out, or more correctly the legislature corrected his thinking on the matter. Why did they even have to? Since when does an actual ‘conservative’ need correcting over parental authority matters?
And while the ‘crony capitalism’ phrase may be the latest attention getter, it is none the less true. Perry has, at minimum, the appearance of financial tomfoolery RE: his office and ‘pay to play’ allegations. They need vetting whether Perry supporters like it or not. So of course, these great ‘conservative minds’ come up with excuses justifying it in Perry because we ‘have to unite behind’ a crony capitalist because he can ‘beat Obama.’ Newsflash. The vaunted polls most of you believe in say that “generic Republican” can beat Obama so explain again why ‘Perry” is the way, truth and light.
You mad bro?
All the Perry supporters on this thread need to answer a very simple question.
“What’s more important to you...winning or abandoning the principles you ‘claim’ to believe in?”
I say ‘claim’ because I see scant evidence of actual conservative principles guiding your statements, just a blind desire for ‘winning’.
You Conservative Bro? Or no?
Perhaps Perry can suitably explain his lapses of judgment and perhaps he can be forgiven for them. Time will tell. But right now, some of you are defending one hell of a problem he has yet to explain. One among several. How is government EVER in the right usurping parental authority? What ‘conservative’ ever allows such stupidity into his mind? And some of you are attacking the messenger for pointing it out.
Just like the libs at DU.
Just like the MSM
Just like the Democrats.
And your fellow Freepers can see that.
Perhaps you should see your doctor because conservatism may not be right for you. If ‘Winning’ is all that matters to you, give Charlie Sheen a call. Some of us prefer integrity, honesty and something besides traditional Washington BS.
Very true. I think there's a lot to like in Perry, and I'd vote for him, whereas even against the counsel of Rush, Levin, and Palin, I'd refrain from voting for Romney because long and careful analysis on this has led me to conclude that in the long run, Romney would be worse for the USA than four more years of Obama, who, if he won, would be even more loathed and reviled by the people AND battled by Congress than he is now.
But back to the point at hand, that there's at least the appearance of something awry with Perry and it needs vetting. With Palin, there was the appearance of things awry. Two in particular come to mind: her resigning the governorship before she had finished the term, which her detractors claim happened because she couldn't take the political heat; and the passage of ACES, which sources such as Mother Jones, Huffington Post, the MSM in general, and many moderate Republicans, referred to as a "windfall profits tax."
Did those charges need and deserve vetting? DAMNED RIGHT THEY DID, because if they'd held water, they'd certainly be good reason not to support Palin. So I spent many, many hours digging and reading. I vetted them, and had the truth not been squarely in Palin's favor, I'd not be encouraging others to support her here on FR.
Perry is every bit as much worth vetting as Palin or any other Republican. When folks object to it, those folks are asking everyone to allow themselves to be manipulated and deceived.