Posted on 09/21/2011 2:07:46 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
SAN ANTONIO -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry remains one of the front-runners for the Republican Presidential Nomination, and depending on who you ask, many think he'll get it.
John Sharp, the recently confirmed Chancellor of Texas A&M University who ran against Perry in the 1998 general election for Lieutenant Governor, gave his take on the race while visiting Texas A&M- San Antonio on Tuesday.
"It's a full time deal running against Rick Perry, and anybody who sells him short is an idiot, because it will be a tough campaign," Sharp said.
Sharp has known Perry since his college days, where the two served in the same outfit in the Corp Cadets. "We were really good friends until we ran against each other," Sharp said.
Sharp, a Democrat, lost to Perry with 48% of the vote, during the 1998 election. During that race, the polls were tied as voters got ready to cast their ballots. Then came the flood of 1998.
"In October of 1998 or late September, this huge flood came through the area, from San Marcos and down to Victoria," Sharp said. "That was my old senate district, (I'm from Victoria) and so I'm trying to get people to get out and vote, and they're out in boat, trying to rescue their furniture and things like that."
Sharp says his loss was partly due to Perry's good timing and good luck, and believes Perry will win the Republican nomination, but stopped short of saying he will be the next president.
Must be nice never having to back up any of disingenuous
statements you make for Romney, Perry and Rove.
>>> Must be nice never having to back up any of disingenuous
statements you make for Romney, Perry and Rove. >>>
I called Rove a SOUL LESS OPPORTUNIST.
I called Romney UNRELIABLE AND FLAWED.
I said Perry throws up RED FLAGS (and said something else negative, can’t remember...)
SO, and I’m being serious:
Are you clinically retarded? Or do you have a reading disability? And I’m not being ugly, I’m being compassionate and trying to find out what is causing the synapses in your brain to totally misunderstand plainly stated negative emotions about thee men you just accused me of shilling for.
Go back, look at what I wrote and you will see I said that about them. I disagree with you on the meaning of RINO, but that doesn’t mean I am shilling for them. Really, you should see a specialist.
And no, I don’t always have to back it up. I’m published enough to be considered back up, and I always explain the reasoning behind my positions. Logic requires nothing but itself.
Just so that FReepers can indelibly know exactly
what nonsense you purport to be "logic", which
of the following makes Mitt "conservative"?
Would that be Romney's RomneyCARE?
RomneyMARRIAGEbyExecutiveOrder?
RomneyBIGdigCOVERUP?
RomneyDeathPanels?
RomneyFees(reallyTaxes)?
RomneyMurderer-FreeingJudges?
RomneyRuinousMassEconomy?,
Romney'sSupportofObam?,
Romney'sGOPBackstabbing?,
or RomneyIllegalAliens?
Your historical knowledge is thoroughly underwhelming. First of all, he was NEVER a pro-abortion Democrat. There was no such thing as a "pro-abortion" politician until the era of Roe v. Wade. He left the Democrat party a long time before that... unlike Perry, he never was elected as a Democrat. Secondly, yours is a misguided reference to legislation that he was misled on. Some of that early legislation was represented to be "libertarian" and that it would lead to FEWER incidents. Goldwater was a champion of that. As it was soon to be, it was anything but.
As for the rest, I find it singularly appalling that in order to elevate Perry, people like Reagan have to be attacked, diminished and lied about. When a candidate and his supporters have to "go there", as both Perry and Slick Willard have, it tells me all I need to know about why I'd never support them.
What are you afraid of ? A candidate who doesn’t have to trash Reagan and deify Al Gore in order to win like Perry and his bots do ?
Afraid??? I am not afraid of anything. You are rather a nut case. Now please go away andleave me alone, thank you.
Ah, more of the irrepressible charm of a Perrybot... and their quivering fear of Sarah Palin and deranged hatred of her supporters.
I’m sorry, but Reagan was “pro-choice”, as it were.
Here’s a FR article on the very subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1959005/posts
Taken from Wiki (for what it’s worth) - Early in 1967, the national debate on abortion was beginning. Democratic California state senator Anthony Beilenson introduced the “Therapeutic Abortion Act,” in an effort to reduce the number of “back-room abortions” performed in California.[74] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan’s desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[77] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, most because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[77] Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed. After he recognized what he called the “consequences” of the bill, he announced that he was pro-life.[77] He maintained that position later in his political career, writing extensively about abortion.[78]
I’m not attacking Ronald Reagan - he was singularly the greatest President of the United States in my lifetime (41 years). I joined the United States Navy in 1987, and he was my Commander in Chief for all too brief a time. However, attacking Perry for stances he had 20 or more years ago is ridiculous. When I was 21 I had vastly different views on the world, and my place in it, than I do now.
And, while he may not have been elected to office as a Democrat, he supported them, and self-identified as one until 1962. Taken from Wiki (for what THAT’s worth) - Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and an active supporter of New Deal policies. In the early 1950s, as his relationship with Republican actress Nancy Davis grew,[52][53] he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54]
Perry changed parties in 1989 - yes, many years after Reagan did it. However, it was 5 years after being elected as a Democrat.
You do not have to support any candidate. Of the ones who have declared, I like Perry’s chance to unseat Obama the most.
You also do not have to open these links and snip, yip, and snipe at everything you disagree with.
BE, do you want to take a crack at post #128 ?
That thread and the discussion of this subject, as it were, was an attempt by the Slick Willard disciples to drag down Reagan to get him the nomination in 2008. History repeats itself again with the Perrybots having to not only defile Reagan, but elevate Al Gore to “Conservative” status in order to excuse his execrable decision to support a man who viscerally opposed not only the Reagan agenda, but the entire Reagan era.
You yourself in your prior post called Reagan a “Pro-Abortion Democrat”, for which I correctly called you on as a falsehood. Using Wikipedia, a notoriously biased left-wing website, as a source to uphold your denigration of him is truly beyond the pale. Whatever they, or you, claim of him, he had already jettisoned liberalism and the Democrats by the early 1950s, almost 15 years prior to his election to office. He had to battle a liberal establishment to even get the GOP nomination, who were hell bent to nominate a left-winger, the last GOP Mayor of San Francisco, to be a desultory opponent to Pat Brown. He also had to continuously battle the liberal establishment in his runs for President.
Contrast that with Perry who “conveniently” used the Democrats as a vehicle to get elected, supported their causes and candidates, culminating with my leftist Senator of the time, Al Gore. When he saw that the state was moving strongly to the GOP, he just as quickly jettisoned the Democrats to cynically use the GOP for advancement. He never had to battle the establishment politicians for those higher offices within the GOP, he practically was handed those offices on a silver platter. It was Karl Rove, the doyenne of the liberal RINO establishment, who helped to “convert” Perry. He also didn’t have to battle for the Governorship, as it was dropped in his lap with Dubya’s elevation. He has lucked out in the time since by not having to face an actual Conservative Reformist in the primary. This guy has been an “insider” and opportunist from Day #1. He has absolutely nothing in common with Reagan whatsoever. Palin, on the other hand, has far more in common with Reagan. She never had anything handed to her and she has battled the corrupt establishment of both parties, one reason she is so reviled by the big government liberals of both parties.
I am not “dragging Reagan down”, but obviously, you’re going to read into my post what you want.
Do you deny Ronald Reagan signed into California law a “pro-choice” measure that directly resulted in at 2,000,000 abortions (and counting?) That’s pro-choice, in action, if not in words.
There’s no falsehood in that statement. It’s 100% factual.
As far as Al Gore, he was considered AT THE TIME (emphasis mine) to be a ‘blue-dog Democrat’, to be akin to Zell Miller, who spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. He obviously isn’t. Heck, I was proud (AT THE TIME) my parents voted for Jimmy Carter (I was 10, forgive me).
Since we do not see eye to eye, and I am certainly no “Romneybot”, “Bushbot”, “Perrybot”, “Palinbot”, or any other “*.bot”, I’ll leave you to your postings. I’ll agree that we just won’t agree.
Have a great day!
You're full of crap. The very article you link to clearly indicates otherwise.
Oh, and other posters in 2007 and 2008 who tried to pull this kind of Reagan abortion revisionist crap are no longer posting here.
So don't be surprised if Ro_Thunder rides the lightning. After all, as Twain once said, it's lightning that does all the work.
OK, anyone else want to play this game? Reagan was NEVER pro-abort, let alone pro-choice. The bill in question was abused by doctors to allow that many abortions. Reagan clearly admitted later it was a mistake to sign it.
You don't make your candidate look bigger by trying to make Reagan smaller. You make your candidate bigger by pushing him or her to be more like Reagan.
Words to the wise. And a cautionary tale to those who might be tempted to go down the same road as this particular roadkill.
Now, carry on. Please debate the candidates robustly from a conservative perspective.
Are you serious in thanking the poster for the comments in #95?
You sicken me.
Sharp lost by 70000 votes. Slightly higher turnout in a few counties in his old State Senate district wasn’t gonna make up that difference.
If flooding effected the San Angelo area too then Perry lost votes from it as well.
If he wants to blame something out of his control for his loss then the only thing he could point to is possible Bush coattails.
It is typical for the Perrybots to diminish Reagan as a “liberal” while also having to deify Al Gore as a “Conservative” because of Perry’s support for him for President. It is no surprise CW applauded such appalling comments, and it should be a warning to her and the Perrybot posse that such statements will earn a well-deserved ZOT.
Older thread, but I ran across this ZOT.. seems everyone missed it :p
There is a good chance that the mods wanted this guy to leave quietly, and for us not to make a fuss over it. Sort of like Danny H, the attention whore.
Ragging on Reagan is probably not the best of ideas at this site.
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.