Posted on 09/21/2011 3:14:29 PM PDT by Nachum
Mitt Romney may not be Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s biggest problem. The nonprofit group Texans for Public Justice, a good-government foundation that has been keeping tabs on him for years, may claim that title. Its Web site’s homepage features a quote from its Crony Capitalism report: “As Texas Governor Rick Perry’s influence at the RGA increased over the past five years the political finances of both the governor and the Governors Association skyrocketed. The RGA raised a record $216.9 million during the Perry years between January 2006 and June 30, 2011.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’m sure the Texans for Public Justice are very concerned about Rick Perry.
Calling TPJ or Texans for Public Justice simply a “watchdog group” is absolutely misleading. They are a front group for Democrats, funded by frivolous lawsuit loving trial lawyers
Excerpt follows...
(AUSTIN, TX) Texans for Public Justice calls itself a non-partisan watchdog group that focuses on political campaign contributions in Texas, but the only contributions publicly reported on their 2005 tax filing came from some of those big political campaign contributors they claim to be monitoring — personal injury trial lawyers.
TPJ has long refused to disclose their funders, but their 2005 tax report reveals that three high-profile personal injury trial lawyer firms “Baron & Budd and Silber Pearlman, LLP in Dallas and Williams Bailey, LLP in Houston — gave a total of $50,000 dollars to the organization last year, almost a third of the total organizational budget. TPJ did not report the source of the additional $107,000 in contributions they collected.
http://rickvskay.blogspot.com/2010/06/texans-for-public-justice-is-shady.html
If properly vetting a candidate winds up undermining support for that candidate, I'd say that them's the breaks.
I can understand that it's got to sting, seeing the missteps of ones' favored candidate being aired in public, but it's a necessary part of the electoral process in a free republic.
Some of the things being revealed may be unpalatable to us, but as long as they're factual (and not manufactured), it's vital that we familiarize ourselves with that information in order to make an informed choice down the road.
And lest you get the wrong idea, I'm not looking for any candidate to be 100% perfect. We'll never see that candidate in our lifetimes. We do, however, have to know the extent of every candidate's pluses and minuses.
Gee, you're really making me want to support Rick Perry for president .. NOT.
Hey that’s just how I see it. Doesn’t make it so but imagine Newt working for Fox trashing the nominees all the while contemplating running
Yep. It's pretty hard to miss the dearth of any counter arguments or debunking data, thus far on the thread.
Fact One: Perry has a less than stellar record on issues that conservatives care about.
Fact Two: Bringing his less than conservative record to light, or attempting to discuss it, brings forth howls of anger and protest from some of his supporters.
Fact Three: That reaction isn't drawing any new supporters to Perry's camp.
I'm not saying that Perry's shortcomings are even necessarily final deal-breakers for most conservatives, but those shortcomings ought to be confronted calmly and intelligently, so that our side completely understands who we may be getting as a potential nominee.
Perry has been vetted for years. He was elected three times as Governor of Texas and has served honorably for 11 years. Over that time frame I've read all the relevant and outstanding news items about Perry. In recent weeks I've seen a lot of frivolous posts personally attacking Perry. Along with innuendo, rumor and gossip but nothing that would disqualify him from being the GOP nominee or potus.
So save you preachy condescension for someone who gives a rats ass.
By who? You? Well, bully for you, pal. The rest of the nation has little idea who this guy really is, and would like to examine his entire record, if you don't mind.
So save you preachy condescension for someone who gives a rats ass.
You see, that's exactly the sort of nasty response that is giving you Perry supporters a bad name. I didn't attack Perry. I didn't attack you. I even went so far as to say that his negatives might not even be final deal-breakers for most conservatives, but that wasn't good enough for you. You insist on making this personal.
Way to drum up support for your candidate, sport.
Aside from her one outburst about Perry's crony capitalism, I wouldn't say that she's "trashing" the other candidates. She may be expressing disappointment with the field as a whole, but that doesn't equate to direct attacks, in my view.
That said, I can see how you could draw that conclusion from how she's playing the game. If I had my druthers, she'd cancel her contract with Fox now, and use other media to get her points across.
I’m reaching the sad conclusion that most “conservatives” talk a big game about wanting to clean up government but talk is a lot cheaper than action.
I finally get acknowledgement about the AIG chief hosting a fundraiser for Perry and then an explanation that everybody does it so its not worth worrying about. (but they sure as heck worried about money AIG gave to Obama, McCain, Romney and others)
Hate to say it but the destruction of America won’t only be on the heads of liberals. All I can do is look out for my own soul and I will face my maker knowing that I at least tried to save America and played no further role in her destruction.
>>>>>I am all for vetting every candidate on every major issue and on the decisions and the votes they made. So are most conservatives and so is Rick Perry. Vetting is not the issue.
If you want to engage in preachy condescension, expect to be called on it. Nothing nasty about it. Besides, its candidate Perry who is going to change opinions about him and get him more supporters. Not me. The charges of so-called crony capitalism being leveled at Perry are bogus.
"Most" conservatives is an illusion. There are contingents of loud and frequent posters who can make it appear that the majority of our number are willing to compromise their principles in support of a 'business as usual' candidate, but I really don't believe that most conservatives have fallen into that trap.
For my part, I usually give Perry threads a pass, because I know that many of his supporters on FR vehemently oppose any rational discussion of his actual record.
I find that unfortunate. If they took the opposite tack, and worked to provide counter-balancing arguments with reason and logic, I'd probably follow the threads with great interest.
I'd be dumbfounded, but I've seen this for about a month now.
WF, you remember when I thought Perry would be my second choice about a month ago, yes? We have spoken about this. I understand why he is starting to drop in the polls, people are learning about who he is and don't like it.
I'm sorry I did not trust your up close and personal Texas judgment in this matter, he has slipped way down towards the bottom for me now. There is no defense for his record on illegals, there is no defense for his cronyism. These are not the actions of a true conservative. His supporters don't care to read, don't care to know, they just sit there with their hands over their ears and sing lalalalalalalalalala.
It's amazing to watch.
I am all for vetting every candidate on every major issue and on the decisions and the votes they made. So are most conservatives and so is Rick Perry.
Somehow, I don't feel the sincerity in that statement, given that you've now blasted me in at least two replies for having the temerity to suggest that very thing.
And yes, if you insist upon snarling and being invalidative to others who are simply inquiring about these revelations about Perry, you are most definitely driving potential supporters away.
:-)
>>>>>>Somehow, I don't feel the sincerity in that statement
I'm not asking you to feel anything. Liberals feel. Conservatives think.
Well, I've been purposely steering clear of Perry threads for some weeks now, so I am dumfounded at the lack of a clear rebuttal after 50 posts. I've got at least one Perry supporter snarling at me, but so far, he hasn't done anything to refute the charges.
I understand why he is starting to drop in the polls, people are learning about who he is and don't like it.
That's to be expected, if a candidate has any deal-breakers in their past, which apparently, Perry does. What's sad, is that his supporters object to our noticing these deal-breakers, and even worse, having the gall to want to discuss them.
Engage that one long enough and he'll start whining and being a petulant juvenile. He doesn't rebut, he can't converse, but he can snarl and whine with the best of them......
Not true. People who have little investment in a candidate, who are just beginning to investigate them, can be turned off by that candidate's supporters if they're nasty and offensive. I cite Ron Paul supporters as a classic example of that phenomenon.
As far as Perry himself is concerned, I don't think it's so much that he is driving supporters away, as it is his record, which is slowly coming to light. You can call these revelations "half truths and falsehoods" if you like, but I notice you're not debunking them, and neither are any other Perry supporters.
Refute what's in the article if you really want to defend your candidate. Snarling and spitting at me is only making you look like you can't defend him.
It's been a long time since I locked horns with that one. I had forgotten how quickly he resorts to ad hominem attack and put-downs.
Alright. I'm outta here. Don't want to piss these folks off more than I have already. I don't have Perry Derangement Syndrome. I've just seen all I need to, to make up my mind about him.
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.