Posted on 09/26/2011 9:09:00 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
According to the survey, which was released Monday, 28 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they support Perry as their party's presidential nominee, with Romney at 21 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is at ten percent, with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who's making his third bid for the White House, former Godfather's Pizza CEO and radio talk show host Herman Cain, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, all at seven percent. The poll indicates that Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is at four percent, with former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania at three percent and former Utah Gov. and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman at one percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Me too, especially after giving such a stellar performance in the debates last week!
</sarcasm>
Hunstman about to break out of the pack???? That is called his Exit!
I'd gladly campaign for and donate to a Gingrich-Cain ticket.
Compared to the stumbling and bumbling by the successive "front runners", that picture with Pelosi is looking less and less significant to me.
Be that all as it may, anyone but Huntsman or Romney is guaranteed my vote against Zero.
There's evidently not that many people who were "scolded", as evidenced by minute number of people voting against the bill. If you want the law changed in Texas, move here and convince the folks down in Austin to change the law. Otherwise, this has nothing to do with people outside of Texas. They have no sway or say in how Texans vote in Austin, whether they are for or against the bill.
It is not what I want or need from a politician. Why can’t you understand and accept that concept?
So you're ok with the Texas law other than Perry's comments at the debate? Perry probably could have chosen better words in defense of the bill. When he said it, I cringed and wish that he wouldn't have done so. However, the bill itself was overwhelmingly passed by the Legislature. If Texans now want otherwise, they can change the bill.
Your persistent and obtuse responses are becoming progressively more asinine. We (the audience for the GOP debate September 22, 2011) were scolded by the TX governor and called heartless by him if we didn't agree with him. Perry's dramatic drop in the polls following the debate is crystal clear evidence that his nutty rebuke toward the national audience went over like a lead balloon. If you continue to deny that, then you are as foolish as he was when he scolded us.
Your strawman notwithstanding, folks are better informed now. They’re also not willing to just accept the status quo.
Asking tough questions and vetting a potential candidate is not attacking or bashing or whatever the Perry supporters want to call it. This guy needs to answer the questions. By not doing so, he’s indicating he’s got something to hide.
Hell, even the Perry supporters can’t answer simple questions or even engage in honest discussion about the BS “no cost to taxpayers” spew on this in-state tuition legislation.
As soon as some proof comes out showing there is, they just slink away. If he’s your candidate, then it’s your damned responsibility to sell him to me, not the other way around. Prove to me he is what you say he is.
If that’s what qualifies as bashing, then you all might want to check your emotions at the door before trying to cram some guy down our throat we know little to nothing about.
As for your comparisons about FReepers voting liberal instead of for Perry. What a laugh.
If that’s what qualifies as a “winning argument”, in the Perry camp, Perry is toast.
Garden Catz
please read what I actually posted. My post was directed at Freepers, not trying to suggest Perry is another Reagan
My point is as follows: More than a few Freepers require 100 percent purity in a GOP candidate. Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty. He also went along with a tax bill that closed many deductions and was effectively a tax increase. Reagan didn’t respond properly to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon.
Despite these mistakes, the overall presidency of Ronald Reagan was tremendous for the USA. Overall, I think Reagan was a great president and should be on Mt. Rushmore, on currency or coins, or all three.
I believe that Reagan would be scorned as President Ronn-mesty by more than a few freepers — because purity is so easy to achieve
-George
People didn’t want to accept the status quo in 1980 either, and we got a great president as a result
My point is that more than a few Freepers demand purity in their candidates. If they’re no good on one thing, then everything has to be rotten.
Let’s take Sarah Palin, as an example.
Gov. Palin did the following:
1. raised taxes on an American industry, the oil industry.
2. increased spending as a governor
3. increased spending as a mayor
Raising taxes — Taxed Enough Already, remember us? — is a big no-no in my book.
But I would be more inclined to see Palin through the lens of the overall performance and then determine if I’m going to vote for her, were she to become a nomination or general election candidate. I would compare her to the opponents.
Should I then apply the same rigorous standards as do you? One strike and you’re out? Do we really want another tax-and-spender as president?
Isn’t tax-and-spend the status quo?
Or is that answer found only in Sun Tzu as well ?
-George
If asking Perry supporters to help address concerns that others have about their candidate is considered “a rigorous standard” then so be it.
I’m starting to lean towards Cain, he’s not a politician. He’s a successful businessman with many of the right ideas and positions that are in line with conservative ideals. Is he perfect? Probably not, but he doesn’t come into the game with all of the political baggage. I’m fed up with politics as usual.
You still in CA? If so, then you’re probably well aware of what’s in store for us here once that idiot in Sacramento signs CA’s version of a DREAM act.
This kind of BS needs to be stopped and if Perry’s answer, nationally, to the illegals already here is to keep slopping slop into the trough, then I’m done with him.
I’ve asked supporters to either quit stating there is “no impact to the taxpayer” unless they can prove it. And if they can prove it, show me. Why is that such a rigorous standard?
If he’s “your guy”, sell him to me. Show me why I’m wrong for doubting what I’m reading/hearing. Instead, all I hear is a bunch of pushback accusing me of being a liberal for doing so. That I want to see 4 more years of 0bama, etc.
That’s childish and is typical of what one would expect from DU’er.
Kazan
Since Aug 20, 2011
You’re still using the Perrybot talking points schtick, and this is the sole purpose for your being here. As for tearing down Reagan... you bots have been doing so right from the get go in order to excuse his support for Socialist Al Gore. Perry OPPOSED Reagan and his agenda in his support for Gore. Perry is nothing but another RINO fraud just like McCain and Slick Willard. We are fed up with him and with his ranting and attacking bots. You’re pimping on the wrong website, dude.
“...I know that they’re fleeing horrible conditions but imagine if we had used the money spent on them here to help them build their country....”
No disrespect intended, Ma’am, but that’s their problem, not ours. And I don’t want one DIME of money that’s been forcibly taken me, at the muzzle of the IRS’s guns, to be spent in a country that hates our guts.
THEIR Marxist/socialist government bureaucrats created the problem. The Mexicans allow it to propagate because they haven’t risen up and killed them or thrown them in jail.
THEIR drug cartel magnates created the problem; The Mexicans allow it to propagate because they haven’t risen up and killed them or thrown them in jail.
THEIR version of “liberals” and other assorted traitors created the problem; The Mexicans allow it to propagate because they haven’t risen up and killed them or thrown them in jail.
“...they wouldn’t have the treacherous conditions they encounter just to make it here, ...”
Again. Not our problem. Stay out of the desert and do it the RIGHT way.
They want to come here, get in line like everyone else, and wait their turn. And then they NO freebies, NO subsidies, NO free ANYTHING - because it isn’t FREE; WE have to pay for it, and the things we pay for isn’t even available to AMERICAN KIDS. Our ancestors did it; they got here, and they worked their rear ends off to MAKE something of themselves; they learned English because they wanted to be AMERICANS, not something with a hyphen. And IF they used a hyphen, “American” came in FRONT of the hyphen, not after it.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for these invaders; I have even less sympathy when I see them out there waving the Mexican flag, openly preaching “Reconquista” and “Aztlan”, and then we have to listen to idiots from La Raza (”The Race) and MECHA telling us that “All you Old White People have a duty to DIE and make room for US!” and other wonderful things like “This land was STOLEN from us!”
No sympathy at all for them. When I see that, when I hear that, all that comes to my mind is “Get the HELL out of MY COUNTRY!”
As far as the innocent kids go - they can go back home with their illegal alien parents and apply for US Citizenship when they turn 18.
Hi Hale,
Agreed, I was watching a program on Travel Channel last night. Some gal named Eden goes around to different locations trying out the off-beat eateries.
Anyway, she met up with this Moroccan fella who immigrated in the mid 90’s with nothing but $90 in his pocket.
He “won the Visa lottery” as he put it and during the segment about him, speaking in very good English, he was exhuding gratitude for what he had been able to accomplish in America.
He owns a business, home, etc.
This is the way immigration is supposed to work. This is the kind of immigrant I welcome with open arms.
The problem with these babies is that they are citizens. First, because their mother is a citizen. Second, because of current interpretation of the law regarding being born in our country.
If you asked freepers in October 2008, they certainly would have told you that. But if you asked freepers in October 2007 (which is roughly the same time period before the 2008 election that we're at now for the 2012 election), the "experts" here would have ALL told you that the GOP nomineee WILL BE either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson. That's what the media told them, and that's what they believed. Bringing up McCain (who was polling about sixth place at the time), or Obama (or who was a freshman Senator trailing FAR behind Hillary! at the time), would have resulted in laughter and scowlfing from freepers. Shall I post some threads from that era to refresh your memory?
>> Fred Thompson, as a U.S. Senator from December, 1994 to January, 2003, and even 2 year Senator Obama had far more credibility with the average voter <<
Indeed. And so did Rudy, "american's mayor", Time magazine's "man of year", served as U.S. Attorney under Ronald Reagan, "hero of 9/11", Republican mayor twice elected in a city that's 5-to-1 Democrat, etc. etc.
Yet neither him nor "rock star" Fred Thompson won a single state, despite being dubbed the "front runners" a year before the election. That should tell you something about being overly confident that Mitt Romney or Rick Perry WILL BE the nominee, but sadly you haven't learned from history.
>> than a former pizza chain CEO who has NEVER won a single election in his entire life and who wants to INTRODUCE A FEDERAL SALES TAX for the first time in U.S. History. Cain has skated under the radar so far but the long knives will now come out. Once a NEW Federal tax is introduced, it NEVER goes away. A true conservative should realize that. Republican President Cain wants a 9% National Sales Tax in 2013. What is to prevent Democrat President Jones and a Democrat Congress from hiking that National Sales Tax up to 19% in 2017?... <<
(CAIN SUCKS... CAIN SUCKS... CAIN SUCKS, ETC. ETC.)
I didn't mention Hermain Cain a SINGLE time in my post, nor have I endorsed him for President, so I don't know why my post prompted paragraph after paragraph of an anti-Cain rant. You seem to be wasting your time to convince me to stop supporting someone I haven't endorsed in the first place. Strange.
Apprently you are alarmed that Herman Cain is rising in the polls and threating Slick Rick, since freepers that distrust Perry have been considering Cain. That's cute, especially since a huge talking point of the pro-Perry freepers for the last several weeks is that anyone who dislikes Perry is either a "Ron Paul disruptor" or a "purist" who will ONLY accept Sarah Palin and NO ONE ELSE.
So now you're alarmed about conservatives jumping on the Cain bandwagon? Hmmm. Last time I checked, his name isn't "Sarah Palin". Is this your indirect way of admitting one of the biggest pro-Perry arguments, that all the freepers who dislike Perry are "waiting for Sarah" and will tear down "anyone" who's NOT Sarah?, has ALREADY been proven WRONG?
Interesting. So you guys were completely wrong about your biggest talking point you've made over the past few weeks, but you're right about everything else regarding the 2012 GOP primaries. I see.
>> Now that Cain is allegedly a "front runner", that will get noticed next debate.
Bachmann is already toast.
Cain will be toasted.
Whose left? <<
Well, you missed Santorum and a couple of others, but I won't discuss the pros/cons of them, lest you accuse me of being a Santorum supporter out to "smear" the "only electable conservative" Rick Perry. Again, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney were polling FAR behind "frontrunner" Giuliani and Fred Thompson in 2007. You seem to miss that point, or simply ignore it because it doesn't fit the propanganda the media gives you before a single vote has been past.
>> Remember this post in the Fall of 2012, BillyBoy. You will be choking on your "yawn". <<
I'll remember this point when all the freepers who demanded we "get behind Fred to stop Rudy" admit they were wrong and stop touting candidates based on who the media tells them is "viable"
Gee, I wonder who CNN wants to be the nominee?
John McCain. If not him, then anyone who is the weakest against B. Obama.
I absolutely agree, I’d rather give every single child of a killed or wounded warrior a free college education anywhere they want to go in the country. And I’d be glad to do it. But the discussion we were having was a little more esoteric and we were dealing specifically with the compassion angle. We should NEVER have spent one damn dime on them (except a child should never be denied emergency medical care, but the family should be sent home after the child is well). My only point was that if we’d taken the money we’ve paid to essentially keep them here, on HELPING them improve their country, given the premise we would’ve spent the money on them anyway, that would be more beneficial to both countries. Frankly, our forefathers built this country in pretty harsh conditions and they can do the same. Granted, their leaders are mostly corrupt and much of the country is run by drug cartels but they should care enough to do what it takes to get control of their country.
Cindie
b...b...but who are we to keep the Romster from being a God on Planet Kolob?
If the choice is between Obama and Romney and someone put a gun to my head and said I had to choose, I'd tell them to pull the trigger . . . . .
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.