Posted on 10/14/2011 9:36:16 PM PDT by Clairity
From the study:
Perry has been singled out for criticism 39 times - about twice the combined total of Herman Cain (9), Jon Huntsman (5), Ron Paul (4), Rick Santorum (1), Michele Bachmann (1), and Newt Gingrich (0) and 10 more than Mitt Romney (29).
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Yes.
Really? Perry has a "million good qualities"? Name them!
I agree, but when he bites back, why do the perry supporters whine about it? That seems to be the entire point of this thread. If you can’t take the heat...
PS, you might have noticed that Cain was the only one who DIDN’T attack perry during the debates.
So, in essence, the only one of our candidates running that sees that Romney is not a conservative is Perry.
After all, he’s really the only one attacking Romney on his record.
All the other candidates, excepting Huntsman, do not attack. And that says *VOLUMES* as to what they think of Romney.
Geez, Cain is a crony capitalist. Selling his chief economic advisor position for *ONLY* $1,500.
This is what we need to stop!
(channeling the essentials of those that say that a few thousand bucks bought Perry’s Gardisil moment)
Actually, Cain did ‘attack’ romney. I guess some of you would have preferred he didn’t so then all your naysaying would be true. It ain’t.
No, I did not notice that and thanks for pointing that out. However, that does not change the fact Cain supported Romney last time and again has said he would be Romney’s VP but not Cain’s.
It is an extreme curiosity WHY all the others have their guns blazing for Perry and not Romney. Romney is being given a free pass, even by Freepers here on FR. They, too, care more about crippling Perry.
and ... BUMP.
Good thing you posted that to yourself. Otherwise someone might think you were being serious,
I have never lied about Rick Perry.
Perry advocated for taxpayer subsidized handouts for ILLEGAL aliens. You are free to disagree that doing so was 'pro-ILLEGAL alien' just as I am free to believe it was. But it was my opinion and my opinion, which is supported by the facts, is not a lie.
Every word of it is true.
Let’s say for the purpose of this discussion that perry is NOT personally pro-illegal. And let’s say that he HAS made some attempts to police the border. Okay?
The FACTS are, that he has backed and signed pro-illegal legislation. More inconveniently for perry, his biggest money backers WANT illegals working in low wage paying jobs in Texas, so OTHER legislation that would have stopped sanctuary cities in Texas, or allowed the use of eVerify for example, went belly up. So which is worse? NOT being pro-illegal but giving in to money interests and selling out your core values, if indeed they are, or actually agreeing with them? Either way, he is being disingenuous, but I would prefer he does what he BELIEVES in and was honest about it, at least. Otherwise, he proves he’s for sale.
In June Perry asked the legislature to add the issue of sanctuary cities to their special session. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-adds-sanctuary-cities-to-special-session-1688644.php
Yep. And then backed OUT of it when his moneymen said uh-uh.
BTW, here is romney love fest thread right here going on right now where freepers NEVER go after romney. I wish I has a dollar for every post that said no romney, no way. I could live comfortably.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793193/posts
Prove it.
I’m not understanding what you’re saying about Freepers never going after Romney but of course, that statement on it’s face is not true. There is plenty of talk that Romney is not acceptable but then there is a lovefest for Cain, who did support Romney and still says he would be Romney’s VP, but not Perry’s. I don’t know why, do you?
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.