Posted on 10/19/2011 6:39:17 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP
In previous debates, the adviser explained, Perry had tried to abide by time limits, leading some observers to say he seemed passive and withdrawn. Perry intended to make sure that didn't happen in Las Vegas.
It didn't. The Las Vegas debate was Perry's fifth, but the first one in which Perry really showed up to play. That doesn't mean he won, doesn't mean he was particularly likable, doesn't mean he always had cogent answers. But it does mean that Perry, on the verge of being completely written off as a candidate, gave himself a chance to get back in the game.
And Perry, for the first time in any GOP debate, rattled former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He did it by bringing up a 2007 charge that Romney hired illegal immigrants to do lawn work at his Massachusetts home. Jobs are the magnet for illegal immigrants, Perry said. "And Mitt, you lose all of your standing, from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy."
Romney tried to laugh it off and to deny the story. "I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life," he said. Romney tried to explain, but Perry kept pushing, leaving Romney protesting that Perry was ignoring the rules -- just as Perry had planned.
"I'm speaking," Romney said. "I'm speaking, I'm speaking, I'm speaking. You get 30 seconds. This is the way the rules work here…Anderson?"
By the time Romney appealed to CNN moderator Anderson Cooper for help, Romney seemed flustered, almost frantic. "Would you please wait?" he said to Perry. "Are you just going to keep talking?"
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
I didn’t say anything about illegal tuition aid did I? I said Perry has a illegal immigration problem, like romney. which is pandering for illegals votes. Arizona and Alabama are proving that states can do more but Texas, under Perry, can’t?
Perry’s problem is that he won’t address one of the fundamental problems this country has, which is illegals.
When I was growing up kids would make money mowing other peoples lawns. I watched construction done by my countrymen. I watched roads being built by my countrymen. Not anymore because of illegals.
Drugs, gangs. Brought to you primarily by illegals.
Perry represents a upperclass that says just wait a little while longer and it’ll all be ok.
Oh yeah, he debates like a fart in a whirlwind.
It was classic and Perry was the only one who’s been able to shake Romney out of his comfort zone.
Amen to that Grey Eagle. Thank goodness I’ve stopped caring what those people think or what they say to me.
Actually George H.W. lost because of a certain guy named H. Ross Perot. He took a lot of conservative votes and gave Clinton the victory.
There’s been a lot of speculation around these here parts as to why Perot hated Bush so much. Some say it’s because Bush wouldn’t let him finance a rogue operation to free some prisoners.
Or it could be anything since Perot himself admitted he was crazy but he conned a lot of people into voting for him.
And I might add regarding the debates (when it comes to the mano a mano final debates) that everyone thought algore could out debate Bush and then they thought Kerry could out debate Bush.
I think we all remember who won.
And, I just need to add that I’m not an auto Romney guy.
In 2008 I thought he a manipulator......a flip-flopper....his latent joining of the NRA a ploy. As Rush and the rest of the Rightist media embraced him as the “true conservative” in the media in the race against McCain. Romney was the “conservative” alternative to McCain a few short years ago.
I ask you, has Romney taken less “conservative” positions since then? Rush thought he fine then so what has he done since to be less so? Was the MaHa-Rushie wrong then or now? DO NOT FORGET OR HASH OVER THIS FACT.
Many on the right-of-center have completely forgotten what happened in 2008. They have concocted alternative realities to make themselves feel better. Again, just stop it.
Okay?
I watched the Luntz group and was not at all impressed with their opinions. If this group thought ‘Perry was petty, mean-spirited, argued about a non issue, and didn’t look Presidential’, then they were wearing blinders or refused to admit that Romney is a flawed candidate. Exposing Romney’s lies about illegal immigrants and his original statement that Romneycare would work well for the country were, in my opinion, major accomplishments. To say the illegal immigrant issue was a non issue is pure folly, because Romney denied he had ever hired an illegal immigrant. He knew for over a year the lawn service was using illegals and he didn’t give a rip until he found out it would hurt him in the election...so he lied about it until forced to admit it last night. I find it extremely odd that many of Romney’s supporters want to overlook the fact he was/is deceitful. When Rick Santorum and Rick Perry exposed his comment in his book that Romneycare would work well for the country, he denied he had ever said that. Guess what?!! He did write it in his book and then took it out of the paper back issue. Maybe his deceitfulness doesn’t bother the Luntz group, but it bothers me.
I don’t think Romney or Perry distinguished themselves last night, but I did think Romney was the petty, mean-spirited one who kept interrupting and yelling over Santorum and Perry to, “Let me talk, let me talk.” What a disgusting display of arrogance that he thinks he should be allowed all the time to talk and others shouldn’t speak if he doesn’t want to hear what they are saying. Perhaps he really didn’t want anyone to understand what they were saying, and that’s why he was speaking over them and interrupting. I don’t blame Perry for not allowing him to filibuster and take over his (Perry’s) time!
I’m not sure if I will support Perry, but I will be fair and unbiased in accessing his record and performance. While he has not been overly impressive in the debates does not bother me. These debates aren’t going to decide who the nominee will be. Newt Gingrich is by far the most intellectual and best debater, but can he lead and will his past indiscretions hurt him? I’m not sure, and I will listen carefully to what he and the others have to say.
” Perry attacking romney for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is stupid beyond belief.”
Couldn’t disagree with this statement more.
Romney started the exchange by bringing up some bogus study about 125,000 or whatever TX jobs going to illegals, when the numbers don’t add up cause an estimated 60,000 total illegals entered TX during that time.
Perry was simply defending himself by throwing a counter-punch, and even if it didn’t make Perry look like the nicest guy in the world, it clearly landed. He caught Romney in a lie and got him clearly flustered. It was about time someone called Romney on his obvious hypocrisy (on scores of issues I might add), and Romney was kind enough to provide Perry the opening to do it.
No, to attack anyone for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is asinine. It’s obvious that everyone does it. It’s not a defense nor a attack. It’s been standard practice for so long that it’s a given. It just shows that Perry can’t attack anyone on illegals because it’s his quicksand.
The base fact is that Perry could’ve made life tough on illegals since the 2010 elections, as that is what the electorate wants. He’s made a different choice and now has to live with the inability to attack anyone on a subject the country is very concerned about. He’s done. And good riddance.
Just exactly what does “looking presidential mean?” Oh, like obama did during his campaign, and look what we got stuck with. People are so danged superficial. To base one’s ability to govern based on whether or not one looks presidential - is immature.
The internals must be frightening Romney to the point where he is no longer attacking Obama like he originally started out to do, when he thought no one could challenge him.
But in light of this, this is sure to backfire on Romney and get the electorate looking very closely at Perry, to see why so much fuss.
Like the WW2 Bomber pilots used to say; “You know you are closest to the target when the flak is the heaviest.”
“No, to attack anyone for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is asinine. It’s obvious that everyone does it. It’s not a defense nor a attack. It’s been standard practice for so long that it’s a given. It just shows that Perry can’t attack anyone on illegals because it’s his quicksand.
The base fact is that Perry could’ve made life tough on illegals since the 2010 elections, as that is what the electorate wants. He’s made a different choice and now has to live with the inability to attack anyone on a subject the country is very concerned about. He’s done. And good riddance.”
Perry may have a weakness on illegals, but if he was done, the Romney campaign wouldn’t be out with that desperate web ad to try to change the conversation. Funny how the Romney folks seem to be directly most of their energy toward a candidate that I keep hearing around here is “done.”
And you continue to ignore the fact that ROMNEY BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE. It wasn’t as if Perry just attacked him out of the blue. I for one was happy to see Mitt fumble around, then get forced to utter this phrase that confirms everything we in the Tea Party understand to be true about him “We went to the company, and we said, ‘Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property,I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.”
Furthermore, Mitt lied about not having ever hired an illegal, and he was caught in 2008 STILL EMPLOYING THE SAME ILLEGALS a year after he promised to get rid of them. It’s not so much the fact that he hired a landscape co. that employed illegals, it’s the fact that he failed to take corrective action when the situation was pointed out to him. This goes to the issue of CREDIBILITY. Mitt has none-and especially not on the issue of illegal immigration. This is what Perry was pointing out. You know, throwing stones and glass houses and all that. I haven’t decided yet between Perry and Cain, but that counter-attack showed me that Perry understands what some other GOP candidates don’t seem to-that Romney is nearly as much as enemy to true conservatism as Obama, and he must be stopped. Heck, I don’t even care if Perry’s campaign has to go down with him, as long as he takes down Romney, Cain or Gingrich will fill the frontrunner role nicely.
BTW-Santorum and Gingrich also deserve a lot of credit for finally taking on Mitt on healthcare. No thanks to Romney stalking horse Michele Bachmann though, who had to stick her nose in and change the subject to rescue her boy Mitt from further damage.
All in all, it was a good debate for conservatism. I hope to see many more like this one.
I agree. I don’t want romney, unless it’s another 4 yrs of dumass. But Perry has come across as a twit. He seems like a face on a organization, the way he debates. Lost a lot of faith in him.
You keep making the same nasty comments and claims about Perry, without one shred of evidence to back your rhetoric. All you have is the same hateful repetitious rhetoric you hear others regurgitate around this Forum. It simply says a lot about your character and level of integrity. You demand perfection from others, yet you are unwilling to provide the same standard in how you present your own argument. All we seem to get from you, is a whole bunch of cynical, hateful rumor, totally lacking in facts or honesty.
Looks like you are glad to join the Romney band wagon, because you are certainly helping him do his dirty work, based on your own limited scope or ability to communicate your ideas on a meaningful or positive level.
Romney is starting to have to answer the questions that Perry started. That in itself is priceless!............
People have short memories.
Cain never seems to even criticize Romney.
Wait a minute, you're saying that illegals doing lawns is as American as Mom and apple pie but how do you feel about TX granting in state tuition to illegals?
There is far too much lying and exaggeration of Perry's stance on illegals.
Perry is the one guy running who has been forced to actually deal with the issue and he has a very good record of dealing with it.
Cain didn’t start out on top of the mountain and he may not remain there. Cain has not laid a hand on Romney. Why?
You must have missed the focus group of debate watchers that Frank Luntz had on Hannity last night.
Perry alienated those people even more. They thought the gardener attack was petty and stupid.
None of them said they would vote for 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.