Posted on 12/22/2011 7:19:22 AM PST by stillafreemind
Besides Paul's top position, Perry is now third or fourth in most of the polling. Pundits say Iowa is irrelevant if Paul wins, as he is a one-trick pony. Could a win in Iowa ignite the Paul ground teams in other states? Paul is a force to be reckoned with because of his staunch supporters. Maybe candidates should be reaching towards Paul instead of running away from him.
Perry, on the other hand, could be the dark horse in this race. If not nationally, at least he appears to be set to come from behind in Iowa. Why are people giving Perry a second look? His supporters do not mind that he is not the best debater.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Read this article. With this kind of success in TX, to deny this opportunity to the rest of the country is immoral.
Perry is the only governor running with executive experience and he's been EXTREMELY successful. TX has reelected him repeatedly. He's never lost an election.
In addition to the economic success in TX, Perry has also walked the walk on the pro-life issue. He's already done it, we don't have to wonder what he would really do if in office. http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590
a $20 million dollar super pac just started operation for Gingrich.
watch and wait :)
But Mitt has No Control over his super pac.
He cannot control them.
But I guess he thinks he can run the country.
I’ve been saying so for 3 months...Perry will come in 1st or 2nd in Iowa. Paul doesn’t count. His support does noit come from Republicans.
I am tending to agree on Perry (although here in Texas, we do not get to vote until April, at the earliest!).
I love Ron Paul’s proposed domestic budget—it should be the starting point for any true conservative; but he is way too loony on about 20 percent of the issues, even when I think he means well. Newt is a great debater, and very good at getting bills passed, but he has a history of working power angles in lieu of conservative principles, Santorum (who is probably the one with positions most identical to mine) and Bachmann are, frankly, long shots and may be out of the race by March.
That leaves Perry, a B+ candidate. One thing about Perry, he has an A+ as far as second amendment rights go. And to be clear—I am no Perry-bot. I have a long history of being very annoyed at many Perry decisions, including for example Perry’s decision to attack one of our most conservative Texas Supreme Court justices and back a moderate candidate during a primary.
Please do not hold it against Perry or the majority of his supporters for what a few people said about Cain.
I don’t know who they were or what they said, but Perry himself never critized Cain.
I hope you’ll give Perry a second look.
Obama has never lost one either.
So outside of pretending like this is the 19th century when candidates didn’t actually have to do campaigning and relied on happy words from supporters to sell their bids to voters, how is this guy going to deal with Obama and his media allies?
A: He’s not. He is running a strategy of keeping off camera and saying as little as possible. Great if he is running for president of Iowa, worthless anywhere else.
Most important issue is amnesty. It is permanent. Everything else can be repealed or fixed later.
Who cares if we pass few pro-life or 2ndAm bills now but allow amnesty. In few years, dems have absolute permanent majority and they can pass anything. That’s why Newt is the most dangerous candidate.
“Most important issue is amnesty.”
Can’t argue with that. The problem is...none of the leading R candidates, as far as I can tell, have the courage to do anything about it.
Your posts would be more effective if they made sense.
Perry is the most knowledgeable about border issues and the problem of illegals. He’s had to deal with the influx of illegals into Texas.
For some reason, we can’t seem to get those people to move on up to some of your more delightful states.
He also understands the border and therefore doesn’t toss off phrases like ‘build a fence.’
The length and terrain of the Texas border with Mexico make that both impossible and unworkable.
He’s studied the issue, even gone to Israel to confer with their border people. Perry has a plan to secure the border and has promised he will get ‘er done in one year.
For some reason, people seem to cling to the notion that Perry is pro-open border and pro-amnesty, when he is neither.
If the border is your main issue, vote for Perry.
You obviously do not live in Iowa, as Perry is working his tail off in Iowa.
That’s fine.
Go back to just sticking your head in the sand and pretending then. Other than pie in the sky platitudes, none of his supporters have the slightest clue if he can deal with what the left will throw at him.
If this guy manages to get the nomination, I will be looking forward to all of the whining from the Perry people about all of the “unfair” attacks from the MSM, and looking at all of the posts from his supporters wondering why he isnt responding to the barbs from Obama effectively enough.
Vote for the one who is most likely to defeat 0bama. That is Newt hands down.
We have a pretty good idea of how the main candidates will deal with Obama.
Romney will go soft like McCain and drift to the left.
Gingrich will talk his head off and inevitably throw in some gaffes which the media will focus on.
Rick Perry has a record to run on and will be able to successfully challenge Obama on issues. He also appears far more real and likeable.
The media will attack any Republican who’s nominated.
You should know that.
Perry has withstood attacks before, during all his successful campaigns in Texas.
He has also withstood constant attacks from the media in Texas which is just as nasty and left-wing as media anywhere, don’t kid yourself about that.
There is something a little lacking in substance in your posts. why do you use phrases like ‘sticking your head in the sand?’
Why don’t you say something?
“If the border is your main issue, vote for Perry”
Seriously? You have got to be kidding. In 2004 and 2006 we were writing resolutions at the party conventions, which were debated and adopted (after watering down so that the party elite would accept them) by the state convention, in response to several issues, including Perry’s pandering to illegal aliens. Perry of 2009-2011 is a very different person than Perry of 2001-2005. I have trouble forgetting completely Perry of 2001-2005.
I have Perry at a B+. I would prefer Perry over Romney, without question; but it is very fair to question how deep Perry’s commitment is to certain conservative issues.
In Perry’s defense: he supported Cruz in the very important Medellin vs. Texas battle.
I could give a crap what a candidate's "supporters" do or say. The only serious consideration should be their record. The words that actually come out of their mouths vs. their actual accomplishments. Everything else is political fodder for political foes.
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.