“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.
>>...Perry’s pandering to illegal aliens.<<
If you’re going to state something like this, back it up with at least one example, if one exists.
Because without a concrete example of his “pandering to illegal aliens,” I always find myself wondering if what people who say that don’t mean something more along the lines of “offering support to those legal immigrant families that we never should have allowed to become citizens in the first place.”
Perry seems to understand the difference. I’m not sure a lot of his border critics do.
Obviously you are way more familiar with the inner workings of the Texas legislature than I am.
And that you still give Perry a B+ is impressive.
Didn’t he try to get rid of sanctuary cities? I thought the establishment and business lobby was what stood in the way of that?
I think he would be much stronger on these issues as a president because to remain as governor of Texas he could not be too mean to hispanics and still get elected.
That’s not pandering, that’s just politics. You can’t accomplish anything out of office.