Posted on 08/29/2011 6:46:20 AM PDT by DRey
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, like most of the other the GOP presidential hopefuls, says his campaign is about undoing the decisions of President Obama. But Perry also presents a stark alternative to the last Republican to occupy the White House, his fellow Texan George W. Bush.
In his writings and speeches before he entered the race, Perry shared the view, widely held among conservatives, that Bush’s government spending habits in office were a betrayal of the GOP’s core fiscal principles. But Perry went further, dismissing “compassionate conservatism,” the central tenet of Bush’s domestic policy, as just more overreach by the federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He just wasn’t a very strong leader. That’s my feeling. He did turn a blind eye, and I think he was naive regarding his advisors.
I see you have no concept of pragmatism or doing things in an organized way.
Good luck winning an election, EV, since apparently only you, yourself are enlightened enough to serve.
Do you understand the difference between flip flopping on philosophical principle and merely changing your view on a particular legislation?
The latter kind of change is in fact the result of maintaining principle—once you’ve seen that the particular instance is not consistent with the original, unchanging principle.
So Palin did the opposite of what RINOs do.
Amazing how much spending, debt, and socialism we’re getting out of the Republicans, in the name of “pragmatism.”
Fact is, though, it only seems “pragmatic.” What it actually is is selfish and shortsighted. And it never ends up working out in the real world.
Over the short run, being principled is hard. But over the long haul it is eminently practical. It works.
It is still true that you reap what you sow. Always has been, always will be.
They are racist and they are enemies of the Republic.
That is why a Governor should not meet with them. Not because some of his citiznes happen to belong, but because of what they advocate. He should have refused to meet with them until they change their charter, and thereby exposed them for what they are.
Instead, he pandered to them.
No, I cannot see any American governor meeting with such an organization. That's like in World War II having a governor meeting with the American Nazi Party because a number of his citizens belonged.
It may not be declared...but we are at war with groups like La Raza because they openly advocate the destruction of our Republic.
I have no problem with the Governor meeting with any groups of citizens...as long as they do not advocate the overthrow of our nation. Anyhow, that is simply my opinion.
I understand the political reason for it...and for ignoring what they represent because you do not want to upset other Hispanics who are not aware of the details of La Raza and have been taken in by their propoganda. What was missed was an opportunity to expose La Raza for what it is in the hopes of educating those same Hispanics who, IMHO, if they knew what La Raza advocates, would also not want to be involved with them.
I kknow there is political risk in that...but true statesmen and leaders take risks to do what is right. In this particular instance, Perry did not. Clearly, in other areas he is willing...but it seems to all be just a little too politically calculated.
Anyhow, I do support him in those other areas, and I do support his willingness to get serious on the border...though even there he seams to scoff at building the fence, which is the first thing I would do, follolwed in quick order by having it patrolled by the National Guard.
I don't believe in luck. I believe in Providence and hard work.
And there are many thousands of decent, principled, patriotic Americans who are enlightened enough to serve. Sadly, almost none of them are incumbents.
And the allegedly "conservative" major party in this country has proven itself again and again to be against them, not for them.
Mail.
I’ve got no problem with that. Neither does Perry if you read his stand. Amen.
How do you describe Perry's stance on immigration? What, specifically, do you not like?
Where do you draw the line where the Fed gov't responsibility to defend borders ends and the border states reponsibility begins.
IMHO, he should never have set foot there. He should have called them what they are...that organization is a racist organization dedicated to the dismembering of the United States and not worthy of recognition in any form IMHO.
The illegal immigration record of Perry is not good, and once people on FR understand what a panderer he has been to LA Raza and the open borders/amnesty crowd, his popularity will diminish.
I don't just want a candidate who can beat Obama (most of the GOP candidates can beat him), I want one I can trust as president. I'm not sure I can trust him over this huge issue.
She quit!
Yes, don't forget that in 2008, Sarah opposed deporting illegals and supported a path to citizenship. Now, not so much.
- I do do not like him pandering to La Raza for votes. For the reasons I already enumeratied.
- I do not like him scoffing at the idea of a border fence. If built properly, and patrolled properly, it could be extremely helpful in securing the borders.
- I do not like him using tax payer monies to subsdidize education of illegal immigrant children. Make it clear that we are serious about deporting illegals, and about closing down businesses who illegally hire them, and most of them will self-deport.
All of these things make me leary about his stance. I do not want any form of an open border attitude in a president of these United States. I want someone who will be deadly serious about securing our borders and ensuring that people who come here illegally get sent back where they came from...and people who illegally hire them get prosecutred. I want someone who will seriously find the illegals and deport them.
Like I said, if we become serious in this manner, most of those who are "just here to work" will self deport. Others, who are here to criminally run drugs or engage in other such activities we are going to have to seriously hunt down and irradicate. We must make abject examples of those types.
Anyhow, I am a Texas native, born and raised. Though I live in Idaho now, I am well aware of the issues in my home state. As I said, I like a lot of what Perry says and represents...but I cannot condone his stance on illegal immigration as I have outlined it.
Awww, geez whiz, "smaller government" Perry only ENLARGED government by 25% during his tenure in office! What a great guy! Coulda been enlarged by 50% but thanks to Perry he's enlarging government at a much slower rate! I guess "small government" now means "enlarging government less quickly" instead of actually SHRINKING government.
>> Just for comparison purposes, I decided to look at Alaska's spending growth during Sarah's term. <<
Yawn. More of the "you're waiting for Sarah!" BS from Perry fans. Well, unfortunately for you, since I am NOT "waiting for Sarah" and she's NOT currently a candidate for President, I don't care what the spending levels in Alaska were. Try comparing Perry to people actually in the race.
>> Either you love to deliberately misrepresent the truth, or you just don't understand economics. <<
Looking in the mirror again?
The only other candidate that was a governor is Romney, and he does not compare to Perry at all. So there is no one else in the race to compare with Perry on this issue.
I guess "small government" now means "enlarging government less quickly" instead of actually SHRINKING government.
Well, I agree that shrinking government is better, and Perry is the first Texas governor in the last 60 years to actually cut state spending in the last budget. But while you don't like that 2.5% annual real spending growth rate, Perry still has a better record on that than any of the other candidates in the race. So it sounds like you are looking for a candidate that has not yet appeared.
The failure in your analysis is that, as I said before, the GOP would have been blamed for the 15 million federal layoffs, market crash, etc. that would have been the result of a flat out refusal to increase the debt ceiling.
Think people want government employees laid off? They do until they see that UE number go up, and that many more people competing for the jobs that are out there.
The GOP would be blamed, Obama re-elected, and the Dems granted the House back, and all they’d do is just undo it all anyway, and increase the debt limit, but this time, with 12.1% unemployment and a Dow of 5500 instead of a Dow of 11k and 9.5% UE or whatever. You have to consider that you need time to achieve anything, even on a fast-track of so-called principles that you advocate.
As President, he’ll have to meet with leaders of groups (nations) who have promised to obliterate our country.
Texas doesn’t have all the money in the world. The Feds should pay for National defense.
How much of your land do you want cut off from the US by a river? Our border is 1200 miles of the 2000 mile border with Mexico and it’s a river that winds back and forth. It’s not a straight piece of land like in New Mexico, Arizona or California.
The fence that has been built along the river is straight, because of the logistics of following the actual border in the Rio Grand. It cuts some homes and land off from the US, divides farm and ranch land and cuts livestock and irrigation off from the river.
In the meantime, we are spending some of our own Texas funds to put “boots on the ground” for border security in the form of Texas Rangers and DPS personnel.
However, the Feds should be paying for those National Guards - and they are paying for some. It’s just that 1200 National Guard troops were deployed by Obama but Texas only got 250 of them.
And it won't change the fact that the entire leadership of the Republican and the Democrat parties supported doing exactly that every single step of the way.
The first day that the "Tea Party" freshmen hit the Hill they got a lecture from John Boehner about how they were going to have to be "adults" and raise the debt ceiling.
There was not a single plan offered by the leadership of either party that did not raise the debt ceiling by more than two trillion dollars.
And in the end, there were a grand total of only EIGHT Republicans who did not support raising the debt ceiling by more than two trillion dollars in some way or another. EIGHT. That's it.
"...it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it."-- Patrick Henry
Why not try and refute my last post?
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.