Super PAC backing Rick Perry to spend $55 million to beat rivals, documents reveal

MSNBC.com ^ | September 6, 2011 | Michael Isikoff

[hocndoc]

Ditto - When I read these detractors, I immediately think of our victory in Citizens and what it will mean to honest conservatives in the next election.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

SP isn’t runing.

And she has told you this personally?

[alstewartfan]

Who are Perry’s $55M worth of backers? Yeah, the establishment pols and special interests are REALLY terrified of Rick Perry! *gag*

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’m just wondering why you are so intent on smearing people with no evidence merely because their names are associated with a SuperPac, or because they are part of a campaign.

For example, what is it but “guilt-by-association” to continue to bring up the fact that a Perry campaign guy happens to be the husband of a person who works for Romney? Should they get divorced or something? Should he be fired because his wife works for the wrong GOP candidate? Do you have any evidence that she is influencing him?

I have not seen a single word posted explaining what bad thing is happening because these two are married. It is just thrown out there to smear the couple by association. It is exactly the type of gutter politics that I am glad Sarah Palin has denounced.

[Just mythoughts]

We have the article. The ONLY place where $55 million is mentioned. And it doesn’t SAY they raised $55 million. It says they plan to SPEND that much. If they had RAISED $55 million, the article would have said they raised $55 million. The statement that they have raised $55 million is a fabrication. If they had said they hoped to spend $100 million, would you insist they had already RAISED that much? Probably, I guess. As I said, maybe this isn’t one of those threads where facts matter. It is a fact that Perry said he wasn’t going to run. People convinced him to change his mind. If you watched his talk in Tim Scott’s town hall meeting saturday, you would know why he changed his mind. If you cared about the facts, you would watch to find out the facts, and not assert unsupported claims that some PAC raised $55 million dollars already, as a way of falsely smearing a candidate you claim to want the facts for. I am glad he changed his mind. I don’t know if I’ll support him, but we need good conservatives to step up to the plate. So, why do you think he changed his mind? What reason for changing his mind would make a difference to you?

AS simply as I can put into words, any advance man of algore for president, after 8 years of President Reagan, plus the literal history of the democrat party, government is 'god', rings alert, alert, alert, bells.

I have NO clue 'yet' why he changed his mind, but right now with all the 'whitewashing' taking place under the guise of 'facts' I am leaning to being deceived by another political opportunist.

[Bigtigermike]

Rita from OK! What a surprise! You’re on a Palin thread! I can’t believe it!

[RightTechDave]

Palin , "I Am Not For Sale"

[CharlesWayneCT]

For extra credit, maybe they can name the current presidential candidate who does NOT have a superPac that supports his or her candidacy.

And here’s a funny thing. There’s a SuperPac that is said to be a Perry SuperPac, which is run by Newt Gingrich’s people. Isn’t Newt Gingrich an actual candidate? Is he really directing a SuperPac for an opposition candidate?

Remember the key: Money given to candidates you don’t like — evil, payoff, “for sale”. Money given to candidates you DO like — support, “grass roots activism”.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think it’s great that we post these stories and talk about them. What I find disturbing is when we adopt the tactics that we used to abhor. I know the Huffington Post is going to raise guilt-by-association arguments. I know that liberals are going to attack corporations spending money to save our country from Obama.

I just don’t expect conservatives to join them simply because they want to clear the field for a preferred candidate.

[GlockLady]

You don’t know Palin either.

[GlockLady]

Good news for Sarah, too. That $55 million of his will go a long way to clearing the opposition for her.

[DJ MacWoW]

I know that liberals are going to attack corporations spending money to save our country from Obama.

You mean the corporations that Obama is funding with our money? Those corporations? Stimulus money? Bailout money? Favors and tax loopholes from their friends in DC?

It's game Charles, and you had better catch up on what's going on.

[unseen1]

The article doesn't say he has the money it says that is what they hope to spend. it's one of those smoke and mirrors. the Super Pac doesn't have the money yet, it is panning as if Perry will win 2 of the first 3 primaries and have the money come in at that point. In fact it says nothing about how much money is on it.

[unseen1]

The article doesn't say he has the money it says that is what they hope to spend. it's one of those smoke and mirrors. the Super Pac doesn't have the money yet, it is panning as if Perry will win 2 of the first 3 primaries and have the money come in at that point. In fact it says nothing about how much money is on it.

[AHerald]

$55 million dollars and all I got to show for it was this darn Not For Sale Palin 2012 T-shirt.

[DJ MacWoW]

For example, what is it but “guilt-by-association” to continue to bring up the fact that a Perry campaign guy happens to be the husband of a person who works for Romney?

It's about control Charles. And loyalty. These people control. And there's only a few of them. They are the elitists. Do you HONESTLY think that "the people" control ANYTHING? The power brokers think otherwise. And as long as you remain blind, they will control.

I was told by a poster that Palin hadn't hired a "crack team". And they saw not a darn thing wrong with what they were saying. They didn't see that elitists control. They learned nothing from the Dems working on McCains Prez bid that purposely sank it. And TRIED to sink Palin. And here we are. 3 years later. The same people control and the blind and naive remain blind and naive.

We heard that sooner or later, everyone gets a "turn". Remember Scozzafava? It was her "turn". It was McCains "turn" too. It was Doles "turn". Whose "turn" is it this time? Probably not who you think.

It's about control. It's about professional politics. And it was NEVER meant to control our Republic. Guilt by association? Absolutely.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Are you saying Sarah would never accept help from a SuperPAC? Of course she would and you all know it.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

No kidding, there is nothing wrong with this and a bunch of Palin supporters believe if they can demonize Perry, somehow, miraculously, Palin will become the nominee and then defeat Obama.

If these people want to support Perry, more power to them and if a group wants to form a SuperPac to help Palin, that's their right but then I guess Palin is so pure, she would reject the help. Yea, right!

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

This looks like an anti-Perry thread. What does it have to do with Palin, unless Palin supporters want to admit your strategy is to elevate Palin by tearing down Perry. Why?

[onyx]

Your entire post makes no sense at all. Carville is married to Matlin. Is that smearing? Facts are facts. The Sullivan’s work for two different campaigns. Husband for Perry, his wife for Romeny, and you call making mention of that a smear?

Maybe sea shell collecting is better suited for you.