Posted on 09/16/2011 12:46:22 PM PDT by winoneforthegipper
After an appearance in Newton, Iowa today, Rick Perry denied to an unidentified woman that he'd ever supported the 2008 bank bailout known as TARP.
"No Ma'am," he told her.
"I thought I saw a letter where you had written encouraging the support of TARP legislation," he persisted.
"You saw wrong," he replied flatly, as shown in this video, taken by a tracker, of this morning's event.
This isn't the first time the issue has come up, and the questioner might be excused for having read Perry's October 1 letter that way. The letter, co-signed by then-Gov. Joe Manchin in their capacities as heads of the RGA and DGA, came three days after TARP's failure to pass the House rocked the markets.
The AP covered the letter with the headline, "Governors, Business Up Pressure for Bailout Bill." It's very hard to read otherwise.
"We strongly urge Congress to leave partisanship at the door and pass an economic recovery package," they wrote. "It is time for Washington, D.C. to step up, be responsible, an do what's in the best interest of American taxpayers and our economy."
Perry, later that day, released a statement that seemed aimed at countering the impression left by his letter without clarifying what he was calling for: "[G]overnment should not be in the business of using taxpayer dollars to bail out corporate America. Congress needs to take off its partisan gloves and work together to bring both short and long term stability to the credit markets....”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I'm talking about the three groups attacking Perry. NOT the "three Freeper Groups attacking Perry". You will note that the first group attacking Perry that I listed were the liberals, that should have been your first clue that I wasn't talking about Free Republic. IF you had paid attention, you wouldn't have resorted to a childish insult.
As for your accusations against Palin supporters, you’d better back off.
I really am no good at paying attention to threats. And if you are trying to pretend that some Sarah Palin supporters are NOT working against Rick Perry, that would fly in the face of established fact, both here and elsewhere. Let's remind people of what I actually claimed, lest your threat's implication be misunderstood: Third are some of the Palin folks, who saw the easy entry into the contest by Sarah Palin blocked by Perry’s quick rise to the front of the pack. Romney was no obstacle for her, being well to her left, but Perry occupied her space and needed to be pushed aside.
Feel free to disagree, but I think it's clear that there are Palin folks, including some here at FR, who are working to push Perry out of the frontrunner status to help clear the path for Sarah Palin. Do you really think there are not? In fact, why do you call this an "accusation"? Do you think it would be WRONG for Palin supporters to be attacking Perry to bring him back down to earth?
I think not, according to your next statement: ALL candidates are vetted, and that process includes both positive and negative articles.
I also don't know where you got the idea I was opposed to negative articles. I am somewhat opposed to negative articles posted a dozen times, or negative articles accepted as fact when they are clear left-wing smears, but we deal with them by answering them.
My post was simply an observation in response to the comment I responded to, that there were three major groups going after Perry right now. I would presume that other candidate's supporters are also going after Perry, but they have so few supporters that it isn't really a factor.
And don't get me started about your red herring Free Republic isn't about to change to suit you nonsense. I'm not calling for a change, I'm pointing out an observation. I didn't say it should change, but I find it useful in evaluating people's opinions to understand reasons they might have for misinterpreting something like the letter in this article.
I guess I struck a nerve somehow, but you shouldn't think that anything I wrote was a call to get negative articles banned.
Herman Cain on Abortion
Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness starts with unborn life. (May 2011)
Defund Planned Parenthood; intent was to kill black babies. (Jan 2011)
Life begins at conception, period. (Jan 2011)
What graph from the Dallas Morning News?
Can you post it here?
Not only do I like him, I trust him.
Yep. Herman Cain is a rock solid conservative.
A month a go, I posted to that fact that Sarah would wait out the Perry vetting process.
A few posts came back from his supporters suggesting he already was.
I will say that process has just begun actually.
In my mind yes, I got to say, his balance is zero but others are still gathering their own thoughts.
We would be remiss as constitutionalists not to post to his record that runs contrary to our beliefs in those truths.
Perry supporters can counter this by posting that which would paint their candidate in a more positive light, however there just does not seem to be much in that kinda traffic, just platitudes and meanderings.
It was in support of government action on the economic crisis, a crisis that caused McCain/Palin to shut down their campaign for a day, and that had conservatives calling for action -- just not the action we ended up with.
As to this article, if someone said this letter indicated support for the final TARP program, they would be wrong. So the lady was wrong, Perry was right to say she was wrong, and it clearly wasn't a lie or a flip-flop. It was the truth.
Yeah that was a great line!
*****************************
How that might be considered "solidly pro-life", I don't know.
What was my wild accusation? That some Palin supporters are working to get out negative information regarding Perry in order to clear him out of the way for Palin? You call that a “wild accusation”?
Since you admitted that Palin supporters were posting negative Perry articles (as you said, what else would you expect), and since you said all candidates should be vetted, and that includes negative articles (explaining that this was a good thing),
then how could me saying that some Palin supporters are saying negative things about Perry to pull him down and clear the way for Sarah is a “false accusation”? It seems to be neither “false”, or is it an “accusation” since you say it is a good thing to do.
So, why were you so upset that I said that SP supporters were attacking Perry? You said the same thing.
Maybe you got confused by my three points, and thought I was saying that Palin people were saying nice things about Romney or something. I certainly didn’t say that, but I can’t fathom what else it is that would get you so upset.
---------------------------------- Perry’s record has earned the support and praise from pro-life Texas leaders like Joe Pojman of Texas Alliance for Life, whose group endorsed him in his bid for re-election saying he “has passionately supported laws protecting unborn babies and their mothers.” “Texas needs a leader who is unrelentingly pro-life,” Pojman said. “Unlike his opponent, Governor Perry has never given an inch to the life-threatening precepts of Roe v. Wade, whether verbally or by his actions as an elected official. He is a loyal advocate for the protection of unborn babies and their mothers, and TAL is eager for him to continue his dedicated and effective leadership of our state.” Colleen Parro, the former head of the Republican National Coalition for Life, previously told LifeNews.com that Perry has always been on the side of pro-life advocates. “Governor Perry has been a supporter of pro-life legislation and has signed into law whatever pro-life bills were passed by the Texas legislature,” Parro says
Yes. Unfortunately, she WAS the Speaker of the House, and that is where the bill was going debated.
But this isn’t the first time someone has tried to attack a candidate because they wrote an official letter to an official representative of government, and wrote it in the official language used for official letters urging that officials in government take action.
I wonder how many people here, when writing to their senators and congressmen, refuse to start with “Honorable”. Maybe they just don’t teach manners and ettiquite these days. We can attack people and defend our positions without throwing out common courtesy. But I guess I’m just too old to understand.
Keep spinning, Charles. Your own posts dispute this one.
FReepers are very smart. We do not need you to point out “inuendo, mistruths or disputed facts” in posted articles, or to accuse Palin supporters of anything that may cause fear or worry for you.
I think you are a pot stirrer and I stand by that.
A helpful dose of MYOB and stick to the topic might be order for you. For examples, support your candidate and try to learn about the others without getting into accusations about supporters of others.
Of course, Mr. Cain had no problem supporting the father of socialized medicine and $50 co-pay taxpayer-funded abortions, Mitt Romney, for the highest office in the land, or the overtly pro-abortion Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate, or recently saying he would sign immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” legislation.
He has someone who supports him. Regardless of what his supporter says, the facts remain that he is willing to tolerate exceptions.
Oh dear!
The corrupted, co-opted “pro-life” fund-raising industry is lying through their teeth for all the Republicans, including Perry.
I have no idea what you are saying, but in the off chance that someone might think something you said has anything to do with anything I would think, I’m going to just say that I think I disagree with what you wrote because it looks vaguely like something I should reject.
You two are smearing the solid pro-life record of a very pro-life Christian. You’re doing it for political reasons, which makes it even worse.
It’s disgusting and unfair to bash Perry over abortion. Every right-to-life organization in Texas endorsed him over KBH. If Palin runs, because of people like you and your smears, I won’t vote for her unless she somehow wins the GOP nomination. I won’t slime her like you two are doing to Perry. I will point out facts, though, and the fact is Palin supported TARP, which is what this thread is about. Heck, in the past few days I’ve posted how bogus the Joe McGinniss book is and how baseless it is. I’m going to guess if McGinniss wrote a similar book about Perry, you people would be the first to post excerpts of it on FR as “proof”.
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.