Posted on 10/03/2011 8:46:50 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Is that your take on WaPos reporting? That the reporting was solid?????... Perry's family didn't even own the ranch and simply leased it. That is just one of the outright lies of the paper's article. Their false reporting was no better than what we've seen from The New York Times at their worst.
Exactly right...when you go to a Perry Thread you truly think your at DU...
What was the error in Perry’s past?
Cain simply doesn’t know the facts: In Texas, owners let people hunt on their property. My Dad used to hunt quail on a farm in East Texas during bird season. Cain is not from Texas so it wouldn’t know that almost every acre in Texas is privately owned. That Perry is doing what literally thousands of Texans do. Bottom line: that property didn’t belong to Perry.
IT WAS!!
Far more powerful would have been to point out that Rick Perry had simply done something politically stupid, a tag that would stick for obvious reasons.
You do recognize those "obvious reasons," don't you?
Thought not. At least Perry's empty suit obtuseness is recognizable for those of us who can see the obvious.
Right.Cain spoke ignorantly. He should have checked out the matter because he spoke. Not the first time he has done this. Texas is not Georgia, Herman.
The MSM did play the race card.
And Cain jumped right in the mix and joined them.
He can now leave the stage, I will not support him. My mom and sister love him and now it is my duty to show them this story and the true Herman Cain.
The media offered Cain "The Race Card" and Cain, without even bothering to check the facts, eagerly took "The Race Card" and threw it.
It is no different than when Obama was offered "The Race Card" in regards to that police officer and, without even bothering to check the facts, Obama eagerly took "The Race Card" and threw it.
On Yahoo this morning, the featured articles were headlined as Cain attacking Perry for "racism":
Even on Free Republic, some FReepers were gleefully celebrating that the racist name on the "Perry RANCH" ..... yes, "RANCH" ....... had killed the Perry candidacy. Here is what I responded to one of those posters:
==========================
The Perry "RANCH"?
FALSE!
Did you fall for The Race Card or do you just like to throw The Race Card out yourself?
The land in question was NEVER a "Perry RANCH". The Perrys have NEVER owned that land and NEVER gave that land that name.
That land was named years ago, by NOBODY in Perry's family, maybe sometime in the 1800's, before Perry was ever born.
Years ago, maybe even in the 1800's, that name was carved on a rock. Years ago, Perry's FATHER LEASED that land as hunting land and PAINTED OVER that old name that had been carved on a rock who knows when, maybe a hundred years ago.
Now, people like you, are SPREADING FALSE AGITPROP that the named belonged to a "Perry RANCH".
Then, some FReepers wonder how liberal Mitt Romney could possibly be leading in the GOP polls.
What did Perry DO? Excerpt hunt on someone else’s land? SOMEONE ELSE”s LAND?
I’m concerned about it too since I live in El Paso. The devastation in Juarez to the people is horrible. The people who could, got out, and are now building their business and lives in our town. I heard there are nearly 135,000 illegals here as a result of the drug wars. Our schools are overcome. The question was raised: What will happen here when the cartel comes looking for those people? Also....I hear that Mitt Romney has a huge family connection to Juarez and other towns in Mexico. People with knowledge of the Romney family’s Mormon history tell me that the Mexico-Romneys are ranchers and very wealthy. Supposedly, one of his relatives was killed by the cartel in the not so distant past. I confess to just passing on information I heard. I haven’t researched. But, nonetheless, it bothers me.
Embarrassing error? What error, exactly, did Perry commit? His father rented, or leased, a hunting camp 30 or 40 years ago, not Perry, and immediately painted over the name and later still turned the rock over. Just what error is there in that? Rush commented on this story today saying a picture of the rock as it exists today, after they turned it face up again, shows only the N and two ggs.
Perry didn't call the place niggerhead so once again, I ask just what error did Perry commit? The only one who committed an error was Cain with his stupid remarks before finding out if the story was factual. BTW, I am neither a Perry man or a Cain man, still waiting to see which one I will vote for. If Cain keeps this stupid crap up, and this hasn't been his only gaffe, I will NOT vote for him.
I would agree with you if Cain knew the story was false.
But you were for Perry calling conservatives “heartless” and doubling down on that statement during the Republican debate?
That’s not a big deal to you right, but this is???
Something tells me you were not a Cain supporter in the first place.
I hope Perry is smart enough to let Cain know the facts during the next debate. Cain doesn’t even know the basic facts, yet he pops off.
It's what he didn't do, which was to recognize the nuclear potential for such a gambit. He was simply obtuse.
To you and all the other apologists for Herman Cain. Bull! NO ONE on this site that knows my posting history can accuse me in any possible way, that can be believed, that I am a racist. So here goes. This coddling of a black man, excusing him from any bad motives for doing this, or understanding why he "had to do it" is insulting to other black people who don't resort to this race-baiting crap to win. What is that, affirmative action for black politicians -- what, they need an edge? Good grief how condescending can you be? You think they need a crutch, a head start? It's insulting to make this accommodation for black people as if they must be allowed these "lapses" of character, decorum and fair-play. I refuse to play that game. I expect people to live with honor and respect.
I never claimed to be one.
As far as ‘heartless’, I’ll take that with the apology that followed over Cain any day.
Lets not forget some other stupid Cain statements.
“I’ll never nominate a Muslim to be in my cabinet.”
“Isreal shouldn’t have a problem with the 1967 borders being a starting point.” (paraphrased)
No, it a falls squarely on Perry and his supporters for the grotesque incompetence as campaigners. .... MNJohnnie
As I have posted before, Perry had weak campaign opposition in Texas for 11 years and got soft and lazy. I read that he did not even bother to prepare for the debate, probably as a result of overconfidence in his lead in the polls.
There is no question, however, that Cain has been Romney's attack dog against Perry.
Conservatives are being played like a cheap fiddle and the name of the fiddle tune is "Romney/Cain 2012".
======================================
Herman Cain in 2011
======================================
Herman Cain's Endorsement of Romney Two Days Before Super Tuesday, 2008
Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,
By HERMAN CAIN
Published on: 02/03/08
The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.
My vote is for Mitt Romney.
History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.
Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.
That's what leaders do.
Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.
Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.
On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.
He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts — a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.
That's not leadership.
I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.
Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.
Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.
This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.
Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.
But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.
LIBERAL media used the black candidate to whip up
WHITE GUILT...
remember every RACE CARD PLAYING EQUATION
requires
W H I T E
G U I L T
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.