Perry: I shouldn’t have called people heartless for opposing in-state tuition for illegals
posted at 4:16 pm on September 28, 2011 by Allahpundit
Via Newsmax, skip to 5:25 for evidence that his wife was right when she told Iowans this morning that he’ll be better prepared for the next debate. He’s smoother this time, emphasizing that it’s a highly bipartisan position in Texas and notably avoiding any insinuations about how evil those wingnuts in his base are. (Also: No rambling about saving a pretzel for the gas jets.) He might also note at the next debate that he’s hardly alone among prominent Republicans in backing the idea:
In 2001, Perry signed the first state law in the country that allowed the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates. Former Florida state Rep. Juan Zapata said the Texas law was “the model” for legislation that he repeatedly—but unsuccessfully—pushed in his state. Two of his key allies then are now among the GOP’s most sought-after stars: [Jeb] Bush, the subject of perpetual draft movements to run for president, and his fellow Floridian, Sen. Marco Rubio, a sure bet for the GOP’s vice presidential shortlist in 2012.
“I think that is a fair policy,” Bush said in an e-mail to National Journal on Tuesday, adding that the students who benefit from the tuition breaks find themselves in the United States through “no fault of their own.”…
Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, was the co-sponsor of such a bill in 2003 and 2004, before he became speaker of the Florida state House. Bush, whose wife was born and raised in Mexico and who speaks fluent Spanish, also championed the legislation…
“In times of cutbacks, it would not be as high a priority as it would be in times of abundance,” [Bush] said. In the email, he also insisted he would have required “many years” residency in state for students to be eligible for the tuition breaks. The Texas law, as well the Florida proposals, had a three-year residency requirement.
Rubio was asked about in-state tuition for illegals in Florida a few weeks ago and argued that the bill he sponsored as a state legislator was narrow in scope, requiring a certain GPA to qualify for lower tuition rates. Okay, but in-state tuition for illegals in Texas ended up being pretty narrow too, applicable to just one percent of the state’s college students. If the defense is, “well, it might be bad policy but it doesn’t affect many people,” that ain’t much of a defense. Ace is worked up, meanwhile, that part of Perry’s damage control here is that he cares too darn much, but that’s no obstacle to primary success. Remember back during the 2006 immigration debate when McCain started throwing around analogies involving people riding in the “back of the bus”? He was “passionate” too, in the most demagogic way. He waltzed to the nomination.
Two clips for you here, the first of Perry’s chat with Newsmax and the second of Christie — who has his own troubles on immigration — taking a shot at tuition breaks for illegals last night.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
juliesa on September 28, 2011 at 6:14 PM
I’m not sure my second link for that border report works. If not, go here
http://www.texasagriculture.gov/
and the link to the report is on the front page.
juliesa on September 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM
It’s not free tuition! It means kids of illegals who lived in Texas for three years, graduated from a Texas high school, are on a path to citizenship can pay their way through college at the in state tuition rate. Come on, folks, even if you vehemently disagree with Perry, this isn’t a difficult concept to understand.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 6:56 PM
I think in this case the bill was about political pandering – they came up with what they thought was a socially acceptable explanation. Texas is a red state the Democrats would really like to do something about that. They got no help in the mid terms 2010 the republicans made gains in the Texas State Legislature. Below an Democrat predicting dire outcomes for immigration issue inside of Texas.
GOP Rout in Texas House Signals Conservative Shift
Redistricting — the process of drawing new legislative and congressional districts — is also on the agenda for next year and will prove to have its own set of challenges. The newly elected Republicans will want to draw district lines that are sure to keep them in office. But given what we know and expect of the census numbers, creating 99 safe seats could be next to impossible.
Democrats, still stung from the shellacking they took around the state, say that while all elections have consequences, this set could be especially dire. “I fear that [Republicans] will not want to engage and will carry forward a fairly aggressive and extreme ideological agenda,” says state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas.
GOP agenda items will no doubt include a host of anti-immigration bills. Some returning Republican lawmakers have already said they plan to file Arizona-style immigration bills in Texas. “What’s different next session is that this substantially larger majority of people who ran specifically on the [immigration] issue will want to satisfy their base. I think it’s coming. I think it’s coming with a vengeance,” Anchia says. The Texas Tribune.
Dr Evil on September 28, 2011 at 6:56 PM
Not correct at all. In fact, Perry doubled-down on his leftist “last name” attack in print. I assume you’ve heard of Time Magazine?
Ah – thanks for that translation, lol.
It’s sad when a person is so devoted and locked into one candidate that s/he cannot admit to areas where the candidate commited carnal knowledge with the pooch. Every candidate has his(her) failings on an issue (e.g. Perry & illegals) where ya gotta say “Yeah, the candidate is really weak on this issue” but you can live with the weakness because of whatever. Though I can’t say I find “Well, at least s/he is better than Obama” as the best counterpunch to the failings.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 6:59 PM
They get in state tutition rates – they are not in our country legally, that makes them illegal aliens. I can go to Mexico, and demand favorable financial treatment from their government. Even if I am not in their country legally, I am sure they will pass legislation to accommodate me.
Dr Evil on September 28, 2011 at 7:01 PM
What is difficult to understand about illegals ignoring and violating the legal “path to citizenship” that all other legal immigrants have had to walk down?
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 7:04 PM
For some reason the pro-illegals disappear into “the shadows” when you note the fact they are talking about criminals who violate American law and expect rewards from US taxpayers for so doing.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM
yet it was the business of so many presidents (presidents are politicians, no?), included the revered-by-conservatives Reagan to let these people come in illegally because the US needed cheap labor…well, logic goes like this: you open your gates and let them in, you take care of them… and you begin with making them legal. It’s called basic responsibility…not to mention the humanitarian aspect that seems to be lost on so many on this forum…
jimver on September 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM
Well that is about the fourth time you told that lie…you like to lie do you? What a idiot…
So here is the challenge that you refuse to take…back up your words and show us where I ever said what you falsely accused me of.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but you won’t, lying comes easy to people like you.
right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM
Well we are the Legions Of Heartless Tin Man and we are coming for you and your incompetant president.
sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM
Oh, they’ll accommodate you alright, if you’re lucky they’ll accommodate you right into a jail cell. If you’re lucky.
Shay on September 28, 2011 at 7:16 PM
You could easily clear it up in stating whether you will vote for Romney or for Obama if it comes down to that choice.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM
It was sarcasm…you see the fence is a symbol of totalitarianism, not of freedom.
It is barbaric, we have other means than building a 1200 mile fence. As I had stated before, certain areas may need a fence, San Ysidro, I passed that every week as I traveled into Mexico for business, it is needed, costly to maintain and to audit, but necessary….but 1200 miles of fence? That is almost equal to the great wall of China, you would think after after about 1700 years we would have a better solution.
That is about the only difference in border patrolling and immigration that Perry, Palin, Romney and most of the others have…which is what is so strange. Basically they all have the same policy, with the exception of the 1200 mile fence.
right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM
that’s ridiculous. Look, the guy was pro-choice when he ran for Senate and again when he ran for congress. He changed his position. I don’t begrudge him changing, but his reasons aren’t really credible and his timing is suspect. He was for McCain-bush’s amnesty. He has changed position on many, many things.
Yes, “soundbites” of him saying one thing and then turning around and saying another. I guess I’m just an idiot for taking his words seriously.
Please. Look, even if he didn’t change multiple positions, he is not conservative. He is at best a northeastern republican.
After running for president for 5 years straight, I have no example of him leading the conservative charge on anything or displaying leadership. He is the epitome of an empty suit.
B/c of that. b/c he changes positions, b/c he has been running for so long and yet has made no impression on any issue – I don’t trust him. I’m sure that makes me an idiot and you a genius. but he has the same problem with the majority of the GOP. that is why everyone so desperately wants a candidate to succeed other than Romney.
But I guess that is all mind control by “them” who have convinced me of things that simply aren’t true by using Mitt’s own words against him.
Monkeytoe on September 28, 2011 at 7:19 PM
Of course, with Perry you do realize you’re taking on this, you Heartless Tin Man, you?
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 7:21 PM
I will let him ask me…I have posted what I would do many times…many, many, times.
I have posted what I would have done last election…he knows, he just wants to be an @ss and spread lies. He would rather lie about a person, than ask for the truth.
You see, he has told what he thinks, several times, and he will keep repeating that lie no matter what I state, because that is the kind of person he is…reprehensible, and maybe he represents the best of Romney’s supporters.
right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 7:22 PM
if ignorance hurt, you should have been in great pain by now…too bad it doesn’t…as for ‘your incompetent president’, this will be Obama in 2012 indeed, and sadly so, for I have no doubt in my mind that people like you would and will vote for him, since you cannot possibly vote for an ideologically ‘impure’ Perry or Romney :-)…
jimver on September 28, 2011 at 7:25 PM
Ah – my bad if I’ve missed where someone’s offered up a strawman.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 7:26 PM
It wasn’t just Perry, it was 177 legislators, all agreeing…tell me how many bills get that support?
The bill made sense to Texas…state rights, if you don’t believe in it fine, say so, if you do, say Yahoo! they exercised their state rights.
The reason’s are obvious, once you read them, and the make sense, once you read them, but…few have read them, just the “boogey man illegals” is all that needs to be thrown out, and the “conservatives” are so easily manipulated, common sense goes out the window replaced by the worshiper of all things pure…
right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 7:27 PM
Is congress elected to represent the people? Really? Well, that changes my mind, i did not know that. that clearly is a very important point to you as you keep repeating it – as if the President doesn’t ever do anything to get legislation passed. No president has ever worked hard on congress to push through legislation he wanted. Never, ever happened. B/c congress represents the people or something and therefore pointing out that congress is unlikely to get something passed without leadership from a president is just silly.
I’m sorry if I’m not going to take your word for it. if Romney is the nominee I will have an extremely hard time pulling the lever for him. He has done nothing to earn my trust or my vote. Ever. he has led or taken risks to support no conservative or conservative issue ever. He jumps in with tepid support or a Milquetoast op-ed after the writing is on the wall. he has never driven discussion or debate and never taken a firm stand. At best he is an empty suit. At worst he is an opportunist saying what he thinks will get him elected. Either way, I don’t trust him to do anything remotely conservative in office.
As far as the polls on Obamacare, I wouldn’t put too much stock in them. First, despite about 56% opposition to Obamacare most polls that ask whether it should be repealed come out about 50/50. Second, by the time the next president is inaugurated, the polls can change significantly. Particularly after the press goes on a full-court offensive to save it. People’s anger fades and by that time it will be seen as the status quo. And, if SCOTUS upholds it before then, I can see a lot of mushy thinkers believing it’s perfectly acceptable b/c SCOTUS said so. So don’t put your eggs in the basket of Romney having the wind of broad popular support behind him in repealing obamacare.
Like I said. I simply do not believe romney will exert any leadership (where has he shown any to date on any conservative issue), energy or political capital on getting it repealed. Instead he’ll come up with some bi-partisan “fix” for it to sell to everyone. that’s much more his style.
Monkeytoe on September 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM
I don’t get what you are stating…
If someone makes a knowingly false statement, then what makes you think that a “correction” would solve the problem.
They are telling the lie for a reason…you haven’t learned that?
If they wanted to know the truth, they would have asked first, or even after being challenged…but he didn’t, so anything I said won’t be worth anything, he will just continue, because that is the person he is.
right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 7:37 PM
Sorry, but I just don’t have much interest in following every pissant flamewar between commenter A and commenter B on any forum.
However, if you are totally unable to bring yourself to simply dismiss such things with a simple “Gawd, I already told you I would (do so & so), you jackass!”, then the person may have a point.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Sheesh, the holier-than-thou, self-righteous indignation is so thick in many of these comments you could cut it with a knife.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 8:04 PM
Then you shouldn’t have injected yourself into the fray…you don’t get it, he knows what I have said in the past, you didn’t read that from me?
He has done this before and I answered, so whatever I say doesn’t matter.
He knows he is not telling the truth…doesn’t that answer the question for you? Sheesh…
If he says I won’t vote for Romney, and I say he is making a false accusation…doesn’t that give you an indication, a very direct indication of what I would do?
My goodness…I don’t answer him, because he already knows, and he doesn’t care about the truth.
And so far, you haven’t asked me, you have just danced around…asking for him
right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 8:05 PM
I know, welcome to GOP politics. The liberals have nothing on use.
carbon_footprint on September 28, 2011 at 8:16 PM
Or “on us”. 220, 221, whatever it takes
carbon_footprint on September 28, 2011 at 8:16 PM
Actually, the fact that you are terrified to simply answer whether you would vote for the Republican nominee – whoever s/he might be – or Obama does speak much, whether you are aware of it or not. You really can’t blame your fearfulness in answering on those who are just asking. People naturally assume the worst. Just sayin’.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM
I’m seeing a lot of the same kinds of nasty and personally insulting anti-Perry comments at the Newsmax article, too. It’s very disappointing, to be honest with you. I was of the belief conservatives were more reasonable and more mature than liberals.
Evidently, I was mistaken.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 8:30 PM
I guess they don’t take kindly to being called heartless racists.
They can be funny that way.
sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM
So Perry is a big hearted spender with taxpayers’ money. Big spending politicians are exactly what we don’t need.
We also don’t need to elect Perry to get that, we can get that from any Democrat or progressive.
No Thanks Rick!
RJL on September 28, 2011 at 8:46 PM
And we shouldn’t have thought that you were Presidential material.
RJL on September 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM
I found an article for the “Why doesn’t Rick Perry want a border fence in Texas?!” crowd. It turns out there is a border fence along the Texas-Mexico border, in Brownsville, courtesy of the politicians in DC. But it hasn’t quite worked out the way they planned. Here’s a portion (emphasis mine):
Read the rest of the article. It’s quite informative.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Anita Perry came out and promised that her husband would be better prepared for the next debate.
If Rick Perry truly believed what he said, evoking republican values and ideals, nevermind CONSERVATIVE values and ideals, he would have to TRY so hard, he would have to be COACHED so much. He would just say what he means and mean what he says.
I don’t need your promises, Anita. You have proven everything we need to know about Rick Perry.
HornetSting on September 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM
And here’s more from the article:
When Governor Perry said in the above interview that a border fence would trample on American’s private property rights, I’m going to take a guess that he was referring to situations much like the one Ms. Loop is now living with.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 9:19 PM
That is WOULDN’T have to try so hard, wouldn’t have to be coached so much. My head hurts from trying to find a suitable candidate.
HornetSting on September 28, 2011 at 9:20 PM
Who would have imagined, back in the day, that Republicans would have such a difficult time finding a law & order candidate? Amazing stuff.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 9:26 PM
o un racista despiadado ;)
Dr Evil on September 28, 2011 at 9:45 PM
All that and a Tin Man.
We have a sad field to take on Obama.
sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 9:48 PM
I’d say these two sentences from the above linked article are the money:
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 9:48 PM
Aw, it appears that the oh so humble MadCon can’t refute what I said so he surrenders while pretending he’s had a victory.
Buy Danish on September 28, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Haven’t read the comments yet,
but I seem to recall some anti-Perry-Krishnas chanting “x/rubio/x 2012/2016″. Touting him as a conservative dream come true.
Will heads explode if Jeb & Rubio endorse Perry?
AH_C on September 28, 2011 at 10:02 PM
And this excerpt is also quite interesting (emphasis mine):
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 10:08 PM
This confuses me. One would think that they’d put the fence on the border. So that means that people’s property is actually Mexican property? Or they are just building the fence where ever?
If it’s building the fence where ever, then it’s bad bureaucracy. Why not fix that than throw out the entire fence idea because it might annoy citizens? Certainly the brain trusts can figure it out or make it worth a few citizen’s while.
kim roy on September 28, 2011 at 10:10 PM
If folks think fencing the border is easy, they should google/bing the Anistad Resevoir & Dam and follow the river Northwestward for a couple hundred miles then come back and let us know what a piece of cake it is.
If zoomed in far enough, they’ll find cattle watering at the river, boaters, riverside homes/ranches etc, then they can justify eminent domain to seize private property in exchange for security. If they do so, they shouldn’t come crying to us if and when the govt claims security trumps their very own personal rights.
AH_C on September 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Because the border is in the MIDDLE of the river. In most cases, private property extends into the river. Just as lakeside or any other river, owners own the land under the water out to a certain point, hence the dock/boathouse is part and parcel of their property. Naturally, they typically only extend 50 – 100 ft to allow public access to the rest of waterway for navigation etc.
AH_C on September 28, 2011 at 10:15 PM
kim roy on September 28, 2011 at 10:10 PM
They can’t put a fence right at the Texas-Mexico border. This is from the same article:
The fence physically can’t be built at the border. The ground is way too muddy because of the Rio Grande, so, it had to be build further inland – on people’s private property – placing many American citizens on the wrong side.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 10:20 PM
What part of law & order supercedes another right. One’s to be secure in their private property (explicitly constitutional) vs the public’s right to a secure border (explicitly constitutional) via a fence (NOT in the constitution). This is why it’s complex and folks having a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other only raise the temp without solving anything.
It’s almost like class warfare, except rage is being pitted against property owners who are entitled to own and keep all of their property. If we as a nation still want to fence it, then you better be prepared to pay the owner’s asking price for the full deed, not stiff them with an undervalued offer or just a small piece of the land that just happens to be the most valuable. Otherwise, find another way to secure the border without degrading the privacy of the owner.
AH_C on September 28, 2011 at 10:24 PM
Not going to repost the geography info, but thanks for the info AH_C and Kim Priestap. A bit of a struggle to sort this one out. They should just build a “wall of China” wall on the Mexican side and be done with it. ;)
There has to be a way to deal with it and not being silly, but Mexico should be doing something about this as well, even hosting the fence on their side.
kim roy on September 28, 2011 at 10:24 PM
Gee, ya think?
AZfederalist on September 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM
You start a response with snide dismissal of an explicable label of a candidate, and you expect some sort of respectful reply? Wake up, you arrogant douche.
MadisonConservative on September 28, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Ah, well, that’s a little to in-depth for what I meant, lol. I simply meant the ability to say “this is illegal and, by God, I intend to stop it”. Sorely lacking these days.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Yes, Perry apologized and said he shouldn’t have called people heartless. But some folks don’t know how to accept an apology gracefully when it’s been offered gracefully. They’d rather reject the apology and beat the guy over the head for having the nerve to do what every single human being on the face of the earth has done and will continue to do from now into eternity: make a mistake.
Those folks must be a real joy to live with.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 10:47 PM
You don’t know how to accept an apology gracefully when it’s been offered gracefully, do you? I would hate to be your spouse. Make a wrong move or say the wrong thing and you won’t ever let him/her forget it.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Has he apologized for mandating Texas wind power which ERCOT has counted just 8.7 percent as dependable?
I realize it only cost $7 billion dollars but that’s the apology I’m holding out for.
sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM
What the hell would you know about grace?
MadisonConservative on September 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Reminds me of this…
“Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I’d poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I’d drink it.”
sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Perry has an ongoing problem with confusing his excuses with apologies. An apology is “I was wrong, I am sorry and I apologize for what I did – please forgive me”. So far he hasn’t said that about anything. He’s just offered so much leftist weasel words, e.g. “maybe it was inappropriate” or “I might have erred because I’m so great a person”. Oy.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM
Based upon the nasty tone of your question, a heck of a lot more than you.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 11:02 PM
Yep. The old standby: “I’m sorry if anyone was offended.”
MadisonConservative on September 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM
You’re mad because Perry gave an unsatisfactory apology. Yeah, I can see how that’s so much worse than ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, HAMP, Obama’s handling of the gulf oil spill, Solyndra, Eric Holder’s corruption at DOJ, Fast and Furious….
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 11:13 PM
Nasty? You just accused someone of being petty to a spouse, and I’m the nasty one? Tell me, what is it like being an abject narcissist?
To reiterate: you just accused someone of being a poor husband/wife over their refusal to accept Rick Perry’s asinine apology for calling anyone who disagreed with him heartless.
If that’s not indicative of someone with disturbing fanaticism for a politician, I’m not sure what is.
MadisonConservative on September 28, 2011 at 11:14 PM
In the News – Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The Supreme Court has upheld a California law giving illegal immigrants living there reduced in-state tuition rates at public universities, the same rates legal state residents enjoy.
The court decision is a victory for immigrant rights groups. California is one of a dozen states that make undocumented aliens conditionally eligible for in-state tuition, according to the legal brief filed by the suing students. Those various laws will remain intact for now.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/resources/publications/-news/supreme-court-state-can-offer-illegal-immigrants-reduced-tuition.html
Texas is not the only State that offers this.
bluefox on September 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Nope. Re-read what an apology is in my quote above – I highlighted it to assist. Then, if you can, please supply – for example – his apology to Americans (or Texans, at least) for his Gardasil EO mandate. When he is genuinely contrite and asks forgiveness for his wrong actions, people will listen. Otherwise, as someone has noted above, it’s at best a typical leftist non-apology apology.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM
I surmised that if a person can’t let go of another’s offense and insists on brow beating him over and over again in public for a mistake he apologized for, that that person probably reacts in much the way in other areas of his life.
My comments were not about Perry at all but were about the commenter’s incessant and non-stop sniping even after the person who committed the offense apologized. The sniping could have been about someone else, and I would have come to the same conclusion.
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM
So if Obama’s says he’s real sorry thats reason enough to vote for him?
Some of us like to hold politicians accountable for their record. You don’t because you don’t care what Perry’s record is, you just support the man, not principles.
sharrukin on September 28, 2011 at 11:55 PM
I’m still waiting for even one example of a Perry apology (not excuses or non-apologies) for the things he has done.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM
Kim Priestap on September 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM
It seems like you and juliasa have done a great job explaining and defending Gov. Perry and what he said. However, some of the posters clearly understand, but wouldn’t vote for Gov. Perry anyway. They just like to harass people.
bluefox on September 29, 2011 at 12:00 AM
I’m still waiting for even one example of a Perry apology (not excuses or non-apologies) for the things he has done.
whatcat on September 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM
Don’t expect anyone to come crawling to you. Watch the video and if you can’t accept that, then you don’t have to.
You are no one to “demand” anything of Gov. Perry or anyone else.
Just another Perry hater and it seems there are a lot of them on HA.
bluefox on September 29, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Yeah. We’re a heartless bunch.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 12:07 AM
“I made a mistake on that,” Perry told Iowa Radio later in the day Monday, calling it “an error in not having a conversation with the people of the state of Texas.”
“I agreed with their decision. I don’t always get it right, but I darn sure listen,” he said of the legislature responding to his decision.
“One of the things I do pride myself on, I listen. When the electorate says, ‘Hey, that’s not what we want to do,’” Perry told Houston’s ABC affiliate on Monday. “We backed up, took a look at what we did. I understand I work for the people, not the other way around. There was a better way to do that, I realize that now.”
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Romneycare, for one. All that means is there are a lot of folks in both states with questionable judgement.
So then, you’re ok with Romneycare, right? State’s rights, right?
Give me a break. It doesn’t make sense to Texas, and Romneycare doesn’t make sense for Massachusetts….that’s the problem. And stop the “state’s rights” strawman. It’s a stupid argument. No one has argued that they didn’t have the power to do it. I’m all for state’s rights. But state’s rights doesn’t give you a free pass to do stupid s**t without getting called on it.
xblade on September 29, 2011 at 12:20 AM
That’s a specious argument.
I don’t care what Perry’s record is? Wow. That’s news to me.
I just support the man and not his principles? And you know this how?
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Sorry, Kim, that’s not an apology. It’s layer upon layer of excuses. If you can find where Perry confessed the whole Gardisil episode was wrong and apologizes for it, then you’re on to something. Otherwise it’s as I said, he remains entrenched in his unapologetic ways. But note, as I also mentioned, he revels in his self-proclaimed grandiosity: “I pride myself”. Hardly an apologetic tone.
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 12:23 AM
You hate people just because they have funny sounding names (like “Obama”) you heartless Republican SOB! Go to hades!!!
:D
(Hmmm…latest Perry bumper sticker “Go to Hell, you GOP funny last name haters!!”? Hmmmm…)
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 12:28 AM
And they will come on HotAir wondering why us heartless racist scum are upset about the Perry campaign.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Sorry, Kim, that’s not an apology. It’s layer upon layer of excuses. If you can find where Perry confessed the whole Gardisil episode was wrong and apologizes for it, then you’re on to something. Otherwise it’s as I said, he remains entrenched in his unapologetic ways. But note, as I also mentioned, he revels in his self-proclaimed grandiosity: “I pride myself”. Hardly an apologetic tone.
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Gov. Perry doesn’t have to apologize to you whatcat or weren’t you aware of that? If you are a resident of Texas, contact your Rep. If not, then it really isn’t any of your business is it?
All you and several others on HA is harass and bring up issues that have already been discussed/rehashed ever since Gov.Perry entered the race.
If you would comment with any intelligence it would be helpful. You can’t even make an intelligent argument because you don’t have the facts. Repeating garbage isn’t knowledge.
Too bad HA doesn’t have Moderators, you and the other haters would be banned so intelligent people could discuss politics.
bluefox on September 29, 2011 at 12:33 AM
Oh, you want a confession, a “forgive me, whatcat, for I have sinned” kind of thing. You’ve set up an expectation that no politician could meet. How convenient for your argument.
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 12:34 AM
As long as Perry stays in Texas its no ones business but the people of Texas and those whom it effects in other states.
Perry however wants to go to the White House and he wants to do for the country what he did in Texas and that makes it everyone’s business. Thats why Perry KEEPS BRINGING TEXAS UP IN EVERY DEBATE.
More liberal principles on display. Can’t win the argument… shut down any dissent.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM
And yet, somehow we can build bridges, piers, docks, homes, etc everywhere else in the country that has muddy ground.
Sheesh….give me a break.
xblade on September 29, 2011 at 1:00 AM
Nope, I’ve already noted that his apologies should be to Texans first since they are the ones who most directly suffer from his wrong choices (e.g. Gardisil & his pro-illegal stance). I’m still willing to view his apologies to them for his wrong choices and actions. Care to share where he has confessed his wrongdoing to his fellow Texans and asked for forgiveness from them?
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 1:19 AM
The left is really having kittens over the vetting of Perry, isn’t it?
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 1:22 AM
I may be a Perry supporter, but I will support any of the GOP candidates in the general election. And I refuse to fanatically insult or try to destroy any of the candidates just because he or she isn’t my first choice.
I know many HA commenters are big Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul supporters. I have issues and concerns with all the candidates, including Perry. Each one of these candidates has flaws, flip flops, misstatements, and inconsistencies in his or her record, but I refuse to lose control of my emotions, go off half cocked, and hurl insults about the other candidates just to help Perry win the nomination.
For Pete’s sake, I thought we were on the same side and had the same goals. But you wouldn’t know it from some of the comments that make Perry sound like he’s worse than Obama. There are times when I feel like I have to look at the url just to make sure I wasn’t reading a Daily Kos diary entry. And just a few months ago Hot Air commenters were begging Perry to get in the race because of great things he did in Texas.
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 1:29 AM
From what I can see so far, they have good reason to worry. The guy’s a lightweight.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM
Awww, how sweet. Your concern for Texans’ honor just so touching. But don’t worry yourself. Texans evidently were quite satisfied with Perry’s apology since they overwhelmingly reelected him in 2010. Yet, you remain unmoved.
So, when was the last time you demanded an apology from a politician in the way you’re demanding one from Perry?
And who are you supporting in the primary? Or are you sitting this one out because none of them meets your standards?
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 1:36 AM
If you said something like this to my face, I’d laugh and ask, “Are you serious?” That truly is the reaction I have when someone says this kind of crap to me.
Do you have any idea why I’d look at a post like this, and say that I’ve impersonally come to the conclusion that you are an emotionally manipulative person, and therefore worthy of less of my respect than someone who hasn’t shown me that flaw?
Bizarro No. 1 on September 29, 2011 at 1:41 AM
Yeah, that would be the “liberal” Republicans. But the Democrat left would love to see Perry trying to debate Obama, it would be a massacre of a truly epic and unprecendented proportion.( And that’s not utilizing the casual, carefree usage of “epic”.)
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 1:41 AM
You don’t believe that if he were to ever to offer a real apology and ask for forgiveness for his wrongs that his plea should be made to his fellow Texans first?
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 1:45 AM
You have that right and whats also noticeable is the lack of any video’s of Perry’s previous debate performances. You would think they would be trotted out to rebut the idea that Perry really sucks at debates. They haven’t and from what I have read Perry didn’t actually even show up at some of the Texas debates and just made jokes at the others.
If this is all he has then even Obama would wipe the floor with him. People are not going to trust the country to a guy who cannot articulate what he wants. A Texas grin and a couple of jokes isn’t going to cut it. Obama is certainly unpopular but the GOP is going to have to put some substance on display.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 1:49 AM
I think, if a person has been a long time observer of Presidential politics, it’s a very valid concern. It’s not just anti-Perry, but also any candidate like him who has a tendency to do a self-meltdown on national TV. It’s like watching the 2nd half of my Vikings in an NFL game: “pretty ugly”.
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 1:56 AM
You can conclude whatever you want. It doesn’t bother me.
What bothers me is the bizarre fanatical hatred that some commenters have toward another candidate. It is Perry right now, but it will be someone else in a few weeks, and I will defend that candidate, too. No matter who emerges as the GOP primary, my concern is that he will be so badly beaten and bloodied by members his own base that he’ll be much weaker and easier for Obama to take on in the general.
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 1:57 AM
He did apologize to his fellow Texans and his fellow Texans accepted it, as evidenced by their reelecting him in 2010.
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 2:00 AM
I have the same concern about Bachmann in that she seems to get flaky and go off on tangents. That could get pretty ugly in a debate.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 2:02 AM
So I guess Perry did well in his 2010 debate with White?
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 2:06 AM
1. That’s a red herring.
2. I have no idea.
Kim Priestap on September 29, 2011 at 2:09 AM
You have no idea. And yet here you are trying to sell this guy to the rubes?
There was no debate.
Perry refused to debate.
That’s not going to work with Obama.
sharrukin on September 29, 2011 at 2:17 AM
Care to share any link to the text of Perry’s apology to Texans for his wrongdoing? I’ve asked before, but so far all you’ve offered is bupkis.
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 2:19 AM
Because you find the Perry hatred many of us have to be unjustified, do you believe that means it is unjustified? If you acknowledge that maybe our hatred is justified, then why would you state as fact that we’ll hate someone else next week?
I notice you didn’t answer my question from my last post – do you have any idea why I find you to be an emotionally manipulative person?
Did you not answer that question because you don’t really care what I think? If you answer ‘yes’ to that, then I ask you, what kind of person are you, and how smart do you believe you are, to tell your opinions to someone like me whom you’ve admitted to that you don’t really care what he thinks? :)
Bizarro No. 1 on September 29, 2011 at 2:20 AM
Shame on you, sharrukin, for getting someone with a sucker’s bet!
:D
whatcat on September 29, 2011 at 2:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »