Pawlenty has shown himself to be someone who will sell out to the highest bidder with taking Romney's help to retire campaign his debt and immediately endorse him. We will take the endorsement of Louisiana Governor Jindal as much more important for Governor Perry as he is a sitting Governor and has no desire for any position in a Perry Administration. Can Pawlenty say the same?
That's why it was disturbing to read that Tim Pawlenty, in an interview explaining his decision to endorse former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said: "Gov. Romney wants to fix Social Security. He doesn't want to abolish it or end it. ... Gov. Perry has said in the past that he thought it was 'failed.'"
Is that a fair characterization of Perry's position? It seems to me that Perry's idea is much like Rep. Paul Ryan's; Perry believes that the Social Security benefits "for current recipients and those nearing retirement must be protected. For younger workers, we must consider reforms to make Social Security financially viable."
Why aren't these Republicans who are dishonestly trashing Perry on this issue aiming all their rhetorical weapons against President Obama and the Democrats, who refuse even to consider meaningful entitlement reform? (my bold)
The way I see it, those who are shamelessly attacking Perry on this issue, in an effort to score cheap political points, are tempting many of us to choose sides way before we wanted to. So be it.Those bolded comments of David Limbaugh have been the same I have been asking. Last night was a perfect example of pile on Governor Perry who pretty much held his own. I don't see how he managed to gt through the debate without telling some of the snotty brats to 'grow up!'
Governor Perry by most accounts won the debate because many of the candidates became petty and laser beamed on certain questions. Actually the attacks looked orchestrated. You have to admit going after Gov Perry on gardasil that was never made law versus Romney on Romneycare that is hurting medical care in MA, bankrupting the state, and causing doctors to flee the state is very unequal and shows an effort of the candidates to gang up on the front runner. Who passed out the talking point papers of the evening?
If I was one of those attackers last night on social security, I might want to look at myself in the mirror and asks what has become of me that I would act like a Democrat to score points. It didn't work as most people were less than impressed with the continual attacks and the shrillness of the attacks which became personal out of Bachmann including her story about the woman who came up to her on Gardisil. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that was planted. Note to Bachmann that none of us were born yesterday and understand how you plant a sob story but I thought only Democrats did that as they are masters of the poor, downtrodden person who approaches them with their sob story right before the debate.
Some of this current crop of candidates have problems with the English language as well such as the meaning of the words "OPT OUT" or the "executive order never became law" or "I made a mistake." Would love to see that border fence in either 3 or 4 states along the border since parts of the Texas border do not follow the Rio Grande with part of the border going through the center of Lake Amistad Reservoir at Del Rio which is over 200 foot deep and then there is the slight problem of the Big Bend area with peaks over 5,500 feet. Are we going to drill out a mountain to put in the border fence demanded by candidates who have no clue about the Texas border or for that fact any of the borders?
Huntsman thinks we have three border states. Obama redux! No wonder he sounds so much like Obama although last night quite a few candidates on social security sounded like Obama and the Democrats. The only one sounding like Republican Cong Paul Ryan was Perry.
This whole debate was like being transported back in time to 1980 when GHW Bush was attacking Reagan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is one similarity who is Karl Rove, Romney's person along with Bachmann's now we are hearing. We have even heard that he is trying to get Palin in the race to take out Perry. Thanks to Mr. Rove, our candidates are carrying the Democrats water. In the end, Rove is going to fail like he has against Perry going back to 1998. The key is whether Rove will actually help the Democrats against Perry in the general election like he did John Sharp, the Democrat, in 1998.
Last night showed why more and more people like Governor Jindal who endorsed Governor Perry yesterday are choosing Perry as their candidate. He stood tall in the midst of a barrage of GOP candidate attacks. CNN did a good job for the Democrats of setting it up and most of the Republican candidates took the bait to attack a fellow Republican. Palin even weighed in as usual with her rhetoric against Gov Perry on Greta -- same person who praised him when he was running for Governor. Who got to Palin who is afraid to appear in any debate but loves to give out the rhetoric while she teases she might run. That train has left the station as she is a non-starter for almost everyone I know with her playing games and skinny resume.
David Limbaugh in his first paragraph nailed the problem from last night with Democrat lite, Republican candidates attacking Governor Perry for telling the truth on social security. My 89-year old neighbor told me this morning he was now supporting Perry as the only candidate who is telling it like it is on social security. Bachmann lost five votes from his house last night. A senior citizen who understands about social security versus the candidates who want to score political points for their own selfish gain by lying. I will take my neighbor!
Limbaugh: Memo to GOP - Social Security Demagoguery is the Province of Liberals
By David Limbaugh September 13, 2011 6:30 am
It is very disheartening to see Republican presidential primary candidates racing to out-demagogue one another in denouncing Texas Gov. Rick Perry's accurate description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. It used to be that Republicans at least waited until the general election campaign to pander to liberals.
I admire Perry both for telling it like it is and for having the guts to stand by his statement when under fire. That shows character.
Honest people have been warning for years that our entitlement programs, as structured, are imminent train wrecks. Democrats were even saying it for a while, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore made a phony fuss about placing Social Security in a lockbox.
It's nothing short of outrageous that our politicians' instincts are to attack those who are talking realistically about entitlements instead of join them in talking realistically. I understand Democrats not doing so; I don't even expect them to anymore. But it's unacceptable for Republicans to pile on.
Surely, everyone knows by now that our out-of-control entitlement spending poses a greater threat to the nation's future even than the unbelievably dangerous path of discretionary spending we are currently pursuing. Indeed, isn't the main reason most of the Republican candidates claim to be running that they want to help save America's financial future and get the economy going again?
Then why would some of them opportunistically embellish and even distort Perry's statement about Social Security? Politics is one thing, but their decision to grovel on this critical issue does long-term damage to our ability to defeat Democrats on the issue of entitlement reform and otherwise to secure passage of legislation that would restructure reforms.
For decades, the straight shooters among us have been pointing out that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. What would you call a plan that has forced Americans to entrust a significant portion of their earnings to politicians who have raided them as if they were general revenue?
Don't you dare tell me that there is nothing wrong with this practice because these greedy, do-gooder politicians have substituted government IOUs in place of the Social Security revenues, which should have been earmarked for recipients. An IOU from the government is a fraud; it's a chimera; it's a phantom asset, especially when the government itself is bankrupt. Our government no longer has the money to honor these debts it so casually and cavalierly took on instead of having taken the responsible path all these years and lived within its means.
Regardless of whether you believe the Social Security system, as now structured, satisfies the precise elements of a Ponzi scheme, you have to admit that if it had been correctly designed and administered, it would not be approaching insolvency and threatening our liberty and prosperity.
Have we reached the point that telling the truth about certain programs is an automatic death warrant for your campaign? Personally, I don't believe so.
It's fine and good for candidates to claim they have strong business experience, know how to grow the economy and would be fiscally frugal. But one's stated policies mean nothing if he doesn't have the character to stand by them when they're under attack or when it becomes politically expedient to do otherwise. Politicians severely harm their own credibility when, for whatever reason, they choose to attack their competitors for having the courage to demand national sobriety on these existential financial threats to America.
No matter what, there is no excuse for candidates or their supporters to lie about or distort the positions of their opponents.
....
Source: GOP USA
Raw Story 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment