Rick Perry is Dead Wrong | by Sen. Rand Paul

LibertyEsq

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,346
Rick Perry is Dead Wrong

By: Sen. Rand Paul
July 14, 2014

There are many things I like about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, including his stance on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. But apparently his new glasses haven’t altered his perception of the world, or allowed him to see it any more clearly.

There are obviously many important events going on in the world right now, but with 60,000 foreign children streaming across the Texas border, I am surprised Governor Perry has apparently still found time to mischaracterize and attack my foreign policy.

Governor Perry writes a fictionalized account of my foreign policy so mischaracterizing my views that I wonder if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.

In fact, some of Perry’s solutions for the current chaos in Iraq aren’t much different from what I’ve proposed, something he fails to mention. His solutions also aren’t much different from President Barack Obama’s, something he also fails to mention. Because interestingly enough, there aren’t that many good choices right now in dealing with this situation in Iraq.

...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-is-dead-wrong-108860.html?hp=f3#.U8PNDWfjhdh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will not hold my breath for an answer. If refusing to send Americans to die for a country that refuses to defend itself makes one an “isolationist,” then perhaps its time we finally retire that pejorative.


Bravo, Randal.
 
Rand is making a statement to the Republican establishment that he won't shut up about foreign policy. I love it.
 
OWNED

XEQlVVH.gif


0TnQ8Ob.gif


jMTOU1W.gif


PFNRcio.gif


Lvfyd.gif
 
If the governor continues to insist that these proposals mean I’m somehow “ignoring ISIS,” I’ll make it my personal policy to ignore Rick Perry’s opinions.

LMAO
 
That was a boss. My favorite parts:

I support continuing our assistance to the government of Iraq, which include armaments and intelligence. I support using advanced technology to prevent ISIS from becoming a threat. I also want to stop sending U.S. aid and arms to Islamic rebels in Syria who are allied with ISIS, something Perry doesn’t even address. I would argue that if anything, my ideas for this crisis are both stronger, and not rooted simply in bluster.

Yeah Perry. Why not stop the bleeding first?


If the governor continues to insist that these proposals mean I’m somehow “ignoring ISIS,” I’ll make it my personal policy to ignore Rick Perry’s opinions.


LOL!


But the governor and I do have at least one major foreign policy difference, something Perry also conveniently fails to mention.

Said Perry forthrightly during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2012, “I would send troops back into Iraq.” Obviously, this is something he advocated long before the rise of ISIS. At the time, Perry urged the United States to return troops to Iraq to act as a balance against Iran, a country my colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham says we must work with to help beat back the extremists.


So Perry, do you REALLY want to run on a platform of re-occupying Iraq?

pimp_597ed8_2457233.jpg
 
I can't wait till Rand announces he will run for President. 2015 can't come fast enough for me. The rEVOLution marches on!
 
Flashback to the 2011 oped by Tom Tancredo:

By TOM TANCREDO | 8/11/11 12:20 AM EDT

On Saturday Texas Gov. Rick Perry is expected to announce whether or not he will run for president. Many now believe he will.
Perry is eager to separate himself from his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush — who is unpopular with both tea party Republicans and the American electorate as a whole. But one area where Perry’s positions are virtually identical to Bush is immigration.

When I ran for president in 2008, I tried to pressure the Republican candidates to take a hard line against illegal immigration. For this, Perry called me a racist.

When he first took office as governor in 2001, Perry went to Mexico and bragged about his law that granted “the children of undocumented workers” special in-state tuition at Texas colleges, the first state in the nation to do so.
“The message is simple,” Perry concluded, “educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.” Education is the future, and (echoing Cesar Chavez’s slogan) yes we can.]
Just a few weeks ago, Perry defended his decision to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. He said “to punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.”
Perry opposed Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070. “I have concerns,” he explained, “with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.”
He spoke out last year against using E-Verify to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs as state employees, who get their paychecks from the taxpayers. He insisted it “would not make a hill of beans’ difference.”
Numbers USA, a group that supports immigration control, gives Perry a “D-“ for his positions supporting amnesty, open borders, and opposing border security.

Perry, in a speech in Mexico in 2007, said he supports completely open borders, calling for the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.”
In the same speech he came out against building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.Perry also came out in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006, albeit without citizenship, supporting “a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contribution.”

Despite all his talk about sovereignty and states’ rights, Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor. This toll road would go through Mexico, but be run together with the Mexican government in the middle of Texas.
While I was in Congress, I co-sponsored the H.C. Res. 487 to block the creation of this highway. Fortunately our efforts in Congress, along with the work of conservatives in the Texas legislature, derailed Perry’s sovereignty sacrificing scheme.
Perry’s views here are at odds with the vast majority of Americans — and virtually all Republican voters. While he opposes E-Verify for even state employees, 82 percent of all voters, and 91 percent of Republicans, support E-Verify for all employees.
While Perry opposes the border fence, 68 percent of all voters, and 86 percent of Republicans, support the fence. While Perry opposes the Arizona law, SB 1070, voters want 1070 in their state by a 2-1 margin — including 86 percent of all Republicans.
Perry’s only true conservative positions on borders involve calling for an end to sanctuary cities and signing a voter ID law. While I support these measures, they don’t make up for the rest of his positions on immigration. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Tom Tancredo served as a Republican congressman from Colorado 1999-2009, and was chairman of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus. He now serves as chairman of Team America PAC and the Rocky Mountain Foundation.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61076.html
 
Last edited:
This sounds like Rand let one of the junior staffers handle his light work.

1.) The title of the piece is betrayed by the actual content.

2.) The first paragraph set an awfully childish tone.

3.) The second paragraph was just stupid to remark on, as if the two issues are incapable of being addressed side by side. It sounds as like Rand is scoffing at Ricks ability to juggle priorities for reasons I can't really figure out.

4.) The fourth paragraph can really be taken in a way to make it sound like Rand agrees with Obama foreign policy.

5.) More agreeing with Obama foreign policy in the fifth paragraph.

6.) Next couple paragraphs, more sounding like defending Obama

7.) Finally, Rand starts to make a case for the title when he begins to mention ISIS and American aid to the Syrian rebels. Ok, but then

8.) in the next paragraph we come right back to the child like theme of treating Rick Perry in a childish manner by making it "personal". I think Rand would have been better off to just ignore Rick Perry's opinions from the get go. No need to stoop to his level. none.

9.) Finally after already being somewhat bemused the first half of this piece, we get to the real crux of the matter. Rick Perry supports ground troops in Iraq, Rand Paul does not. That is really all that needed to be said.

10.) Later on in the piece I still get the sense of childish undertones and confusing rhetoric. Especially the last line. Rand made it a point early on to show where Rick Perry, Barrack Obama, and Rand Paul foreign policy is not so different.

Rand Paul's underlings would do well to make a little research on the topic of serial position effect. This is the biggest reason the comments section is so horribly negative. Just not a very well written piece IMO.
 
I was of the opinion that Rand should stay above the fray here, but that was a good response.

It's a bit of a dilemma. Perry is just a sock-puppet for his neoconservative advisers. The question would arise as to whether Rand is (or should be) responding to Perry or to the neoconservatives prompting him? Should Rand be punching down? Does it help Rand to make this a personal and just about Perry? Will Perry start to look sympathetic if the attack is too "devastating".

What is the goal of the neoconservatives in this? Can Rand avoid the pitfalls being set?
 
I don't think the point of this article was to win a debate with Rick Perry at all. Think of how ludicrous that sounds, winning a debate with Rick Perry. The point of the article was to get Rand's supporters energized again (its a SHAME we only have 20 people viewing this forum at any given time, and its even WORSE that Perry can beat us on Facebook).

Not to mention it sends a message to other candidates - attack Rand on foreign policy and he won't hesitate to eviscerate you.

I'm HOPING Rand will keep doing stuff like this and stay in the media spotlight until we have a large amount of people engaged in activism again.

Not to mention the people who are supporting Perry on Facebook are INCREDIBLY DISINGENUOS as it was Perry who attacked Rand, not the other way around. That's why it's so easy to see that they are naked Perry supporters, not people "genuinely concerned about infighting."
 
Last edited:
It's a bit of a dilemma. Perry is just a sock-puppet for his neoconservative advisers. The question would arise as to whether Rand is (or should be) responding to Perry or to the neoconservatives prompting him? Should Rand be punching down? Does it help Rand to make this a personal and just about Perry? Will Perry start to look sympathetic if the attack is too "devastating".

What is the goal of the neoconservatives in this? Can Rand avoid the pitfalls being set?

In politics you never let the competition define you. Rand considered this a issue of defining himself I think.
 
Not to mention it sends a message to other candidates - attack Rand on foreign policy and he won't hesitate to eviscerate you.

Yeah, that is one potential advantage to be gained. The neocons have a rotating list of people to keep throwing in there though.

Not to mention the people who are supporting Perry on Facebook are INCREDIBLY DISINGENUOS as it was Perry who attacked Rand, not the other way around. That's why it's so easy to see that they are naked Perry supporters, not people "genuinely concerned about infighting."

The ignorant masses, like football or hockey referees, often only see the retaliatory punch... ;)
 
Back
Top