« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

No, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are not the same on immigration.

By: Josh LeGuern (Diary)  |  November 23rd, 2011 at 07:03 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There seems to be a interesting narrative emerging on conservative blogs supportive of Rick Perry, including posts on this one,  that Newt is only following the lead of Governor Perry on education.

Sorry folks, but Newt and Rick Perry are MILES different on immigration:

Newt Gingrich is for border security first and then allowing for communities to review immigration status on a case by case basis for people who have lived here for over 20+ years. They must be otherwise law-abiding, they must agree to learn English, and they have to get to the back of the line in order to attain citizenship.

Rick Perry pandered to Latino voters by allowing for them to receive in-state tuition rates regardless of how they got there. It actually creates a magnet for more illegal immigrants to come in.

Gingrich has a well thought out policy based on what is reasonable and attainable. Rick Perry’s policy is based on what “compassionate conservative” Republican consultants have told him is the right thing to say in order to win Latino votes.

Let’s not pander, let’s offer substantive solutions.

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    Newt is pandering for Hispanic voters by offering defacto amnesty.

    Perry never said anything amnesty.

    Perry has been governor of the 2nd largest state for 10 years with an almost 38% hispanic population. Newt has been bathing in the beltway slime for 10 years getting rich off taxpayer dollars…..

    • texabama

      And what about this feeble “red card” suggestion. It makes me think of going to Applebees and turning my pay holder in the right direction for pick up.

  • avagreen

    In fact, 12,138 students on last count of the Fall semester in 2010, with the majority being in either community colleges, or trade schools. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20100314-Number-of-illegal-immigrants-getting-in-9925.ece

    Plus, the federally mandated State handouts that Texas tried to stop to encourage fewer illegals, but was then sued by a liberal organization, which suit the State lost.

    12-13 other states have the same laws on the books, so you gonna quibble with their legislatures over this same thing?They are Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

    And, at least one of the other candidates (Michelle Bachmann) voted in favor of this law in Minnesota.
    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/09/in-state_tuitio.shtml?refid=0

    In addition to all these states, you gotta quibble with her as well.

    Your next point?

    • avagreen

      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/06/news/sc-dc-0607-court-tuition-20110607

    • circlegranch

      posting an article. You could not be more inaccurate and ill-informed on Rick Perry’s immigration policy if you tried. Clearly, you have not looked beyond the headlines and Beltway talking points or else you’d have been able to put forth solid, factual information. Try going to the State of Texas’ website, www.rickperry.org, or www.makeamericagreatagain.com

      Several of us here can provide further sources for you should you decide to write an addendum and tell the truth. At least, correct your post to read, “In my opinion…” but don’t try to sell this off as being fact.

      In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving, one and all. We have a busy year ahead. As Americans that recall the sacrifice, trials and tribulations our Founding Fathers and those early Pilgrims endured, we are accountable to current and future generations to do the right thing. We must do the hard work, not take the easy way around the obstacles. We may not like the truth or it may not serve our political agenda, but it must be told. America hangs in the balance. If we report, we must be accurate. If we mislead or falsify, we all lose in the end. Who wants to be remembered as one that was not truthful?

      Gather together; be blessed, be thankful, be sure to always tell the truth. The truth has always been and will always be, the right answer. Some in our world have chosen to distort the true story of that first Thanksgiving, yet patriots carry on and tell those truths and make sure our history and our future are not marred by dishonesty.

  • intensity

    …Perry may have a good stance on immigration. However, Newt does a much better job at explaining any position he takes.

    And that’s the man we need debating Obame next year.

    • cheetah2

      is the one deciding factor? We don’t care so much what the positions he takes are just so he is good at explaining them?

    • changeforrickperry

      And look how that’s workin’ out for us.

      • intensity

        …a lot of undecideds put a lot of emphasis in debates.

        Tough but true.

        • gator_hoo

          Here’s the sad truth… Perry is not as good at Newt and Romney at debates for two big reasons

          1) Perry cares what he says because he actually plans on doing the things he says. Mitt and Newt have no plans to do any of the things that they are currently advocating, so they can wax eloquently on them. A good example of this is the “three things” moment. The easiest thing for him to do would have been to say “Yes, the EPA! That’s it.” Instead he admitted that it wasn’t the EPA.

          2) Perry is the only one presenting ideas that haven’t been hashed out a million times over. Newt and Mitt have almost the exact same talking points, it’s just a question of which one can say it better. It reminds me of an episode of Futurama where two clones are running for office. One says “I think that your 3% tax plan goes too far.” The other says, “Well, I think that your 3% tax plan doesn’t go too far enough!” Because we have heard these talking points over and over, we know what the underlying assumptions are, so the answer comes with baggage and fits into a thirty second window. Perry is offering new plans, and in thirrty seconds it is impossible to give the background for those decisions. A great example of this is Allahpundit at HotAir is hammering Perry for saying he would support a no fly zone over Syria, saying it makes no sense.

          However, it makes sense, it just doesn’t have the accompanying baggage of having been hashed and rehashed by the same Washington Republicans who repeatedly turn on the base. A No Fly Zone in Syria helps prevent civil war in that country which would have a destabilizing effect on the nations around it. This is true whether we support the rebels or support Assad, and there are arguments for both. Indeed, Condoleeza Rice has supported Perry’s plan, and apparently so does a lot of military brass, because preparations are being made to do just that according to reports. Whether it is right or not is up for debate, but it isn’t stupid or senseless as Allahpundit and the HotAir commenters would have you believe.

          So Perry has a higher degree of difficulty going into the debates than Mitt or Newt.

          • changeforrickperry

            Then know this: as of today, I am boycotting HotAir.

            I am tired of the speed dating. The bloggers at HotAir built Perry up, then threw him under the bus. They idolized Cain, but I see very little about him there now. Now all I see on HotAir is The Newt, but I have no doubt that he, too, will be strung up by the thumbs and hung there until Allahpundit and Co. declare him politically dead. Yes, they criticize Romney, but in my opinion they do a thorough job of tearing down ALL the candidates without any
            constructive discussion of each candidate’s pros and cons. It has become a contest of “Let’s see which candidate is the stupidest.”

            So you see, I’m not boycotting simply for Perry’s sake. I am simply fed up with the pettiness and the hypocrisy at HotAir.

            Thank you, RS, for giving me a forum to express the above opinion, and Happy Thanksgiving to all my friends here at RS.

          • avagreen

            Re: The Blaze and HotAir.

          • gator_hoo

            I am done with HotAir, but mainly because Allah has been anti-Perry from the beginning. Ed and Tina liked him, but AP was against him from the beginning, which makes some sense, because Michelle Malkin has been against him from the beginning.

          • changeforrickperry

            Wouldn’t surprise me; I have no respect for their opinions. Allahpundit’s recent articles were the breaking point for me. The comment community is also very anti-Perry (Aslan’s Girl, gophergirl, The Right Man, and a few others excepted–if you’re on RS, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for all your delightful comments) and there seem to be very few language/profanity restrictions. They’re certainly more lax than RS, that’s for sure.

            Anyway, I know HotAir used to be pro-Perry–but then they used to be pro-Cain as well, and now even he is as rubbish to them. Gingrich is all they talk about these days. My brother had a good point: they’re as bad and as guilty as the Lamestream Media, going back and forth between candidates without any constructive criticism/evaluation. Even their polls reflect the LSM’s thinking; their frontrunners change with every shadow of turning. It’s a very real disappointment. I would have thought better of conservatives.

          • carolynr

            Boy…has this campaign season opened my eyes to so many things that I was blind about. I really didn’t see any of this…and Fox, in particular, has shown me this. OK…we know that Shep Smith is a liberal. I knew that O’Reilly was a fence sitter (Independent). However, I always thought that Hannity was Mr. True Blue Conservative….he was consistent…he would carry the Conservative banner. Well, was I wrong. He would discuss candidates and leave Perry’s name completely out..not once…but all the time. So…I blogged on some of the major biggies.. NYT, Reuters, Politico and WaPo and occasionally on the Hill about this. Well, finally, Perry’s name was mentioned on Fox…but they paraphrased his remarks to give a completely different meaning OR just misquoted him.

            So…with Hannity…here we have a person who supports the military…has these freedom concerts…even has Perry as a guest…and who is he backing…well Cain or Willard and now Newtie. Cain is unqualified…Willard is not conservative and Newtie…well the crap has just begun to fly. Meanwhile…here’s Perry. Still married to the same woman…good family ties, pro-life, pro-military, pro-jobs, anti-big government, best tax plan (as scored) a record he can run on, believes in God, a real nice guy, friend of Luttrell…who Hannity has on his program. What happened? In fact….I haven’t listened..but what happened to Limbaugh? I did hear good things about Perry’s tax plan from Levin. Then there is Sarah Palin….pro-energy, states rights person…and she is thinking about endorsing Newt.

            Is the world upside down? Everyone likes to think they are right…but with a record….what is going on here? Perry was the tea party before there was one. Uproot Washington…isn’t that what they wanted. The debates will be over with…most people won’t remember them…but policies stay. I know that Perry has guts…I feel it when he talks…the rest…NOPE. I thought this is what America wanted…A Perry…a Reincarnation of Reagan…and the very people who pushed this idea have backed off of it. Well, Hannity…if you read this…Liberals aren’t the only ones that have lost their principles…you have also..or you never had them to begin with.

            So…Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume., Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter…what happened to your Conservatism…did you leave it at the door for a better bran called…the Independent…otherwise known as the fence sitter.

          • changeforrickperry

            Hopefully you and I and the folks here at RS aren’t the only ones thinking this way. It’ll all come out in the wash, you’ll see. See the diary “A Month Is A Lifetime.” Folks will embrace Perry once they’re face-to-face with a voting screen.

            Also, I don’t expect Sarah to endorse Newt. At all. She’s smarter than that.

          • avagreen

            I know I’ve yelled and complained here on to FOX via emails (for months now). Even got a reply from Bret Bair stating he hadn’t noticed any dif in the ratings, to which I replied that I’m called regularly by a polling agency and at the last poll I was still watching FOX 24/7, but since the debacle with Perry, I don’t ,and which won’t show up on the polls until the next one.

            He didn’t answer back.

            Many, many folk have stated they no longer watch FOX, but get their news from ……….get this……..CNN because it’s more balanced.

            The whole crew mentioned above is horribly partisan, but left out Gretchen Carlson, Steve Ducey (sp?), Lou Dobbs, etc.

            Hannity just makes me gag any more when I hear him.

          • oldlady

            who was a FOX fan of many years and since this primary started have been watching them less and less and watching CNN more and more. The reason being that the way FOX has treated Perry. He is either beneath their notice entirely or else they grab onto any chance to criticize him. Yes, CNN has a more leftward slant on some of their shows (primarily Anderson Cooper) but they have treated their coverage of Perry in the same way that they have of all the other candidates.

            The Perry campaign has had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for paid advertisements on FOX to get any positive mention of himself on that channel. Meanwhile we see Gingrich and Bachmann in wall-to-wall guest appearances which would be worth thousands of dollars in FREE advertising.

            Who ever thought I would rather watch Wolf Blitzer than Hannity???

          • changeforrickperry

            So I’m really taking y’all’s word for it about Fox and CNN and all that. So I have a question–please forgive my bewilderment/ignorance. Remember how Perry had been on a lot last week, and the week before that? He was on Cavuto last week, Anita was on Sunday afternoon, and Perry again on The Special Report Monday night. He was on Hannity several times and O’Reilly several times, as well. Now, to me, that seems like a lot of free advertising, but then again, I only watch Fox at my grandparents’ house, so it’s not like I’m seeing Gingrich or Bachmann all the time.

            So I guess this is my question: when Perry was on so much, was that a huge shocker for y’all? I’m just curious and trying to figure out Fox’s strange bias against him.

          • oldlady

            knowledge Perry was on Cavuto once, Hannity once, and O’Reilly once (not ”several times”) and these appearences only happened in the last 2 weeks which is AFTER his campaign bought $400,000. worth of advertising time on FOX. Meanwhile they couldn’t even start their day of programming without showing the clip of Bachmann calling Perry ”naive” in his stance on Pakistan and additionally had her on as their guest thereb giving her the platform to continue her trashing of Perry. Which she was only too happy to do.

          • changeforrickperry

            I know he was on Hannity twice and O’Reilly twice, because I saw clips from all four interviews. But what you said about the interviews happening AFTER he bought all that ad time made a lot of sense, and answered my question–thanks! I’ve lost a lot of respect for Fox and I’m pretty much boycotting their website as well.

            And while we’re talking about Fox, I’m going to give everyone a heads-up on Mike Huckabee. Our family subscribes to WORLD Magazine, a fairly prominent Christian news publication. The Editor In Chief, Marvin Olasky, emailed Huckabee after Perry’s brain snap asking the former to reconsider a run. Mike responded thus:

            “It might be too late. It is amazing how things have turned out. I didn’t think Perry would do that well, but I never imagined he would take a gasoline shower and light a match to himself this soon.”

            Here’s the link to prove he said it: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18851

            I was shocked and horrified that Huckabee would say such a disgusting thing. This quote needs to get out there because it shows just how much Huckabee–a RINO–despises Perry.

          • izoneguy

            So I don’t put much creedence in the Huckster or Iowa.

          • changeforrickperry

            I’ve never liked Huckabee all that much, but I know A LOT of people DO. And he’s got a huge audience (I’m assuming) on Fox. That just drives me crazy, because all these RINOs are the ones in the media! Why don’t we have any really good solid conservatives in journalism/TV? OK, I guess Rush, and Glenn Beck (sometimes…I’m a little irked with him right now), but who else? It can be very discouraging.

            And then for Huckabee to say something so grotesque, and with such graphic language–taking a gasoline shower and setting yourself on fire is NOT a pleasant image–I found it repulsive. Huckabee is a professing Christian; he ought to act and talk like one. If he’s holding a grudge against Perry because Perry didn’t endorse him in 2008–well, Hon, it’s time to get over it. The country’s going down the toilet and we really don’t have the luxury to hold silly grudges against each other.

          • westcoastpatriette

            your post here, but it has been very perplexing to me, too, why–on many different levels–there has been this overt and obvious concerted effort to derail Perry before he even gets started in the race.

            From Cain’s overt contempt for Perry to Fox’s treating him like the unwanted foster child, the smearing and dissing has been too obvious to overlook.

            Politics is such a dirty business and it just seems to bring out the worst in human nature. Sometimes I am ashamed of how the candidates and other political players treat each other–especially the Christians in the race. There really is no excuse for those (Huckabee, anyone?) who claim to love the Lord to engage in all of the sniping and slanderous accusations against brothers and sisters in the Lord.

            It’s harder for those of us who support Perry because it is obvious to us that no other candidate has received as much disrespect as he has and it is hurtful for us to watch it.

            Politics are too complicated to try to figure all of this out–especially for someone like Perry who has made many enemies in the years he has been a public servant. But just remember, Jesus warned us that they hated him without a cause and, if we are truly living for Him, we would be hated as well.

            There is one more aspect to this that cannot be overlooked and that is the spiritual aspect. There is a spirit realm and if Perry is God’s choice, then all of the attacks from so many different camps can be seen as attacks coming from Satan himself. All the more reason all of the Christians in the race should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be used to help the enemy. But then, if they are all convinced that they are “God’s choice,” maybe they feel justified in their attacks.

            Just my two cents. And I think I needed to get this off my chest.

            One more thing. Remember too, that Jesus told us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us and do good to those who spitefully use us–the hardest thing in the world to do. “Don’t return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.” Tall order, for sure, but it is the only way to overcome and subdue evil.

            Hang in there, sister, and we will get through this together.

          • changeforrickperry

            I confess, I’ve had to preach to myself a lot recently. It’s easy to get discouraged and to feel like all this work is for naught. My support for Perry is undiminished–in fact, it’s stronger than ever–but sometimes I just want to sit down and cry with discouragement. Then I remember that God is working all things for the good of those who love Him (Perry included) and that He has often worked through the “underdog” in American history.

            The thought of spiritual warfare has often come to my mind, as well, and that can be frightening. I have probably labored in prayer over this campaign more than any other thing in my (relatively) short life, and I’ve learned a lot about trusting God’s Providence in the process.

            Thank you so much for encouraging me to keep on keeping on. I needed it this morning. We RS Christians really need to hold each other up in the coming months, because I fear it’s going to be a long hard road ahead.

          • avagreen

            about his “Christian” values. And, the bad impression he’s making for Christians in general in contrast to Perry’s actions and words.

            Huckabee shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this type talk to or about another Christian.
            I doubt it will change him, but at least he’s heard from another Christian about his actions.

          • westcoastpatriette

            on his hypocrisy. Don’t know where he puts his pastor hat when he launches into some of his tirades, but maybe your words will remind him that he needs to watch his tongue when talking about other believers in the body of Christ–politics be damned.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            The Scripture applies to us as well right? We are just like Huckabee, a Christian with an opinion. Did you try and settle this matter privately with Huckabee before going public?

          • acat

            Whether it’s right or not, politicians have been ignoring that bit of scripture since well before you were conceived, DeVine one… complaints that their followers are equally guilty are unlikely to prosper.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            God alone knows what was in Huckabee’s heart and mind when he made the comment. As human beings, we can put our own interpretation of someone’s words or actions into the context of a situation, but be totally wrong in doing it, because we might have a “mote” in our own eyes that prevents us from being objective or realistic in our viewpoint.

            Just in what I’ve read in Mike’s comments so far, I’d think that’s his underlying point…that objectivity may be somewhat distorted because of the fervent desire to defend another person.

            “Be ye not deceived, God is not to be mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap”. If the comment made by Huckabee constituted a seed that was seed sown unto unrighteousness in some way (vindictive or malicious), God is in a much better position than we as human beings might be to know the truth of it, and He’s more capable of dealing with it as well, between Himself and Huckabee alone.

            Sometimes it’s better to let God deal with it His own way than it is to get sucked down into boggy ground.

          • acat

            Quite a devil’s brew, mixing politics and religion.

            While I suspect you’re right about the DeVine one’s intent, it’s apparent he’s been too subtle here.

            Eh. This is what happens when someone must play using two rulebooks (religion and politics) with limited overlap.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            that trying to be subtle can fail to address the underlying elements of an issue.

            In the context of being honest, I have to admit that I’m not sure why such a to-do is being made about this. I know that Perry’s supporters are very defensive in his behalf. That isn’t a bad quality, but it is possible for the emotional elements to cloud the person’s objectivity. Or at least it usually is that way for me when I find myself getting defensive in someone else’s behalf.

            But there are and have been other options and other ways to respond to this situation…such as minimizing the impact of Huckabee’s comments as being irrelevant to Perry’s character or suitability as a candidate. Just responding with “Did Huckabee really say that? Well, you know, that probably wasn’t the best choice of words, but Huckabee is entitled to his opinion”, then move on.

            As it is, this isn’t the first time that Perry’s supporters have responded in this manner when someone has made a comment about Perry that they didn’t like or didn’t approve of. They get very defensive in his behalf (like I said, that isn’t a bad quality), but it comes across as “poor Perry” at times, in which cases I wish people would really think it through before they respond that way, because given the circumstances our nation is facing right now, I can’t see voters being all that thrilled to vote for “poor” anyone.

          • avagreen

            not Perry.

            If Huckabee puts himself out as the “Christian pastor” to gain whatever points he thinks that will gain, then, he should abide by the rules written by the God he professes to worship, or else drop the “pastor” mime. Even if it’s on the public stage.

            And, I’ll get as upset as I choose to ……..when laws/rules are being broken by the man who is professing publickly to be someone who is a “spiritual leader”.

            Don’t recall anywhere in the bible that says it OK to someone is let off the hook just because they are in the government. No such thing. You either are a Christian in all of your dealings , or not. We all make mistakes and it’s up to us to profess those and apologize/repent. The rules hold for everyone in public or private. Secular rules don’t count although many here are trying to make them the issue. This is about a man touting his Christianity and then stepping all over it to make political hay. It was pretty apparent what it was all about to any observer or he wouldn’t have been on FOX to make it!

            Huck made this a public issue, and he’s being rebuked publicly. If you don’t want to participate, fine! But, please do not tell me how to perform in my religious beliefs.

            Mike Cock took some posts of Christians here who took umbrage at what Huck did and has turned it into a circus. I will not allow someone to do this by stating untruths and ridiculing what the bible says about this issue, about my religion, any more than I will about the facts of my candidate.

            So, just drop the “poor Perry” part of it. That’s a misdirection of the intent, but a good way to minimize what is being said about the issue.

          • lineholder

            How do any of us know for certain what the motivation was for Huckabee’s comments? And how do any of us know for certain that if Huckabee’s comments were made for malicious or vindictive intent, that he hasn’t already set this straight with Perry himself in private?

            Just because you and others might think any apology made should be public doesn’t mean that Perry would require a public apology, does it? And as a Christian, could you and would you fault of Perry if he displayed enough generosity of spirit to forgive without requiring a public apology? There could be plenty of things we do NOT know about the situation as a whole, correct?

            But the comment I made about how the statements of Perry’s supporters comes across at times is very valid and 100% true. What’s more, if you genuinely care about Perry’s chances of succeeding, you will at least heed the possibility that this is how it comes across publicly. Why? Because where visual images are concerned, avagreen, it’s next to impossible to correlate “poor” anyone (with the underlying message of victimization being conveyed, implied and insinuated) with the image of being a leader. The two are diametrically opposed in far too many ways.

            And it’s a leader that voters are looking for at this point in our nation’s history. We’ve already got a victim in the WH. Do you honestly believe voters want another one? That doesn’t mean that Perry is a victim…it just means be careful in portraying him as one, because it isn’t doing him any favors.

            Other than that, your desire to defend Perry in this situation is admirable, but as I said, the emotional element of it can be significant enough to cloud a person judgment, which was proven by the manner in which you’ve responded to the comments I made.

          • center77

            how people comment on News sites and blogs, sorry that is mitt true. In fact the vast amount of people care little about the day to day tick for tac by Politico’s. Huckabee has sold out, he holds a Perry grudge, and I’ve lost respect for him. Conservatives are falling for the medias idea of a candidate, but in the end it is Perry who has the record and substance. But comment threads do not swing votes.

          • lineholder

            on a blog is totally inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, there still is the element of integrity to be considered in regards to what an individual posts. In this particular context, there are lines that I hold to in regards to what I ask of myself in dealing with other people honestly.

            What I’ve posted above pertaining to the way that Perry supporters come across at times is meant primarily as a “heads up”. Ask around. People at RS will tell you that I do this quite a bit (probably that’s irritating and aggravating in a lot of cases) and that I can be brutally honest in the process of it as well. It’s not meant in a derogatory manner at all.

            Comment threads at blogs such as RS may or may not have that much impact. I’m of the mind to consider the possibility that they have impact in communicating directly with those who may be more politically-inclined that the general public at large…the type of people who could prove to be invaluable where word of mouth messaging is concerned.

          • lineholder

            I just don’t see anything positive being accomplished by it to get distracted by this situation with Huckabee.

          • avagreen

            What creates the “emotional part” of my posts are the downplaying of what the bible says on these issues (and there are rules pertaining to this despite what MikeC. says), and the downright sarcasm/ridicule that both he and Huckabee have shown for those rules.

            I’m not out trying to get votes/win votes for my opinion. I’m here only to set the record straight on what the bible says about “religions leaders” and their public/private conduct. If they don’t like it, then stop using the religious meme to appeal to some higher authority for their actions/remarks by repeating that they are a “pastor”……….there’s a lot to say in the bible about elders/presbyters/pastors. Huckabee is obviously as ignorant as some posters here on the subject. They are held to a higher set of rules, with more severe consequences.
            He’s brought this on himself by his careless (calculated IMO) public remarks. If he can, so can we. That’s the way the ball rolls.

            What so many of you don’t understand is that Huck offended more than just Perry in what he did.

            You don’t have to agree.

            I could say that you and Mike C.are making Huckabee a victim as well as you are saying that Perry is being made into (in your opinion). Works both ways.

            In fact, Huckabee has been defended more than Perry has been, do you realize that? My and others’ comments have been made against Huckabee’s actions in breaking the rules of how “religious leaders” are to comport themselves.

          • avagreen

            Too much time wasted.

            And, I agree with center77′s opinion of Huckabee.

          • changeforrickperry

            My last word on this, and then I’m done with this thread:

            “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
            And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed until the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” (Ephesians 4:29-32)

          • buckedup

            Avagreen, I could direct u to some theological sites if u ended up here inadvertently.

          • Bill S

            No one invited your input. Run along and MYOB.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Could have sworn I told you to grow up. Ach, well, I tried.

            Ta.

          • lineholder

            is very plain and clear. The point where I personally disagree with you is believing that it up to those outside the immediate context of the situation to try to dictate for others what we should often leave to God Himself to do in dealing with human hearts and minds.

            God knows more about what was in Huckabee’s heart and mind when he made those comments than you, I or anyone else, and if wrongdoing of any sort took place, God is perfectly capable of dealing with it in His own time and His own way. What’s more, it’s usually better if and when that is allowed to take it’s natural course, because when it does, any repentance for wrongdoing is genuine and sincere, rather than empty and meaningless comments made due to outside pressure or circumstances.

            Plus, I’m objective enough in this particular case to recognize that judgment calls are being made re: Huckabee’s actions based on how things seem to be on the surface of the situation, through the filter of being defensive in Perry’s behalf, knowing full well that appearances and how things seem to be on the surface of the situation can often be misleading and deceiving, and that it would be very easy for objectivity to become distorted in the process and to over-react to the situation.

            You can continue to be offended by it in Perry’s behalf that this is my reflection of my personal beliefs as a Christian, but truthfully, I have far too much respect for the fact that God has His own way of doing things and that it’s not my place to try to dictate that or interfere with it. We just have differences in convictions on this point. That’s all.

          • avagreen

            I have far too much respect for the fact that God has His own way of doing things and that it?s not my place to try to dictate that or interfere with it.
            Don’t have to, lineholder. Don’t have to interject your personal beliefs into this.

            We have something called the Word of God where the rules are already laid out very clearly and which some are apparently not even aware these rules exist(and which I’ve quoted) which gives the action to take, and which has been followed by those that use the bible as a reference for action.

            If you want to go through all my posts you will see where I’ve quoted some of those pertinent verses where all this is laid out.

            Don’t have to wait for God to make any decisions. He already has and it’s in his Word, else none of us would have any authority to do a thing regarding religion. Picking elders, deacons, rules for behavior/eligibility of both.

          • lineholder

            I know what the “rules” are. I also know that when one Christian rebukes another Christian, it is to be done in the spirit of genuine love for that person based on fact, not assumption.

            If someone had actually asked Huckabee what he meant by the comments and he responded in a way that indicated he had deliberately and intentionally been vindictive or malicious in those comments or otherwise displayed evidence of a guilty conscience, then I’d probably agree with you. But that hasn’t been the case.

            People are just drawing their own assumptions, in this particular case as seen through a filter of their desire to defend Perry (which there is nothing wrong with that, okay?) But there’s a fine line between responding on the basis of assumptions, passing judgment on someone, and inadvertently bearing false witness that I would rather not get into if I can avoid it.

            In that kind of situation, I’ll go with putting my trust and confidence in God to deal with the situation in what ways He sees fit before I’ll cross a line in taking excessive responsibility and interfering in what is His business above and beyond my own.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            as so bad as to be asking to setting oneself on fire? And this because Huckabee and Perry are both self-described Christians? And because therefore ANY Scripture applies so that Huckabee can’t say that language or can do so only after going through the procedure for Christians before a lawsuit is filed.

            No logic or support for any of that. Total non sequiturs! Insult to my intelligence! Waste of time except maybe to set some folks straight on how their OWN criticisms of other Christians would also apply to them writing on Redstate.

            I wish I had more time to help people here…

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            between Calvin, Luther & Zwingli.

            I’m with you here. There’s nothing wrong with Mike Huckabee’s evaluation of Perry’s debate performance(s). Sure, he used hyperbole, but that’s not uncommon. I didn’t see anything personal there.

            That said, I don’t know why people put so much stock into what Huckabee says. He’s last election’s news.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            that I not transgress the Council of Trent II via ava’ and west’ when I apply Satanic metaphors to the Jack Asses and when I finally endorse the favorite of the -bots that want to burn last year’s Baptist Prophet!

          • avagreen

            Rebuking someone publicly after they have insulted a fellow Christian on a national forum (essentially calling him a “fool”) is not the same thing as Huckabee starting this whole thing by publickly and violently snipping at Perry, who he obviously has a grudge against and has been completely anti-Perry from the start. It was Huckabee that should have gone to Perry privately and settled the issue, not us going to Huckabee.

            Huckabee (a self-proclaimed “spiritual leader — “pastor”)made this a public issue. Rebuking him is just as public.
            I Timothy, Chapter 5:
            19Don’t pay attention to an accusation against a spiritual leader unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 20Reprimand those leaders who sin. Do it in front of everyone so that the other leaders will also be afraid.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            no texts

          • avagreen

            You’ve not proven your case. I have.

          • romansdaughter

            Hey! I am a christian too and I know exactly how you guys feel since I have been feeling the same way many times. I always encourage myself in the verse in Psa. 33: 10 “The Lord foils the plans of the nations and thwarts the purposes of the people. 11 “The plans of the Lord stand firm forever…” So I pray and tell myself all the time that His purposes are going to be carried out. But like Change it is hard at times to not get discouraged. Thanks for sharing.

          • avagreen

            http://www.mikehuckabee.com/contact?p=contact-us

          • romansdaughter

            I get his updates so I wrote him too and shared with him about being a light in this world and shouldn’t be trashing fellow christians. He won’t know what hit him. LOL.

          • avagreen

            I hope he knows “what hit him”…….fed up Christians at people who merchandise the title to advance their own causes.

            No better than J. Jackson or Rev. Wright IMHO.
            Same principle.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Please explain the above comments. I don’t get it.

          • westcoastpatriette

            to see where change’ quoted Huckabee making insulting comments about Perry’s early on debate mistakes. He made these comments publicly and we all feel it is not befitting conduct for Christians to berate or insult other Christians in politics.

          • avagreen

            No, Mike, Huckabee isn’t required to endorse anyone or no one (according the scriptures), but scriptures require a certain mode of action of Christians.

            And, if Mike wants to advertise and take advantage of being a “Christian” (why else mention over and over that he’s a pastor, which BTW is supposed to be a “spiritual leader” of the congregation), he needs to adhere to the scriptures on how to treat fellow men and especially fellow Christians.

            There are rules, and Matthew 5 is one of those places where there are guidelines on how to treat our fellow men, and what to do if you’ve “offended” a fellow Christian.

            And, he certainly has. Can’t advertise something to gain an advantage,while publicly thumbing your nose at the rules he supposed to be supporting/teaching.

            “21 ?You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ?You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.? 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ?Raca,?[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ?You fool!? will be in danger of the fire of hell.

            23 ?Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

            25 ?Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. ”
            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=NIV

          • buckedup

            There is no more perfect person currently alive in the world than Governor Perry.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …not a right. Kindly grow up, which includes not pretending that you don’t know precisely what I’m talking about.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Which of RedState’s posting rules was Buckedup’s comment in violation of?

            http://www.redstate.com/posting-rules/

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …if you have a problem or question about our moderation policy.

            And let me save time, because I’m traveling: my next (and likely continuing) response to your response to that will be “Take it to the Contact Us link if you have a problem or question about our moderation policy.” Because we’re not having a conversation.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            .

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            You were instructed to take it to the Contact Us link. The fact that they aren’t interested in this particular case to do it publicly is their prerogative. I mean, it is their private property, something conservatives hold dear.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            There is no reason simple explanations for disconcerting conduct cannot be given publicly, especially when the concern in question — the vagueness of the criteria by which violations are being judged — is in the interest of the entire audience. Don’t RedState’s readers have a fair expectation that the site’s moderators will hold themselves to the site’s own stated rules?

            I completely agree that Erickson, Lane, etc. can run the website however they choose. And we have the right to judge them accordingly.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            You really don’t get the private property thing, do you? I’m not surprised.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            And “the private property thing” is a complete non sequitur to this conversation.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            This isn’t a public site. This website is privately owned. That means the owners can make and enforce the rules however they like, and they are the final determiners of what is “fair”.

            You may not like that, but nobody is forcing you to come here. As for your non sequitur, you prove my point. You don’t understand private property.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Someone’s right to use private property in a certain way doesn’t mean someone can’t or shouldn’t be criticized from behaving badly with their private property.

            If Streiff, Moe Lane, and company want to falsely accuse people of rule violations, that’s their right. But it’s also my right to notice whether or not doing so reflects badly on RedState and Eagle Publishing.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            but it would appear for now that they are going to allow you to continue in your quest to right all the wrongs on the interwebz at RedState.

          • Bill S

            Moe’s instructions were unambiguous. You obviously lack comprehension skills.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            And before you once again violate your own site’s Posting Rules with another attack on my “comprehension skills” (“2. Namecalling and personal attacks directed at other users is not allowed.”), I’ll just point out that I already have emailed the Contact Us link.

            Bill S, I have never treated you, or anyone on this website, with dishonestly or unprovoked hostility. I don’t understand what grounds you have for considering me an enemy, other than the fact that I’ve expressed concern over the behavior of certain individuals, have objections to Rick perry, and think some Romney supporters are being treated unfairly.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            You’ve repeatedly been warned to follow directions.

            You clearly can’t.

            I’ve had it.

          • Tbone

            free burgers? I suppose you’ll ban free beer and naked women next.

          • jeromefc
            Since I was stopping by to respond to Thomas Crown’s shameful attack on National Review anyway, I thought I’d drop by here as well.

            I?ll be the first to admit I knew I was playing a dangerous game by openly calling the mods out on such behavior. But Stevens? stated rationale for banning me?that I disobeyed repeated warnings to follow directions?is a lie.

            First, RedState?s own Posting Rules say nothing that could possibly be construed as requiring commenters to stop discussing subjects simply because a moderator expresses a desire not to talk about it himself. If a website explicitly says, these are the rules you have to follow, users have a fair expectation that those are the rules they?ll be judged by, not by arbitrary whims. It?s meaningless to even have formal rules if RedState?s actual practice is to fabricate reasons for banning people on the spot.

            Second, I was not ?repeatedly warned? about my behavior. Not once did Stevens warn me in any way. The only ?warning? Moe Lane suggested to me was that my replies to him would be a waste of time because he would answer them all the same way. At no point did he even imply that continuing to discuss my concerns publicly was itself a bannable offense. Bill S?s reply to me did not contain any such warning, either; he merely leveled a personal insult at me?that I ?obviously lack comprehension skills??for not silencing myself. Despite Bill?s decision to violate RedState?s stated Posting Rule against ?personal attacks directed at other users,? I took great pains to not respond in kind while defending myself, expressing my offense at his behavior in a firm yet respectful manner that was not profane or vulgar, did not name-call, and did not personally attack. (The only other possible interpretation, that ?NightTwister?s? jabs constituted some sort of binding warnings, would be too stupid to take seriously. He?s not a moderator, and I was responding fairly to his insults.)

            Third, and most significantly, the comment Stevens banned me for couldn?t have violated any instruction to stop questioning Moe Lane, for the simple fact that it was not responding to Moe Lane. It was specifically responding to Bill?s unprovoked attack on me, and did not restate the question I posed to Lane. In fact, the only reference that comment made to my exchange with Lane was a perfectly innocent clarification that I followed Lane?s instruction to use the Contact page!

            Simply put, Neil Stevens?whose signature, ironically, contains a call to ?Read the RedState Posting Rules??banned me not for breaking any of the rules, but for defending myself against his colleague?s rule-breaking.

            http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-to-get-banned-from-redstate-without.html

          • pttx333

            n

          • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

            Somebody’s bitter.

          • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

            Hmm, this is enough to make you feel claustrophobic…

          • pttx333

            my socks off and trying to catch my breath! Been a’whooping and a’hollerin’ like a wild woman! Honey, if you had had a script, that wouldn’t have been funnier! I would tell you to go to Hollywood, except I wouldn’t want that sweet mind of yours to be corrupted!

            You MADE my whole weekend with this one! LOVE IT!!

          • acat

            Dude, that is some powerful stupid.

            Mew

          • jakeofalltrades

            fyi

          • jakeofalltrades

            This one looks like a serial killer:

          • jakeofalltrades

          • Bill S

            Look, you’re not welcome here. I know you have a fetish for us, but please get over it.

          • Bill S

            Neil did me the favor of booting you so I didn’t have to bother with it.

            My observation about your comprehension skills was a pretty black and white one, given your repeated refusal to follow instructions. Either you didn’t comprehend or you just decided to act like a jackass. In either case, your banning was justified.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            –no-text–

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            supposed to call them out privately first and go through a process that keeps arguments over Christian behavior w/i the church, within the church? I think so.

            Publicly, we should of course engage like all citizens and criticize based on objective facts, but I am not comfortable in making criticism of Huckabee’s endorsements or critcism of Perry a Christian matter tossed before the general electorate. That would seem to be doing what we are criticizing Huckabee of?

            And could some one reply with the statement that has Huck about to be burned at the state re Perry’s debate performances.

          • wacowboy

            taking a bath in gasoline and lighting a match. Read it on this thread. somewhere.

          • wacowboy

            ?It might be too late. It is amazing how things have turned out. I didn?t think Perry would do that well, but I never imagined he would take a gasoline shower and light a match to himself this soon.?

            Here?s the link to prove he said it: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18851

            and a point could be made that Huck’s comments were in a public setting and therefore call for a public rebuke. (see Paul opposing Peter to his face in Galatians 2:11-14)

          • westcoastpatriette

            /

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            It doesn’t implicate any Biblical admonition for private discussions with fellow Christian at all. Ain’t even close. If it were then no Christian could comment on the campaign at all.

            I really can’t see what caused so many here at Redstate to fall for such an idea. This is akin to the Left trying to box Christians into a corner of alleged hypocrisy for daring to endorse moral standards and exempting themselves because of their amoral non-standards.

            Perry has had several disasterous debate performances. Was it wrong for me to say that in public because I am a Christian and Perry claims to be? May I only criticize Perry through private email so as not to violate Scripture that is meant for the handling of disputes within the Church?

            I think not.

          • avagreen

            You are welcome to your opinion, as am I and others.

            Self-immobilization is not a good imagery to put out. A violent way to put thoughts. Poor choice of words. And, for a “pastor” to not to be aware of this is just sad.

            I don’t know where you got this “private” stuff……..Matthew 5 says if you know someone has “ought” against you to go to them and try to settle it. Says nothing about “private” issues. At any rate, Huckabee made this a “public” issue when he said his words for the national audience. He needs to be just as “public” in his apology.

            I just don’t care for Huckabee and haven’t for a long time. This last action has shown him to be more than a little a untaught man and doesn’t set himself apart at all from the world, not a member of the “called out.”

            If you don’t like the opinions/actions of the “Christians” who chose to speak out, simple……. just ignore it.

            Unless you are trying to get us to conform to your view of how to conduct our thinking? Not sure.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            so therefore he can’t criticize his debate performance? That verse has nothing to do with Huck and Perry or Huck’s debate commentary. Zero.

            Huck can be criticized for the substance of his statement but it has nothing to do with MT:5.

            That verse is usually applied to mean to that Christians should try and settle private legal disputes one on one or via mediation within the church before going to civil courts for private legal matters.

            FTR, Perry is at the top of my list. I want him to be President, ok. But he sucked in debates and Huck accurately describes it.

            FTR, I’m not a Huck fan.

            I am fan of Scripture and a Christian that doesn’t like to see gratuitous attacks based on Christianity when it doesn’t apply.

            The rule you all are trying to impose that finds no support in The Bible, would have all Christian commentators never give a negative opinion about a Christian politician?

            Plus, what is so bad about Huck’s statement? Perry has said as much about his own debate performances as disasters.

          • avagreen

            that’s the problem, not the negative opinion. Get it?

            If you are a fan of Scripture, I’m sure you realize that you are mixing three types of instances.
            Verse 21-22: One is if you are angry with someone, you will be subject to “judgement” (not the court), or call someone “raca”(worthless) (answerable to the council), or called them a “fool” you are will be in danger of the fire of hell…….nothing to do with “court”.

            Verse 23-24: Two, if are aware that anyone has something against you, to go to that person and straighten it out and then return to “offer your gift”…….nothing to do with court.

            Verse 25-26: Third, has to do with legal issues: ” Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court.“. And, if you don’t do this you will not be let out before the last penny is repaid.

            Don’t think that calling some a “fool ” or “raca” (worthless) or having someone angry with you has any pennies to be paid back, so obviously this refers to someone taking you to court

            The verses previous (the “Beautitudes”, the Law, being the “salt of the earth”) to these three issues also had nothing to do with court, nor the issues (adultry, divorce,oaths, etc.) addressed after these three issues.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Not one of you ever responded to my request by cutting and pasting the exact quote of Huckabee that you say required that he go first to Perry one on one. So I assume it is the debate like setting himself on fire?

            BTW, given your broad application of the Beatitudes, have you any spare time and could you send me all the times that Perry has transgressed and that you all called him out? Or is he Christ?

          • westcoastpatriette

            and it includes a link to the comment in question.

            The comment was not a criticism of a policy or an endorsement but an insulting snipe at Perry. Don’t see how you could see it as anything but that. And as such, unbecoming of a Christian to direct at another Christian publicly–especially a pastor.

            As far as what to do about it, it’s kinda like spilled milk. The deed was done publicly so it merits correction publicly, IMO.

            Don’t understand your last paragraph.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I can’t find it. Still don’t see how an insulting snipe would implicate the Scriptures about one on one confrontations, since this is a civic political matter and not a personal dispute. But please cut and paste the alleged heresy requiring a Council of Trent II and I will consider.

            But what is the need to try and escalate Huck’s statement about Perry as an internal matter for the Church? This seems quite an unnecessary stretch.

            Just criticize Huck on the merits. No need to drag Christianity into this.

          • westcoastpatriette

            you seem to have a mental block of some sort with regard to the offending party’s conduct.

            All I can say is you are greatly outnumbered in terms of seeing Huck’s remark as a colorful way of criticizing Perry. I think a half-dozen people up thread disagree and see the comment as inappropriate.

            And no one is calling for a Council of Trent intervention. Huck and Perry are both Christians and where the incident took place doesn’t change that. That you are unable to see this and, instead, defend Huck’s remark is a bit perplexing but you have a tendency to defend the guilty sometimes. So, to each his own and we’ll just leave it at that.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            on debate performances unless they have first gone to the object of criticism and try and “settle” the matter. How would one settle a matter of opinion on woeful debate performances? Perry has himself used colorful language to describe his own performances. Huckabee uses a “set yourself on fire” metaphor.

            Would settling the case have Huckabee describe Perry’s debate performance to a car wreck? plane crash?

            Trying to understand the theology for Christian political commentators. Technically, these rules also apply to you and me.

            Did you go to Huckabee one on one before criticizing him? hmmm

          • acat

            Good thing the rules don’t apply to me.

            Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            –no–text–

          • acat

            but I don’t let that stop me from recognizing that there is, in fact, an appeal.

            I don’t understand why American Idol or Survivor are popular T.V. shows, and I’m a bit unclear on Bernoulli… but I don’t let that change the fact that the television is going to be tuned to one or the other of ‘em, nor that airplanes somehow don’t fall out of the sky. (xkcd on airfoils)

            Some folks think Huck’s the cat’s pajamas, and while they’re wrong, I’m not going to waste my time arguing it. The important thing is to be aware that the charlatan carries weight, not that he’s a charlatan.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            statement by Huckabee?

            I have seen no coherent argument made against Huckabee saying what that statement is against any rule in Scripture as applies to anyone, whether fellow Christians or not. Why? Because there isn’t a rule against metaphors about political debate performances.

            Not seeing the special evil in Huck’s commentary.

          • avagreen

            Just drop the issue. You’re not going to be convinced. You’ve turned this into a sideshow while c/o others doing the same.

            C’est la vie

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            setting oneself on fire, taking poison etc

            Its called hyperbole. Geesh the people partied too hearty for Turkey day around here…silly arguments.

          • acat

            And I had a very quiet Thanksgiving with one branch of the extended family, after a whirlwind trip to attend a reunion with another branch. Never was one for hard parties.

            Anyway, what’s going on is the result of the lingering anger at Huck, who acted the spoiler in the 2008 primary. When Huck, who styles himself a preacher, makes a politically reasonable hyperbolic statement that’s problematic under the preacher rulebook, expect him to get hammered for it, even if the hammering violates the same rules. C’est la guerre.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            and yes, people are getting too worked up over a metaphorical statement with no malice aforethought.

            Nevertheless, no one forced Huckabee to become a preacher, or to campaign heavily and explicitly as “the Christian candidate”, or to cash in on this niche appeal after his campaign went down in flames. Live by the sword, you die by it: if some people in this niche group are offended by Huckabee’s phrasing, then it’s no skin off my back.

            I do agree that some Perry supporters are taking it a bit too hard, though.

          • westcoastpatriette

            who I am convinced enjoys the dramatizing of events for the attention.(Teasing on the square, GC) And that’s fine. It seems to work for him and, in the end, he usually comes to his senses.

            As for me, I am now regretting having jumped into the discussion as I myself was not that offended by Huckabee’s comments about Perry, but could see how others were and decided to defended their position.

            I share your views much of the time, acat, with respect to mixing the rules for politics and religion and confess to a fair amount of ambivalence about how to handle when the two rulebooks conflict. I also am aware of probably sounding like a hypocrite myself sometimes in terms of how I criticize others–so I am not innocent in that regard either. What to do, what to do?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to describe the disaster of Perry’s debate performances. None.

            What you have are Perry-bots? trying to use Scripture against Huckabee when it does not apply.

            The things said by the self-described Christians here about Huckabee are more on the order of anger-directed “oughts” than Huck’s description of an event.

            Some here are assuming something about Scripture to apply somehow to Huckabee that does not exist in Scripture. What we have here is cognitive dissonance, not any serious application of known rules to self-described preachers.

          • wacowboy

            I threw a couple of forays into the discussion because I saw the question looking for the quote in question.

            What Huck said was silly and pointless. There are about a million better ways to say that a guy is a bad debater — or that he had a couple of bad debates. To say that a guy took a gasoline shower and lit a match is careless at best, especially for someone in the public eye.

            but what is said is said and done is done. Not going to talk about this anymore. Just going to treat people with respect, even if I disagree with their stance on issues.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            would have laughed at and agreed with given his own poor reviews of his own debate performance.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            re the Huckabee/Perry issue is that I’ve seen some of the self-proclaimed Christians not only fail to denounce the insults thrown around to the supporters of various candidates, but also throw some of those insults around themselves in other threads.

            Many rash or angry comments have been justified by saying “it’s just politics” and it’s fair to criticize the candidates, and personally, I disagree with the former and agree with the latter. However, I’ve certainly seen language used and comments made that aren’t Christian, including calling others “fool”, the use of the Lord’s name in vain, mild profanity, and the faux or pretend cursing to name a few, Are those things acceptable in the heat of the moment? Or do we just criticize when someone else does it?

            I know I’m guilty of letting my emotions get the best of me at times and have said things I regret. I’ve also apologized for statements made. If I’ve missed any, please consider this a blanket apology in order to get the beam out of my own eye.

          • westcoastpatriette

            when we know we have fallen short with our mouths; “Not many of you should become teachers (self-constituted censors and reprovers of others), my brethren, for you know that we teachers will be judged by a higher standard and with greater severity than other people; thus we assume the greater accountability and the more condemnation.

            For we all often stumble and fall and offend in many things. And if anyone does not offend in speech (never says the wrong things), he is a fully developed character and a perfect man, able to control his whole body and to curb his entire nature.” James 3:1-2

            So, there is hope for all of us–His mercy is new every morning.

          • changeforrickperry

            And following bzip’s example, anyone may copy and paste this and amend as you please.

            Dear Governor Huckabee,

            My family subscribes to WORLD Magazine. In the most recent issue, Marvin Olasky revealed that, after Governor Rick Perry’s debate stumble earlier this month, he contacted you and asked you to reconsider running for president. According to him, this was your response:

            ?It might be too late. It is amazing how things have turned out. I didn?t think Perry would do that well, but I never imagined he would take a gasoline shower and light a match to himself this soon.?

            When I read that statement, I was shocked that you would say such a thing. Not only was it insensitive, but the language was graphic. Self-immolation is horrifically violent, and your statement conjured images of it immediately in my mind. Your quote is now in hundreds of thousands of home across America, for millions of children to read. Some of those children may even be little Texans who have grown up with Rick Perry as their governor and a very familiar face. Some may be homeschoolers who have spoken with him face-to-face–the same homeschoolers who supported you in 2008. If this sort of violent language disturbed me, an adult, then imagine how it might affect young children.

            I wouldn’t have expected you to say such a thing about a brother in Christ. I understand that there’s bad blood between you and Governor Perry, but our country is in trouble. We don’t have the luxury to nurse grievances. In 2008 we were heading for a cliff, but in 2012 we are actually at the precipice. Governor Perry has a solid conservative record; he is not perfect, but he is consistently pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, both things that you embrace. You can’t say the same for Governor Romney, whose positions are unknown as he’s constantly changing them.

            I support Governor Perry wholeheartedly, but if you had made this statement about any of the other candidates I would have been just as angered and disappointed. We don’t need this sort of language amongst Christian conservatives. I ask that you apologize to Governor Perry for this statement, which will be well-known in the coming weeks, and throw your support to him before it’s too late.

            Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            My God man, Perry did screw up colossally, but whoa, did I just violate Scripture’s admonitions?

            Where is the line between: Perry did poorly in the debate and he set himself on fire that somehow is shocking and requiring that Huck make the statement only privately? NO WHERE!

            There is Scripture that says that a fellow member of a local church should go thru private steps before suing another member of the same church before suing in civil courts. But even if Perry and Huck attended the same local church, that admonition would not apply to commentary on a private act.

            My endorsement column will be published soon and you will like who I endorse. Please let me handle the public relations. You are too easily “shocked”!

          • changeforrickperry

            I tweeted about this quote and has received a response saying that we ought to be contacting Fox AND Huckabee demanding an apology to Perry.

            Look, if he had said this about Cain or Bachmann or anybody, I would be just as upset. This is the way the liberals talk, this blatant disregard for feelings and human decency. You don’t expect it from Republicans and certainly not a professing Christian. And now this quote is in hundreds of thousands of homes, tucked inside the latest edition of WORLD Magazine. He can’t escape from it now.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            performances. Not good for Perry.

            Get a sense of humor man. You make Perry supporters look like whining children that can’t handle the normal political commentary. I’ll bet behind the scenes Perry has referred to his won performances by even more devastating metaphors.

            This alleged controversy is just silly.

            How about this one: Perry imploded! Boom! Violation of Scripture????? Please.

          • changeforrickperry

            I’m a girl, Mike.

            Wow, didn’t expect to come home from church to this firestorm. My point in bringing up Huckabee’s statement was to show that he spoke unkindly and even graphically about Perry. Believe me, if he had said it about Cain and Bachmann, both fellow Christians, I would have been just as horrified. Don’t think he would have been called to task by others, either, if he had said it about them. It was hypocritical and unwise and more fitting for DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz than a professing believer.

            You’re entitled to your opinion, Mike. Glad you’re endorsing Perry.

          • romansdaughter

            I went to church and came back to this.

          • changeforrickperry

            “Yikes!” is the only way I can describe my reaction. Are you having a pleasant Sunday? It’s bitterly cold down here (bitter for us, anyway)–wet AND cold–so I’m staying cozy :)

          • romansdaughter

            Yes, I am enjoying my Sunday and it is extremely hot and humid down here on the Amazon. So I was taking a dip in the Amazon just to combat the heat.

          • changeforrickperry

            RedStaters are all over the world!

          • romansdaughter

            I am teaching at a Mission school down here. But I will still be back to vote for Rick Perry, Lord willing.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            You don’t like Huck’s metaphor, then respond with substance; not attempting to discredit Huck as a Christian. This is just ridiculous.

          • Xasteius

            no text

          • circlegranch

            had treated Rick Perry with half as much respect and regard as they did the other anti-Romney’s, things would be different. After the rousing and patriotic speech Perry gave at Hannity’s Freedom concert in Dallas in ’10, its disappointing that Hannity sold out.

            CNN is tolerable because we know what to expect. With Fox, they disappoint because we expect so much more.

          • avagreen

            I had it bookmarked for some of the articles, and now it’s gone?

          • gator_hoo

            So they are former colleagues there. She is still called the “Boss Emeritus” She holds a lot of sway with Allah who worked with her for years.

          • changeforrickperry

            Everything’s starting to make whole lotta sense. Thanks, gater_hoo. (*scribbles in another reason why boycotting HotAir is extremely reasonable*)

          • izoneguy
          • Scope

            that have run the C4P site for years now are apparently running short of cash. Just days before Palin announced she would not be running, they sent out an email blast asking that the Palin supporters send the biggest and bestest donation they could afford. Days later, she says she is not running. We’ve all read the multitude of stories where the PAC’s are actually in existence to enrich themselves, rather than their candidate. Very little money goes to supporting good conservative candidates with any of the PAC’s. There is no question that the C4P, and some other die hard Palinistas are willing, and able, to put that big speculation question out there yet again, just to charge up the Palinistas. They surely want to pull back all those Palin supporters that may have gone with other candidates to send mony, send money, send money. Who, other than the heads of the C4P benefit from this garbage?

          • donald_24

            Palin decided she was not going to run for president back in March when Fox suspended their contracts with Gingrich and Santorum. She knew full well she was not running in March, but yet pretended she was undecided to keep her ratings up and to keep the money flowing so that she could go on PAC funded family vacations.

            In fact, I would suspect that she knew she was not going to run for president as far back as June 2009 when she announced her resignation as governor.

      • acat

        He’s actually dreadful, he skated because McCain never *tried* to go after him, for whatever reason…

        Mew

  • cheetah2

    to call the opportunity to get in state college tuition rates a “magnet.”

    Do you seriously think people are making the dangerous journey from Mexico to Texas, becoming part of an alien culture where they don’t know the language, working and pay taxes in Texas for 3 years minimum, living outside the law, while making sure their child completes high school with good enough grades to get into college, for the sole reason that if they do so their child can get in state college tuition rates?

    The magnet is jobs. I suppose it may be all the other free stuff the federal government requires the states to give, but it is NOT instate tuition rates.

    I am certain that Mexicans who decide to come here illegally neither know nor care whether their children could ever qualify for such a thing.

    • Bill S

      I have been saying this since this nonsense first started. Show me ONE piece of data indicating that illegals are coming to the US because of in-state tuition. It is nonsensical to think that is some big magnet. As you rightly point out, JOBS are (or were) the magnet. Take away the jobs, either by employer enforcement or a poor economy and the problem of illegal immigration is greatly reduced. Nt the in-state tuition is the world’s biggest red herring.

    • arcangel

      I have been pondering a diary entry about just this point. Well done.

      If a Mexican family comes to the U.S. illegally in order to PAY a discounted rate at university for their children and a job, free healthcare, and free K-12 education are just “perks”, I am impressed with their commitment.

      The magnets come long before the opportunity to pay for education.

      • cheetah2

        It’s most annoying.

  • capitalistpig

    The instate tuition passed by the Texas legislature in 2001 was passed by overwhelming bi-partisan support with only 4 not voting.This bill is not even close to amnesty since the requirements are
    1.You must have been brought here by no fault of your own
    2.Be a Texas resident for 3 years
    3.And this is a big must,you must be pursuing and come out of the shadows and sign up for citizenship
    4.You must have graduated from a Texas High School
    Perry has stated many times,this law is a state law.Hes apposed to any kind of amnesty ,and the Federal DREAM Act.Perry has stated many times also that the border must be secured before any kind of immigration reform is discussed.
    Let me say that I am a hispanic conservative,who happens to live in El Paso,not far from Ciudad Juarez,and the many hispanics I know are Conservative by culture,and the people that do come here from Mexico is not because of welfare ,or food stamps.Im sorry,but that is false myth by both sides.What turns off the Latino votes the most is dangling Amnesty in our faces like a carrot in front of a rabbit,or websites in spanish with the intentions of getting our vote because we find that very insulting.And the other thing that is insulting is when North Eastern country club Republicans,such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich think they know more about immigration and border issues than those of us
    that actually live here and deal with them everyday,and to someone thats been dealing with it and fighting it for 11 years,such as Rick Perry.Come to El Paso,and you will see 90% of our police force is hispanic,90% of our city council members are hispanic as well.Things are different here than they are in MA ,our culture here in Texas is very different as well.And about the fence issue.There are very rugged parts of the Tex-Mex border where a fence is immpossible,if not very difficult.Is a President Bachmann ,or Romney going to put a across the bi-national Falcon Lake,or screw ranchers by cutting off their water supply?Or power grab and divide indian tribal land that crosses bi-national lines?
    Looks like it hasent even been given much thought by anyone besides Perry,hes toured and been to the border thousands of times.But first things first,the border needs to be shut down,then we will talk reform,but it sure as heck will not be amnesty.

    • greyeagle

      For so clearly explaining this issue to the posters at Red State. I am from TX and understand this issue very well and so does Governor Perry. The instate tuition is a state issue and not a federal issue. It is not amnesty and does not involve perks. However, Governor Perry has been hammered by other GOP candidates who do not understand this issue. Thank you again for sharing the correct information on this issue.

  • gator_hoo

    I’ll give you some clues: San Francisco, Austin, New York, Washington DC…

    In other words, as someone pointed out, Newt’s plan is a de facto amnesty plan. Perry’s never allows for citizenship.

    Yes, they are not the same. Perry’s is much better.

  • redmymind

    Anyone can draft a fancy “plan,” trimmings and all, but the way our country’s been goin’, I’m in no mood for “artist’s conceptions” and more promises. I want the guy who’s been hard at it for over a decade, despite the foot-dragging, abject failure the Feds have been in securing our southern border.

    I do happen to agree that Perry and Gingrich are “MILES” apart in so many ways. I’d trust the trusty outsider, proven conservative, executive, and commander-in-chief of the second largest state in the union–a real good guy–over the quintessential Washington insider who’s been “marinating in the tank” (credit to acat for the imagery) and who’s a lot more finessed in masking his gross flip-flopping than our known serial flip-flopper, Romney, who’s but an amateur in comparison.

    • acat

      I think we can trust Perry to hold Newt’s leash, and that Newt could be very helpful to Perry at making Congress go along with his plans.

      Mew

      • redmymind

        Sort of like the best of both worlds, eh?

        Wuff!

  • devereaux

    “The Gingrich letter, sponsored by the neoconservative National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), called for President Bush to offer a “new path” via guest-worker arrangements and to “recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave.” The letter was co-authored by longtime pro-immigration activist Tamar Jacoby and originally published Feb. 6, 2004, in the Wall Street Journal.

    “This letter is a clear indication that Speaker Gingrich has a deep history of supporting amnesty,” Bachmann said in the press release, sent to national media Saturday. “I don’t agree that you should make 11 million workers legal because that in effect is amnesty and will only encourage more illegal immigrants to come here”

    http://tinyurl.com/7wrt4xd

  • capitalistpig

    to endorse Rick Perry next week and campaign with him in NH.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-endorse-rick-perry-next-week/