I'm giving this its own thread because for me as for so many others, Rick Perry's debate answer on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants was a deal-breaker. His poor debate performance overall gives me great concern as to his ability to defeat Obama. But aside from that, it was his answer to that in-state tuition question that took him off my list.
But now I read this interview over at gatewaypundit regarding the Texas in-state tuition law, and Perry's position on sanctuary cities. His answers are succinct, meaningful, believable, reflective of reality and problem-solving, and respecting of federalism and the constitution. But more importantly, his answers do not differ policy-wise from what he said at the debate. The difference is not any flip-flop on the issue. It is an articulation of what he failed so miserably to try to get across at the debate. He essentially tried to say the same thing at the debate, but handled it so poorly that he sent his campaign crashing to earth.
Reading this has me rethinking Perry. Not reversing, because I have doubts about his ability to win - but rethinking. We've only got so many candidates to choose from, and we know the establishment has said they're going to put it in high gear to try to force-feed Romney. There are obviously all kinds of reasons to avoid Romney. We NEED a not-Romney to emerge, fast.
Paul is Nowhere. Santorum is nowhere. Huntsman is no one. Gingrich is not trustworthy. Bachmann is flailing and tanking. Cain is prone to verbal diarrhea. And then there's Perry. $17Million raised in 49 days.
I love Herman Cain, and I think that in a head-to-head, he could beat Obama, IF he can keep control of his mouth. Just yesterday, he says, "If you don't have a job or you're not rich, blame yourself." Now I know what he means in the larger context: pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop complaining. But critics are right when they say that the Leftists will use that against him in the general election to cynically suggest insensitivity to millions of people who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Verbal gaffes like this pour out of this man's mouth almost daily. The encouraging thing is that so far he seems to wiggle out from under the weight of these statements with relative ease.
But I only speak of Cain in this thread to say that our "not-Romney" choices are very limited. The race could change, but right now, it's Romney, Perry, and Cain. Gingrich and Bachmann are wild-cards, but I see little hope for either, and little reason to support Gingrich. That leaves Perry and Cain.
I'm wanting to start a discussion on whether - in light of his clarified stance on the Texas tuition law posted below - if Rick Perry deserves another look.
Rick Perry Continues to Oppose DREAM Act and Sanctuary CitiesJohn Hawkins at Right Wing News interviewed Governor Rick Perry this week on immigration issues. If you’re wondering where Rick Perry stands, you will have a better idea after reading this interview.
Here is part of that discussion:
[blockquote]The real question becomes what can we expect from Rick Perry on the issue if he becomes President? That question had yet to be answered — until today. I was pleased to get an opportunity to do an in-depth written interview with Rick Perry that covers his position on illegal immigration. If you’re wondering where Rick Perry stands, after reading this interview, you will know.
[blockquote]
You supported the Texas version of the DREAM ACT which incidentally, was very popular in your state. It passed 27-3 in the Senate and 130-2 in the House. However, you would not support the DREAM ACT nationally if you became President of the United States. Why is that?The federal DREAM Act is an amnesty bill, and I strongly oppose amnesty. The Texas educational residency bill was vastly different.
Because the federal government has failed in its basic duty to protect our borders, states are forced to deal with illegal immigrant issues.
In Texas, we had to deal with the children of illegal immigrants residing in our state and attending our schools, as the federal government requires states to educate these children through the public school system. Lawmakers in Texas – indisputably one of the most conservative states in America – were virtually unanimous in their decision.
The Legislature determined the payment of in-state college tuition is available to all students who have lived in Texas for at least three years and graduated from a public high school. If you meet those requirements, you pay in-state tuition, whether you relocated from Oklahoma, Idaho, Canada or Mexico. The only difference is that Texas residents who aren’t documented must be on the path to pursue U.S. citizenship to be allowed to pay in-state tuition.
There were a number of reasons the bill received widespread support among conservatives. Importantly, it has never had a cost to Texas taxpayers. In fact, our institutions of higher learning would actually lose tens of millions of dollars in lost tuition payments if the law were repealed.
And it would lower the odds that these students would receive subsidized health care or end up in prison. Protecting taxpayers was a serious concern, given that a Supreme Court decree already requires taxpayers to pay for K-12 education for undocumented students.Now you worked to outlaw sanctuary cities in Texas. Tell us why that is.I called for abolishing sanctuary cities in my last State of the State address, and made it an emergency item for the Legislature. I’m a firm believer in giving law enforcement the discretion they need to do their job. Sanctuary city policies handcuff law enforcement officers in order to further a political agenda.[/blockquote]
