Talk:Rick Perry 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Global warming
The current version has the following sentence under "announcement":
 * On August 17, 2011, Perry said that he belives that global warming hasn't been caused by humans and if he becomes president he will not support the United States spending money on things to help prevent global warming.

This has nothing to do with his announcement to run for President. It should go in a new section, with more statements describing his political views on various topics. The12thMan (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference?
Is there a reference for Rick_Perry_presidential_campaign,_2012 ...

This was removed from Climate change policy of the United States ...

Some potential sources for references ... Rick_Perry ... With related Media coverage of climate change and resulting Public opinion on climate change. 99.35.12.88 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's in the other article, then there is no reason to duplicate it here. It's not about his Campaign - it belongs in the other article with regard to his political positions.  Morphh   (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unclear why this was removed ... "Rick Perry suggested global warming is a hoax"
Rick Perry suggested global warming is a hoax (Global Warming Hoax). from CBS News not a blog. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That content is presented on his article on his opinion for climate change. Also, it's not a statement he made, so you're taking someones words (opinion) and stating it as fact.  It's better to present what Perry said, not what others suggest he said.   Morphh   (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Rick_Perry. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Resource regarding independent voters
Rick Perry: a candidate for whom 'unpresidential' is a virtue; Texas governor's stance on economy and global warming may play well with the US right, but it turns off independents by Chris McGreal 19.August.2011 99.181.138.36 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More As Drought Worsened, Rick Perry Slashed Fire-Fighting Spending by Tim Murphy September 7, 2011 141.218.36.45 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mother Jones 99.181.130.99 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see Rick Perry on global warming and resulting climate change and Talk:Tea Party movement: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole 141.218.36.43 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Too Classy of a Quote
"Perry's performances in the GOP debates received generally poor reviews from the media with Brit Hume of Fox News stating that Perry "really did throw up all over himself" in his third debate.[15]"

So that's the quote you're going to choose? Really? If the reviews are "generally" poor as stated, perhaps you could find a more tasteful quote for this trend? Just a thought. Thanks122.26.60.62 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Veriss (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

resource for wife and victimisation accusation

 * Anita Perry faults Washington for her son leaving his job by Maggie Haberman October 14 2011 4:48 PM EDT  99.190.85.250 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource
Perry to Call for Flat Tax in Economic Plan OCTOBER 19, 2011, 6:58 P.M. ET by JOHN D. MCKINNON 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Flat tax 99.190.87.108 (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's tax plan; A flat reception The Economist resource
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/rick-perrys-tax-plan Oct 25th 2011, 19:59 by W.W. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

BusinessWeek resource Rick Perry’s Not-Really-All-That-Flat Tax and revenue
The plan would simplify the code but come up far short on revenue October 27, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Richard Rubin and Peter Coy Also see Steve Forbes and Dick Armey.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Balanced budget ... 99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Loss of Momentum
I know the debates have been blamed for Perry's fall off in the polls. I have a theory, which I guess is not of my own thinking along, that the answer to the Texas Dream Act and his staunch backing of it destroy his viability in the Republican primary. Is there any quantitative evidence to back this up? Manofmyth (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Texas air quality resource
From Talk:United States Environmental Protection Agency ... E.P.A. Is Longtime Favorite Target for Perry by John M. Broder and Kate Galbraith in September 29, 2011 NYT, regarding Rick Perry related to the Rick Perry presidential campaign, 2012. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/29/us/politics/texas-air-pollution-compared-to-other-states.html?ref=politics Regarding greenhouse gases, Texas has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, but still releases more than any other state, currently over 600 million tons.  Ozone concentrations are down significantly, but the Houston and Dallas areas do not meet federal standards.  Texas has focused on reducing its nitrogen oxides emissions, which are a precursor to ozone, during still the highest emitter, at currently over 1.5 million tons.

'Brain freeze'
The last paragraph quotes Perry as saying he suffered a 'brain freeze' during the recent debate. However, that Wikipedia page redirects to Ice-cream headache. It might be original research, but perhaps linking to brain fart would be more appropriate? That seems more like what happened to Perry. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither are appropriate for a BLP. Arzel (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently there's a concerted attempt to suppress this. At this point it's the thing the individual is most noted for, at least currently, but you can't find it in any article related to Perry. This is the one where it should be, if not in Rick Perry itself. Lycurgus (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article currently has a paragraph describing the incident and its aftermath. Primogen (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jon Huntsman, Jr. relationship resource
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/us/politics/republican-candidates-share-complicated-relationships.html Friend? Foe? A Republican Scorecard] 99.181.134.134 (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Strong" video
Hey, I noticed someone removed the data about his YouTube video being disliked by over 200,000 people (and FYI, it's over 300,000 400,000 500,000 now). Why? I consider the fact that Perry's video has turned into an internet meme that is one of the five most disliked videos in the history of YouTube to be quite significant, especially since it only took a couple of days. I've even toyed with starting an article on just the video, considering the swift response it's gotten  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And for the record, I did a Google search, and rick perry strong youtube (no quotes) gets 2M hits, while Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an established WP article, gets only 200K.  Certainly a case for a greater mention of "Strong" (including its response) in this article, if not for a whole separate article  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see last night, other editors have added the dislike data with reliable sources. Good  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are sources galore for this. I support this move. If you start it, let me know and I will help out --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  23:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements Section?
What happened to the endorsements section of this article? I'm not familiar with how to work the editing functions of Wikipedia too much, so I can't figure out when i got deleted... Somebody with more expertise should look into this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.168.1 (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The endorsement section is still there. If it was deleted at one point, it's been restored.--JayJasper (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To see his endorsements, click "show" on the light blue box in the endorsement section  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Rick Perry's War on Women by Jordan Smith November 30, 2011. This article appeared in the December 19, 2011 edition of The Nation, excerpt ...

99.56.122.24 (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic charities and war on religion
A sentence on Perry's attack on Obama has [been in dispute]. The source clearly states that Perry was referencing the non-renewal of a Catholic charity, which he attributed to religious persecution or a supposed "war on religion". Editors cannot jump the gun here and disregard what Perry was speaking about with statistics of their own, because it runs into POV-pushing. The source cited is already an Op-Ed, and the facts need to be stated to give readers necessary background. I am willing to compromise with a line from the Op-Ed like so:

Perry said the Obama administration has an agenda to "go after" Catholic charities serving victims of human trafficking and that this is an example of Obama's "war on religion", even though Catholic organizations received $1.5 billion from the federal government in the last two years. [Too POV]

--to--

Perry criticized the non-renewal of a grant for a Catholic organization, the U.S. Bishops Council on Migratory and Refugee Services, saying the administration's decision to reduce federal funding was an example of Obama's "war on religion" 'Time magazine argued that Perry's criticisms against Obama were overblown, as Catholic organizations had received $1.5 billion in federal grant monies in the last two years of Obama's administration.' .- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The attribution of the $1.5 billion counter-argument to Time is fine. The first sentence is inaccurate; Perry did not refer to the non-renewal of a grant, though one can reasonably infer the issue to which he was referring. But Wikipedia reports facts – or sourced reasonable facsimiles thereof – not inferences. "Go after", as indicated by the quotation marks, is a direct quote. I assume there's no objection to "war on religion", since it remains in the proposed change above. I think an accurate compromise phrasing could be:


 * In an apparent reference to the non-renewal of a grant for a Catholic organization, the U.S. Bishops Council on Migratory and Refugee Services, Perry said the administration's decision to reduce federal funding was an example of Obama's "war on religion". Time magazine argued that Perry's criticisms against Obama were overblown, as Catholic organizations had received $1.5 billion in federal grant monies in the past two years of Obama's administration.


 * Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'm glad we were able to reach an agreement here.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 04:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry dropping out of elections?
"As of 1/15/12, Rick Perry announced in a press conference that he is dropping out of the 2012 Presidential Candidacy Race and is endorsing fellow Republican Mitt Romney." --Hmmm....Either needs a source or needs to be removed NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.204.106 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)