(Vanity) Thoughts on Perry

grey_whiskers | Aug. 16, 2011 | grey_whiskers

[smokingfrog]

Careful now wardaddy. You’re starting to talk too much sense.

[FredZarguna]

Reagan's full blown conversion clearly happens in 1951, although he remained a Democrat for a while, IIRC. Still, Renaldus Magnus certainly embraced John Connally and [lots of the rest of us who came over from the dark side.]

Perry's conversion does not bother me. Converts are often more zealous than those born into the faith. Perry's policies and actions as governor are a far more significant source of concern.

[LibFreeUSA]

Perry is married to his southern MEHICANO neighbors just like his “Compassionate Conservative” predecessor, so you’re guaranteed to only get lip-service on controlling illegal immigration from this fake conservative. OHHH, you also forgot to mention that he also pandered to a racist organization (La Raza) by going and speaking at their convention, giving them credibility to their racist agenda. The guy is HORRIBLE, and all these people fawning all over him have been sold by his ‘image’. No wonder the country got suckered so easily in 2008.

[CitizenUSA]

BuckeyeTexan: “To give access to the vaccine to those who couldn’t afford it for the price of a copay, he went with an Executive Order to make it mandatory.”

Right. So he sought a big government solution to a problem that rightly should have been left to the people. Why not just mandate that government (taxpayers) pick up the tab for whatever else people can't afford? Did it ever occur to "small government" Perry to let private charitable foundations handle the relatively small number of cases where folks truly couldn't afford the $380 vaccines?

[wardaddy]

It’s about Perry as threat to Sarah for them...they are just using this guise to attack Perry

rather transparent...but Bachamnn...like me converted at 22/23 and at the same historical time for same reasons..Carter...1977 I think

Perry...in 1989...at 40 He did it to get elected....very late to the curve

Magnus did it because the Dems went social lib...1962...and he knew it early...all that Civil rights stuff he eschewed

but I don’t doubt that Perry is fairly socially right...more than Bush

He is a problem on borders...but hell..except Bachmann...they have all done or said stuff I ain’t crazy on about immigration...

and Bachmann could well turn too...believe none of them will ignore the latino vote completely...they can do that with the black vote...a lost cause but you just watch...they will parse amnesty...path to citizenship and all that yip yap...

any of them could likely try to grant something...Bush tried and it took all we had to stop him...barely...I don’t trust any of them on borders...they could all want to be rainmakers over that one

[DRey]

This guy was challenged in the primary from the right.Oh, good grief. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was RIGHT of Perry? My gosh, WHERE are you getting your misinformation?! She is a RINO that puts McLame to shame! Her campaign manager was none other than KARL ROVE. Ever heard of him?

Seriously, people. You need to wake up and start listening. The smear campaigns against Perry are all coming from the libs and RINOs.

Need accurate info on Perry? I'm an email away with the truth.

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

Can you refute anything in the post?

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

Any posts which cast Perry in a negative light, even if factually accurate, will not be tolerated.

Such facts are a buzzkill, and they interfere with the Perrygasms everyone is having.

[ansel12]

Sure, conversion is good, but when most of are thinking of officially anointing a man in his 60s our conservative hero, we don’t think in terms of that man having been anti-Reagan in the 1980s, and pro-Rudy Giuliani 3 years ago.

[newzjunkey]

First off: THERE IS NO PALIN CANDIDACY. She's asked every other day. Her answer hasn't changed.

Next: Too many Palin supporters feel they have nothing positive to do while they wait.

They betray their desired candidate by spreading misinformation about those running for the nomination.

Offer the real facts, let people make up their minds, just as you'd demand of people shedding light on Palin's record.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You’re applying today’s conservative logic to a decision made in 1988 when Texas was controlled by Democrats and had been for decades. Gore was the most conservative Democrat at that time. He was pro-life, pro-guns, pro-defense, and pro-tobacco. Gore’s primary campaign didn’t succeed because he was too conservative to win the Dem nomination. Perry switched parties shortly after that campaign when he realized that his values were a better fit with the Republican platform than with the Democratic platform, which was being taken over by the hard-core, extreme-left nutcases.

[nathanbedford]

Whiskers:

Thanks for a good and comprehensive post. Here are some thoughts which you provoked:

Coincidentally, I just posted this reply which follows in quotation marks to another thread. The last paragraph has been added to address your concerns about Kerry's conservatism because he appears to be condoning teen sex with the issuance of his executive order. Thereafter, I consider your other points.

"If this were a vaccination of schoolchildren against a communicable disease such as smallpox, I would have no problem whatsoever with the state, as opposed to the federal government, mandating inoculation.

In a communicable disease the law can require the inoculation because the state has an interest in protecting innocents from contracting a disease from those who refuse to be inoculated.

However, this is not a communicable disease but a preventative for cancer. As such it should be wholly voluntary. The problem with this Executive Order is that it was not wholly voluntary but required action on the part of the parents to opt out. This is an encroachment on individual liberty but not one that sends me to the barricades. The parents did, after all, have the option to opt out. So the objection is more procedural than substantive. The law should leave the option for parents to opt in.

There is some argument to the effect that the procedure to opt out was onerous and the executive order did not properly provide for notifying the parents of their rights. Again, these objections, if real, are procedural rather than substantive. In my judgment they do not demonstrate a disqualifying tendency in the statist to dominate the individual."

But all of this seems to me to miss the main point.

But does it? Is the issue one of mandating an intrusion into the body or somehow condoning teen sex? If it is an issue of intruding into the body, the degree to which it is mandatory and the degree to which parents can opt out become very relevant and the quality of the procedure provided becomes relevant. I conclude that the Executive Order was misguided and the procedure was probably not as forthright and transparent as possible. But these are venal procedural miscalculations not mortal sins.

With all of the furor over Obamacare and mandatory payments, why is it a good thing to order mandatory vaccines for something which is picked up through *voluntary* behaviour?

Because the "voluntary" behavior might well have been done by a minor and the law has a long tradition of presuming that minors are not capable, or at least not as capable as an adult, of the mens rea required either to commit a crime, to vote, or to drive a vehicle. The law presumes the children are not adults and with good reason.

There is a substantial difference between such an inoculation and providing children condoms. The one is far removed from the other in the sense that inoculation does not facilitate sex and is not immediate to the act. It does not prevent the contraction of STDs, as I understand it, merely the ensuing consequences, namely, cancer. There is a huge difference in perception.

Doesn’t this undermine the moral authority of the parents?

No, because the parents have the option to opt out. We may cavil about the regularity or quality of the procedure but the ultimate power of the parents to have their way was preserved. They remain sovereign they remain the ultimate authority.

This sounds more like a Romney-type stunt than the behaviour of a true conservative!

If there were no opt out provisions then the requirements would in fact be mandatory and it would be similar not just to Romney but to Obama in requiring the individual to buy health insurance with no opt out provision.

Trans-Texas Corridor

Clearly, the power of the state and not just a state but of the federal government as well to build roads is unquestioned. Since colonial times both kinds of governments have done so. And since colonial times private entities have built toll roads. Citizens ride on one every day to Dulles Airport. Unlike Obama Care, there is no obligation to drive on the road and pay the toll.

Eminent domain for a public purpose is entirely constitutional and entirely within our culture and part of the capitalist structure providing the property owner is fairly compensated and the use is for a public purpose. A public road clearly is a public purpose even though built by a private concern which charges tolls to pay the bonds which were created to fund construction.

I have no knowledge of whether this was touted as a green project and cannot comment. As to rail transportation, we have a history of the United States of government corporation with and authorization of private companies to be granted right of ways to build rail lines. In the 19th century our rail lines were financed to a great degree by foreign, British, investors. Whole sections of America were populated with grants of land given to private companies who build railroads and sent the profits (or losses) to British investors.

Highway and rail communications are absolutely fundamental to a growing economy and Texas is growing economically and in population at an explosive rate. I do not see anything inherently anti-conservative in building roads and railroads.

Perhaps my American prejudice against railroads as been diminished by my experience here in Europe where traveling by rail is a positive experience and one I prefer whenever distances permit over air travel.

As for the "double taxation" argument, it seems to me that is a matter for a budget calculation. If state gasoline taxes were insufficient to build such a highway, there was no double taxation.

Support of Al Gore; Dream Act and Immigration

Perry's got a lot 'splainin' to do to satisfy me on these issues.

Soft on Islam

I have posted long and hard on these threads that war against the terrorism conducted by militant Islam can only be won by Muslims. We simply do not have the resources to dominate more than 1 billion Muslims from the Atlantic to the Hindu Kush.

Therefore, we have to be very careful, as George Bush was, in how we handle our relations with "moderate" (if there be such an animal-but we have to assume there is.) Islam.

That said, we must be vigilant against the imposition of sharia at home, we must fight PC acceptance of Islam tooth and nail, we must not permit Islam to be morally equated with Christianity.

Polling Data

So far, Perry's surge is undeniable. He is consuming all the oxygen. I very much regret the selfish and ultimately self-defeating attitude of the Perry/Palin camps in waging internecine guerrilla war. I suspect most of it is unauthorized. It is certainly unproductive.

I think Perry is setting the proper example which I have commented on these threads which is to leave his Republican rivals behind as he goes after Obama and bitch slaps him black and blue.

[CitizenUSA]

Perry’s 1988 political conversion doesn’t bother me one bit. As you mentioned, many other good, conservative people were once Democrats. What bothers me is his much more recent endorsement of Guiliani. That definitely raises my spider sense.

[FredZarguna]

Apparently Sarah Palin wasn't thinking in those terms as of very recently, either; and I don't know that she's changed her mind.

Less than 20 Years before Reagan's conversion, he was supporting FDR.

[BuckeyeTexan]

It wasn’t a relatively small number of cases where folks couldn’t afford it. Hispanics in Texas are a majority not a minority. And that majority, in Texas, has a very high rate of teen pregnancy, which means many young Hispanic girls are having sexual intercourse instead of practicing abstinence and are at high risk for contracting HPV.

Even so, Perry understands that he made the wrong decision. And ultimately, the EO was overturned and young girls were not vaccinated by force against their parents’ wishes.

[ansel12]

Bachmann supported Carter to keep Reagan out.

Man, really? In 1976 Bachmann worked for and voted for the candidate that many conservatives supported, Carter, and the race was against the pro-choice, Watergate contaminated Ford (not Reagan).

When Reagan was running for President in 1980, Bachmann worked for his campaign and of course voted for him.

Bachmann made the famously common, Carter to Reagan switch in 1980, Perry didn't, in fact, in 1984 he ran for office as a Democrat, and in 1988 supported Democrat Al Gore to replace President Reagan.

Last election while we were running the Giuliani thread here, Rick Perry was endorsing him.

From Al Gore, to Rudy Giuliani in two decades, those are oddly consistent Presidential bookends for the potential "leader of the conservative movement".

[LucyT]

Check out Article, - and Perry's comments from 2008, in which he quotes the koran, knowingly. And, there's more about Perry and his islamic friends.

Thanks, grey_whiskers. This guy is dangerous, and we've been warned.

[wardaddy]

It's funny ...I was banned here 5 years ago for a year along with a few others for being anti amnesty...and called racist for that...a dustup with Howlin and Sinkspur ensured my temporary fate...the aftermath of Travis McGee versus Tony Snow (rip)...Tony aped the soft Bush line on illegals

they..the moderate freepers who lived to zot eventually showed their true colors which I already knew...and they left to antifreep

now here we are today...and arguably the key issue used to beat Perry or Palin over the head with is their ambiguities about borders and immigration and illegals and whatnot...in that they are not tough enough about illegals enforcement, deportation and no amnesty...debatable or not

and even more bizarre is that some of the moderates from that time allied with still departed Howlin and Stinkie who all left to anti freep over Rudy Giuliani...are now back and running hard as Palin supporters still having zotgasms over folks who get in their way...how in the Sam Hill does one go from supporting pro gun control, pro homo, pro abort Rudy to the complete opposite in Sarah Palin...and then go on zot fests here with one's new found affections...convictions...err...whatever you call em

so I ask anyone...what core values do some here truly stand for?

hell if I know...cause it changes...like the wind...and all those cackling with delight now..better watch their backs...the dog bowl here is a moving target...reach for it one day and you're fine...next day..dog bites ya

now if Sarah doesn't enter...what are all this folks gonna do?

I like her...she is an incredible speaker...moved me to watery eyes and my wife sobbing with her first two big speeches...and I...share most of her views but I ain't married to her (she's hot and all...oh yeah) but I want which ever social conservative I can help get nominated....if it's Sarah...great...Bachmann...great...the other real social righties...don't have any chance...then there is Perry...I just don't know yet...he troubles me some...positives and negatives but better than Bush or Romney

*yes...I know this color commentating is Swahili to newer posters...but it's relevant...at least to me...”which way was that windmill again Sancho”..lol

[ansel12]

Palin registered “Reagan Republican” at age 18 and never looked back.

By the 1950s Reagan was formally CAMPAIGNING for Republicans, Eisenhower in 1952, and 1956, and Nixon in 1960.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You’re welcome.