Posted on 08/28/2011 10:01:59 AM PDT by The Bronze Titan
If you’re a Tea Party member, or you have significant sympathies with them, I’d caution you against climbing aboard Rick Perry’s TransTexasCatastrophe. The Media is doing everything possible to paint this guy as a bronc-busting, cattle-roping, Texan, but in truth, there are more than a few things you ought to know about him. He’s no friend to individual rights, except in an election season, and he’s not really the trend-setter he’d have you believe. His record on jobs isn’t actually so swift as he’d have you believe, and he’s got less in common with the average Texan than he does with the Wall Street types with whom he prefers to consort. He’s no friend of Main Street, and he’s certainly no friend to real entrepreneurs, and for all his posturing as one of us, he isn’t, and it’s been quite plain. Those of you from outside Texas can be forgiven for mistaking Perry for a conservative. It’s assumed because he’s a Republican, and he’s from Texas, he must be. Let me now explain a bit of why this isn’t the case.
Friday I heard the increasingly estimable Mark Davis claim that you shouldn’t mind that Perry converted from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party because, as he points out, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat too. Of course, this is a lie by omission, because what Davis doesn’t mention is that it was a long stretch of years between Reagan’s conversion and his arrival in California electoral politics. This isn’t the case with Rick Perry. He was Al Gore’s Texas Campaign Manager in 1988, and following the loss, immediately reversed course and ran as a Republican. I don’t know about you, but despite Davis’ rather disingenuous interpretation of Reagan’s conversion, painting it as just alike, I’m inclined to believe he left some details out intentionally.
Rick Perry has been a regular guest on Davis’ show on WBAP in the D/FW area for years, and to consider Davis anything like an objective or unbiased voice in this stretches all credulity. Frankly, I hope Limbaugh finds somebody else to be a regular fill in, because Davis is clearly in the tank for Perry, and it runs against Limbaugh’s general premise that he will take no position in a Republican primary, except in general terms on behalf of conservatism.
You may have heard some of Perry’s more recent statements about conditions along the Texas border with Mexico, and you might be inclined to believe Mr. Perry thinks more should be done. He even tried to repair his credibility on the issue by being broadcast on a live feed from a base of operations near the border for an interview on Greta Van Susteren’s show. If you believe that stage-managed bit of theater, I’m inclined to let you know right now that he’s relatively no more conservative in real terms than George Bush, which is to say on the matter of his statist, globalist reflexes, he’s no conservative at all. I’d hate it if anybody else broke the news to you, because I believe bad news is best delivered by a friend. Check out the following video for where Rick Perry really stands on issues of the border:
I realize there’s a tendency to overstate things in the name of supporting one’s position, but it’s really no exaggeration to suggest that Perry isn’t really very close in his thinking to Tea Party Members, not when measured against what he’s been saying since October 2010, but in what he has said all along throughout his career. He’s taken money and support from La Raza, ACORN, and other groups that advocate spending tax-payer dollars for dubious programs and projects.
He’s also a crony-capitalist. If you’re like me, that’s simply something you can’t abide. I love the free market, but Governor Perry’s revolving door between his staff and corporate boardrooms is a well-established phenomenon, and frankly, if you buy into his nonsense, he’s going to wind up exploiting your good intentions too. Companies like Merck and Cintra are more his style, and his staff has reflected this over the years of his gubernatorial reign.
You’ve undoubtedly heard about the Gardasil flap, and likely been willing to dismiss it as a fluke. That would be a serious and potentially tragic mistake. The most ridiculously egregious thing he may have done in his tenure as Governor of Texas was the proposed TransTexas Corridor. You may have heard of it, but may not have any details, so let me expound on that for a moment or two. This was the project that first enlightened me to Perry’s big government answers to all things. The upshot is this: It was to be a vast network of toll roads, but more, it would have included some form of light and heavy rail, pipelines, and all manner of things. On the surface, this might sound attractive, but as with any such project, the devil lies in the details.
The plan included 4400 linear miles of a toll road network, running parallel in many cases to existing Highways and Interstates already in existence. The corridor’s right of way was to be a full 1/4 mile wide. Simple math tells you that even ignoring junctions and interchanges, this would have consumed 1100 square miles of Texas’ territory. You might argue that while it’s a lot of land, Texas is a big state. That’s all well and good if the state already owns the land, but since it doesn’t, it was going to acquire it by use of eminent domain. Again, you might argue that building roads is one function for which eminent domain ought to apply, but once you look at the rules to be applied to this project, you might well conclude otherwise. Rather than basing their offers to property owners on free market value, they instead intended to limit it to “fair market value” as determined by a panel of cronies they would gin up for the chore.
This project actually proposed bisecting county and farm roads, and even property, dead-ending what are fairly important thoroughfares for the communities they serve. More, it would have bisected school districts and even towns along its path. Again, you might think that impossible until you understand that this was to be a closed system with few exits or on-ramps, only permitting access at major Highway and Interstate junctions. This threatened to destroy many rural communities, and they rose up against it. Once the details became clear to the public, it was quickly sent back for re-work, and eventually dumped.
Here were the things they didn’t advertise, but you need to know. It was supposed to be operate by a concessionaire, Cintra, for a period of 50 years. It was going to employ tolls of roughly $0.26 per mile. A geographical understanding of the scale of Texas immediately prompts the question: “Who on Earth would voluntarily pay to enter a closed-system roadway at that cost over the huge distances in Texas, when a free parallel alternative is just a few miles away in the form of an Interstate, or Highway?” Good question, and the answer is: Almost nobody. So how did they intend to make this work? In 2004,TxDOT applied to the USDOT for a waiver so that they could charge a toll on the existing I-35. The first leg of the proposed TTC system was called TTC-35, the leg that would run from Laredo to an undetermined point on the Oklahoma border. In other words, it was a corridor to nowhere, but in order to get you to use it, they were going to toll the free Interstate and let it fall into disrepair.
Opponents at the time argued that the existing I-35 corridor could be widened, and this was met with a dismissive rejection by Perry’s Transportation Commission. They said it couldn’t be done in a cost-efficient way. Your confusion at this statement matches that of the average Texan who realizes that this couldn’t possibly be true. How hard is it to add a few lanes here and there? Yes, you’ll have some eminent domain issues, but nothing on the scale of what the TTC proposed.
They also promised it would promote economic development, but what they kept concealed for a while, until they no longer could do so under the law, was that because it was a closed system, Cintra, the corporation from Spain that would build and operate it, would also have exclusive rights to all concessions along its length. More, due to the limitations on exits and on-ramps, it could never be shown how this colossal highway system would provide any sort of economic boon to anybody, because you wouldn’t be able to access most smaller towns from along its length. I’m sure you’ll agree with me that the fact that one of Perry’s top staffers was a former Cintra VP, and the fact that one of his own staffers had gone on to work for Cintra had absolutely nothing to do with Perry’s TTC plans. Right?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you’ve fallen prey to the hype about Perry, you may be forgiven, particularly if you’re not from Texas. You’re not aware, as so many here, that Perry isn’t the fellow he’s now being portrayed to be. He’s not a friend to the Tea Party, despite his seeming 2010 conversion, because much like his conversion in 1989, this conversion also seems to be one of convenience. I will assure you, this is most definitely the case.
Perry likes to put on an act about his conservative credentials, and his sympathies with the Tea Party, but if the truth is told, he’s no more one of us than the man in the Moon. You might want to let your fellow conservatives and Tea Party patriots know it too: We’re being hustled again.
Really? Is it that you don’t think the middle class is being decimated, or you’re not part of it so you don’t care?
We did have people to vet Obama, problem is we had a canadite we didn’t want to se any of it against Obama, secondly the media is a shill for the DNC, and they’re not going to expose it. Obama will have a tougher go in this next election almost any of our guys will beat him if they can run a good campIgn that is.
“Alaska is a thinly populated state so even if her record was exceptional, it doesn’t mean much. IMO”
Not even going to waste my time with you.
It works both ways.
Yes it does, doesn’t it.
Yes there are many big government liberal republicans here like you that support Perry.
It explains a lot.
I agree, I was thinking about thid last night. Without Rudy’s steady hand NYC could have descended into chaos. He was the lighthouse in the storm. No one can ever take that away from him. Plus his work as a Prosecutor. Yeah he has his warts but what politician doesn’t. My problem with him has been his ambievalence about life.
Well said!
Other than Romney and Paul I'm happy with any of the candidates. I don't expect we will ever find a perfect candidate, but with a conservative House and a growing conservative presence in the Senate I think whatever flaws our nominee may have will be off set by the Legislative body. One aspect of the Tea Party that doesn't get discussed is their willingness to go against leadership. I think this is great and don't see it changing under a Pub POTUS.
You know what, in 20/20 hindsight Giuliani would have been a far better candidate compared to McCain and damn far better POTUS than what we ended up with because McCain blew the election. Cheney mentioned the uselessness of McCain’s suspending his campaign to attend that meeting in which he added nothing to the discussion. Maybe Perry was smarter than we know.
Great post. It’s true that he’s been vetted for years. You can’t get nuttier than Alex Jones or more left than those papers you mention.
Yet another Perry supporter shows their true colors.
Giuliani? Really? Pro-abort pro-gay marriage anti-gun Giuliani? The guy who put all is effort into FL and got crushed even though he was a front runner leading into the primaries?
Cheney was right about McCain but that doesn’t make Giuliani a better pick.
You and many of the Perry supporters here put a republican win above a conservative win. You don’t care if anything gets fixed or changes just as long as there is an R after the name.
Your time is passed. We are facing the weakest dem incumbent in modern history, there is a huge grass roots movement demanding reform that has already had great electoral success (Tea Party) and you cowards want to pick bush2 because he feels like a “safe” candidate to you.
Pathetic.
Can you comprehend what I wrote? I said IN 20/20 HINDSIGHT that Guiliani would have been a better candidate than John McCain. That is the truth like it or not. He definitely would have been a better POTUS than 0bama.
Face it, McCain blew the election when he told everyone we didn’t have anything to fear if 0bama won. He was utterly wrong and we are all paying the price for allowing JM to be the nominee in 2008. We’ll be lucky if we have a constitutional republic if we don’t take back the WH this next election. I don’t think that would be the case if Guiliani had won. And no I didn’t vote for him but I can see where he would have been better for the US than Barack HUSSEIN 0bama.
If you are too dumb to see that then I am not going to bother explaining any further.
Can you comprehend what I wrote? I said IN 20/20 HINDSIGHT that Giuliani would have been a better candidate than John McCain. That is the truth like it or not.
Nonsense. His primary election strategy was a disaster and conservatives would have stayed home in droves. O's win would have been epic.
He definitely would have been a better POTUS than 0bama.
No he wouldn't have. We would have got much the same policy-wise but the Republicans would have owned it instead of the Dems.
Face it, McCain blew the election
On this we agree though his pick of Palin as VP almost got him the win until he blew it with the "suspend the election" move. Though the whole "near collapse of the financial system" didn't help either.
And once again you prove that you are driven by fear and not logic when it comes to electoral politics. You would happily take a liberal as long as they have an R after their name.
Well I'm not afraid of the Dems, the MSM or Obama. That's why I won't settle for a big government republican with 2 slush funds of taxpayer money that he doles out to his campaign donors as he praises his version of the DREAM act.
We can and we will do much better than bush2.
I’m not driven by fear. I’m driven by reality. An ideologically pure candidate doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the general election. It takes more than ideology to govern.
And no Rudy Guiliani wouldn’t have been the same as 0bama policy wise. He is a fiscal conservative and would not have bowed down to our enemies every chance he could get.
Until you read the book you cannot know of what you speak.
The other group(mine) is determined to clean up Washington DC and is looking for a candidate that will take on the corruption in all political parties. Defeating Obama is merely one step in the process.
The problem with the first group is that they fear Obama so much that they will settle for anyone they believe will defeat him. You won’t win anything coming from a position of fear.
It’s time to look for bold leadership, not a band-aid administration.
SPOT ON. Yet another excellent post from the driver!
Marlowe, why the words "destroy" and "hatred"? Can you only conclude that no one would want to challenge Perry for any other reasons?
Is your hand so weak that you have to resort to such emotion-driven words to describe people here who are helping to VET a Republican in a race where his other opponents are Republicans?
Years ago I read the frightening accusation that Palin had established a windfall profits tax on oil companies in Alaska. I was heartbroken, but glad to learn of it early so I could get off the stick, do some investigating, and alert fellow conservatives not to support her. Years earlier, a Republican pundit (Hugh Hewitt) I respected greatly spoke highly of Mitt Romney. I was so glad, and got off the stick to do some investigating because I wanted to alert fellow conservatives about Romney's great potential.
I learned that the so-called "windfall profits tax" was a myth. I learned that Romney was a statist who was registered "Republican." In both situations, I was happy to be part of the vetting process that broadened the information base with which readers of FR might make smarter choices. Stupid choices arise from ignorance and fear. Smart choices come from being informed and having the courage of your convictions.
Redux here with Perry, though I haven't engaged in it much because I'm not very interested in Perry right now -- I'm waiting to see what Palin does. This is a vetting process, at the right time -- these are primaries, when we're looking for the best Republican. BY DEFINITION, that will mean digging to uncover flaws in each and every one running, including Perry, and including Palin when/if she declares. The dif is, Palin has already been vetted up one side and down the other.
Perceiving this as the intention to "destroy" and as being motivated by "hate" indicates a mindset that is defensive and weak.
A lot of Palin supporters are becoming the equivalent of Ron Paul supporters. I think Palin would be embarrassed by some the antics of the Palin supporters on this forum. I support Palin and if she runs in the Primary, she will get my vote. But right now Perry is running and she isn't. Right now, if nobody else jumps in that is better, Perry has my full support.
Well said. My sentiments exactly.
We don't need to associate these hit pieces with Sarah Palin. She very well may either be Perry's running mate or Perry may be hers. So if you want to post a hit piece on Perry, don't make it appear as if Sarah Palin is behind it.
I went to C4P’s “Palin Posts” section and not one of them was by Sarah Palin. Hmmmmmm.....
I have not heard Palin and Perry bashing each other. They probably realize what you do, P-M, that one or the other (or both) could be a nominee they need to support in the very near future.
When does “vetting” become “opposition research” on behalf of the liberals?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.