Some of You Tea Party Folk Think Rick Perry’s the Answer?

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.

One other thing, and more to the point:

My problem is not that this article was posted. The fact is that it was posted from a Conservatives for Palin blog, which suggests that Sarah Palin would have approved of this hit piece.

The term "concern troll" comes to mind. If you have issues with the Conservatives for Palin blog, that's fine, and it's fine that you voice the concern here, as we're all FRiends sharing ideas, but ... what does it have to do with the price of tea in China, the primaries, or the accuracy of what's being argued against Perry? Who CARES if it was from the C4P blog?

And as for its appearing on the C4P blog as suggesting that Palin would have approved of "this hit piece," SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, FRiend. In my opinion, anyone who assumes that anything that appears on that blog has the approval of Palin, is making a stupid assumption.

You can’t make the changes if you can’t win the election.

Correction: You cant' make the changes if you can't with the election with a limited government Republican. We "won" the election against uber-liberal racist Cruz Bustamonte here in California with Arnold ... and we still lost to "the marxists."

Then, when we ran the "non-polarizing" moderate Meg Whitman against Jerry Brown ... we lost to "the marxists." Ironically, had we "won," we still would have lost to "the marxists" because for all her talk, Whitman wouldn't have made "the changes" needed -- she'd have advanced much of "the marxist" agenda, including the global warming hoax. She, like Romney, was all about making government more efficient. I don't want a government more efficient at suppressing freedom and prosperity. I want LESS GOVERNMENT. When all is said and done, a big government statist is a big government statist whether he/she is a Republican or a Democrat.

I haven't investigated Perry, so I haven't (that I recall) urged folks to reject him -- though I have to say that the thing that disturbs me most about him is the Gardasil issue -- it was fundamentally statist, first of all, and second, it smelled because it directly benefited a pharmaceutical company that supported Perry, if I am correct (again, only going on what I've read here). I DO appreciate articles that talk about supposed things that Perry has done that detract from his appeal as a limited government Republican, because I can investigate them for myself when I think it's time, and share my insight here, in return for the insights offered by others. This is a place I come to for INFORMATION, among other things.

What little bit of investigating I have done on another question that worried me about Perry indicates that his quote advocating "bi-national health care" is very likely taken out of context, and that what he actually meant was to allow insurance carriers to insure Mexicans as well as Texans -- a far cry from Romneycare or Obamacare. As it happens, I don't care about helping to vet Perry (for better or worse) right now because I'm waiting to see what Palin does. Unlike you, I think Palin CAN WIN, for a lot of reasons -- if you want to know what they are, read my posts "in forum" -- don't ask me to reiterate them all here. Polls I ignore, even when they're in favor of a candidate I like.

Upsdriver is, in my opinion, correct.

I wouldn’t compare California politics with Texas politics. California is full of uber liberals. Texas on the other hand is pretty much a conservative state with a few pockets of liberals in the cities.

I have kept up with Texas politics for a long time since what happens in Texas affects me somewhat living near the border. Perry is a limited government Republican. You might want to make sure who you are getting your information from because some are pushing another candidate and aren’t posting facts. The last gubernatorial election was a good mudslinging one. If there was dirt there it would have been used then.

The next election is going to require someone with experience not someone who can’t take the heat from the DNC where she cuts and runs.

I suggest you do search for the video where Todd was asked by an Alaskan resident if they sold out for the $$$$$$ (books, reality tv, the celebrity life) when she resigned. You might not think the same about her when you hear his answer and excuse. I know it turned me off of her “principled” persona.

The fact is that it was posted from a Conservatives for Palin blog,...

Are you surprised?

I for one am hoping she does not run. I don't think Gov. Palin can win and I see candidates that I am convinced will win.

Gov. Perry is by far the strongest candidate in the field. He may not be perfect, but he's Gov of the 2nd most populous State. He has seen exceptional job growth in the State. He is Pro-Life, and most importantly he shoots coyotes that threaten his dog. IOW, he is everything the country is going to be looking for, experience/decisiveness over incompetence.

The strength of Gov. Perry is evidenced by the attacks being made against him by all parties.

I tend to agree but the problem with that, and your post, is it assumes someone like that will win the election. It won’t happen so we have to deal with reality. We have to actually win the election to even have a shot.

Reality is what we make it. The question each has to answer is if Sarah Palin is the best one for the job or not. If yes, then go to work and create the reality of victory. If you don't think she is the best then go support your ideal candidate. Each of us are looking for different things in a president. Some only want to win, I want to rescue the country from the Establishment Elites who have utterly destroyed my country.

All I'm saying don't settle for second best if my goal is your goal because of a false sense of reality.

I'm going to the mat for Sarah Palin. She's going to win. I know, I bought the t-shirt. :p

The same is true of the Gardasil issue. Insurance companies would not pay for it like they do the other mandated inoculations for kids unless it was mandated. The mandate allowed the insurance companies to pay for it so that poor people could get it also. It also had an opt out clause for parents. No one was forced to be inoculated.

That is the type of misinformation that is prevalent even though accurate information is readily available. That is what makes me suspicious of some Perry critics. They either purposely lie about him or they have no interest in the truth.

It also had an opt out clause for parents. No one was forced to be inoculated.

Yes, I had read earlier what you relate about insurance companies (ultimately, taxpayers ... somehow I doubt that "mandated" inoculations are really paid for by insurance companies) having to pay for it unless it was mandated, and that as being Perry's rationale. I reject the argument -- what's this "opt out" crap? If anything, it should have been "opt in." Parents who wanted it for their girls should have had to go to some trouble for it, not the other way around, where parents who didnt' want it had to go to some trouble to protect their girls from it.

Sorry, Perry doesn't get a pass from me on that particular issue. It was wrong-headed from top to bottumus.

If one could opt in instead of out then it would not be a mandate, it would be an elective procedure. I am simply relying on what I read about the insurance companies but from my experience with them years ago this sounds consistent. I certainly don’t see that as a hanging offense.

His rationale was that it was a good thing for girls to do to protect themselves from STDs and cervical cancer plus the above about the mandate.

I want to know the truth about Perry and much of what I have seen is easily refuted but it keeps getting repeated. As of now, I prefer him over the other candidates because he has charisma, he is a good speaker, he talks the talk and seems to have walked the walk and he has followed conservative principles all the way through. He generates excitement more than the other declared candidates. Hopefully Sarah will get in on Saturday and it will be a whole new ballgame. We will then see what she says about Perry. I doubt she will be critical like her supporters are.

All candidates have been civil with the exception of Pawlenty going after Bachman in the debate. I suspect that was on the advice of his political consultants who told him he had to knock her out of the contest to have a chance himself. Instead he knocked himself out. When Bachman was asked about Palin, she said she really loves Sarah. That is the way a campaign ought to be.

I agree with those who say that Perry has been in Texas politics long enough that were there any dirt, even a spec, the Democrats and media would have long ago nailed his hide to the wall.

Not a hanging offense, just ... disappointing in a big way. Government doesn't have any damned business AT ALL in seeing that schoolgirls get inoculations against STDs. None whatsoever. And it's especially stinky when the company making the drug doing the inoculating has financial ties to Perry. Just ... stinky.

Like you, I'm waiting to see what Palin does. One thing I'll give Perry -- he's terrifically handsome, gorgeous, a knock-out, and I speak as a seasoned connoisseur of handsome men! (I'm married to a guy who still turns women's heads, my own included every day, after more than 20 years!!, even though he's in his 60s. He's had women chase him down and ask him for his autograph because he looks a lot like a certain handsome celebrity.)

As for being civil -- as far as I'm concerned, gloves can AND SHOULD come off during the primaries. What I care about is when a candidate lies or misrepresents the truth about another one's record, as I have seen many die-hard Palin detractors do with Palin's record. When someone has to lie or deliberately mislead in order to get people over to their side, then it's a sure sign their side is the wrong side.

But civility? That's relative, and this is politics. Civility is for afterward. Right now, such niceties are obstacles. Had Republicans been less concerned with civility, I daresay Romney wouldn't even be in the race. But everyone is so concerned about being "civil," that Romney, a big-government statist who is registered as a Republican, remains a very real danger to the Republic.

I say screw "civility" in the primaries. There'll be time to kiss and make up afterward.

I had assumed you were a man. Does that make me sexist?

The biggest compliment I can get on FR is when someone assumes I'm a guy! :^) I guess that makes ME the sexist!

I have a very simple philosophy regarding the sexes. First: if women ruled the world, we'd still be living in caves. Second: men are the SOLE protectors of women. We ladies should always remember that the freedoms and privileges we enjoy, we enjoy solely via the generous chivalry of civilized gentlemen. We need look no further than the Middle East to see the truth of it.

As regards your kind post, a line from "White Christmas" comes to mind:

"Mutual, I'm sure!

I am an older guy and I occasionally advise my younger friends that basically, genetically, women are the child bearers, nest builders, and nurturers. Men are the warriors and hunter/gatherers. In the process of propagating the species women can bear children, usually one child, approximately once a year. During pregnancy and early child development they are especially vulnerable. Therefore, women seek security and men, uninhibited with pregnancy, seek to spread their sperm as far and wide and often as possible.

Of course, those urges can be controlled but they are the basis of our approach to life. They are also the perfect bartering tool for a civilized relationship between men and women.

In the Mid East, the men have never put down the club in their misguided allegiance to a religious interloper and pedophile who declared himself a prophet and shared the spoils of battle with his male followers. As most of the world has become more civilized they stay mired in the past through a religious decision not to change.

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.