Posted on 07/23/2011 1:57:55 PM PDT by AmericaTalks
There has been much buzz about the possibility that Texas Governor Rick Perry will throw his hat into the GOP presidential ring. Many conservatives and Tea Party activists see him as a very attractive and viable candidate, one who would liven up a field that seems devoid of exciting prospects.
But before Republicans start salivating too heavily, it is important to examine Perry closely. His conservative bonafides leave much to be desired.
Let's examine his record.
Prior to 1989, Rick Perry was a Democrat, who supported Al Gore for president. Perry was Gore's campaign manager in the state of Texas that year.
As Governor of Texas, Perry would have us believe he is a small government guy. But the facts say other wise.
Total spending in Texas the year he became governor in 2000 was approximately $49 billion. Last year it was approximately $90 billion. That is hardly reducing the size of government over a 10 year period.
The total debt of the state of Texas has more than doubled since he became governor. The debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. That's worse than California.
Perry claims he is for keeping taxes low. Not true. He has raised taxes repeatedly during his tenure as governor. Texans have higher taxes and fees than they had before he was elected.
While everyone lauded Perry's leadership by pointing to the low unemployment rate in the Lone Star State, it should be noted that 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas. And Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states. In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.
The education system in Texas is abysmal. Barbara Bush, in an op-ed piece in the Houston Chronicle, wrote:
• We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma. • We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores. • We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.
What does that say about the stewardship of Rick Perry with regard to education?
Rick Perry also claims to have a tough stance on illegal immigration. But the facts indicate otherwise.
He signed the DREAM Act in 2001, giving in-state tuition to undocumented students. Perry said at the time, "We must say to every child learning in a Texas classroom, ‘We don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there". This measure is similar to the one the Democrats are pushing at the federal level, one which conservatives vehemently oppose.
Perhaps the biggest issue people opposed to the nanny state should be concerned about is Perry's issuance of an executive order back in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry was in the tank with Merck. There were apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.
The Texas legislature put the kibosh on that idea by crafting a bill that overturned the executive order.
Subsequently, very serious safety issues with the vaccine came to light. The biggest problem with regard to the Gardasil issue was that Perry appeared to be condoning premarital sex, or at least assuming that middle school girls were going to be engaging in sexual activity, which is the only way that the cervical cancer that the vaccine prevents can be contracted. Many parents and conservatives were justifiably outraged.
When one takes into account these facts about Rick Perry, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Perry is for the expansion of government and its intrusion into our lives.
On Perry's possible run for the White House? No thanks. I think I'll pass.
Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time on www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at www.americatalks.com.
I’m not for Perry but I am for the truth.
Perry supported Gore in 1988 - when Gore was still anti-abortion. Perry swapped to Republican in 1989, before Gore became a pro-abortion. Gore swapped when he ran with Clinton.
In 1987, this is a year before Perry supported him, this is what Gore wrote about abortion:
“During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions. In my opinion, it’s wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably the taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to further this goal.”
So just be careful saying Perry supported a pro-abortion Al Gore. He didn’t. He supported an anti-abortion Al Gore.
I’m not for Perry, but I don’t like to see false information flying around. I fear Perry is more RINO than conservative - I’m still studying him - but he has always been anti-abortion and has never supported pro-abortion people.
Let’s please give credit where it is due.
The ACU website shows pro abortion votes by Algore in the Senate from 1985 onwards.
"Assurances" from Algore are meaningless.
Algore went over to the dark side on abortion in 1985 when he entered the Senate.
You taught me something. Then maybe that is why he had to write that letter when he ran for president - he may have already been getting hammered for pro-abortion votes.
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll do my own homework on it. If Gore was already voting pro-abortion when Perry became his Texas campaign chairman, that speaks very badly for Perry.
Now practice what you preach.
The truth is finally coming out. I’ve been listening and reading about Perry from Texas residents and most of what I have learned does not support his conservative credentials.
Here is a fact for you, honey: neither Palin nor Perry have declared. Now practice what you preach.” <<<<
No one I know would be your “honey”, so drop with that kind of dream you’re having and grow up.
To your point: Palin has been non-stop not running for months and months longer than Perry has been not running. At least when you poke him you hear him speak, and see that he is alive, politically viable, visible, working, walking and talking, and growing money enough to declare, as opposed to the alternative life on tweet, doing absolutely nothing but buying homes, trademarking, and looking ahead to more lucrative deals and celebrety.
But bless your little heart for trying to be 'objective'.
She says Perry is running when he not yet is, while she says Palin isn’t running when she not yet is. “ <<<
For the time being Perry looks far more definitive about running than Trademark. It’s an easy error to make in Perry’s case. The one’s saying Perry is running are the one’s actually investing in him now to not only run but to win against Obama, with the kind of money to make it happen. To that, add Musharraf. Who says Trademark is running but for you guys, and of course the Leftists, who would no doubt pay her to run against Obama themselves?
” So its Palin’s fault Perry can’t generate any media attention. “ <<<<
huh?
You’re reeling in outer space again making up destinations for some limp point you’re helplessly trying to steer toward in order to salvage Trademark who is not running, nor in any way indicating she will. Palin affects no one’s media attention that I know of, except maybe Bristol’s. I said, Perry has been “not running” for a lot less time than Sarah has been “not running”. That point has nothing to do with media attention anywhere in it. It’s just fact.
It’s sad when ypur own side is a bunch of liars isn’t it.
frankly I’m tired of all the liars on both sides.
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.