Posted on 08/16/2011 9:42:18 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
This is a brief discussion of some of the controversies brought up in conjunction with the candidacy of Gov. Rick Perry, together with observations on polling data and his base of support.
Gardasil
Gardasil is a drug from Merck & Co. developed as a vaccine for certain types of cervical cancer, which was only effective if administered before exposure to certain STDs. Those who attack Perry point out that Perry issued an executive order in February 2007 mandating that all Texas girls be vaccinated with Gardasil before admission to the sixth grade. His chief-of-staff from 2002-2004 had become a lobbyist for Merck; Merck also donated $6,000 to Perry’s re-election campaign.
Perry’s defenders counter with two points: first, that the Executive Order was not truly mandatory, as there was an opt-out clause for parents; and second, that Perry had received $24 million that year for his re-election campaign, so that $6,000 was merely a drop in the bucket.
But all of this seems to me to miss the main point. 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? If we are interested in conservatism, and part of conservatism is sexual morality, why was Perry implicitly “throwing in the towel” by ordering a mandatory vaccine for STDs, with only an opt-out? Doesn’t this undermine the moral authority of the parents? This sounds more like a Romney-type stunt than the behaviour of a true conservative!
Trans-Texas Corridor
This was supposed to be a superhighway going from the Texas border to Oklahoma, with branches running all over the state, at a cost of $175 billion dollars. It was introduced by Governor Rick Perry in 2001. It would have set up multiple-lane highways (up to almost a quarter of a mile wide!) for six car lanes, 4 truck lanes, and two tracks each for various rail (high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail), together with rights-of-way for underground cable and utility lines.
The road would be financed and operated by Cintra, a Spanish firm, which would not *own* the highway, but collect toll revenue.
Civil libertarians, concerned over misuse of eminent domain, were up in arms. In addition, other people were concerned over what would have amounted to “double taxation” -- having to pay tolls for the TTC, and yet having to pay gasoline taxes for state roads.
And of course, one of the “selling points” of the project was that it was needed to accomodate increased MEXICAN truck traffic following passage of NAFTA.
Those who support Perry are very proud of pointing out that the TTC is dead, and that even references to it have been removed from State Law. However, the Houston Chronicle pointed out in a 2009 article that the state
“...will move forward with a serious of individual project that had been considered part of the Trans-Texas Corridor plan...[the] renewed effort now will operate under the name ‘Innovative Connectivity in Texas’ to usher in a new method of operation.”
This doesn’t sound like Perry and the backers of the TTC got the message. Kind of like Boehner and his supposed $100 billion in cuts at the beginning of 2011...
And come to think of it, what kind of a conservative goes around pushing transportation infrastructure jobs as a keynote effort? Especially when it includes tolls going to a foreign company instead of an American company? Something does not compute, here, if he’s talking about restoring the American economy. Aren’t we sending enough money overseas for oil, without adding tolls?
And, what’s with the, *ahem*, high-speed rail? Sounds awfully “green” to me. Thomas Friedman would no doubt approve Perry’s acting like China. And speaking of green jobs...
Perry ran Al Gore’s campaign in Texas in 1988
While some people claim that Gore was much more centrist back then (he opposed federal funding for abortion, and agreed on funding of the Nicaraguan Contras, for example), he was still a moonbat when it came Global Warming: according to The Guardian(U.K.) he held congressional hearings on Climate Change back in 1976 and began writing a book on environmental conservation in 1988.
Those who defend Perry claim that it was a long time ago, and that people are allowed to change their minds. But think back to 1988. Who was finishing as President back then? Oh, *that’s* right. Ronald Reagan. What a perfect time to back a Democrat, if you’re *really* conservative.
And, by the way, Perry endorsed Rudy Guiliani for President in 2008. Does anyone remember what Free Republic did to Guiliani supporters? Do the words "bug-zapper" mean anything to you? Colour me unbelieving.
Perry supports the Dream Act
This allows illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition at college provided that they have lived in Texas for three years and graduated from high school -- and they apply for citizenship.
While this *sounds* good at first blush, it is really amnesty light for young illegals: and once they are citizens, they will likely try to bring their extended family to live with them, with predictable long-term results (“Heartless, racist Republicans want to split up families.”) Trying to cut down on the number of illegal immigrants by rewarding their long-standing residence is like trying to scare ants away from a picnic by leaving a trail of crumbs on the ground.
Perry is as tough as marshmallows on illegal immigration
In addition to the Trans Texas Corridor and the Dream Act, Rick Perry has opposed the idea that Texas should adopt Arizona’s immigration law, since he does not want law enforcement to be REQUIRED to determine immigration status. He wants it to be voluntary. In addition, despite all of the noise about Perry being against Sanctuary Cities, and with the issue being introduced in a special session, somehow it managed to not get passed. Liberal blogger brainsandeggs mentions some of the gyrations the bill went through before failing:
”Recall also that during the regular session, the “sanctuary cities” legislation was approved by the House on a 100-to-47 party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats in the Senate on a 12-to-19 party-line vote. But during the special session, essentially the same legislation was approved by the Senate on a 19-to-12 party-line vote (the two-thirds rule was not in force during the special session) — only to fail to make it out of the House State Affairs committee, the same committee which in early May had heartily endorsed it on a 9-to-3 party-line vote.”
So it looks like Perry gets to have his Taco and eat it too: he can posture about being against sanctuary cities, while in the real world, a bill abolishing sanctuary cities fails with the Governor’s backing.
Creative incompetence.
Incidentally, this is an excerpt from a speech which Perry gave in 2001. Tell me if this sounds like someone who is tough on illegal immigration, or someone who will continue pandering to illegals in the hope of votes to come, as quoted in The Washington Post:
"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. And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. The doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede [education is the future, and yes, we can]"
Soft on Islam
Everyone by now has gotten tired of hearing the mantra enforced from on high that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" -- with some going so far as to mock the phrase by calling it a "Religion of Pieces" (a macabre reference to suicide bombers and beheadings favored by jihadists).
And Rick Perry seems to be continuing in the same vein.
Here's a speech of Perry's from 2008.
In which he quotes the Koran, knowingly:
"The Quran says: Truly those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabeans – whoever believes in God and the Last Day and is virtuous – surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.”"
Gee, why does this make the hair on the back of my neck stand up? Haven't we had enough of Ramadan Greetings and the Muslim call to prayer with Barack Hussein Obama?
What is ironic is that it was yet another Texan, George W. Bush, who seemed to push for the "ROP" meme. Too bad this idiocy didn't get squelched in time to stop Maj. Hassan at Fort Hood.
For more on Perry and Islamicists, see here.
With that list completed, it is time to move on to political metaphysics -- observations which do not fit neatly in one category or another of the above, but help place these factors into focus, or interpret the landscape in the early days after Perry’s declaration.
Changes in polling data
Rasmussen now shows him at 29%, with Romney at 18% ,Bachmann at 13%, Ron Paul at 9%, Cain at 6% and Gingrich at 5% -- 72 hours after declaring.
Several important points here.
What was Perry’s popularity in polls before he declared?
Rasmussen performed a telephone survey of likely Iowa caucus participants on August 8, less than a week before his announcement. Perry got 12% compared to Bachmann’s 22% and Romney’s 21%, Ron Paul’s 16%, and Tim Pawlenty’s 11%.
And yet, no breathless specials, no major speeches during that time frame.
He did call Bernanke treasonous on August 16: but that is *after* the data for the polls had been collected. His support must have come from somewhere else. Where cold that be?
Look at the poll again. Tim Pawlenty has dropped out of the race. And according to Rasmussen, 16% of primary voters *remain* undecided: so T-Paw’s supporters did not disappear into the noise.
Could it be that Perry may have just picked up most of Pawlenty’s support, together with a small slice of Romney, Bachmann, and Paul’s support? And if that is true, does it really argue for a massive groundswell among the Tea Party, or for the substitution of one lukewarm RINO for another?
Note : Compare this to the actual Ames straw poll results from Free Republic:
1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)
The straw poll is by definition “self selection” and not random, i.e. liable to shenanigans).
If one includes the straw poll, one has to account for Romney placing below even Cain and Santorum; which is sure to skew the results, given that conventional wisdom has Perry and Romney as the front-runners among declared candidates.
2) The GOP astroturf factor
The LA Times reports that Perry’s Texas donors are doing quite well in Texas, hinting at a combination of class envy and a tu quoque argument about the kind of “pay to play” environment long enforced by Democrats. But there is a more significant fact contained within this article:
”Perry has received a total of $37 million over the last decade from just 150 individuals and couples”
--which works out to $240,000 from each of these donors. This is not the kind of grass-roots, $20-at-a-time donations characteristic of a true populist.
And when one looks at a “spontaneous” outpouring of articles at places ranging from RedState.com (which inspired this piece) to The Weekly Standard, including personal attacks on detractors of Perry -- and thoughtful lists of talking points all ready to go, “spontaneously” ?
Usually it takes time to come up with such things, particularly for a brand new campaign.
Having the fawning articles (such as the publicity that Perry won in the Alabama State Republican Executive Committee Summer Meeting Straw Poll, with 101 votes out of a total of 205 cast!) appear from all points of the compass at once, makes it look like strings are being pulled.
A further curious phenomenon is seen in Real Clear Politics.
In the latest polly, Perry jumps to 29% on Rasmussen Reports form 8-15: but for all other polls from 8-2 to 8-9, Perry tops out at 18%. Either this is a bump from the announcement, or Perry is drawing someone else?
Here’s a hint: according to Real Clear Politics, Perry never showed up in Rasmussen’s results until mid-June. Then all of a sudden, his numbers started climbing, even though he hadn’t declared.
Here’s another hint: Rasmussen does not include Palin among the possible candidates.
Is Perry merely the latest establishment candidate designed to stave off a Palin candidacy, given that Romney was not catching fire with the base?
Duh. Remember Ann Richards and Lloyd "You're No Jack Kennedy" Bentsen?
The point is that 1988 was the end of Reagan's Presidency, and no conservative would be backing Gore at all during such a time.
(Remember who was President before Reagan? Jimmuh Dhimmi Carter? Like I said NO conservative would have been backing a Democrat back then.)
Cheers!
Someone needs to clean her up. She actively campaigned for Rick Perry and John McCain.
All in one year!
They weren't according to Real Clear Politics -- but they were right *before* the declaration, and T-Paw dropping out.
But leaving Palin out of the Polling Choices as Rasmussen did, might affect the results.
Cheers!
Not sure McCotter has the foreign policy chops to make it on Sarah's ticket: but otherwise I pretty much love the guy--I saw him at RightOnline in Minneapolis recently.
Cheers!
The question in 1988 was, Are you better off now than eight years ago? Maybe Perry was one of the two or three people, if that, who wasn’t.
Since Romney is fizzling, they're promoting him in hopes of forestalling the Tea Party takeover of the GOP.
Cheers!
I can't post the picture I want to, since it'd cause trouble.
So I'll settle for this:
Cheers!
You're a troll.
Cheers!
Israel would never have presented Rick Perry with the the Defender of Jerusalem Award if were true that Perry supports the radical, extremist Islam that wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map.
It's important to understand the context of Perry's speech. He was speaking to and about Aga Khan and the Ismailis, who represent a minority (tens of millions) of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. They are persecuted by the majority of Islam. Ismailis are philanthropical and nonviolent. They reject burqas, gender apartheid, and all forms of violent jihad. They're not wife-beaters and don't perform honor killings.
As a Christian, Perry would not (and doesn't) support a group who believes in converting or killing opponents of Islam. Since 9/11, we've been asking "where are the moderate Muslims who condemn violent jihad?" The Ismailis are that group.
DRey, I understand you’re enthusiastic about Governor Perry. I hope he’s as conservative and Christian as you seem to think he is. That wouldn’t disappoint me. I just feel more ideologically aligned with Palin, Bachmann, and Cain. That doesn’t mean Perry is my enemy.
As for getting on board the Perry campaign now (or I’ll be shedding tears), it’s still early in the campaign season, and I wouldn’t want either of us reduced to tears about the eventual outcome.
If Perry is the nominee, I’ll eagerly support him in the general election. The same thing applies to all the Republican candidates except Romney. He’s the only one who could have me shedding tears if he’s the nominee, and I think we both agree on that.
Much better to make it explicitly optional, with an “opt-in” — and that’d’ve opened up a whole new firestorm from the conservative parents about morality...
If I had my say, it wouldn’t have been in the school at all ... if the parents thought they needed it they would have brought their kids to a Dr.
I was “not invited back” to a private school for not signing on (well and a few well chosen expletives at a faculty meeting) to a en loco parentis clause that featured the ability to bring a young lady to visit a “planned parenthood” center without parental notification - before OR after.
This kind of thing is a bit of a sore spot, you see. The article seemed to state (or the author obfuscated) the clear position. And there must have been one.
You miss the whole point. Perry wasn’t a conservative in 1988. He was still a Democrat. He was conservative by Democratic standards not by Republican standards.
While the rest of the country was experiencing the Reagan Revolution, Texas was still controlled by Democrats. Yes, Reagan won Texas in the national election, but our state legislature was Democratic not Republican. The Senate had 23 Democrats, 8 Republicans. The House had 91 Democrats, 59 Republicans.
Your complaint seems to be that Perry didn’t switch parties during the Reagan Era. My point is that it is unreasonable to expect that given the political culture in Texas at the time.
Gosh darn it, we'll have to agree to disagree, you betcha!
Let me see if I can find my 2x4 to help persuade you.
I heard what you said about the Gardasil...and agree with you up to the last point, in which you call it procedural rather than substantive.
The reason I disagree, is that after Bill Clinton, and especially after Planned Parenthood and the sexualization of children in the schools (think Kevin Jennings!) the *last* thing we need is encouragement of immorality on the part of schoolchildren: and a vaccine might give the same type of false security that a spermicide does -- it is not efficacious against other STD's, as you point out -- but this is a *detriment* not merely a feature. (Let alone a broken heart or loss of innocence: which affects marriage stability and therefore society as a whole down the road.)
Compounding this (though I didn't know it when I wrote the vanity last night) is Michelle Malkin's excellent article today in which she quotes Perry's representative:
"Not only did Perry defend going above the heads of elected state legislators, but his office also falsely claimed the legislature had no right to repeal the executive order. “The order is effective until Perry or a successor changes it, and the Legislature has no authority to repeal it,” Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody told The Washington Post in February 2007."
This is neither conservative (in subject) nor libertarian (in bent, behaviour). It is more like Romney meets Kerry meets Obama.
In other words, don't just consider the lack of rens mea but his ex post facto mea culpa for acting in loco parentis. :-)
For the Trans Texas Corridor --
This is Texas, second-largest state in the Union. There are likely to be comparatively few roads in good repair compared to the TTC once it is built. (Yes, I'm aware of the interminable frontage roads parallel to the main highways: with speed limits half that of the highway.) So even if it is not compulsion de jure it is pretty close de facto. I mentioned "green" simply because part of the TTC would the ubiquitous high-speed trains which seem to be all the rage.
You are correct in pointing out that there is nothing intrinsically anti-conservative in building roads and railways: but there is something of crony capitalism likely when there is so much money at stake; and your reply leaves out the little circumstance that the TTC is supposed to go from the Effing Mexican BorderTM for increased numbers of Mexican trucks...AND that the company collecting the tolls is SPANISH. Whatever happened to "Buy American?" A cynic might even suggest that the arrangement was made this way, to make any bribery or skulduggery harder to trace.
As far as "Soft on Islam" -- my piece linked to a Perry speech from 2008 or 2009 where he *quoted the Koran*.
'Nuff said. (Where is the ACLU anyway?)
Polling Data -- my point was simply that Perry's apparent surge is only seen in one major poll which did NOT include Palin as a competitor, and was taken right when Perry declared and T-Paw dropped out.
Perry is attempting to suck the oxygen out of the room, but he has not faced withering national criticism from all sides as Palin has.
Palin *is* the oxygen in the room: wheresoever she goes throughout the country she is mobbed (genuine enthusiasm, not astroturf, nor political consultants).
I read somewhere on FR today an article that Palin will hold off for about two-three more weeks to let Perry and Romney bloody each other, then enter. If you can find the article, I found it plausible, but not yet compelling my agreement.
Thanks for a detailed, fact-based, logical response without flames.
(What would your namesake have felt about Perry?)
Cheers!
I’m glad to hear it. I’m not your enemy, citizen. I have always liked Palin. She is not running. I know Perry, and he is under siege by the left and some conservatives. His record and motives are being skewed just like Palin’s. It was terrible and not right then. It is terrible and not right now. I’m all for vetting. But malice is something else. Not that I’m accusing you of malice, I’m just saying it’s been a little ridiculous the last few days and I’m not about to sit around and watch any Christian be slandered. If that makes me a Perrybot or his foremost defender, I’m proud to accept the title. Anyone but Obama, but preferably Perry for me.
You honestly believe another TEXAN is going to beat a black man for President?
Notice that nobody has even *tried* the race card on Palin.
She even has Tammy Bruce as an activist supporter: where are the "Queers for Perry" ? (Speaking of crossover appeal since you bring it up.)
As far as the rest, I wrote it off when I saw you were from Texas: I've only seen one Texan on FR who isn't automatically, blindly, for Perry.
Take it somewhere else.
Cheers!
So I prefer Palin as the flamethrower candidate; in addition, when Perry tries it, he just comes across as another swaggering full-of-himself belligerent mindless Texan.
("Did you hear me, Boy-uh?")
Cheers!
Read the hypertext link RHINESTONE RINO from this thread.
Read the warning on Rick Perry.
Read the Michelle Malkin piece on Gardasil.
Read posts #52 and #72 this thread.
For Palin:
Read Going Rogue (look on Amazon or the library) and/or see The Undefeated.
Then, make up your own mind.
Cheers!
I’ve come around to Palin, and hope she declares. I bore her a grudge for quite a while, for screwing with our GA gubernatorial race. Time heals all wounds, thankfully, and I’m over it. I backed Herman Cain for quite a while, and I’m still one of his biggest admirers. But if I had to pick at gunpoint, at this exact minute, I’d be for Palin. She’s the only one in the field with a proven track record of cleaning up corruption and cutting red tape for domestic energy production, two of my big priorities. In a month we should know if she’s in, right?
g_w
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.