(Vanity) Thoughts on Perry

grey_whiskers | Aug. 16, 2011 | grey_whiskers

[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?

[grey_whiskers]

This vanity is wholly one-sided in its presentation of Perry's records/decisions.

Like Rush Limbaugh, it *is* the balance.

Cheers!

[SoConPubbie]

No I am not.

I am using an organization that reliably and consistently rates politicians on how conservative they are.

Gore failed on the Prolife issue that the ACU rating is based on as proven by this link:

1988 Senate Ratings

You're either aren't aware of the political climate and Gore's extreme Liberalism in 1988 or covering for Perry.

An 8% ACU rating in 1988 is the same as an 8% rating in 2011.

[grey_whiskers]

Thanks grey_whiskers. Just for fun, I’ve got one — “you put the ass in asbestos!”

At least you didn't say "Best ass" -- I might have needed Gardasil.

Cheers!

[SoConPubbie]

Mostly swagger and name-calling.
Typical of Texans.

They are definitely in full cover-up, deny and apology mode for Perry.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Funny that you mention Rush Limbaugh. Rush wanted Perry to get into the race. He really talked up Perry’s conservative credentials.

[grey_whiskers]

They can try. :-)

Go Sarah!

Cheers!

[Catholic Iowan]

100% effective? ReallY?

http://www.cogforlife.org/gardasilMerckAdmits.htm

I don’t think so!

[grey_whiskers]

Gore's subsequent behaviour provides evidence of how much his conservatism was 'real' ; and by the same token, Perry's adoption of the GOP brand back in 1988 in the aftermath of Reagan is only worthwhile if he backs conservatism: otherwise one runs the risk that he is merely blowing with the winds of current opinion.

And it is for *that* reason that his actions w.r.t. Gardasil, and his proclamations that the legislature cannot override an Executive Order, are so important.

Look at all the crap we went through with McCain when he wouldn't back conservatives. Perry may talk tough on the campaign trail, but if he actions don't match the words (see also Weepy Boehner) what's the use?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

So what?

I haven't decided yet if the Build-a-Burgers are tin-foil hat stuff in the first place.

So I didn't include it.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Haven't checked on other states yet.

Quote from post #145 this thread:

"The controversy over Perry's decision deepened as it came to light that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck and that his chief of staff's mother-in-law, Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was the state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls..."

To prevent cancer, make it opt in with a publicity campaign.

Don't force it on pre-adolescent girls.

(Had it been tested for safety, efficacy, and any side effects during pregnancy yet?)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The snide comment was because of flaming comments of some other pro-Perry posters on this thread about the only people who opposed Perry were blah, blah blah...and for the lurkers who might have zoned out over the name without that.

I addressed the negatives and the "meta-politics" of them since they were not getting enough play on FR: most discussion of Perry was tending towards mindless cheerleading, and it reminded me of Astroturf.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

LOL!

[grey_whiskers]

The issue is whether or not we turn a blind eye to the creeping Sharia and the establishment of a "foothold" for radical Islam under the guise of "tolerance".

Like this:

It's problematic: just as the 60s radicals bragged that they were 'using the Constitution to destroy the Constitution' I fear radical Islamists are insinuating themselves into the culture under the cover of 'moderate' Muslims imported from other countries.

Cheers!

[BuckeyeTexan]

I am using an organization that reliably and consistently rates politicians on how conservative they are.

And apparently, you don't understand how the yearly ACU rating is calculated because you seem to think it's some kind of conservative credit score. It isn't.

An 8% ACU rating in 1988 is the same as an 8% rating in 2011.

Wrong. The ACU rating to which you refer was not Gore’s lifetime conservative rating in 1988. It was his rating for the year 1988 only. The ACU’s yearly rating is based on a legislator’s votes for ONLY the bills considered (voted upon) that year. So if there were no bills about abortion or gun control in a particular year, the rating doesn’t reflect a legislator’s overall positions on those issues. So a 1988 rating is not equivalent to a 2011 rating because the bills voted up by the legislature are not the same.

You're either aren't aware of the political climate and Gore's extreme Liberalism in 1988 or covering for Perry.

You're the one who is unaware of Gore's political leanings in 1988. He was pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-defense. Look it up yourself. Below are some links for your reference.

Here are some links about his pro-life votes:
http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html
http://www.debatethis.org/gore/abortion/

Here are some links about his pro-gun votes:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,996052,00.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al_Gore_Gun_Control.htm
(For 1988 see section titled “Voted against some gun limitations while in Congress.”)
http://www.kc3.com/news/july6_knox.htm
(Start at paragraph 11)

Here are some links about his pro-defense positions:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=122730
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-11-22/news/8702070578_1_pro-defense-key-votes-voting-records
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33148
(Paragrah 9 under section titled “More Evasions From the Left on the War”)

Here are some links about his overall pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense positions in 1988:
http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/1988-when-al-gore-battled-the-liberal-democrats-by-gregory-hilton/
http://www.hookersandbooze.com/

[Lakeshark]

I think his support for Gore ought to be a small concern for anyone. It's not a game changer for me, but it gives me pause.

Let me think, AlGore, or a continuation of Reagan policies........

What may be a deal killer for me is his past dealings on immigration, his flirtings with La Raza, and his unclear policy on the border. I'm watching, I'm listening, but right now I'm a bit worried about the man. I really don't want an open borders guy like W, and it is possible Perry is his clone on that subject.

We shall see. The campaign should bring out the truth, or at least I'm hoping it does.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I didn’t say 100% effective. I said nearly 100%.

Studies appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several (but not all) of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/70808.php

[SoConPubbie]

Wrong. The ACU rating to which you refer was not Gore’s lifetime conservative rating in 1988. It was his rating for the year 1988 only. The ACU’s yearly rating is based on a legislator’s votes for ONLY the bills considered (voted upon) that year. So if there were no bills about abortion or gun control in a particular year, the rating doesn’t reflect a legislator’s overall positions on those issues. So a 1988 rating is not equivalent to a 2011 rating because the bills voted up by the legislature are not the same.

Hasn't it already been pointed out to you that his three year average around 1988 was around 7%?

[SoConPubbie]

BTW, there was an Abortion vote in 1988 and Gore voted the wrong way.

Check it out on the link I gave you.

[BuckeyeTexan]

An average of those three years reflects Gore’s votes on only the bills that came before the legislature during those three years. If there were no bills regarding abortion or federal funding for it, then that average doesn’t reflect his pro-life stance.

Gore’s 1988 ACU rating doesn’t reflect what people on this thread seem to think it does. And Gore was conservative by Democratic standards in 1988 not by Republican standards.

[SoConPubbie]

An average of those three years reflects Gore’s votes on only the bills that came before the legislature during those three years. If there were no bills regarding abortion or federal funding for it, then that average doesn’t reflect his pro-life stance.

Sorry, but that three year average is an acurate representation of where he was living politically speaking.

On the 1986, 1987 and 1988 ACU Ratings he voted Pro-Abortion. Please review the links as it details the Pro-Life votes that he voted agsinst.

In 1986 he had an ACU rating of 9% and voted the wrong way on the Pro-Life issue that year too.

1986 Senate Ratings

In 1987 he had an ACU rating of 6% and voted the wrong way on the Pro-Life issue that year too.

1987 Senate Ratings

I've also reviewed the links you presented, and basically, with the exception of one document talking about his 40% pro-defense record, which I guess passes as moderate for a Democrat, it doesn't do much to support your contention. It does prove the point that while in the House he was much more conservative, but by the time he had become a Senator, he had flipped.

I think your understanding of Gore's political position during that time frame is a little flawed.