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?
Don't forget fraud.
In 1988, Al Gore was left wing enough to only score 9 in the ACU rating, in 1987 it was 6, in 1986 it was 9.
If in 1988 just as we were on the brink of defeating the Soviet Union, you wanted Al Gore to replace President Reagan, then something was desperately wrong with you.
Or you are a real conservative who is going to save us from the pro-illegal alien liberals. /s
When Palin enters...if she does then use your ammo.
But hear this...should Perry get the nomination...and he could I think.
This forum and Fresno will heartily support him.
So careful...things change here on a dime.
Meanwhile I think Bachmann and even Perry are more to the social right than what I’m used to seeing GOP do at this stage and I am tickled pink...Romeny seems to be working on a collapsed bilge pump
and if Sarah does enter then mo better
we might actually end up with a strong winner all said and done
Romney pulling all these strings is fantasy..he is not doing good...it ain’t complicated...money out the butt and name and establishment power and can’t make headway now that things have cranked up...not good for him.
This race is Perry..Bachmann and Palin should she enter...sounds great.
Folks here who have walked a social conservative wastleand since Lord Magnus should be happy too...we are in decent shape
Those who keep repeating the horsesh*t claims that Perry is soft on Islam, pro-Islam, pro-Sharia should educate themselves on the matter instead of accepting Pamela Geller’s article as the truth. The source for her information was Salon. (SALON as a source for conservatives?!)
Start here: http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1945
Bachmann supported Carter to keep Reagan out. What is your point. At least Perry had an excuse. He was a politician in the south. Remember the Solid South. It can be noted that he switched parties immediately after that. Believe it or not, Algore was the most Conservative Rat running that year. He wasn’t the crazy Communist he is today. Pro Life and do you remember Tippers record labels? 1988 was a long time ago. I just keep going back to this from 2009.
“He walks the walk of a true conservative,” [Sarah] Palin writes. “And he sticks by his guns — and you know how I feel about guns.”
“I will no longer vote for a RINO, no matter how much I’m told I’m supposed to like it.
It’s time for you Texans to get in the barrel and swallow.”
Much as others wish this, not going to happen. Y’all aint got the cash. If you personally have the cash, please name your declared candidate. Palin got her marching orders on Monday, August 15th. Anyone extorting cash from you after Monday is a plant.
Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say mandates take away parents' rights to be the primary medical decision maker for their children.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8N1PVG80&show_article=1
Governor Perry comes across as a competent guy. That's actually a compliment coming from someone who believes most politicians are detestable socialists. On the other hand, I don't think there's any evidence he bucked his party or the system in a serious attempt to cut government. Reducing government's role in our daily lives would be pretty revolutionary in an era of big government, but it's what I expect from “conservative” leaders.
His fans will no doubt provide a plethora of facts proving Perry (slightly) cut government spending, once one adjusts for inflation and population growth and excludes federal mandates. They have an explanation for virtually everything. Perry coddled illegal immigrants? No. He wants a secure border (or a Mexico so robust no one wants to cross an unprotected border). The problem isn't so much that there's an answer for every question. The problem is there's so many questions!
Perry supporters give me the funny feeling I'm talking to used car salesmen. Truth be told, I don't need to be sold on a candidate. Consider Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain. I'm entirely comfortable with either one as I sense they're ideological bedfellows. Sarah Palin gives me the same sense. She's one of us, a conservative.
I don't doubt Governor Perry would make a far better president than Obama. Any of the Republicans would be better, including Romney. It would be hard to do worse! I just don't think Perry is the conservative I'm looking for.
I didn’t lie about a damn thing. You’re not a Texan. WTF would you know about Texas politics in 1988? Obviously not a damn thing since you asked such an uninformed question. Texas was controlled by Democrats then not Republicans. Perry was a Democrat. He supported the most conservative Democratic candidate. Reagan has nothing to do with the equation.
Excellent post, Lazlo. Thank you.
Perry’s history of the Texas Dream Act, and the TTC with possible “North American Union” connections, are definite concerns. I don’t know if he would try to foist amnesty on us. If he did succeed at that he would not be much better than Obama.
The muslim charge seems to be a smear job. I don’t think he is associating with jihadists.
The Gardasil episode is a definite negative, and I think it is antithetical to Perry’s “image” as a pro-freedom, small government fighter.
Rasmusses does not include Palin in the poll because she hasn’t declared. Wait to see if other polls coming out are in line with Rasmussen.
I’m not a fan of Perry. At this point though, I figure who ever is going to be the next president after Obama is going to have one hell of a time. They will not only have to clear up the mess left by Dumbo but also the MSM will act like demonic bastards because their guy failed and they will never allow a republican to recover Americas down fall and look good in the public eye for doing that.
Im going to support my guy first but if Perry makes it in the end, he’s going to have his work cut out for him and we will have to fight for the truth because the MSM go crazy trying to bring him down.
Wow. I did not know that about the $380. That makes even more sense. THANK YOU for explaining that!
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.