(Vanity) Thoughts on Perry

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 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!

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...

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.

 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.

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.

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]"

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).

"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.

  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.

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.

 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%.

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?

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.

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.

 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?

Whiskers:

Thanks for a good and comprehensive post. Here are some thoughts which you provoked:

Coincidentally, I just posted this reply which follows in quotation marks to another thread. The last paragraph has been added to address your concerns about Kerry's conservatism because he appears to be condoning teen sex with the issuance of his executive order. Thereafter, I consider your other points.

"If this were a vaccination of schoolchildren against a communicable disease such as smallpox, I would have no problem whatsoever with the state, as opposed to the federal government, mandating inoculation.

In a communicable disease the law can require the inoculation because the state has an interest in protecting innocents from contracting a disease from those who refuse to be inoculated.

However, this is not a communicable disease but a preventative for cancer. As such it should be wholly voluntary. The problem with this Executive Order is that it was not wholly voluntary but required action on the part of the parents to opt out. This is an encroachment on individual liberty but not one that sends me to the barricades. The parents did, after all, have the option to opt out. So the objection is more procedural than substantive. The law should leave the option for parents to opt in.

There is some argument to the effect that the procedure to opt out was onerous and the executive order did not properly provide for notifying the parents of their rights. Again, these objections, if real, are procedural rather than substantive. In my judgment they do not demonstrate a disqualifying tendency in the statist to dominate the individual."

But all of this seems to me to miss the main point.

But does it? Is the issue one of mandating an intrusion into the body or somehow condoning teen sex? If it is an issue of intruding into the body, the degree to which it is mandatory and the degree to which parents can opt out become very relevant and the quality of the procedure provided becomes relevant. I conclude that the Executive Order was misguided and the procedure was probably not as forthright and transparent as possible. But these are venal procedural miscalculations not mortal sins.

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?

Because the "voluntary" behavior might well have been done by a minor and the law has a long tradition of presuming that minors are not capable, or at least not as capable as an adult, of the mens rea required either to commit a crime, to vote, or to drive a vehicle. The law presumes the children are not adults and with good reason.

There is a substantial difference between such an inoculation and providing children condoms. The one is far removed from the other in the sense that inoculation does not facilitate sex and is not immediate to the act. It does not prevent the contraction of STDs, as I understand it, merely the ensuing consequences, namely, cancer. There is a huge difference in perception.

Doesn’t this undermine the moral authority of the parents?

No, because the parents have the option to opt out. We may cavil about the regularity or quality of the procedure but the ultimate power of the parents to have their way was preserved. They remain sovereign they remain the ultimate authority.

This sounds more like a Romney-type stunt than the behaviour of a true conservative!

If there were no opt out provisions then the requirements would in fact be mandatory and it would be similar not just to Romney but to Obama in requiring the individual to buy health insurance with no opt out provision.

Trans-Texas Corridor

Clearly, the power of the state and not just a state but of the federal government as well to build roads is unquestioned. Since colonial times both kinds of governments have done so. And since colonial times private entities have built toll roads. Citizens ride on one every day to Dulles Airport. Unlike Obama Care, there is no obligation to drive on the road and pay the toll.

Eminent domain for a public purpose is entirely constitutional and entirely within our culture and part of the capitalist structure providing the property owner is fairly compensated and the use is for a public purpose. A public road clearly is a public purpose even though built by a private concern which charges tolls to pay the bonds which were created to fund construction.

I have no knowledge of whether this was touted as a green project and cannot comment. As to rail transportation, we have a history of the United States of government corporation with and authorization of private companies to be granted right of ways to build rail lines. In the 19th century our rail lines were financed to a great degree by foreign, British, investors. Whole sections of America were populated with grants of land given to private companies who build railroads and sent the profits (or losses) to British investors.

Highway and rail communications are absolutely fundamental to a growing economy and Texas is growing economically and in population at an explosive rate. I do not see anything inherently anti-conservative in building roads and railroads.

Perhaps my American prejudice against railroads as been diminished by my experience here in Europe where traveling by rail is a positive experience and one I prefer whenever distances permit over air travel.

As for the "double taxation" argument, it seems to me that is a matter for a budget calculation. If state gasoline taxes were insufficient to build such a highway, there was no double taxation.

Support of Al Gore; Dream Act and Immigration

Perry's got a lot 'splainin' to do to satisfy me on these issues.

Soft on Islam

I have posted long and hard on these threads that war against the terrorism conducted by militant Islam can only be won by Muslims. We simply do not have the resources to dominate more than 1 billion Muslims from the Atlantic to the Hindu Kush.

Therefore, we have to be very careful, as George Bush was, in how we handle our relations with "moderate" (if there be such an animal-but we have to assume there is.) Islam.

That said, we must be vigilant against the imposition of sharia at home, we must fight PC acceptance of Islam tooth and nail, we must not permit Islam to be morally equated with Christianity.

Polling Data

So far, Perry's surge is undeniable. He is consuming all the oxygen. I very much regret the selfish and ultimately self-defeating attitude of the Perry/Palin camps in waging internecine guerrilla war. I suspect most of it is unauthorized. It is certainly unproductive.

I think Perry is setting the proper example which I have commented on these threads which is to leave his Republican rivals behind as he goes after Obama and bitch slaps him black and blue.

It's funny ...I was banned here 5 years ago for a year along with a few others for being anti amnesty...and called racist for that...a dustup with Howlin and Sinkspur ensured my temporary fate...the aftermath of Travis McGee versus Tony Snow (rip)...Tony aped the soft Bush line on illegals

they..the moderate freepers who lived to zot eventually showed their true colors which I already knew...and they left to antifreep

now here we are today...and arguably the key issue used to beat Perry or Palin over the head with is their ambiguities about borders and immigration and illegals and whatnot...in that they are not tough enough about illegals enforcement, deportation and no amnesty...debatable or not

and even more bizarre is that some of the moderates from that time allied with still departed Howlin and Stinkie who all left to anti freep over Rudy Giuliani...are now back and running hard as Palin supporters still having zotgasms over folks who get in their way...how in the Sam Hill does one go from supporting pro gun control, pro homo, pro abort Rudy to the complete opposite in Sarah Palin...and then go on zot fests here with one's new found affections...convictions...err...whatever you call em

so I ask anyone...what core values do some here truly stand for?

hell if I know...cause it changes...like the wind...and all those cackling with delight now..better watch their backs...the dog bowl here is a moving target...reach for it one day and you're fine...next day..dog bites ya

now if Sarah doesn't enter...what are all this folks gonna do?

I like her...she is an incredible speaker...moved me to watery eyes and my wife sobbing with her first two big speeches...and I...share most of her views but I ain't married to her (she's hot and all...oh yeah) but I want which ever social conservative I can help get nominated....if it's Sarah...great...Bachmann...great...the other real social righties...don't have any chance...then there is Perry...I just don't know yet...he troubles me some...positives and negatives but better than Bush or Romney

*yes...I know this color commentating is Swahili to newer posters...but it's relevant...at least to me...”which way was that windmill again Sancho”..lol

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.