(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?

[presently no screen name]

Not Sarah but for Mitt or MB.

[lonestar]

The Bushes and Perry have made-up.

Lie!

Are you auditioning for a MSNBC job?

[Lazlo in PA]

We keep our powder dry for Governor Palin.

My patience is thin on this. The time to damage Myth is now. Romney walked through that last debate like he was the only guy up there. As we already see, Perry doesn't mind slamming Mittens and Obummer while pushing the Conservative line. How far are you comfortable letting Romney continue raising money and becoming a Juggernaut before he is stopped? The end of my comfort level has been found as of the debate. Romney must go and fast.

[BuckeyeTexan]

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.

Amen to that! I support Rick Perry and Sarah Palin. Sarah supports Rick. Rick supports Sarah. Yet some here seem to think we must pick only one and attack the other with both barrels. It shouldn't be that way this early in the primary season, especially with Sarah still undeclared.

Discussion of the issues is productive, but vicious infighting among FReepers is not.

[ansel12]

Al Gore was a liberal, with an ACU rating varying from 6 to 9, you cannot convince us that Al Gore was the liberal Democrat to replace President Reagan just as we were on the verge of winning the Cold War.

In 1980 Reagan won Texas with 55%, in 1984 Reagan won 64% of the Texas vote, in 1988 Bush won 56% of the state.

Perry switched parties when he saw the writing on the wall.

[The Bronze Titan]

Wardaddy, I also recall getting into a dustup 12 years ago with Howlin, Sinkspur, and Pissant and their supporting returning Elian Gonzalez back to Castro’s gulag. They disparaged the Cuban-Americans in Miami (the very patriotic and rabidly anti-Communists and anti-Castro exiles) and lumped them along with other ‘hispanics’ who don’t appreciate America.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Thanks. My pet peeve is misinformation. I believe a lot of FReepers have misinformation about Perry. Certainly some just plain don’t like him. So be it. They’re not the intended audience. Those who want both sides of the story to better make an informed decision are.

[ansel12]

I’m happy Perry is in the race, but we can’t try to pretend he is some truly born “right winger”.

Perry is a good establishment guy, superior to almost all of the Doles and Romneys and Fords and at least HW Bush.

On this forum we can’t just totally gloss over how moderate/liberal, even lazy and convenient many of his instincts are.

[CitizenUSA]

BuckeyeTexan: “It wasn’t a relatively small number of cases where folks couldn’t afford it.”

That’s your perception. There are plenty of studies which show the “poor” generally have all the comforts of modern society, like TVs, cell phones, cars, etc.

Whether it was a small number or not is really irrelevant when one considers the approach taken. Governor Perry professes to be a Christian. Certainly he understands the concept of charity.

How is Perry’s approach fundamentally different from Bush’s $30 billion AIDS campaign in Africa? Either one of them could have created private charitable foundations, donated their own money, and used their popularity to campaign for (voluntary) donations. Both of them probably have plenty of friends with deep pockets, right?

Remind me again of which party sees government as the solution to every problem?

[CitizenUSA]

LucyT: “This guy is dangerous, and we’ve been warned.”

Dangerous? I’m more concerned he’s just another establishment Republican, someone who doesn’t have the conviction or ideology to do what’s necessary. If he’s nominated, I sure hope I’m wrong, but I get the same feeling with Perry that I got from Bush.

[Chunga]

I get the same feeling with Perry that I got from Bush.

That's exactly how three near-communist colleagues of mine feel about Perry.

They're scared to death of him because he reminds them of Bush.

[Lazlo in PA]

On this forum we can’t just totally gloss over how moderate/liberal, even lazy and convenient many of his instincts are.

I totally agree in digging in on this guy to see what he is about. I am interested in that. My main instinct on questioning some of these Perry post is because a lot of the arguments against him are the same coming from the Left for months prior to his announcement. Others are just 100% total slams with no thought involved.

I refuse to let us get to a point were we totally trashed our best hope for the ultimate goal. Destroying Romney and getting Obummer the hell out of here. BuckeyeTexan has added some context to a few of these soft spots in Perry's record, here on this thread, that make more sense then the knee jerk "Perry is a Globalist run by the Bilderberg Group".

[KarenMarie]

mrkd

[wardaddy]

Some folks here live for the zot.

Having lived in Coral Gables..my two oldest born at Mercy...., Rio, Bogota, Barranquilla and Caracas..elsewhere in el mundo latino...I know the difference tween some latinos and others and generalized group behavior..I absolutely adore high bred elegant Colombian women...God's handiwork was so adept in that gene pool..

The Gonzales thing here was almost Schiavo like in it's intensity wasn't it?

I always remember Travis McGee's pic I think he posted all the time from that with the poor kid and the storm troopers...btw...it's good to know some here have an historical perspective

On Cubans I was friends with some serious ones...Brigades 2506...some Carbonells and Prunas..and so forth..serious lovers of America..I met Eduardo Betancourt at one of these...and they got him...executed in Havana after sneaking back in for counter revolutionary activities..1993

[JustAnotherOne]

I did not see your reply earlier. You definitely get it. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance!

[BuckeyeTexan]

I made no attempt to convince anyone that Al Gore should’ve replaced Reagan. Nor would I.

Perry supported Gore in the primaries. Gore was quickly defeated by Dukakis for the nomination. Perry did not then go all-in for Dukakis. In fact, shortly thereafter, he became a Republican.

Of course Gore had a low ACU rating in 1988. It’s a conservative rating organization. And by the way, that 1988 rating is based on Gore’s votes for the bills that were voted upon only that legislative year. It is not reflective of Gore’s overall conservative positions of pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense, and pro-tobacco in 1988.

[ansel12]

I’m not interested in digging into the guy as though he is a Romney or Pawlenty, or a Christie.

What catches me though is some of the obvious nonsense, like when Reagan comes under attack, and Al Gore starts getting glorified, all in the effort to rewrite a time that meant very much to me, the Reagan Revolution.

Perry’s true self is not that of a genetically born conservative, but that of a natural born Texas politician who is pure politician, he is no game changing right winger with a true conservative agenda hidden inside him.

In secret negotiations, Perry the politician will always be the number one thing on his mind.

[CitizenUSA]

patriot08: “We need somebody who can WIN this thing. That means somebody with cross-over appeal, which our Palen, Bachmann and Cain (no matter how much we love them) simply do not have.”

The ol’ electability argument. We should just take your word for it that “Palen” can’t win, eh?

Please explain why Hillary Clinton isn’t president. Very, very few people thought Obama was electable. What about McCain? How in the world did someone so clearly unelectable become the nominee? Wasn’t Guiliani the clear favorite?

The “electability” argument is without a doubt one of the lamest ways to try and convince people to support a candidate. What are you, some sort of fortune teller?

[ansel12]

You want to defend the man that wanted to replace President Reagan with a President Al Gore.

Al Gore had a worse ACU rating in 1987 than 1988, his numbers were 9 in 1986, 6 in 1987, and 9 in 1988.

Quit trying to push that leftist Al Gore here.

[CitizenUSA]

Chunga: “That’s exactly how three near-communist colleagues of mine feel about Perry.”

So, because I have my own doubts about Perry’s conservative convictions I’m a near communist? Laughable.