Posted on 09/04/2011 12:42:11 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
While watching Sarah Palin's speech yesterday at Indianola, it occurred to me that she is beloved by her supporters and detested and feared by her enemies for at least one common reason: She is an extraordinary political talent, willing and able to call a spade a spade and to do so with a combination of moxie and panache that is both devastating and funny. She represents a clear and present danger both to the GOP Establishment and to the Democrat left, the two sides of the same false coin which has embedded itself in D.C. as the "Permanent Political Class". Her supporters rightly see her as the one candidate with the charisma, bedrock honesty and courage to drain Gucci Gulch on K Street as she drained the fetid Corrupt Bastards Club in Juneau. The permanent political class can only exist on the oxygen supplied by crony capitalists, who "pay to play" (with our money, that is). Palin proposes to blow their cozy, little symbiotic relationship to smithereens. She means it. She has done it before. And it terrifies them.
In her speech, Palin alluded to the phenomenon of politicians who enter, and then cling to office, becoming members of the permanent political class, while proceeding to grow rich at the public trough:
"Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars."
She may or may not have had Governor Rick Perry in mind when she said this, but it is a fact that Perry--who never fails to brandish his humble beginnings as a rural farmer--has become very wealthy over the course of his 27 years in public office. He has had a series of questionable real estate deals with other politicians and with contributors that have netted him millions. His Horseshoe Bay deal, for example, involved State Senator Troy Fraser and two business partners (one who sold the land to Fraser; the other who bought it from Perry) and netted the Governor a cool $823,000 profit in 2007 on only a 300,000 investment in 2001. Then there was the deal in which Perry, while serving as state Agriculture Commissioner, bought 10 acres of undeveloped land in 1993 for $123,000 and sold it the next year to Michael Dell, a computer magnate for $465,000, three times what he paid for it. Interestingly, Michael Toomey, an influential lobbyist actually closed the sale for Perry (who was out of town at the time). Toomey later became Perry's Chief of Staff and, after that, became a lobbyist for Merck where he was instrumental in lobbying Perry to issue the gardasil mandate, which stood to make millions for Merck, while endangering the health of pre-teen Texas girls. And these are just a few of the scores of examples of such shenanigans, which the opposition researchers in the White House are poring over.
In her speech, Palin did not just attack Obama for his crony capitalism, although her mention of him in this regard portends one key aspect of the campaign she intends to run against him. Merely replacing Obama is not enough, she said, if the gameplan remind the same. She clearly had her GOP opponents, particularly Rick Perry, in mind, when she said:
"Now to be fair, some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their “investments”? We need to know this because our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar “thank you” notes to campaign backers. It is an important question, and it cuts to the heart of our problem. And I speak from experience in confronting the corruption and the crony capitalism since starting out in public office 20 years ago. I’ve been out-spent in my campaigns two to one, three to one, five to one. (And, by the way, I don’t play that game either of hiring expert political advisors just so they’ll say something nice about me on TV – if you ever wonder. You know how that game’s played too I’m sure.) But the reason is simple: It’s because like you, I’m not for sale. It’s because we believe in the free market. I believe in the free market, and that is why I detest crony capitalism. And Barack Obama has shown us cronyism on steroids. It will lead to our downfall if we don’t stop it now. It’s a root that grows our economic problems. Our unsustainable debt and our high unemployment numbers and a housing market that’s in the tank and a stagnant economy – these are all symptoms."
Notice how she linked crony capitalism to unsustainable debt, high unemployment, a crippled housing market and a stagnant economy, indicating just how vulnerable Obama is to such a connection, given the number of his close aides who benefited from Fannie and Freddie, bailouts and stimulus funds. Leaving aside Perry's own personal history of shady insider deals, he has created similar "funds" which have doled out $633 million to such "start up enterprises" as Home Depot, Tyson Foods, Sanderson Farms and Countrywide.
Perry's slush fund in Texas is classic "pay to play", and Palin called him on it, at least obliquely. If Perry had been in the audience at Indianola, he would have turned three shades of beet red.
Finally, and perhaps most damning of all, is that Perry's history of crony capitalism in Texas has coincided with an unprecedented debt and budget crisis there. Texas' debt is up 184% on his watch, from $13 billion to $37 billion. Texas' budget deficit is $13.4 billion a whopping 31% of the total budget, the fourth largest in America. The chart below shows 32 states with the biggest shortfalls:
By the way, if you are looking for Alaska on the list, you won't find it. Governor Palin's policies, including ACES and AGIA, as well as her veto pen, left the state in sound financial shape, and it sports a healthy budget surplus of $3.4 billion, plus 12 billion in reserves, and a booming economy, bucking the national trend.
Up to now, Perry has managed to disguise his gaping deficits through accounting gimmicks and the use of federal stimulus funds he received from... Barack Obama. That's right. In FY 2009, 97% of Texas' 6.6 billion budget shortfall was plugged with stimulus funds from Barack Obama.
Governor Palin's strategy against Perry is coming into focus. His record of crony capitalism has helped to swell the deficit and deepen the debt crisis in Texas, in contrast to Alaska, which she left in robust fiscal health. To make matters worse, Perry's use of Obama's stimulus funds to close his budget deficit compromises his ability to make the case against federal overspending. Having ballooned Texas' deficits via crony capitalism, Perry accepted federal stimulus funds to cover the shortfall. This is not a narrative for success in November 2012. And Perry is not the candidate to stand up on the debate stage with Obama and make this case.
The nomination of Rick Perry would remove, at a stroke, two very critical issues against Obama: First, the Corruption Issue. The "Chicago Way" does not seem to differ appreciably from the "Austin Way". Every mention of Tony Rezko or Bill Daley or Fannie Mae would generate a retort about Horseshoe Bay, Gardasil and taxpayer subsidies for big Perry campaign contributors,individuals who who contribute to him directly but also corporations like Tyson and Home Depot, who contribute indirectly in the form of large soft money contributions to Perry friendly entities like the Republican Governor's Association which, in turn, cut checks to Perry.
Second, Perry's use of federal stimulus funds to cover his budget deficits will neuter any attack he might try to mount on Obama's overspending, because it would expose him to the charge of hypocrisy. Any attacks by Perry will lack resonance, since he himself has been a conspicuous part of the two headed hydra of big government, crony capitalism and out of control spending and debt.
Palin will draw a sharp contrast between her dealings with crony capitalists in Juneau, where so many took the perp walk and were hustled off to Club Fed, and Perry's associates, who grew fat and happy during his adminstration. She will point to her cuts in the state budget, ACTUAL cuts, not cuts in the rate of growth, whereby she reduced Governor Murkowski's budget of $11.7 billion in 2007 to $10.57 billion in 2010, a whopping 9.5% cut. Unlike Perry, Palin didn't need Obama's stimulus money to balance her budget (In fact she only accepted 55% of the $930 million Obama offered Alaska), and thus she would not be fettered in attacking the President on the issue of his overspending.
Palin will clearly never be writing any trillion dollar thank you notes to Gucci Gulch, nor will they be cutting any checks to her. Neither will she be issuing any endorsements to J. Rick Perry in the near future. That much is clear. But it sounds like she may be preparing an ultimatum...for Barack Obama.
Yes, your complete ignorance of what drug companies must go through before they are allowed to put a drug on the market is quote clear. If Perry has been involved in shady dealings that do not withstand scrutiny it would seem to make sense to point out specifics that can be documented and have no rational explanation that is not “shady.” Ill informed general accusations indicate nothing other than a prejucial bias.
Is there some way to credibly confirm what you assert? What is your source of information for this assertion and how can the truth of it be verified?
There are NO studies on the long term effects, ESPECIALLY when given to prepubescent girls. They aren't even sure how long it lasts. AND you DON'T get HPV by sitting next to someone in class.
Perhaps someone should subpoena Rick’s emails. ;)
Do a search. It’s been posted on FR. And the reports on online. Wagglebee has links to Gardasil being a killer.
I agree it was Perry's knee-jerk, nanny state reaction that bothered me, as well as the ties (no matter how some here dismiss them) to Merck. Funny, too, last month he admitted it was a mistake to rush the law, but has done nothing to rescind it, other than to say people can opt out. If people can opt out, what's the point of the law in the first place?
That white sweater should be standard uniform for her speeches.......... err, I mean,
That Iowa speech Sat. was incredible!
I know you think the same way. This is just insane. MORE government marching orders but it's ok because it's Perry? Nope.
To me, it almost encourages sexual activity among young teens.
A search reveals that there are some 91 reported deaths conneted with the use of the drug and many more reported adverse reactions. Thus this would not appear to have been a decision that was as well thought through as it should have been. It would seem that the FDA has not withdrawn approval of the drug and one wonders why. While the drug has been provent to be an effective preventative it would seem that any parent who allows their child to receive the drug without being tested for possible adverse reactions and consulting with a responible and knoweledgeable physician is not making a good decision.
Gardasil is more about genital warts than cancer. But they can't or won't say that.
Yes. The way it was marketed makes them think they are protected.
If you think she was taking shots at Gov Perry, you haven't been paying attention.
I’d like to apologize for using the words “assinine argument”.
It beats the evidence the Palinstinians have that “Oh, the majority loves her. Trust us.”
Google "Perry net worth", and you'll see that everybody is estimating. I posted one link from this past week that said his net worth was $1.1 million. Do you really need more links?
You are focusing on how much money he made in a real estate deal -- maybe you should focus on how much money he actually has.
Did you know he trained as and became a licensed realtor, although he never worked in that field -- he took a keen interest in real estate. Way back in 1981, he was already appointed to the Bill Clements appointed him to the advisory committee of Texas A&M University's Real Estate Center.
A amart guy with an eye for real estate can make some good investments, especially if he saves his money, which apparently he did when his wife and he both worked for rather average wages.
In the 1990s, he decided he wanted to live in then-rural Travis County, but everytime he found a good deal and bought some land, his wife said it was too far away. In 1991, Perry bought some land at an FDIC liquidation auction for $55,288, and he sold it 3 years later for $125,000. No indication any politicians or contributers were involved. Just a smart investment.
He bought other undeveloped property in 1993. Then it turned out Dell needed it to reach public utilities, so Dell paid him a lot more for it, and he made $342,000. There is no evidence that Perry knew Dell would need the land (pretty odd in fact if Perry would know it before Dell did, which he obviously did or Dell would have bought it when it was on the market). He bought the land on the open market -- a lobbyist friend who became his campaign manager closed the sale for him, but he didn't buy or sell the property, or make any under-the-table deal for it, so the only argument there is guilt-by-association.
THen there was the deal involving a Senator, Perry bought it in 2001, for $315,000. Normally people point to a cheap sale, but this wasn't, or a short turnaround, but again this wasn't. Perry held this land for six full years. Those six years were a great boon in real estate -- everybody doubled and tripled their money, if they sold at the right time.
The right time? We were told that here on Free Republic -- the bubble was going to burst. Perry sold in 2007, right at the peak, and at a little more than 3 times the purchase price; he cleared $780,000 on that deal; but again, nothing improper was found in either the purchase or the sale. Yes, people sometimes make money in real estate, there is NOTHING in that deal that suggests any favors from a legislator OR anything having to do with a contributer.
You are simply saying words "Legislator","COntributer", "Big Gain", and thinking because they are in the same sentence, it means something bad. IN fact, you have to show that there was an actual deal made for which Perry got money that nobody else could have gotten. The land in this case wasn't unique, anybody could have purchased in the same area in 2001, and sold in 2007, and made the same amount of money.
He also wrote two books, just like Sarah Palin. Now, they didn't sell nearly as well as Palin's book, but in fact he made NO MONEY from the sale of either book. The reason: "Perry directed proceeds from one of his books to legal defense for the Boy Scouts of America and proceeds from the other to an Austin-based conservative think tank."
Perry, with a net worth of somewhere just north of $1 million, gave the proceeds of his Boy Scout book to the Boy Scouts, and the proceeds of his Fed Up book to a conservative think tank. Is that the move of a guy who tries to use his public position to make money?
The argument comes down to "Perry made money, so he must have been making crooked real estate deals to clean up on his public job, while he was giving away legitimate book royalties to charity." It makes no sense, it's not supported by any evidence.
IN fact, a lot of the information for the anti-PErry stories on his finances come from the Texas Ethics Commission -- because they investigated ALL of these deals, and found nothing wrong.
Have you taken this up with the poster who posted it?
As for Perry’s record in general, it doesn’t impress me.
What is your opinion regarding his apparent support for entities tied to the Islamic movement?
You seem to put high value on being informed. As you should.
Can you tell me what was Perry’s reasoning for thinking it was a good idea to give this vaccine to nine year olds?
Plus, she has to win the primary. If she can do that, Obama will be a cakewalk, because she’ll already have shown she can overcome the negative stereotyping.
There’s really no downside to her running, whether or not you like her.
And for the record, I absolutely love her.
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.