Posted on 05/27/2011 11:11:59 AM PDT by Flightdeck
Consider Barack Obama out for a stiff morning run, battling hills with his little Portuguese water dog. Halfway through his daily route, danger strikes. Secret Service nowhere in sight, a coyote charges Bo, beloved pet of Sasha and Malia. Before the coyote’s jaws can tear Bo's throat open, Obama levels his laser-sighted .380 Ruger. One shot, one kill. Heart still thumping from exertion, Barack re-holsters his weapon, checks his watch, and digs in for the final climb of the trail, a hard day’s work ahead.
What's that? You have trouble seeing Obama as a strong, competent leader with the ability to execute (pun intended)? Does this make Texas Governor Rick Perry--who saved his daughter's pet Labrador in this precise way--a better choice for President? No. Well kind of, but let's go with no for now.
Now picture Barack Obama , captain of industry, receiving his advance copy of the Labor Bureau's employment report in the Oval Office. He reviews the numbers carefully. After digesting the extraordinary number of private-sector jobs created, free-falling unemployment, and ballooning economic growth, Obama finally reclines his leather chair. The numbers are great, but Obama is disappointed, knowing that less government intrusion could have made them even better.
Yeah, neither can I. I have an easier time picturing Stephen Hawking in a Dallas Cowboys uniform, intercepting a Tom Brady slant pass over the middle. And now you may understand why Rick Perry is a better choice for President of the United States. The economy is the most important factor in our country's long-term health, with direct influence on medical care, immigration, national security, and defense.
As governor of Texas for over ten years, Rick Perry has presided over a state that has strengthened national equity and weathered a global economic recession extremely well. Dare I compare Texas to Jackie Earle Haley's character in the Bad News Bears--the chain-smoking 'Kelly' who brought talent to a bunch of underachievers? In a border state with monumental state personnel (and entitlement) requirements, the success of Texas is no accident. Along with state legislatures, Perry deserves credit for specific decisions that removed burdens on growth, and for vetoing others that sought to impose them. Perhaps the most passionate topic debated in the midst of the 2010 elections was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, i.e. Obamacare. Unlike the front-running Republican candidate from Massachusetts, Governor Perry chose the fiscally conservative path to reducing patient costs while increasing the quality of their care. In a controversial stand which cost political capital, Perry sponsored a Texas state amendment limiting doctor malpractice liability. The amendment has been credited for decreasing malpractice insurance rates by greater than 21% plus renewal rebates, as reported by the New York Times. The result was an increase in doctors that doubled population increase in Texas, and initiation of care in previously neglected rural areas. Comparison of conservative medical reforms to the Obamacare prototype in Massachusetts is stark, which is principally responsible for a $20 billion state debt and skyrocketing individual premiums. And if you're pissing off the trial lawyers, you must be doing something right.
Conservative tax policy in Texas is an easy win. Texas has no state income tax, despite multiple democrat attempts to create one. Pending the 2010 numbers, Texas contributes more federal tax revenue than any other state, with the possible exception of California. More importantly, state tax policy frees Texas base equity to grow, which can now be compared as a peer to the economies of Canada, India, and England. Perry wasn't elected three times in a historically democratic state (yes, look it up), by ignoring the link between self-sufficiency and quality of life. The minimum tax and limited government policies supported by the Perry Administration can be directly linked to the job creation that currently defines Texas as a bulls eye for employers.
Texas balanced its budget, as required, on May 26. This fact should evoke both shrugs of disinterest and stunned gasps of surprise. Those of us who consider our children’s future with every waking decision will shrug, because balancing a household budget is no less necessary than having gas in the tank before driving them to school. Yet we also gasp, because there exists a strange genus of humans who are not required to fill up their tank: homo sapiens politicians. Real pain was required to balance the Texas budget, make no mistake. This pain has never been felt by federal politicians, Barack Obama for instance, who have had zero experience governing under responsible balanced budget amendments.
Pain is also required to run steep hills marked by dead coyotes with hollow points in their heads, but we exercise because our long-term health demands it. The United States can only avoid the analogous heart attack by undergoing immediate fiscal exercise. Perry and the Republican legislature deserve legitimate credit for observing discipline that has eluded their federal counterparts, and ensuring the future health of the state, in stark contrast to the suicidal spending policies of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi et al. Unlike California, Texas-based companies and citizens have enjoyed relatively minimal interference, leading to a pilgrimage of Californians to Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Their journey sheds a high-tax, entrepreneur-stifling environment for one of freedom to succeed or fail on their own terms.
Conservative Republicans may appreciate this performance, yet be quick to protest certain pedigree flaws. Most notably, Rick Perry ran for office as a democrat in 1984, and campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before switching to Republican in 1989. He was 39 years old when he switched, certainly mature enough to recognize his grotesque lapse of judgment. I believe I was eleven, plus or minus a week, when my firm political philosophy was resolved. The demographic political map at the time surely played a role in Perry's initial political identity, and while it is always smart to cast a suspicious eye, Perry's record rejects the typical party-switcher mold. Perry is pro-life, and pushed a non-trivial campaign against elective abortion in Texas with results. Perry also respects and ratified the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, through words and deed. Importantly, Governor Perry has vetoed legislation that didn't sustain conservative policies more than any single Texas governor, save one, in the state's history. It is worth noting that Perry has forcefully rejected the politics of Gore and the left over many years. The perfect conservative candidate? No. But a good one, in my humble opinion. I leave the voter with two thoughts when considering a Presidential candidate:
1) The economic policies of Texas, when generalized, will liberate the inherent productivity of the USA.
2) Rick Perry Is Not Barack Obama.
He was during Algore's 1988 campaign. Algore was considered a conservative democrat (was pro-life). According to reports, Perry was disillusion by the conservative democrats and switched parties later. I have no opinions of Perry, just wanted to make sure you were not under the impression he support Algore in 2000...
I generally agreed with your concern, until you claimed “Rick Perry is willing to trash families and the lives of children”. I don’t believe that is true. Post 19 has another opinion
The HPV thing is a deal breaker for me. We (you and I and every other parent) either have a God-given (natural) right to be parents to our children or we do not.
By making Gardasil mandatory, Rick Perry believes that he and the government are better positioned to make decisions about your children that you are.
What’s next? What you feed your family? Your children’s education? Their religion? Their place of residence? There literally is no limit if you agree that the government knows best.
Signing the Gardasil bill into law reflects a basic belief that children belong to the state. How else could he possibly justify his position?
Not only that, Perry was a member of the commie 'RAT party until 1989! He was also pals with an extreme leftist from Austin named Lena Guerrero while a member of the Texas House of Representatives.
Also in his disfavor is his 2007 endorsement of fellow RINO (and pro-abortion cross-dresser) Rudy Giuliani for president.
The mandatory hpv vaccine
Big problem for me. I will NEVER vote for him for the primary. However, due to his pro-life stance (my number one issue) if he wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him in the general.
Just so you know where I’m coming from, my children (those of the appropriate age and gender) are vaccinated with Gardasil.
So I’m not against it in any way. But Perry is trashing families and children when he decides that he knows better than I do in deciding that the vaccines are mandatory.
I don’t care what you decide about Gardasil. You are the parent, you are the mom or dad, the child is yours to raise.
Anyone who wants to force parents to surrender their right to raise their children is in favor of ruining the family.
That’s the way it works. In the absence of abuse, you are the parent. Not the government. If the government is the parent, you are only a family if they decide to allow it.
I think there once was a time when a "conservative democrat" existed but you have to go way back to the era of Strom Thurmond and James Eastland.
It was roughly 1968 when genuine American patriots (pro-God, pro-life and pro-military) abandoned the Democrat party in droves. By the mid to late 80's (when Perry endorsed Gore), that party was into full-tilt Marxism (with the likes of the vile Jesse Jackson among the candidates).
I have three daughters and strongly object to being told how to raise them as well. As I told another poster here, though, I weigh the hpv vaccine along with the issues of abortion, fiscal conservatism, and border security. All of them are extremely important, and Perry gets at least 3 of the 4 correct.
I certainly respect anyone who wants the ultimate conservative, no strings attached. I do, too. In the general election, though, I would have no problem pulling the lever for Perry.
I don’t like the Bushes. His father was an awful President and the son was a catastrophe. As for endorsement by a Hispanic American group - the Bush connection and him are too much for me to bear.
Bush did NOTHING while Mexico invaded America. He said he would NOT sign an English as an Official Language bill, he supported the McCain - Kennedy Amnesty Bill, his administration imprisoned two Hispanic American border guards for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler, etc. etc.
Don’t ask me to reiterate a litany of charges against the Bushes. Obama should be our target. But I will NOT support another Bush for President or anyone connected with them.
They betrayed the conservative Reagan Revolution and helped put Obama in the White House with the aid of John McCain.
True, he keeps on serving his entire terms as Governor.
Can you list the mandatory vaccinations kids have to get?
Which of those offended you so badly?
The video doesn’t look like any thing more than a dismissive answer to a repetitive question.
Also, the reason why Tip O'Neil turned hostile on Reagan is that Tip got mad that Reagan reached into to his caucus to build his coalition.
VAERS defines non-serious adverse events as those other than hospitalization, death, permanent disability, and life threatening illness.
The vast majority (92%) of the adverse events reports following Gardasil vaccination have included fainting, pain, and swelling at the injection site (the arm), headache, nausea, and fever. Fainting is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented by closely observing the vaccinated person for 15 minutes after vaccination.
As of February 14, 2011, there have been 51 VAERS reports of death among females who have received Gardasil. Thirty two of these reports have been confirmed and 19 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.
VAERS defines non-serious adverse events as those other than hospitalization, death, permanent disability, or life-threatening illness.
The vast majority (92%) of the adverse events reports following Gardasil vaccination have included fainting, pain, and swelling at the injection site (the arm), headache, nausea, and fever. Syncope (fainting) is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented by closely observing the vaccinated person for 15 minutes after vaccination.
Any VAERS report that indicated hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death is classified as serious. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has been reported after vaccination with Gardasil. GBS is a rare neurologic disorder that causes muscle weakness. It occurs in 1-2 out of every 100,000 people in their teens. A number of infections have been associated with GBS. There has been no indication that Gardasil increases the rate of GBS in girls and women above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated.
There have been some reports of blood clots in females after receiving Gardasil. These clots have occurred in the heart, lungs, and legs. Most of these people had a risk of getting blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (the birth control pill), smoking, obesity, and other risk factors.
Reagan was a union president and was governor as a Democrat.
I wouldn’t call him an Obama, but the gardisil issue brings up two very disturbing potential probems:
A: he believes government knows best ....or...
B: he made money off it in a crony capitalist way ... or...
BOTH.
Very bad precedent IMO.
Interesting. So that covers the span of 1980-1988, right? Who were some of the Yellow Dogs of that era? And were they primarily from the South?
I really thought that the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon (shortly after the change of parties by Strom Thurmond and years later by John Connally) was the death knell for anyone even remotely Conservative to remain in the Democrat ranks.
Dang, I have the timing of Reagan as a Democrat way wrong. Freepers pile on me, I earned it.
When he looked at the Texas electoral map and realized that the only surviving blue blemshes on our beautiful red State were Wetback Country and The People's Repubic of Austin, Political Perry took off his blue coat and put on a red one.
Inside that red cover is still the same old Rat!!!
Yes, that is spelled as I intended it to be...'-)
P.S. Any reasonable Texan would ask, "WTH does whacking a coyote have to do with being President?" (I do the same to rattlers fairly often -- and I don't need a laser sight...)
During the last Texas Governor race, the Bush Family endorsed his opponent, Kay Hutchinson. George W. personally remained silent.
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.