The Case for Rick Perry

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.

Now, you were writing about “misbehaving” girls? Virgins who marry “misbehaving” boys contract HPV, too.

No need to put misbehaving in quotation marks. We know that as promiscuity and general misbehavior increases, so do rates of HPV. Most women who marry in the U.S. are adults, so they can decide for themselves whether:

1. The fiance should be tested (unfortunately, easy, common tests are not available, but a urologist can do one).
2. She decides as a grown woman that she doesn't want to take a chance or scare a fiance off by forcing him to take the test, and goes and DECIDES FOR HERSELF to get the expensive vaccine with its included risks, in order to lessen the odds of getting the handful of strains out of more than 100 (albeit worse ones) that Gardasil deals with. If her fiance is circumcised, there is a considerably lower chance of his being infected. A grown woman can take these factors into consideration and decide for herself. She doesn't need Gov. Perry to decide for her.

None of the deaths were confirmed to be due to the vaccine.

Puh-leeze. That reminds me of the old official position of the American Tobacco Institute that maintained for decades that there was no proof that the use of tobacco products caused lung cancer, as correlation is not necessarily causation.

The teen death rate from all causes is 62 per 100,000 across the US. [ . . . ] Most of those are boys, but still: In 10 million girls, 30 deaths are not outside the rate for the age group.
Once you remove car accidents, suicides, drug overdoses, and also those suffering from severe childhood diseases that frequently lead to early death, the number gets much, MUCH, lower. Unless the autopsy can show a brain aneurysm, undiagnosed heart condition or similar, there is not a whole lot left. Thirty is the CDC number, other sources claim 50 or 80. Besides the deaths, the number of non-trivial side-effects reported (e.g. kidney failure, seizures, arthritis, etc.) number in the thousands.

The complicating pre-existing conditions (birth control pills, obesity, smoking, other medications) that you mentioned in the earlier post means that a large majority of those given the vaccine are likely to be less than ideal candidates for it. This is yet another reason why a mandatory one-size-fits-all remedy is a bad approach.

While some vaccine scares have proven to be untrue or exaggerated, we don't have to take the governor's, the FDA's, or the pharmaceutical company's word for it. When they are wrong, it turns out to be a whopper. It wasn't long ago that a Hepatitis-B vaccine mandated for newborns in several states caused a very high rate of colon separation before changes were made. That is a nasty way to get a large scale trial.

I have had Lyme Disease, so I was interested in finding out more about that vaccine as it was being developed, but decided to hold off. It turns out that the effectiveness was not great, and there were other problems that me glad that I held off. The U.S. held onto the weak-live polio vaccine for so long that at one point, the ONLY cases of polio in the country came from it (about 7). Since then, the U.S. has wisely switched to the less effective, more expensive but less risky dead-cell version.

I personally know of an entire classroom in Canada that became quite sick from a bad batch of (I think) mumps vaccine. One girl died, another has a permanently compromised immune system. The rest ultimately recovered. Now, this had nothing to do with the vaccine itself, but is a not-so gentle reminder that one must be careful with what one injects one's body with. It might well be worth it to prevent a deadly illness, but I'll just let my kids contract chicken pox the old fashioned way rather than letting the vaccine wear off and let them be at risk again as young adults.

I am not looking to take the chicken pox vaccine off the market, and might even consider that a more thoroughly tested Gardasil might have a role. I would reserve government mandates only be considered for serious diseases that are not already eliminated (smallpox, being an example that has been eliminated) that can be spread through casual contact (e.g. coughed upon, shaking hands, riding next to on a subway, etc.).

HPV, and even cervical cancer itself, do not fall into that category.

What you perceive as "slurs" was intended as a short-form admonition against rating Perry's so-called "conservatism" against the liberal backdrop of Øbozo, The People's Repubic of Austin, "Criminal Alien Invader" country -- or that of of a liberal academic environment.

What follows is an example drawn from personal life experience (of which, I may well have more than the two of you combined...). It is indeed a caveat against (you two) Perry enthusiasts falling into the same error that I experienced.

(As an aid to illustrating the experience/reality, I have done you the courtesy of literally "drawing you a [pair of] picture[s]"...)

~~~~~~~~~~

When we lived in MA, I was a personal friend of Scott Brown and Gail and their two daughters. I was also one of Scott's early supporters and campaigners who helped put him into the MA legislature.

Against the backdrop of MA liberalism, (and with "Chappaquiddick Teddy" as my US Senator and "Bahney Fwank" as my US rep) Scott shone as a relatively bright conservative "star":

When Kennedy passed on to his eternal sentence, I was one of the first to personally encourage Scott to go for Kenedy's vacant Senate Seat.

When he won it, that placed him in focus against the backdrop of true, Tea Party style conservatism:

...and Scott's liberal flaws became painfully obvious. (BTW, the three "stars" in the two images are the exact, same vector graphic objects. Only the fill color of the square changed.)

Suffice it to say that I no longer support Scott Brown for any national office, (and I am blissfully detached from the liberal hellhole that is Massachusetts politics.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Now that I live in (and am politically active in) rural/small-town Texas, I am similarly able to view Perry against the true conservative backdrop of solidly conservative, patriotic Texans, and...

Perry and his political behavior look far less appealing when compared to true Texas Conservatism.

Life lesson: Compared to Øbozo, the leftist Criminal Alien Invader, or Austin / academic liberalism, Perry looks pretty good. Compared to real Texas conservatism, Perry looks little better than what remains on your boots after a trip across the cowlot. (Just the fact that little Ricky bought his very first votes -- and has never stopped -- should make you stop and think...)

~~~~~~~~~

There is no way I will support Perry for any office (or in the primary). Should the Convention (G_d forbid!) select him as the Republican standard bearer, I will compare him to both his liberal opponents, and to genuine conservative standards -- and then decide if I can hold my nose long enough to vote to put another Scott Brown into Federal office.

(The graphics are far from optimized, but you have received more of my time and effort than you warrant. Furthermore, I am 'way over my domain's filespace limit -- so the above grapics may vanish soon...)

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.