Posted on 07/10/2011 3:47:00 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
If Rick Perry does mount a successful bid for the U.S. presidency, it will be interesting to see whether he can translate his past and present criticisms of the federal government into concrete changes to the sprawling bureaucracy.
Perry has yet to say he will or won’t toss his hat into the Republican race for the right to square off against President Barack Obama in 2012. He is, however, making all the moves of a potential candidate testing the waters. Insiders are mixed on the odds. Some say he’s definitely in; others put the odds at 50-50.
But the mere possibility the longest-serving Texas governor will join a party battle featuring hopefuls who conservatives and the tea party are not particularly excited about has pundits of all stripes from coast to coast offering their views of how a Perry candidacy would play out.
Perry, who’s never lost an election, has a good chance of rising quickly to the frontrunner position against Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman. His unabashed conservative message puts him at or beyond Bachman’s position on the far right end of the political spectrum. His executive experience compares well to Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman.
And, like him or not, there’s little denying Perry knows how to campaign, raise money and deliver rousing speeches.
While polls show Obama in danger of losing to a generic Republican candidate — and the prevailing wisdom in the punditry sphere is the 2012 race is the GOP’s to lose, there is a real question whether a candidate who energizes the conservative base can do so without having his or her far-right stances turn off center-right independents, pushing them into Obama’s column.
But should Perry manage to keep his perfect election record intact and find himself in the White House, we’ll find out whether his Washington walk matches his Texas talk.
Assuming the GOP holds its House majority and gains control of the Senate, we can imagine Perry’s to-do list starting with the repeal of Obamacare and ending with a full makeover of the Environmental Protection Agency. In between, he’d likely put a host of agencies to work shredding scores of regulations he’s railed against. He’d also likely push Congress to end or redesign a variety of federal programs he views as overreaches in violation of state rights laid out in the Tenth Amendment.
Perry’s real test would be border security. He’s decried the federal government’s failure to secure the border, but the problem has stymied presidents from both parties for decades. Perry might be able the change that, but the odds are he’d merely find himself transformed from the critic to the criticized.
While some pundits question whether voters will back another Texas governor so soon after George W. Bush’s divisive two terms at the helm, others see Perry as a different sort of conservative. Unlike “compassionate conservative” Bush, some see Perry as more like Ronald Reagan.
But unlike the easy-going, grandfatherly Gipper, Perry is more like the Texas A&M yell leader he once was.
“Our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let’s stop trying to curry favor with them,” he said in a recent speech.
We’ve agreed with Perry, and we’ve disagreed with him. He’s certainly not perfect, but no candidate is. But if sending Perry to Washington would balance the budget, address the debt and rein in over-regulation, it would be a welcome change from the current state of affairs.
I listened. He states that his only goal was to clear up congestion within Texas, talking about how long it took to get between metropolitan areas mostly mentioning Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. He said that "Texas is building highways" and did not acknowledge any of the issues surrounding the TTC. He disingenuously (IMO) states that his efforts have only been about companies moving product from Texas "to where they will sell their product," at which point he mentions Mexico, Houston, and Corpus Christie. No mention of massive toll roads. No mention of the public private partnerships. No mention of Cintra and other interests. No mention of Nasco or Nafta, or long term objectives.
What do you think he accomplished in that interview?
We also weren’t too happy about him using executive fiat, having to be among the first users (just a bit after Los Angeles), and having revolving-door links to the company involved.
...and the opt-out provision was a big-deal and he should have WANTED it fixed. As I’m sure you know, the drug was required just like any other for kids going to school and the only way to opt out, for any vaccine, was to swear that your religion prohibited the use of vaccines...something conservatives would rather not have to do.
But in the end, we’re simply PERPLEXED. Why the hurry? And given the dozens of deaths from the drug, perhaps he should have taken a bit more time, and brought the public along, in some way.
I don’t understand your problem with a toll road?
I pay tolls in Houston. I get where I want to go.
I pay tolls in other states to get where I want to go.
How do you expect these new roads to get built?
With Obama’s stash?
The toll road through Texas is a Gateway project that was being promoted by Kaye Bailey Hutchison.
Not all Gateway projects are bad, but the connection to the Agenda 21 Wildlands project makes them all suspect.
In this case it looks as though it might not be such a bad idea, but only if the local people want the road, not if it is to benefit THROUGH Texas traffic rather than intra-Texas traffic.
No mention of that anywhere is there?
So because we’re near Mexico we’re not allowed to build road infrastructure! Really!
25, 000,000 people live in Texas. Have you witnessed the dead stop back-up on major Texas freeways as people were fleeing the coast and approaching hurricanes?
Dallas to Austin – 4 hour drive (takes longer than pre interstate days due to congestion)
As Gov. Perry stated, Texas needs a bigger interstate highway footprint; we need more lane highways between major cities.
Houston’s Port ranks with New York and Los Angeles ports. We need to be able to move products and people.
I added a bit in Post # 105.
You want me to think you're a doofus, then you come in here with this circuitous route trying to trick me. (laughing) You're good out there, Kendall. You're good, and it mighta worked with another host. My congratulations to you. It's a good effort. I like your technique out there. Pull the other one
In the grand scheme of things you should research donations made to political action committees (PACs) and direct contributions that companies like Merck make to ALL politicians. That’s what lobbyists do. They prowl the halls of government buildings across the country. (Where do you think Barack Obama’s $1Billion is coming from, the poor?)
Lobbyists start out in government—where they build up their rolodex. Then they move on to represent businesses who know it is required that they come hat in hand to pay tribute to the legislators who will be passing or not passing legislation that will be levying taxes and regulations upon them.
It is the nature of the beast — why we need to have elected officials spend less time on the job and go home to work a real job. The Texas legislature meets every 2 years for 140 days (additional days if special sessions are called).
Rick Perry’s platform in brief:
1. Don’t spend all the money.
2. Have fair and predictable tax and regulatory policy.
3. A legal system that doesn’t allow for over suing (lawsuit abuse) and make loser pay (no more jackpot justice).
With that as Rick Perry’s platform and political ideology, I conclude that Merck contributed to Rick Perry’s PAC to have less government entanglement in their business, which would do considerably more for their bottom line than what you are suggesting.
That’s what I mean about the Gateways not being all bad. The bad part comes in when they limit access to the highways by not adding local access in more rural along the route, which would be the true goal of the Wildlands Gateways, to limit access to rural areas.
“Texas is the only state where Merck hired the Governor’s former chief of staff and friend to be a lobbyist. “
That’s what worries us. Any normally corrupt politician would still have enough common sense to not get bought out by something that goes TOTALLY AGAINST his purported ideology - so when Perry was ready to sell control of our highways to private companies for unrestrained tolling, we understood that)...just the symptoms of a typical corrupt politician (since one can claim that allowing private companies to charge people 30 cents per mile to drive is some form of capitalism, weird capitalism, but still capitalism).
But when Perry bucks conservatives to this extent (as in the case of Gardasil) just because he’s easy to buy - that gets VERY SCARY. At least most corrupt politicians still try to maintain a semblance of ideology, as that usually works in their favor, over the long term.
You're a typical dirty tricks campaigner.
You're "confused?"
No, you're trying to confuse.
Rick Perry was a conservative Democrat and Al Gore was a different Democrat in 1988.
Rick Perry and Al Gore took different paths.
I hope that helps your "confusion."
Go ask Tipper about Al Gore. I imagine she could fill you in on Al.
“You should be a lot more confused about Perry supporting a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control Presidential candidate in 2008 than supporting Gore in 1988.”
I agree. Gore doesn’t confuse me - Perry was a Democrat and he wanted a second coming of Jimmy Carter - clearly. The real question there is whether a person can change that much in ideology as an adult. I don’t think so...but we may find out.
Giuliani can be explained by the above paragraph...perhaps he hasn’t become as conservative as all would like him to be (or that he wants us to believe). 2008 was a really weak field, but still...
I think you’re the one that’s confused. I’m willing to cut Perry some slack on 1988 - as you said, he was a conservative democrat as was Al Gore and I completely concede that. But in 2007-2008, I can’t cut Perry too much slack - he supported a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control candidate for President, and he did so because that candidate was trying to help him get his corridor built. It’s also why my wife will never support Perry - she’s far more concerned about abortion than I am and she will not forgive Perry for campaigning for a pro-abortion candidate.
:)
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.