Posted on 09/06/2011 9:24:21 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Katrina Trinko
September 6, 2011 4:00 A.M.
In Texas, they called it the “Father’s Day Massacre.”
In June 2001, fresh off his first legislative session as governor, Rick Perry vetoed 79 bills on the last day of his veto period — the time in which a governor can sign bills, veto them, or allow them to become law without his signature. Added to the three bills he had vetoed prior, Perry’s annihilation shattered the record for a Texas governor. (Perry easily knocked off Republican Bill Clements, who had axed 59 bills in 1989, from his first-place perch.) It was also a marked change from George W. Bush’s governing style: Bush had never vetoed more than 37 bills in a year.
The dramatic gesture paid off.
The Austin American-Statesman analyzed over 500 e-mails and letters that were sent to Perry’s office in the aftermath of the vetoes, and found the response overwhelmingly positive. Perry, the American-Statesman reported, “appears to have energized people who support the death penalty, oppose abortion, are wary of more government — and whose turnout at the polls is necessary for him to win a full term in the 2002 election.” Winning the trust of conservatives was important for Perry. Before the vetoes, he had signed a hate-crimes bill that was opposed by many conservatives — his office was inundated with calls the days before the bill hit his desk — and was the Democrats’ “top priority” that session, according to Texas political analyst William Lutz.
But if the vetoes soothed conservative voters’ concerns about Perry, they carried other political liabilities. He angered state doctors when he killed a bill that would have forced insurers to pay doctors more promptly. Another controversial piece of legislation he vetoed was one that would have prohibited the execution of mentally retarded criminals.
Both Republican and Democratic bills were derailed, although not equally: Fifty-six of the 82 bills vetoed had a Democrat as lead sponsor. When some legislators complained that the vetoes had been unexpected, Perry campaign consultant Dave Carney brushed off the complaints, telling the San Antonio Express-News that the charges were “great revisionist history.”
“That’s what I would say, too, if someone vetoed my bill. Would you say you passed terrible legislation that deserved to be vetoed?” Carney added.
The stunt also earned Perry accusations of being influenced by campaign donations. Perry racked up $1.2 million in campaign donations in the period after the session ended (state law at the time forbade legislators and state officeholders from accepting donations when the legislature was in session) but before the veto period had concluded. Perry hauled in $175,000 the first day after the session ended, the majority from members of Texans for Lawsuit Reform. That group opposed four bills — and Perry vetoed all of them, a decision that did not go unnoticed by Texas media. “Instead of accepting tens of thousands of dollars from the tort reform group during that period, Perry could have — and should have — imposed a prohibition on political fund raising until after June 17,” an Austin American-Statesman editorial scolded. State law was eventually changed to ban political contributions until after the veto period had passed.
In 2002, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Tony Sanchez resurrected the charge, running TV ads that painted Perry as selling vetoes for contributions. The issue also came up in a debate between the candidates. But Perry clearly didn’t buy that the vetoes played negatively. At a fundraiser toward the end of 2001, he touted them, saying, “Government doesn’t have all the answers. You want a governor that will stand up and take the heat when it’s time to veto a bill. I did that.”
Perry also expertly used the move to paint himself as being outside the (Austin) beltway.
“Those of us who are closely associated with the process may have seen 82 vetoes as, ‘Whoa, this really earth-shattering event.’ But once you get away from the beltway mentality to the bulk of the people in the state of Texas, it’s kind of, ‘Thank you governor,’” Perry told the Associated Press in 2002.
Perry added that he had been told, “Perry, the guy driving the Dr Pepper truck in Dumas, Texas, thinks you didn’t veto enough.”
It’s often noted that Perry has never lost an election. That’s no doubt partly due to the political instincts he shows in decisions just like this. What pundits deem a “massacre” may just come off as a welcome government pruning to voters.
— Katrina Trinko is an NRO reporter.
Uh, maybe read what i posted?
There will never be a Perry/Palin ticket.
If Perry gets the nomination I will vote for him.
If he was going to veto them anyway, I say, take the bucks.
____________________________________________________________
He probably was, they were good vetoes.
It still stinks to high heaven.
We know the price of a Perry veto from this article.
Palin is not for sale and you will be unable to show her having done anything like this.
see post #26. :)
From the article:
“Instead of accepting tens of thousands of dollars from the tort reform group during that period, Perry could have — and should have — imposed a prohibition on political fund raising until after June 17,”
I agree and so did the legislature that changed the law to prohibit it in the future.
If they were only donating because they liked his policies then they would have donated anyway after the prohibition ended.I would have no problem with this.
But that’s not why they donated. They donated to ENSURE the veto. They got what they paid for.
Good for you, stay positive! :)
I hope you’re wrong, but I suspect you’re probably correct. However, should Palin not run, I do see her putting her considerable influence behind the candidates of her choice.
As for circumspection, I would always expect Palin to choose the most conservative candidate since conservatism, rather than Republicanism, is the only hope we have of saving our nation.
I posted an excerpt of the article that is the subject of this thread.
The four bills involved tort reform according to the article.
They were good vetoes.
Sorry the only one that would fiyt the Ross Perot scenerio would be Trump. But who needs facts.
HUH. The Governor either Vetos or he doesn’t and it becomes law.
Gov 101
Here is a real time article out of Lubbock. 2001.
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/081501/upd_075-5791.shtml
AUSTIN {AP}— Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to veto 82 bills in June may have drawn criticism from Democrats but it has helped him shore up support among his conservative base.
An Austin American-Statesman review of the more than 500 letters and e-mails that the governor has received on the vetos show that conservatives lined up behind his decisions to ax bills on everything from Medicaid to the Permanent School Fund.”
“
I see you have taken up mindreading. Wait, it gets better. You also have taken up time travel, so you could travel back in time, and then read their minds.
Apparently nobody had a problem with it before, because they didn’t change the law until after the democrats made it an issue.
Why should Perry have imposed on himself a fundraising ban that nobody else had, and that wasn’t legally required?
He had a campaign, the campaign opened up for donations when they were legally allowed to do so, and people started donating when they were legally allowed to do so.
Interestingly, your argument is backwards. If they wanted to ensure they got the veto, they would have told the governor to do the veto, and THEN they would give the money. Which would work fine for waiting until after June 17th.
By donating before the Veto, they had no guarantee he would veto anything, and he had no obligation to veto anything. Donating early actually made the donation less suspicious than if it came two days after he did the vetoes.
And in fact, if they had held off the donations until after the vetoes, when they were legally allowed to donate earlier, everybody would have been saying that they were waiting to be sure he did what they wanted before they gave him the payoff.
The only way he could avoid this absurd attack would be to ban all contributions from people who like what he does. That is how absurd this argument is.
We can only discern motive through mind reading?
I hope your just spinning like you have throughout this thread and don’t really believe that.
That would just be sad.
To avoid the appearance of impropriety and graft.
Interestingly, your argument is backwards. If they wanted to ensure they got the veto, they would have told the governor to do the veto, and THEN they would give the money. Which would work fine for waiting until after June 17th.
You are bad at bargaining it appears! Once you have what you want there is no need to pay for it!
I'll help you out with a typical scenario:
Special Interest to Governor's campaign people: Hey your guy is going to veto them bills right?
Campaign people: He wants to but you know them trial lawyers are gonna come after him hard. He needs to know he'll have the funds to fight back.
Special Interest: I think we can help him out after all is said and done.
Campaign people: Yeah he's going to need something upfront before he puts his neck out you know?
Special Interest: I read ya, check's on the way.
I guess it’s all about who is less trustworthy. Why would the politician veto the bills if he already got the campaign money? It’s not like they can force him to give it back.
Of course, if you think all donations are bribes, you really have to do an exchange to make sure nobody gets screwed.
But the appearance of impropriety comes from the view that a politician did something to get money, not that somebody gave money in the hopes a politician would do something.
SO getting a campaign donation AFTER doing something is what makes it look more improper. Because we are judging the propriety of the Politician, not the propriety of the donor.
By donating before the veto, the politician is free to either veto or not, because he already has the money.
By waiting until after the politician acts, it looks like the politician acted a certain way in order to get people to give him money. That’s the problem with these inferential attacks. You have to presuppose nefarious action in order to conclude that the act is nefarious.
BTW, the whole argument is absurd. We all donate money to politicians who do what we want them to do. Nobody donates to politicians who do what they DON’T want them to do.
In this case, Perry was on record as supporting tort reform and being against frivolous lawsuits. His vetoes were reflective of his principles. There is absolutely no indication that his vetoes were influenced by donations, and no indication he wouldn’t have vetoed the bills regardless. And it was his position on the issues that led the ADVOCACY group to give him donations, so he would be able to win re-election and continue to fight for tort reform.
Why would the politician veto the bills if he already got the campaign money?
_____________________________________________________________
Because he wants more in the future?
The whole thing is unseemly and just one example of Perry’s corporate cronyism.
Donations aren’t bribes, they are free speech. I’m not saying Perry is breaking any laws or doing anything most other career politicians don’t do.
I’m saying the opposite: That he is just like every other career politician in the permanent political class.
I’m with the Tea Party in wanting to end the cycle.
Why would they give the campaign money when he vetoes the bills? Because they want him to do it again next year.
It works both ways. The only way to avoid your charge of "corporate cronyism" is to ban people from giving any money at any time.
Oh good your back to complete spin mode. I was worried there for a while.
(they want him to veto again next year???)
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.