I am beginning to think Mitt Romney had a point when he said at a previous debate that Rick Perry was dealt four aces when he took over as governor in Texas. I guess it would be hard for even a Mike Dukakis to screw up a state that already had a booming economy, a conservative legislature, a lack of socialist unions and a host of other advantages going for it. Does Perry really deserve the credit for Texas' success or did he just inherit a good situation and is now trying to taking credit for it?
I mean, it would be like if Ronald Reagan in 1984 put a clownish oaf in charge of his re-election campaign and then after his landslide re-election, everybody hailed this incompetent buffoon as a political genius who then proceeded to spend the next 30 years screwing up campaigns and making fools of his clients. Oh wait...I think that scenario actually happened!
So do we really want to make that same mistake with empty suit Rick Perry?
Other than looking good on camera and possessing the same artificial homespun drawl and snake-oil charm that worked so well for Bill Clinton, what exactly does Rick Perry offer us? Are there any real-life examples of Rick Perry being a real conservative or true leader that any of his rabid supporters can point to? If elected, will Rick Perry be a game-changer who will advance the conservative cause, or will he just more of the "same old same old" who will give us 4-8 years of weak leadership, paving the way for the next Democrat administration?
I understand we all want to beat Obama but we don't want to send a card-board cut-out there who will just be a place-holder with a "Republican" title. To use a football metaphor, the Democrat socialists have driven the ball (under Obama) into the red zone and it's 4th-and-goal at about the four yard line. If we allow them to get into the endzone in 2012, it's game over. On the other hand, it's not enough for us to just make a goal line stand and hold our ground. We need to get the ball back and start driving back down the field. Will Rick Perry be the man to move the chains if we let him have the ball? I don't think so.
I can think of a couple off the top of my head....Perry (a non-lawyer) made tort reform a priority. It wouldn't have gone anywhere otherwise.
Likewise Texas push-back against the EPA. (air-quality etc.) Only a governor has stubborn as Perry would stand up against the Feds like he has.
Then Texas sued and won a lawsuit against the Feds over strings attached to education money owed the state. Don't know if Perry should get credit for that or not but it certainly wouldn't have happened w/o his backing and maybe his initiation. The state democrats were all for the federal stings.
He also was adamant (rightly or wrongly) against Texas spending it's total rainy day fund in the budget shortfall this past legislative session insisting on cuts instead. Without his opposition, the entire fund would have been used.
One of his priorities now is holding college administrators feet to the fire over the cost of higher education. He thinks they are inefficient and professors are teaching too little among other things.
I'm sure others can add to this and I could too if I wanted to put in some research time. IMO he's been a pretty effective governor.