Jobs, jobs, jobs lure Perry backer

When Allie Jennings and her husband, Ethan, graduated form college in 2003, they had no trouble finding jobs.

“I just think raising a son, and then being married to someone who would like to climb the ladder in business, I think Gov. Perry represents a lot of opportunity for our family,” Allie Jennings said.

Perry announced his candidacy during a rally in Charleston over the summer, and the Jennings were there to see him as Perry emphasized his record on job creation while governor of Texas.

In January 2001, a month after Perry took office, there were 10,023,806 jobs in Texas, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In August 2011, Texas had 11,216,227 jobs.

“His record on job creation was the thing that won us over,” said Jennings. “The economy is the No. 1 issue of this election, and Gov. Perry has proven he knows how to create a climate where businesses can flourish.”

As a result, more people are unemployed in Texas today – 1,036,563 – than were unemployed when Perry took office – 442,929. That means Texas’ unemployment rate, while still below the national average, nearly has doubled under Perry’s leadership: 8.1 percent today, up from 4.2 percent when Perry took office.

“I don’t think that Texas has been immune to the recession the country is going through as a whole,” Jennings said. “They definitely have some issues being a border state – unique issues. I think the numbers are reflective of that.”

Perry’s campaign has struggled recently. After finishing fifth in Iowa, Perry canceled a S.C. trip to return to Texas to “reassess” his campaign – a move that many interpreted as a precursor to dropping out of the race.

But Perry did not quit, choosing instead to skip New Hampshire and campaign exclusively in South Carolina. Jennings said she did not know what to think when Perry canceled his trip. But she never once thought of changing her vote.

“He’s the only candidate in this race that has the combination of fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and a proven track record of job creation, that can compete with Romney and go on to compete with Barack Obama,” she said.

You go off the deep end. I don’t believe schools should have mandatory evolution or mandatory hostility to religion. I believe that they should be able to teach whatever the people receiving the education want to learn. I don’t believe public education should be controlled on a federal level at all. In fact, I’d much prefer if education was handled entirely on a private level. This to me is the “libertarian” view.

The right to life is certainly inalienable. It is the ‘statists’ who want to define it as being a matter that is decided by a vote.

What we have seen with the Ron Paul types (not Ron Paul himself) is this hijacking of basic libertarian philosophy and mingling it with an all-pervasive godlessness. They have become what Ronald Reagan would have been if he were an atheist. They are very destructive to themselves (because they are godless), they lack patriotic principles (because they are godless), and they despise Christianity, which is the foundation of our culture and free system. A godless “conservativism” or libertarianism is fundamentally poisonous to the country as it rejects the One who guarantees the Rights we all celebrate.

???

You don’t say what issues you have with my posts except to say that it’s ‘off the deep end’.

And that’s just cheap name calling.

If you disagree with the reasoning behind my assertions, explain how they are wrong. Provide examples to support your claims.

Anything else doesn’t detract from my point, but instead... reinforces it by highlighting the *lack* of an argument from your side.

There’s nothing there.

You go on about the freedom to teach different subjects in school... then meander into ‘life is sacred’...

... and then post a screed about Libertarians being godless.

So, what’s that got to do with thegrowing divide between statists and small-govrnment types... and how social conservatives tend to be on the side of growing state power?

Namely, that your assumptions that “social” conservatives advocate for evolution to be banned in schools, despite the fact that the most popular position right now (which is the libertarian position) is that the Federal government shouldn’t have any say in what schools teach, period. It should be a private matter. The government should get out of education, because private enterprise always produces superior results. So far as I know, there aren’t any groups in the United States (of any major note) advocating for evolution to be banned from schools. However, there are plenty of groups advocating that intelligent design also be taught, or that children are better off being homeschooled. There is nothing “statist” in these positions. In other words, you’ve invented an issue and placed it on your opponents.

You also downplay the rights of the unborn, and suggest that people who believe that these rights exist are ‘statists’, when, in reality, we can trace these ideas to the foundation of our philosophy.

Your post has more to do with your problems with Christians than it does with anything to do with “Statists” or “small government” divisions. If Ron Paul was strong on foreign policy, he’d be our nominee yesterday. Ron Paul, FYI, is pro-life, and apparently disbelieves the theory of evolution. If he weren’t a traitor on foreign matters, I guarantee he’d be the top contender for the “eeeevil” social conservatives.

Of course, I don’t deny that there are plenty of stupid people out there who lack the ability to properly judge a candidate. There is no difference between Santorum or any of the candidates on social matters, so why is Santorum the superior candidate for it? The reason is because he shot up in the polls, and people believe “he can win”. Once they have this impression in their minds, they ignore reality out of pure desperation to get a “not-romney” candidate certified before Romney wins it all. It’s that simple. They are tossed around by the wind of the media, going wherever it goes. They are truly a farce this time around. However, the wind may turn back to our favor any time now, so the sword that has threatened to kill us might swing somewhere else in our favor.

Now, I don't agree with the first half of your post... but I do agree with the last half.

To me, religion is a private matter and should be the cornerstone of anyone’s moral and ethical code. And that code should be used to judge any form of legislation that a politician generates.

That's it. In no way, shape, or form should religion be codified into law simply because it's your (not you personally, but the hypothetical politician in question) religion.

If religion and law match, it should only be because aids in the maintenance of a free people.

As for Santorum, I'm speaking more to his actual, dedicated supporters. Not the large mass of idiots that flit from candidate to candidate because their poll numbers are up that day. And those dedicated supporters tend to be social conservatives, where their primary interest is solely focused on social issues.

And those supporters, as well as Santorum himself, have proven that their have no problems with a large and powerful government, capable of forcing others to obey their whims... well, that is, until that apparatus is then turned against them.

Then there is a problem. (and yet, the irony of that situation is impossible for them to understand)

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.