Posted on 05/26/2011 10:24:15 PM PDT by smoothsailing
May 27, 2011
By Chris Adamo
So far in this presidential election cycle, the Republicans are off to a less than rousing start. Primarily, their weakness results from an inability to coalesce around a single believable conservative candidate. An enormous and highly visible momentum is needed to rally the nation in a coordinated push against the Obama agenda. And while several credible and sincere conservatives are in the race, none among them has yet been able to convince any major segment of the population of a unique ability to do so.
Concurrently, the "moderate" segment of the Republican Party, despite being consistently rejected by voters, (and last November's "Republican" landslide was every bit the refutation of "business as usual" among Republicans as it was among Democrats), has attempted to reassert itself against the burgeoning tide of the Tea Party. For a time, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels appeared to be the centrist standard bearer, but he announced last weekend that he will not be seeking the White House. Likewise for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a flailing attempt to distinguish himself from the field of candidates, gave several major interviews and made some key public statements in the past few weeks. Unfortunately for Gingrich, the net effect of these was to remind America, and conservatives in particular, that while Gingrich possesses the knowledge to be a visionary, once in the fray he reverts to a course of deal making and bridge-building with the opposition.
In just this manner he derailed his own "Contract with America" after ascending to the position of House Speaker in January of 1995. And by his recent statements (along with some outlandish actions of the past few years) he proves that the likely result of a Gingrich presidency would be much the same. Not surprisingly, the more Gingrich gets into the public spotlight, the more America is able to remember why it became so thoroughly disillusioned with him the last time he held a position of power.
Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney is now the presumed early (very early...) front runner, and is promising to amass a billion dollar campaign war chest. But while such a pronouncement may intimidate some of his competition, in and of itself it does not inspire or motivate the public. America is in dire straits at present, and any legitimate Republican nominee must be able to address and confront the situation, offering real alternatives to the socialist onslaught of the past few years. Options are few, and a weak or ineffectual response will at best only delay the train wreck that the nation rightly fears.
It is in this arena that Romney's greatest vulnerabilities are found. In a time when the nation has fully grasped its precarious position, the mere possibility of a "moderate" Republican version of the statism that brought us to this point is sufficient to alienate enough of the electorate to ensure defeat. And given this truth, it is all but assured that, during the latter days before next year's general election, the media and the Obama campaign would be working overtime to recall all of the forays into liberalism undertaken by Romney as Governor of Massachusetts. And the examples are many.
Against such a backdrop, the credibility and political weight of a presidential candidacy by Texas Governor Rick Perry, a bold and unapologetic conservative, represents a glimmer of hope in an otherwise discouraging Republican field. Word that Perry is contemplating a run for the White House has electrified those in the grassroots who are watching the situation closely.
With the notable exception of his support for mandatory STD vaccinations for school age girls, Perry has no fences to mend with conservatives. And this track record puts him in stark contrast to the other "big names." Unlike those "mainstream Republicans" who were caught up in the contrived liberal/statist wave that, we were told, had swept America in 2006 and 2008, Perry has remained a stalwart conservative and constitutionalist, and never accepted the ruse that the nation had shifted decidedly left. So, unlike many others, he is not now scrambling to reestablish conservative credibility.
From the earliest days of the Tea Party, Perry embraced the movement. But rather than treating it as a useful bandwagon on which to climb, he recognized it as kindred with his own political and governing philosophy. His association with it was not a matter of astute pragmatism, but rather the natural reaction to political allies and like-minded citizens with legitimate concerns. Given his stalwart commitment to the time-tested principles of a healthy society and the free market, it is no surprise that, on his watch, Texas not only stands out as a bastion of traditional, flag-waving Americanism, it is also unquestionably the best place in the nation for new businesses to start and flourish.
In one triumphal move after another, Perry has pursued a course that reminds America of its real roots, and the direction it must pursue if it is to be restored to its former greatness. From calls for fiscal discipline in government, to international relations, to a sincere respect for traditional property rights, to the recognition of the humanity of the unborn, Perry's approach to governing is one that could and should be implemented on a national scale. And if he remains true to it, the nation will only reap positive outcomes.
Conversely, any Republican aspirant to the White House who intends to make nice with the opposition will most certainly deliver a continuance of the country's present downward trajectory, while ensuring the total disillusionment of all who hoped for definitive improvements in the situation. This is the core of the fatally flawed political strategy of Republicans who attempt to ingratiate themselves with the nation's liberals by offering a watered-down version of the leftist agenda that has so devastated this country.
The next president must have clarity of understanding, as well as the necessary spine to pursue a drastic course correction if he is to address the critical issues facing the nation. Current conditions, if not altered portend dire consequences for the nation. Thus they can neither be ignored nor treated lightly or subordinated to liberal calls for "civility" and "bipartisanship."
Time and again, Governor Perry has exhibited the willingness to tackle the hard issues. And overwhelmingly, his forthrightness and determination has prevailed. Texas has fared better as a result of his leadership and integrity. America could do likewise.
© Chris Adamo
“Governor Perry has exhibited the willingness to tackle the hard issues.”
Isn’t Perry for amnesty for illegal aliens?
I'm still waiting. What land for peace plan proposed by Bibi went through?
For answers to your questions, try this...
mailto: submit@OnTheIssues.org
To use your words...Now that's just plain silly.
All you would have had to have done was give this link...
Rick Perry on the Issues
“Uhh, excuse me... And, what would you call your circumcision analogy? Yep, lots of logic there! LOL!”
Are you serious? Analogy is a type of logical argument. The analogy I provided was simply to highlight the absurdity of the notion that an executive order foisting a vaccine for STDs on girls was appropriate, since a similarly effective procedure on boys would be considered anathema. Argument by analogy has nothing to do with insult. If the analogy was stinging, it wasn’t insult—it was that you simply couldn’t refute it.
Certainly, an appropriate response from you to such an argument was not forthcoming—but could have included, for example, reasons why the analogy was inapposite. But you failed to provide any logical refutation at all, merely calling my comments “trivial,” and without refuting one of them. Calling the comments I have held forth “trivial” is essentially attacking me, not my words.
What’s funny is that I failed to point this out earlier, but the one thing I said that truly WAS trivial was the one thing you did attempt to ‘refute.’ Whether Texas toll roads do or don’t have free access roads is only very slightly related to my point that Rick Perry doesn’t care much about reducing a bloated TxDOT and paying for roads with Texas gas taxes. If the entirety of your response to my comment is that ‘tolls roads sometimes have free roads attached,’ perhaps that is because you know as well as I that Rick Perry has had myriad opportunities to prune TxDOT and has not once done so.
Enough gobbly gook. How about giving some specific solution to our highway probem? Assumming that you agree that we need more highway capacity here in Texas; how do you suuggest they be built, and how do you suggest they be paid for? How about we focus on this if you want to have an intelligent discussion.
“How about giving some specific solution to our highway probem? Assumming that you agree that we need more highway capacity here in Texas; how do you suuggest they be built, and how do you suggest they be paid for? How about we focus on this if you want to have an intelligent discussion.”
First suggestion: how about we cut the entire non-roadbuilding budget from TxDOT and use it on roads? That’s about $2.1 billion right there that is either being diverted to other agencies (like DPS) or spent on non-road crap like public transit.
Second suggestion: instead of low-bidding everything, set an amount we will pay for major projects and make builders bid for the NUMBER OF YEARS THEY WILL MAINTAIN THE ROAD AFTER THEY BUILD IT. That’s the German way. That’s how you end up with long-lasting, solid roads. And if you’re worried about bidders skipping on maintenance, make them have to bond for the whole amount you’ll pay out before you bid. Then we save maintenance money in the long run as well as know our transport schematic in advance based upon the money we have to spend, not upon what we are guessing the low bidder will come up with (not counting various cost overruns).
Third suggestion: cut funds for THECB in its entirety and sell stock in each of the the state university system campuses, i.e., privatize four-year education in Texas, and use the money for roads. If universities in Texas are so worthy and Texas is such a conservative state, people will buy in like crazy. The U of Phoenix is the biggest ed provider in the country. Why can’t a conservative state take its higher education private again? That IPO would generate a fortune. What Texan wouldn’t buy stock in UT, A&M, or Texas Tech?
Fourth suggestion: Offer vouchers to all public school students at the elementary, secondary, and community college level for 3/4 of the cost of their current yearly enrollment outlays, on the condition that they instead attend a private school, of course. This would likely save that entire 1/4 in salaries, postpone new fixed costs for education in new public school buildings, and should have been done a long time ago in a conservative state. That 1/4 of the current education outlay could all be spent instead on roads.
I’ll eagerly await your intelligent discussion.
And I thought you were going to make nice, LOL!
Suggestion #1: Agree, and have for a long time. Not sure how to do it. Public transit is usually a total failure, big money hog for sure, i.e. AMTRAK. But, I live in the DFW Metroplex and our DART system is being well received and is being utilized to transport working folks from the suburbs to downtown jobs. Now, is it paying for it self? Don't know. But, each municipality in the metro is paying for initial cost through bonds. If gas continues to go up I think DART may turn out to be self funding, we'll see.
Suggestion #2: Excellent. Agree for sure.
Suggestion #3: Never gonna happen, just wishful thinking. As for University of Phoenix; it started from the git go as a for profit school. And, frankly, a degree from it is not looked upon very favorable at Fortune 500 companies. In fact, many won't even bother to interview a grad from UP.
Suggestion #4: As someone who achieved my bachelors degree via the GI Bill (along with working the night shift at a truck stop) I am a proponent of vouchers. Voucher systems do indeed work if structured and managed properly as the GI Bill is proof for sure. In fact, many social scientists, economists, etc, credit the post WWII GI Bill as the primary engine that drove the boom that lasted from post WWII up to the 70’s. I could go on but will stop. The only suggestion I would make to your model would be to allow vouchers to be used for both private and public schools, thereby creating competition in both sectors. Not sure about your factors, but it's a good thought so all’s good. Although we are supposed to be sparing over Texas roads, let me just finish up on vouchers by saying this is we (Texians) last great hope for saving our educational system. It's the only way to force competition upon the public sector, unions, union members.
Well, you didn't address the land issue. So, I will do that. Texas can certainly update road right of ways, widen them, even double deck or tunnel (as Loop 635 project in Dallas). But, we need new highways moving traffic in or near new populations and businesses. This will require new right of ways. Unfortunately, the only way to acquire this land is by use of imminent domain. We're going to have to do that. And, yes, some ranchers, farmers, land owners will have to sell. Now, I am a supporter of pay fair market value for this land. But, where the rub is, many of these landowners want far above what's fair market. But, that's going to have to be worked out in the courts I suppose.
Well, not too bad LibertarianInExile - so, you reside in the Austin area? Where do you hail from previously? Just curious..
Ping to ncalburt of the post by af_vet_rr regarding Rick Perry’s conservative credentials, or lack thereof...
Please see post 82 of this thread.
Thank you.
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.