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
I wouldn't support Rudy Giuliani even if he had the endorsement of Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, and the United Federation of Planets.
We share a common outlook on the sanctity of life, and like you I could never support a pro-abort candidate.
When it comes to endorsements by politicians, sometimes I just scratch my head. The endorsement game has always been a strange political thing to me. Maybe it’s the old “politics makes strange bedfellows” rule at work.
A pro-life pol endorsing a pro-abort pol makes no sense to me either (Perry-Giulianni). But then what about a pro-life pol endorsing a pro-life pol who endorsed a pro-abort pol (Palin-Perry-Gilianni). How many degrees of seperation are necessary to avoid guilt by association? I don’t know, it makes my head spin.
I see Palin endorsing Perry as a plus for Perry. But Perry endorsing Rudy is definitely a negative.
For now at least, I’m convinced that Perry will require a great deal more scrutiny before I jump on his bandwagon, but I’ll keep an open mind about it.
Well I just wasted my time on the other thread when you’ve already been here.
personally, I don’t see the hpv vaccine as any different than any other vaccine. In this case, though, parents had an opt-out, so I don’t find it offensive at all. If you don’t want it, then you don’t get it. I fail to see the problem.
Should the government be involved in health issues? Absolutely, when it comes to communicable disease.
Rick Perry is a bold and unapologetic politician. Texas governorship allows him a lot of face time, but it’s the Lt. governor that wields the power. Rick is a politician with Democrat activity in his background who holds his finger to the wind to see how it blows and then speaks.
I’d hold my nose and vote for him over Giuliani and Gingrich and Romney in the primaries. I’d hold my nose and vote for him over Obama without thinking twice. But Rick is pretty much a RINO. Rick is just a politician. Period.
“Just one thing: George P. Bush?”
Jeb’s kid. Who is trotted out to talk about how racist some immigration policies are and is the next Bush who will be touted for public office. I’m betting Rick Perry is the Bush family’s pick this time because he’s been a good soldier for them and the other corpoglobaloney types.
“His lieutenant governor is also a fraud (David Dewhurst) is also a liar and a fraud who carries the water for the white house.”
Amen to that. I’m looking forward to Dan Patrick running against him for the Senate. I don’t like everything about Patrick, but I’m sick of lifetime politicians like Dewhurst and Perry representing Texas. That TSA bill would have done what needed to be done, put Barry into direct conflict with a state and forced him to put up or shut up on child molestation—instead of acting like it’s just something we all have to deal with. Dewey and Goodhair made sure THEY didn’t become the face of a new federalism, because that’s just not what the RNC and its corporate backers want them to be, dangit!
Let’s start with your most egregious lie, that Perry is:
“Pro-Secure Borders”
OH, GIVE ME A BREAK! Talking tough and fast-tracking this year does not make up for failing to show leadership on this issue throughout his entire term of office. He’s coddled sanctuary cities—until now. He’s said Arizona’s immigration law is wrong—until now. He’s done jack on the border, when he could have been a leader. He was ready to Kelo up TTC and hand all that Texas property to Mexico; he’s just as eager to do that to the rest of the country if he sets foot in the White House. He’s not pro-secure-borders AT ALL.
“Pro-Life”
If this is true he could have fast-tracked anti-abortion legislation any number of times over the last few sessions. I’m sorry, when did that happen before this year...
“Pro-Gun”
...about the same time he fast-tracked guns to protect students on campus? That, of course, was not on his emergency list, was it? He’s been governor since Bush left. Where was Perry on that issue in 2005? 2007? 2009? None of these were emergency issues until he started “not” running for President. And of course, he endorsed Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, and when you think of pro-gun, you think Michael Dukakis first, don’t you? Perry can shoot all the coyotes he wants, but it doesn’t make him a Second Amendment hero.
“Pro-Family / Pro-God / Pro-America”
I bet he’s against flag burning and for apple pie, too. All non-issue fluff to fill out your list here. But hang on—if he’s so pro-family and pro-God, where is he for increasing school prayer in Texas? Absent, that’s where. Haven’t heard anything from him about that, or the Texas Board of Education’s textbook troubles, because ol’ Slick Rick keeps his name out of the limelight when it comes to anything that might mess up his political hair. And if he’s so pro-America, how come he started right off the block appointing leftists to Texas political offices like Henry Cuellar, Elizabeth Ames-Jones (a liberal who wanted to end judicial elections in Texas) and Xavier Rodriguez?
Pro-Spending Cuts / Pro-Fiscal Responsibility
He increased the franchise tax and hasn’t cut CPS, DOT, TEA, THECB, or any of the huge Texas state departments that a conservative would be eager to slice and dice. Plus, he has been sitting on slush funds—like the Texas Enterprise Fund—that taxpayers have paid for, and he’s used that money to pay off his buddies and supporters, like Countrywide and F1. Security costs for his junkets overseas are legendary (but I guess only Obama deserves criticism there). Yeah, he’s Mr. Fiscal Responsibility all right.
Pro-Business/Pro-Trade
I bet he is, when it comes to his buddies. But when it comes to the average business, paying the franchise tax and heck, even paying Texas’ property tax at home is a heck of a burden. Sure, some taxes are better than they are in other states. But we’re still paying for everything he wants in the huge bureaucracy that is Austin. And it’s hard to see how he’s pro-American and pro-American-business when he doesn’t care about secure borders, borders which let illegals flood out American laborers. Maybe you meant to say he’s pro-businesses that hire illegals.
“Pro-Justice”
Why did he sign the so-called “Hate Crimes” law then? Why did he appoint the self-described David Souter of the Texas Supreme Court? Why has he loaded the Texas judiciary with RINO appointments from city firms that donate money to his campaigns, while passing over conservatives with actual GOP credentials?
“There is a point at which reality bites deep when erroneous reports surface. There is no basis for challenging Perrys conservative credentials. He has governed as a conservative. He has made mistakes. He has corrected those mistakes.”
He’s made mistakes because he’s not a conservative. He has governed as a conservative because Texas governors don’t do much governing, and the legislature and Dewhurst won’t let him govern as a liberal. He’s corrected his mistakes where forced to do so by conservatives, which is why he’s now shamelessly pandering to them after years of ignoring them.
“Texas is a conservative model for America: no income tax, vital economy, moral strength, and a place to raise a family. That sure isnt my state of Ohio, nor is it Calif, Michigan, PA, etc. Texas is far better off than those states, although Kasich is attempting to put the pieces back together again in Ohio.”
I’m in Texas right now. I know it’s better than Ohio. But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and it sure isn’t because of Rick Perry’s leadership that Texas is better than Ohio.
“There is no point in attempting to destroy our few tested conservative leaders in order to further ones own favorite conservative leader. If were going to injure people, then lets injure rinos like Romney, Giuliani, etc.”
I’m fine with injuring RINOs and supporting conservatives. You just need to recognize them. And by the way, Perry ENDORSED Giuliani in 2008. So perhaps his (and your own) vision of what constitutes a RINO may be a bit fuzzy.
“How many of us former supporters of GW Bush wouldnt welcome him back with open arms rather than continue down the socialist path with Barack Obama? With all his warts, GW was FAR better than Obama.”
How many of us former supporters of GW Bush don’t recognize that electing Dubya—and nominating McCain—LED to Barack Obama, because the American people didn’t believe in Republican conservatism any more? Sure, W was better than Obama. McCain probably would have been better than Obama, too. But electing a truly conservative president in 2000 or nominating a conservative in 2008 would have been far better than electing a W or McCain, and wouldn’t have resulted in an Obama in 2008, either. Didn’t McCain teach you that the GOP’s Tea Party base won’t accept RINOs, more Dubai sellouts, or settling. Picking Rick Perry would be settling at best and a sellout leading to more Obamas at worst.
Those opposing Rick Perry on the Gardasil mandate were generally not against child vaccines. We were against him PERSONALLY mandating BY EXECUTIVE ORDER that every female student of the state of Texas take a new vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease--and we were against having the state cover one red cent of the cost. Circumcision provides protection against some diseases, too, but I bet you and Perry would be against mandating that for all male students and I'm sure you would be against Texas taxpayers paying for any of it. And I'm sure most conservatives are against government by executive order.
"About stealing land from farmers; we need to build new roads here in Texas asap. The state is growing much faster than were currently able to build roads. So, just as an fyi, it takes two things to build roads, and that would be land and money. So, in order to obtain new land for new roads, yes, imminent domain must be applied and obviously land has to be purchased from current landowners so to build the roads. Concerning money; There is resistance to an increase in the gas tax. So, Perry has been turning to the toll road concept. Again, keep in mind it takes money to build roads. Gotta come from somewhere. Personally, I lik the toll concept. I live in the DFW metroplex and thereby am very familiar with the concept. I use the toll when I am in a hurry and dont use it when Im not. Btw, and just a side note, Texas is one of the few states that builds nice two and three lane (each way) service roads along side of their tolls. So, if one doesnt want to pay, theres good service roads available, at no cost. Anyway, needed to shed some light on a few things...."
The state is growing much faster than were currently able to build roads because Perry is not willing to lead on that issue, but instead found it important to be a leader on the issue of building a road from Mexico to Oklahoma. TTC wasn't about building roads in DFW or any metroplex or FOR Texans. It was about grabbing a huge swath of Texans' land to make it easier for multinational companies to get goods from other countries through Mexico to the rest of the U.S. I happen to like fewer tax dollars lifted from my pocket, seeing my gas tax used for roads I use, and not having to pay the government multiple times to exercise my right to travel. Meanwhile, Rick Perry has proven over the years that he is perfectly satisfied with the size of DOT and toll road commission staff, spending gas tax on bureaucrats and feel-good advertisements, and giving away the power of the state to Mexican companies and drug companies contributing indirectly to his campaign. And no, there is NOT as much good service available at no cost, when gas tax dollars are used on studies for toll roads and bureaucrats INSTEAD OF ROADS. And we both know those great service roads aren't being built on the side of toll roads, so if you want to go where the toll roads go, you pay or "drive" elsewhere (usually in standstill traffic).
Yep, he gave land for peace before, how did that work out? Oh I know, he is backed into a corner and must get tough, but the people of Israel, will throw him under the bus soon enough if things get tough. Clinton and a conservative republican strategizing whole different matter.
lol. Actually I started both threads, so don't let my presence here surprise you!
There's a wealth of information on Perry at the link below. Since I'm still learning about him, I'll leave it to you to sort it all out...
“And we both know those great service roads aren’t being built on the side of toll roads, so if you want to go where the toll roads go, you pay or “drive” elsewhere (usually in standstill traffic).”
I’ll not bother with responding to all the trivia you espewed. I will respond to one of your statements; “And we both know those great service roads aren’t being built on the side of toll roads, so if you want to go where the toll roads go, you pay or “drive” elsewhere (usually in standstill traffic).” Not true, I live very close to Sam “Rayburn, GWB Toll and N. Dallas Toll and I am on them or on their service roads daily. Their service roads are all excellent. And, as I stated either two or three lanes each way. Sure, these roads stack up during peak rush hour periods but virtually every road in the metroplex does. That’s why we need to build more and fast. Remember, repeat after me, it takes two things to build roads, money and land. :)
In my experience, where service roads next to toll roads have been ‘built’ in Texas, it’s only because the toll roads are replacing or built in the footprint of prior non-toll-roads. Maybe I’m wrong about that being the case in Dallas, but it’s certainly true in the Austin area.
And I must say, I appreciate that your only response is to decry the remainder of my comments as trivial. Obviously, my other post was dead on, since your only response is ad hominem.
Uhh, excuse me... And, what would you call your circumcision analogy? Yep, lots of logic there! LOL!
Now that's just plain silly.
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.