Some Things to Know about Governor Perry (Vanity)

Given all of the excitement for Governor Perry, I jotted down a few things last night. While people who oppose me will call them "taking points" they are no different than what his supporters use to defend him (which is what they have to do most of the time), and so it is fair game to bring up these topics. I'll be busy most of this weekend, but will try to respond when I get some free time. As you'll see, I have links for most of what I say. A few items are obvious, are conjecture, or are logical extensions, but not many. So here it goes:

Much as Mike Huckabee initially got lots of support when he threw his hat in, in 2008, Rick Perry is also getting lots of support now. Both candidates were considered successful governors of very conservative states and thus assumed to be trustworthy conservatives. However, as with Bush-43, both candidates have some serious baggage.

Huckabee, for example, was letting felons loose by the hundreds, one of which killed a bunch of cops minding their own business in a diner in Washington State (that alone may have sunk him this year, we'll never know). It was a horrible policy, with police chiefs, prosecutors, and others begging him to keep these guys locked up. But Huckabee figured he knew more than those people, so if he heard the right words from the criminal, all was forgiven. Huckabee also bought into the Global Warming charade, specifically buying into the liberal-religious view that God requires us to take care of the planet, so we have to do everything the liberals want, without question, and without requiring justification. Thankfully, Huckabee realized the jig was up for him in 2012 and he chose to sit it out.

Governor Rick Perry, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, does not carry the same baggage on crime or the environment. On both of those issues he has performed well here in Texas (meaning he's not soft on crime, and he's not an environmental nutcase). However, Governor Perry has a number of other issues that can legitimately lead one to question whether he's the best candidate. I shall list some of them here:

While Governor Perry has done a good job bringing up the problem of illegal immigration, and complaining that the federal government is not doing enough, he has done hardly anything at the state level, other than the mostly-symbolic deployment of the Texas Rangers to the border (it's symbolic because there are very few Rangers to begin with, so he could only deploy about 150 of them, total). He did sign a voter ID bill, but when it's passed veto-proof and more than half of the Democrats also want it, it's not too tough a call.

But when you get to taking steps that could make Texas unfriendly to Illegal Immigrants, that's where Governor Perry is quite similar to Bush-43. He seems to take the Catholic view that illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity, rather than as criminals, and while that view might be fine in an ideal world, Texas, with the rest of the country not far behind, is in danger of being demographically overwhelmed by minorities, and, just from a strategic Republican viewpoint, illegal immigration must be stopped. So there are a number of things that he has done and not done on the issue, all of which point to a governor that would just as well not get his hands dirty in what would be a nasty fight. That is his right, but do we want that as president? Here is a partial list.

a) Texas Dream Act. One of the first things he did in office was allow in-state Tuition for illegal residents - in fact, first in the country, I believe. As noted above, that acts a magnet for illegals trying to decide where to live. He has not done a thing to try to end it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jun/19/picket-does-gop-want-perrys-dream-act-too/

b) E-Verify Requirement. Not even a word in our vocabulary here. E-Verify threatens employers with penalties if they hire illegals. For example, in Arizona businesses are responsible for making sure their workers are legal through this system (or it may only apply to new workers there, not sure). This part of their immigration law was upheld by the Circuit Court. E-Verify is very simple to use, but a lot of big businesses (understandably) love illegals, and apparently they have the governor's ear more than the base. As big businesses proved in California, the long-term health of the state is simply not a matter of concern to them, only making money today (sorry, but that is just a fact, it doesn't mean I'm a left-winger...big business had deals with Nazi Germany in the 1940s...they are simply a-moral). The inability of California to get rid of its illegal problem has now wrecked the state, and they are rapidly descending into Third World status. Texas is next, probably within a decade, as the white voting percentage continues to get diminished. The rest of the country is 2 or 3 decades behind, but going the same way.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/e-verify-bill-may-find-new-life-in-special-session/

c) Sanctuary City Legislation. Governor Perry has been very slick on this one. He clearly does not want a bill hitting his desk...for then he has to take a stand on it. On the other hand, he knows how mad people are about the issue, as cops are being killed by illegals in Houston and Dallas who would have been deported long ago, had this law been passed. It's very simple for the police were allowed to challenge their legality - if they don't speak English, make them show papers, if they don't show papers, hand them to INS. So, twice in row this year, the governor has managed to keep this legislation bottled up in the state legislature...and has been able to blame those big, bad, Republicans that control 2/3s of the legislature* (more on this just below). The second go-around was amazing to watch, as it was a special session only requiring a simple majority to pass (Note, our legislature only meets from Jan to May in odd-numbered years; all other meetings are special sessions that have to be called by the governor, and he can call as many as he wishes. Also, all of the legislators have day jobs, as they get paid like crap when their in session, so they don't like special sessions and will eventually pass what the governor want - you'll see why I bring this up in a minute.). Basically, the legislature, during the special session, kept the Sanctuary City bill on the back burner until almost the very end. Then, when they did bring it up, they very conveniently needed a supermajority to get a vote on it (because it was so late)...and lo and behold...they couldn't find enough people. So rather than call a second special session, and maybe one after that (which would not be a first, as he called three special sessions to get his new business tax passed), Governor Perry said he was disappointed and that was it for Sanctuary City legislation this session. Well we were disappointed too...and not all that sure exactly how disappointed the governor was really was. The issue is off the table, and Illegals can still do their stuff without looking over their shoulders - just where we started this year.

*The question of just what could Governor Perry do, if the legislature will not pass the bill, often comes up. To me, it shows one of two things: Either he never had his heart in it (which is what I have to believe, given the lack of additional special sessions), or he is simply unable to get a legislature that is two-thirds Republican to pass a bill that the Republican base is dying for...meaning he is totally ineffective. You take your choice, but either way, I don't like it.

http://www.texastribune.org/immigration-in-texas/immigration/updated-the-sanctuary-cities-blame-game/

d) Border Fence. He basically doesn't like the idea, as it sends a bad message. I'll let the reader decide if they agree with that take.

This was a new vaccine that had just gotten past its trials and was being pushed very hard by Merck. The intent of the drug is to prevent girls and women from contracting cervical cancer when they had sex. Governor Perry mandated this vaccine on pre-teen girls almost immediately after it hit the market. There is a lot of emotional debate on this, so I'll list off some arguments on this.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/06/04/rick_perrys_gardasil_problem_110089.html

a) People could opt-out. Technically true, as anyone can opt out of the vaccine requirements. In raising my kid, of course, we were never told that and I doubt most people knew they could opt-out (and, in the vast majority of cases, they shouldn't opt out, or the vaccine would not be effective). In Texas, roughly 1,000 kids per year opt out of vaccinations. In order to opt out, one must swear that their religion prohibits vaccinations. Since most people don't want to commit felonies, most don't opt out. In the case of Gardasil, opting out may have become somewhat easier (not sure), but the vast majority of parents would probably not even have known their daughters were being given it, or at least what it was for. This leads to my next point...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/t/texas-governor-orders-std-vaccine-all-girls/

b) In cities, where condoms have been handed out, girls often find themselves being pressured to have sex, since sex is now 'safe' and the schools have given it their implicit blessing. In the case of Gardasil, while the parents may have been oblivious to their daughters being inoculated, the boys at the middle and high schools certainly would not have been, and thus they would have even more ammo to pressure the girls. Like it or not, that's how things work in the real world for girls with their boyfriends...it's bad enough, already, for the ones that want to abstain, now they have society telling them, in effect, sex is fine, go have fun.

c) The effectiveness of the drug is very questionable, as it only prevents some forms of cervical cancer. Additionally, as was discovered elsewhere, the side effects, including some deaths from this drug, were very real.

d) The intent of inoculations is to prevent otherwise innocent people from contracting communicable diseases, where they have no control over their risk (like Measles). The only way to put Gardacil into this category is to say that it will help prevent cervical cancer in the case of forcible rape. Fortunately (unlike Scandinavia) forcible rape is very rare in this country, and no one has put forward this argument in support of Gardacil.

e) The idea that parents should be in charge of deciding whether their kids should be inoculated in this way, rather than the state, is a no brainer for conservatives, which makes the governor's push for it so difficult to explain away.

f) I've put forth the analogy that anyone who supports Gardasil being given to young girls should also support mandatory birth-control implants for these same girls. In both cases the idea is to lessen the risks involved in having underage sex and pregnancy is certainly a risk, and probably a much larger risk. Obviously this argument doesn't sit well with Perry supporters, but they have simply no retort to it.

The bottom-line is that issue cannot be explained away and it is already creating havoc between Perry and the conservative base, at least based on what I read on this site.

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) was a grandiose plan for the state to build a huge network (many thousands of miles long) of car toll roads, truck toll roads, gas pipelines, power lines, train tracks, and who knows what else. The right of way required for this plan was on the order of 800 to 1000 feet. At this width, the crossings would be, at best 20 miles apart, along with the exits - meaning that communication between the sides of these corridors would be next to impossible. The plan, along with the necessary Constitutional Amendments was passed with almost no opposition, although that was likely because very few people knew about it - and it was a Republican governor proposing it to a Republican legislature, which is very dangerous for bad ideas (more on that later). Once passed opposition remained very scattered, as most people figured the plan was like a new NASA rocket, lots of studies and presentations, but never any hardware cut. Well that wasn't the case here and then the objections started pouring in.

a) First, the original plan never had public hearings. Hearings were called later, in order to determine the best alignment for the already-determined routes, but, like Gardasil, no hearings, or public input, was ever solicited for the original plan - it just appeared one day as a pronouncement from the governor. So it doesn't take much to figure out that once the public caught wind all hell was going to break loose. Specifically, the biggest opposition had to do with the fact that huge amounts of land was being taken away from its private owners and essentially handed to other private owners (i.e., the ones well-connected with the governor). Now technically, the land remained property of the state, but the right-of-ways were to be leased out to private companies to build and operate the toll roads (which were the first stages of this massive project). But the leases are on the order of 75 years, which, means that not only me, but my children, and even my future grandchildren would probably be outlived by these leases. So it certainly seems to people like myself that he was handing over this property to private enterprises. Which brings up the next point...

b) The private companies involved (really just one that keeps popping up, Cintra, a Spanish firm) are not idiots and are not going to invest billions on highways unless they can be certain of a captive audience. In other words, they don't want to build an East-West highway through Texas just to see a major upgrade on Interstate 10 (or Interstate 20), where people can still travel for free (at least for the time being). So, in order to assure their return on investment, they demand monopoly-type protections from the government, which were structured so that any time the government does anything to a parallel right of way that affects their traffic (such as expanding a parallel highway, building a new highway, or, arguably, even repaving an existing highway), the state has to pay the private company for the lost revenue. Now these private highways are very, very, expensive, on the order of 30 cents per mile to drive on (in Canada), so in many cases the state might decide to simply scuttle public highways, rather than try to maintain them (and have to pay the huge windfalls to Cintra)...thereby forcing people on to the toll road. Which then brings up the entire concept of regulation...discussed next.

http://newswirehouston.com/2011/05/16/over-100-grassroots-groups-say-no-to-private-toll-roads/

c) Conservatives like both deregulation and private enterprise, so what is there not to like about unregulated private highways? The answer is that for private enterprise to be in the public interest there must be competition - such as there was in airline deregulation. In many cases that is not practical, so you have monopolies, but they are always regulated (such as water, power, gas, etc.). For example, the power company could triple their prices tomorrow for electricity (if they were an unregulated monopoly) and there is virtually nothing you could do about it, except try to live without power. Yes, eventually, solar or wind might start to make sense, but needless to say, the power company would price just below that - and take in huge windfalls from their cheap fossil fuel and nuke plants. The bottom line, a few very rich power company owners, and millions of customers having to live in the stone age, without air conditioning and without Chevy Volts (LOL). Likewise on the highways. While not a total monopoly because people could always drive on side streets, allowing monopoly pricing will increase the cost of limited access roads (i.e., what were freeways) a huge amount. This happened in Canada, where Cintra bought an existing highway and now people find that driving is very, very, expensive when prices are pushed up to monopoly levels (roughly 30 cents per mile, which would be like paying an extra $7.50 per gallon for gas). Why? Because highways are generally very cheap, relatively speaking. The gas tax is roughly 2 or 3 cents per mile (both federal and state combined) and still covers all maintenance needed by all state and federal highways, and even has a bit of room left for expansion, paying the deficit (thanks a bunch, Mr. Clinton), and paying for public transportation, carpool lanes, and bike lanes. The highways that were going to be built in this TTC bypassed all of the cities, so land was very, very, cheap (especially with eminent domain helping out). Building highways, again, is very cheap, so there can be tons of money to be made here (same reason for such high gas prices in Europe...people will pay through the teeth to drive). The question became whether Cintra should pocket that money, or should the drivers pocket the money by not having to pay that price to drive. Governor Perry has taken Cintra's side and continues to cut these types of deals.

http://dcnonl.com/nw/23663/tt (note, the rates are in cents per kilometer; multiply by 1.6 to get cents per mile – you can see Cintra means business when it comes to tolling)

d) The bottom line is that getting around Texas would have been crippled by these deals, in particular the non-compete clauses. Once the people figured this all out they revolted en-masse and the governor knew that his 2010 re-election was out of the question if he kept pushing forward with the TTC. So he officially put a spike through it, but unofficially kept working with the legislature to allow certain exceptions...some very big, that will still hurt us big-time. And yes, the legislature has given him these exceptions, in exchange for being able to say that they 'officially' killed it. And that leads to my next point about having a damaged governor (or president).

e) As Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) have shown over the years, it is much easier to oppose something dumb when the person doing it is from the other party. I'm not sure why, but I suspect the fear of retribution is much lower. So we had to endure the TTC concept for the better part of a decade, and we still cannot completely get rid of it. We saw something similar at the federal level with Bush-43 on Amnesty - it nearly passed, twice. We were very lucky to stop it and it cost us control of Congress and a lot of bad blood with Hispanics. But once the Dems got power, Amnesty was not even attempted (except for the Dream Act) - even though they had enough votes to get it through on a party-line vote - it wound up that we were safer from Amnesty with a Democrat as president, than a Republican. During Bush-41's run, the same thing happened with environmental legislation...horrible legislation passed. Bush-41 called it "trophy legislation", probably figuring that the country would be on their knees in praise of him by 1992...and we know how that all turned out. The legislation was written by a hugely Democrat Congress that simply wanted to destroy his chance for re-election and he went along and signed it. In fact, Dan Quayle spent much of 1991 and most of 1992 trying to figure out how to get around the same legislation that his boss had just signed...as they knew the country's economy, which was getting decimated as businesses tried to adjust to all of the new rules (including 'civil rights' laws, and wheelchair laws), would take him down in 1992, if nothing was done. In the end, of course, not enough was done and Clinton handed him his head. And the Sierra Club and other organizations that worked with Bush were nowhere to be found by November of 1992. In fact, by then, Bush-41 was considered a right-wing extremist by much of the country. That is why it's critical to elect people who can be trusted on critical issues, rather than electing someone deemed "electable"...which leads to the next topic.

Here in Texas, we have created jobs faster than the rest of the country combined, and yes, Governor Perry has been at the helm. Does he deserve credit and what specifically has he done? In fact, the main reason that he's on everyone's A-list for governor is because of the condition of the state, but when you ask people what he's specifically done, you usually get blank stares. So I'll help a bit here, starting with what his biggest accomplishment is.

a) Doing Very Little. While this sounds rather cynical, doing nothing is almost always better than trying to use government to solve problems. For example, Bush-43 tried to use the federal government to 'solve' the education crisis...that was a joke. He also kept talking about the 'ownership society' in regards to home ownership. And he did improve things somewhat, from something like a 65% ownership rate to a 69% ownership rate...but that was done by giving loans to deadbeats. And we all know how that ended...and we are back down to 65%, at most. Other governors, particularly in California and the Northeast, try to solve the world's problems by things like draconian emissions controls. But Governor Perry has done very little to damage Texas, at least for the time that he's governor. The time bombs being planted by the remnants of the TTC will, of course, damage us big-time, but Perry will be long out of office by then (and possibly on the board of Cintra, given some of his administration's very questionable revolving door policies). So, yes, the governor has done great in not doing anything and again, that is very often a big accomplishment when you get to that level of power.

b) Illegals. Relating to not doing anything is keeping Texas a friendly place for Illegal Aliens. As anyone who hires people to cut their lawn, or work on a house knows, Illegals are cheap and usually do very good work. Economically, these people are absolutely critical to Texas, and by being sure that they stay welcomed here, our economy does just fine.

c) Our State Constitution. One provision in our constitution pretty-much single-handedly kept us out of the housing bubble. That provision prohibited home equity "extractions" beyond 80% of its value, which meant that if you wanted to refinance, you were not going to cash-out on it as you can in most other states. This greatly limited the debt levels that people carried, and thus some of the insane parts of the housing bubble, like Option ARM loans (where you pay so little, initially, that the principal actually increases) never made it here big-time. Lots of luck here for Texans, and thankfully people long ago understood the damage that debt could do.

d) The Oil Economy. Unlike other sectors of the economy, oil has done great while the governor has been in power. This has encouraged lots of drilling and much of that work is Texas-based - again Perry has done nothing to discourage that work, so he does deserve praise for that.

e) Legal. A legal system that makes frivolous lawsuits rare. One of the few things that Bush-43 did right in his political career was fixing our tort system.

There are probably more (like having an excellent infrastructure, at least when he came into power), but I cannot think of much.

Well Perry can be elected, while others running cannot be as they are damaged goods due to the media - or so goes the conventional wisdom. The first way to deal with this is to look at Sarah Plain in 2008 (and no, I'm not shilling for her...but her example is a good one). Prior to being selected for VP, no one knew anything about her, and no one cared. Just after being selected the conservatives were ecstatic, and McCain even pulled into a slight lead. Then the media got to work and she was damaged (like it or not). In other words the media will tear apart any Republican who runs. The fact that they haven's yet gone after Perry does not assure us of anything, and Perry has a lot more for the media to work with than Plain ever did. A second example is President Reagan. In 1980, which I remember like yesterday, people, including Conservatives were scared to death of Reagan, not because he was a nutcase or dangerous (as in World War 3) but because Reagan would be portrayed that way...and he certainly was. But two other things happened. First, you had a failed Democrat presidency, and second he brought out the base, without hesitation. That is something that Governor Perry cannot do...there are a lot of doubts about him with the base and they show up every day on this site, and they're mostly not from me. So who's more electable, Perry, or a conservative that doesn't have these quirks - and no, the media cannot stop a conservative from being elected. You decide.

So, overall, as you can tell, I'm not yet in the Perry camp. I've purposely stayed (mostly) away from the corruption-end, but there is some very nasty stuff out there, and I can promise you that the Democrats have it, and will use it (and it cannot be retorted). I've lived here for 20 years, and the stuff that he's done that gives conservatives double-takes, along with the stuff he hasn't done (mainly immigration), convinces me that he would be a lot of trouble to deal with as president...quite similar to Bush-43 in that regard.

Mmm-hmm. Think sidewalk. It's on something called an "easement." That means it's not the property of the homeowner even though it's in front of their house and theirs to edge and mow around. Same is true for the borders. It's a federal issue. Cameras BEHIND the border? Yes. And guess what? Perry put cameras there!! When the legislature refused funding, he rounded up GRANTS to fund them and fulfilled his campaign promise. Man, you're thick.

As for the Dream Act, it deals with ANYONE living in Texas for at least three years that attended Texas public schools. And as far as I know (I teach at Texas Tech), our public universities are NOT overcrowded. The Texas Dream Act was hardly a handout, and the state is better off with educated Mexicans running around than uneducated. Did you know they get to serve in our military, too? Oh, the humanity!! What a soundbite you are. THINK!

FWIW, I’ve appreciated the even handedness with which you have handled this thread. FR used to be a place for decent discussion but has devolved to sound bytes, talking points, and insults. Ok, I still love insults.

Anyway, GHWB was not a Conservative but conservatives wanted it to be so, so they imagined that he was. That led to disappointment.

Right now I’d take many RINOs over Obama and prefer RINOs to almost any Democrat. Trust me, that wasn’t what I was saying 3 years ago.

Perry isn’t a Conservative. Maybe a conservative, but right now I’ll settle for a decent guy that truly loves America, with politics I can mostly agree on.

“FWIW, I’ve appreciated the even handedness with which you have handled this thread. FR used to be a place for decent discussion but has devolved to sound bytes, talking points, and insults. Ok, I still love insults. Anyway, GHWB was not a Conservative but conservatives wanted it to be so, so they imagined that he was. That led to disappointment. Right now I’d take many RINOs over Obama and prefer RINOs to almost any Democrat. Trust me, that wasn’t what I was saying 3 years ago. Perry isn’t a Conservative. Maybe a conservative, but right now I’ll settle for a decent guy that truly loves America, with politics I can mostly agree on.”

Thanks. I’m also scared that Trump will jump in as an independent and we’ll have another non-conservative running as Republican...and when that happens, the conservatives, or at enough of them will jump over to Trump, projecting their wishes on him - of course the media will love it, and help the conservatives with their delusion...and then Obama (or Hillary) will walk into the White House in 2013.

That’s essentially what happened with Perot. Bush-41 simply could not hold the base and I’m not sure Perry can, given his quirks and weaknesses (with immigration being the biggest - Trump starts talking crackdown and it’s the Dem walks into the White House).

...and Trump started making noises again last week.

“To meet the criteria for instate tuition they would have had to come with their parents or be anchor babies. Personally, I wish they would have to pay some tuition to attend our public schools.”

I understand that. My point is that it’s the parents that are drawn here, at least to some extent, knowing that their kids will be treated as Texans. I certainly understand the humanitarian end of it, but if we will not, or can not, seal our border tight enough, we then have to fight the problem in the interior, state by state, if necessary. The issue for me is that Perry is not stepping up to it for Texas, while other governors are and this country cannot keep absorbing illegals at the present rate and survive.

“Mmm-hmm. Think sidewalk. It’s on something called an “easement.” That means it’s not the property of the homeowner even though it’s in front of their house and theirs to edge and mow around. “

LOL. I hope you don’t teach real estate there. A sidewalk is only an easement if it on YOUR property, but others have the right to use it because they need it to access something of their (like a pipeline) or they need a path to transit your property (for the case of where you block their access to a street).

As to the border - I agree that it is a federal job. But there are a number of things that can be done at the state level that are simply not being done here, and I simply have to believe that it’s because the governor doesn’t want them done. I use the term “open borders” to describe our governor, because I cannot imagine him cracking down on illegals at the federal level when he won’t do it at the state level. That simple.

I take issue with your issue. :)

Do you really think Mexicans are drawn here to get instate college tuition?

I haven't seen proof that "Perry is not stepping up to it for Texas, while other governors are." I have seen that he said that AZ law wouldn't work for TX...but he didn't say that it wasn't right for AZ.

I read somewhere that TX spent $80 million on border patrol in one recent year.

I don't know about you but I think if the Feds can mandate unfunded programs on states they should FIRST have to secure the border. It's a PRIMARY responsibility of the feds, not states, and I feel the same for NM, AZ, and CA.

Maybe when the interior states have to fight the problem the pressure will mount until the federal government will seal the borders.

I feel absolutely certain that Perry will not be behind ‘amnesty’. There is a large hispanic population here in Texas and I am sure there is a political angle to interpretations of his ‘stances’ on this and dealing with the muslim population here.

I don’t think he is a globalist. I believe he will take the nation’s security seriously. I, personally, have no argument w/ moderate muslims who want to be involved with the whole of a community, who integrate into society and reject the jihadist mentality. I do not want a leader who bows to them and kisses their butts.

“Go on with yourself! You don’t think La Raza is just fine with Perry’s positions on illegal immigration?”

From doing some reading around, I kind of see it this way, Karto: La Raza looks at Perry as someone that they can tolerate. He won’t give them the Amnesty that they so badly want (at least they can’t count on it), but he won’t do anything to make life tougher here for illegals either. But a national Dream Act may come their way. He also won’t be serious about securing the border - he’s against the fence (their biggest fear) and will then say that we don’t have enough money to secure the border without a fence. So why try any harder?

For a Republican, Perry’s about the best they have running (who’s a serious contender), so they’ll do what they can to help him in the Primaries. When it comes to November, forget it, of course.

Weird...that link went dead this morning. It was really good yesterday.

Anyway, I found another site that overall is pretty positive on Perry, but still (rightly) hits him on Smith:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Rick_Perry#Purging_of_Supreme_Court_Justice_Steve_Smith

Good post. Perry isn’t my first, second, or even third choice, but when it comes to running against Zero, it would be a no brainer of a choice. Primary season is all about this, debate and discuss the candidates you think is best. Perry has warts, as the OP posted, but overall, he is pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and pro-business. There are better choices out there, but I won’t shed a tear if it comes down to him versus Obama.

“Anyone who cares about what kind of justices the next president will put on the court should be very skeptical of Perry. But some people just don’t pay attention.”

I completely agree. That is a really scary thing to see. In my opinion, if this country does break apart, it is ENTIRELY the fault of the Supreme Court...for not following the Constitution.

If we’re going to elect someone putting moderates there...it won’t really matter what party he’s from.

“Do you really think Mexicans are drawn here to get instate college tuition?”

Yes, relative to other states that make them pay out of pocket. I certainly would factor that in if I were raising a family and living illegally in another country. Maybe not a big factor, but a factor.

“I haven’t seen proof that “Perry is not stepping up to it for Texas, while other governors are.” I have seen that he said that AZ law wouldn’t work for TX...but he didn’t say that it wasn’t right for AZ.”

Did he say what parts of the AZ law he has a problem with...and whether he would have the same problems with federal law (as the AZ law is basically a duplication of federal). In other words, is he saying that he would work to neuter federal laws against illegal immigration? I think so...if you look at it that way.

“I read somewhere that TX spent $80 million on border patrol in one recent year.”

Sounds reasonably consistent with what I’ve heard. Better than nothing, but as I mentioned earlier, there are two parts to this issue, and the part that he does have control over, he’s done next to nothing.

“I don’t know about you but I think if the Feds can mandate unfunded programs on states they should FIRST have to secure the border. It’s a PRIMARY responsibility of the feds, not states, and I feel the same for NM, AZ, and CA.”

(see above answer)

“Maybe when the interior states have to fight the problem the pressure will mount until the federal government will seal the borders. “

That would sure help.

Beagule8U:
“Quite the posting history you (BobL) have, damn little for years except your recent vanities bashing Rick Perry.”

South40:
“Your post had me curious so I did a quick search of my own on BobL. I discovered he has posted in every month in 2011 with thousands of posts on a variety of topics. So your above statement is not true. How did you come to that conclusion?”

Beagule8U:
“BS! You better go back and check again skippy.”

Being that I’m the one being talked about, I think my posting history is much, much closer to South40’s description.

But I do have a question:
Have you Rick Perry supporters now degenerated to the level where you have to tell lies about specific bloggers on FreeRepublic? That’s not very nice you know and is probably in violation of FreeRepublic rules.

“I guess we should wait until the democrats have demonized all of the Candidates that can beat Obama..

That seems to be very common-place on FR lately!”

If you’re implying that the Dems need our help in demonizing Republicans, I’ve go bad new for you. Soros, the unions, and many others spend, probably, hundreds of millions of dollars per year to dig up stuff on Republicans. They really don’t need our help.

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.