Well, this is why we have primaries, now, isn't it? So that we can take a very good look at our options and (hopefully) choose the best one. Or the least worst one.
And, yes, anyone at all would be better than what we have now.
As to the Gardasil thing, it does not concern me much. We have a long history of mandating immunizing treatments for particularly bad diseases. Gardisil prevents infection from exposure to HPV which is mostly (but not always) transmitted through sexual contact. Since the virus does not always result in a disease, a person (male) can carry it and unknowingly pass it on to a marriage partner (female). Seems to me that immunizing women (who get cervical cancer from HPV) is not a particularly bad idea. To me, the Gardasil thing in this article is reaching here. The author is starting off by painting Perry as sinister when he really isn't. You may disagree with his decision but his intention can just as easily be interpreted as noble. It's a point of view thing. Deal with it.
I love the "Perry used to be a Democrat" angle. Great point if you believe that no one can ever change their minds, have an epiphany and *gasp* change parties. Once a Democrat, always a Democrat, eh? If that is and always has been the standard then guess who would not have been allowed to join our little club? Uh...Ronald Reagan comes to my mind first. And for that matter, the stronghold of conservative Republicans is geographically centered in the southern states which until recently were overwhelmingly Democrat. This was a very stupid point by the post author. People change. Sometimes for the better. Again, deal with it.
The illegal alien/border security thing is a potential problem and I will be listening carefully to hear that explained or walked back
if he enters the race. Until then it's not an issue. I don't know about you but I get really pissed off when someone quotes a person ("It's not for Texas," says Perry) out of context and provides no link at all to the quote. I expect that kind of crap from the left. Who is this thread author,
Jay Valentine anyway? Anyone, besides me, at all curious?
As to the
Trans-Texas Corridor or TTC...gee, where to begin? I guess I would start with these two sentences:
Texas would use its eminent domain to take a mile-wide swath of land from the Texas border to the Oklahoma border and turn it over to a Spanish company for a highway, rail corridor. And, anyone from Mexico could travel into Texas, with no customs check until they hit Kansas.
First of all there is nothing unusual about a state, any state, using eminent domain to acquire property for the purpose of road/rail building or for other infrastructure related uses. All states do this and all states always have. Nothing sinister about it. (Using eminent domain to enhance property tax collection is a completely different issue and is quite sinister)
Second, a quickie look at the proposal has the TTC at 1200 feet at its widest. Now, math is not my strong suit but I am pretty sure that 1200 feet isn't even a quarter of a mile. Granted, it's big. Very big. Almost certainly too big to have ever been created as conceived but bleating about the TTC being a "mile-wide swath" is gross exaggeration that borders on the ridiculous and damages the credibility of the post author.
Third, what is this sinister "Spanish company" that Perry is going to turn the TTC over to? The answer was Cintra S. A. (which, as of 2009, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ferrovial Group, another Spanish multi-national). But, as it turns out, that isn't really even half of the truth. The I-35
portion of the TTC was planned by Cintra-Zachry. Who is Zachry? A San Antonio based road construction company. Cintra-Zachry was hired to
plan (i.e. prepare a study) the proposed I-35
portion of the TTC. Since the TTC never came close to being a reality we will never know which, if any, company would be awarded the contract to actually
build the I-35
portion of the TTC. So...hysterical talk of a sinister "Spanish" company (which just happened to specialize in toll road construction) is just that: hysterical talk. And BTW, how was Perry going to "turn over" the TTC to a "Spanish" company? By fiat? And for what purpose? Really, this is more than totally stupid.
The TTC was a big idea. And it was much more than just the I-35 corridor. It was to be a series of corridors (4,000 frickin' miles of them) that criss-crossed Texas in several different directions from border to border with the goal being to increase commerce in Texas, for Texans, by providing a modern, integrated approach to moving goods, energy and information. The fact that one part of the TTC just happened to be connected to Mexico was the talking point that serial conspiracy mongers like
Jerome Corsi latched onto to drum up paranoia via the open border/illegal immigrant issue. Jerome Corsi is a nut. And he preys on the weak minded with his conspiracy theory publications so that makes him a sick, opportunistic nut.
But getting back to the "turn it over to whoever" point. This is utter
b u l l s h i t. Toll roads are all over the country. Why do you think that is? A state needs a road. The state doesn't have the money to pay for the road and can't raise taxes to pay for it because of the usual reasons. So what does the state do? Well, in some cases it gets a large multi-national company that may or may not be based in the USA (like, say, Haliburton) to build the road in exchange for allowing the multi-national to operate it as a toll road. The multi-national gets paid for its work, the state gets its road and no one has to use it if they don't want to. Everyone wins. Big deal.
The whole notion that the TTC was going to be some kind of spooky one-world government thing was preposterous from the get go. It was an extension of NAFTA. Now you may or may not like NAFTA. That's a totally different subject that is beyond the scope of this post and I am not going there. But, I will lump NAFTA and the concept of the TTC together in one general,
traditionally conservative, idea called "free trade." That's really more or less what the TTC was supposed to be, infrastructure in Texas to enhance free trade. It was all about benefitting Texas business. Period. No one-world shadow government conspiracy. Sorry to disappoint but thinking of the TTC this way is as goofy as trutherism and birtherism. Was it way too big a concept? Absolutely. It was Perry's
monorail, pure and simple. It was never going to happen as originally conceived and because it was such a huge over-reach it collapsed under its own weight before it ever got out of the planning stages.
Finally, the last point about "Mezkins" traveling through Texas into Kansas without a customs check is absurd on its face. First, border security between Mexico and the US (whether we are talking about Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California) is a federal matter, remember? I know, it's easy to forget since the feds have largely abandoned the whole notion of border security and places like Arizona have had to step up and fill the gap but, nevertheless, it's still true. Texas could, like Arizona, step up and enforce federal law on their own but they have absolutely no say whatsoever in
diminishing border crossing and/or customs laws. The quoted sentence also implies that Texas could pass a law that would give them the ability to build a state highway through Oklahoma on the way to Kansas. Good luck with that.
And, then there is the point made in the article about Perry being a weak, moderate governor who is largely a figurehead anyway and is, thankfully, restrained by a conservative legislature. I guess that would be the same legislature that funded the TTC study legislation that was supposed to be a big Perry conspiracy thingy. The same legislature that also passed the hate crime legislation. Oops. Now, I think hate crime legislation is bullsh*t but make up your mind here...either Perry is a weak governor who can't do anything and is constantly reigned in by an ultra conservative legislature or he's some kind of king who does whatever he wants. Somehow the TTC and hate crime legislation made it to his desk. How did it happen? These are very poor argument points being made by this post author.
Perry may or may not be a true conservative in the Reagan mold. That remains to be seen and will almost certainly be hashed out seven ways to Sunday before the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary (Hey, want a real conspiracy? How is it that these two nutty states have such a disproportionate say in who becomes our nominee?). Personally, I will be supporting the candidate who,
on balance, best represents the conservative agenda. There is no perfect candidate. There are most certainly some dyed-in-the-wool RINOs (or moderates if you prefer) out there that I cannot see supporting in the primaries...Huntsman comes immediately to mind. But discounting Perry this quickly over some half baked post from the American Thinker is, in my opinion, rendering a rather hasty judgement...sh*t,
we don't even know if Perry is going to run.
Give it time. Hear a few more debates. Listen to a few more stump speeches. Do due diligence on all of the candidates. And then throw your support to the one who, on balance, is the most conservative one for you.
And that's all that I'm going to say about that.
