Topic: Rick Perry, eh? Think again.

[ToddF]

Can he serve up some red meat good enough to get the Pussy in Chief wetting his panties.  Absolutely, which is why Obama's fluffers in the media are apocalyptic about Perry candidacy.

[Libertas]

Was it something like Oldguy, who Highway 69 was his number 1 issue in life?  That was some funny stuff, back in the Powerline days.

 

OldJim or OldJaundice as I called him, I think that was him.  That and fricken waterboarding as horrific torture, those were a couple of his big hangups!

[Libertas]

Can he serve up some red meat good enough to get the Pussy in Chief wetting his panties.  Absolutely, which is why Obama's fluffers in the media are apocalyptic about Perry candidacy.

Yeah, I have to think Perry concerns Obamakov more than Romney, Paul, Pawlenty...

[trapeze]

"but his intention can just as easily be interpreted as noble."

That is the why liberals do what they do.
Noble intentions.

Our Liberty continues to erode faster and faster.

Not malicious intent but noble intentions.

Sorry, trap. You're wrong on noble intentions as a justification

Do not confuse justification with motivation. I justify no one.

[AmericanPatriot]

"Do not confuse justification with motivation. I justify no one. "

Point taken
 
 
 

[charlesoakwood]

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.

[blockquote]

Who is this thread author, Jay Valentine anyway? Anyone, besides me, at all curious?

[/blockquote]
Searching the web brought little results so I went back through his "American Thinker" articles, usually there is a tag about the writer and I found one at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_the_21st_century_i.html.

It was:

Jay Valentine blogs at www.jayvalentine.com.

[trapeze]

Holy cow! A "Pandora" conspiracy at that site! This explains everything now!

Seriously, though, that's quite a "blog." He violates the American Thinker TOS with that link if I am not mistaken.

[trapeze]

Found at AceOfSpades on the sidebar, A Case For Rick Perry. I haven't read it thoroughly, just a quick skim, but it looks to be a bit more objective than Jay Valentine's analysis.

Ace also had this in the sidebar re Perry, rumors and the media.

[trapeze]

And remember, I'm not advocating for Perry. Just trying to throw a little cold water on this because, hey, he's not Huntsman.

FYI: My interest in a candidate right now (and in no particular order) is between Perry (if he runs), Bachmann, Cain, Palin (if she runs) and Santorum.

It's still very, very early in this process.

[trapeze]

And since Jay Valentine didn't link anything to his Perry quote re the Arizona illegal immigrant law, I will.

Here are the final two paragraphs from a Houston Chronicle article on the matter:

Although Perry says he does not support the Arizona law, the governor last week stood on stage with state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, to present an “honorary Texan” award to Glenn Beck, noted Phillip Martin, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Trust. Berman favors an Arizona-styled law for Texas, and conservative TV and radio host Beck has defended the immigration law in recent days.

“As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government's failure to adequately protect our borders. Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed,” Perry said in the statement.

It is unclear, according to the article whether or not Perry would veto similar legislation but so far none has reached his desk.

[trapeze]

Hey, I'm on a roll here with the help the of AoS sidebar.

One more Perry article. This time it's about him requesting an anti-groping law to deal with the TSA.

[trapeze]

And, for you IowaHawk fans, here is a Perry related tweet.

[trapeze]

And HotAir has had this post up for a while about Perry signing a law that would cancel out the federal light bulb mandate.

[trapeze]

So just what do we do? The wisest and most intelligent political sage of our lifetime has all of the answers right here.

It came from the HotAir headlines and here are the totally expected comments that go with it.

This one really needs its own thread.

[Libertas]

So just what do we do? The wisest and most intelligent political sage of our lifetime has all of the answers right here.

It came from the HotAir headlines and here are the totally expected comments that go with it.

This one really needs its own thread.

Pah!  That idiotic skank shouldn't be seen or heard!  Anybody giving her 1 second of attention should be pulled aside and slapped and if they don't snap out of it dropped off at the nearest psych ward!

PS - Another article on Perry going after the Transactors of Sexual Assaults!

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/06/perry-adds-anti-tsa-bill-to-special-session/

[Glock32]

She once referred to Michele Bachmann as "a poor man's Sarah Palin" and in response ThePeoplesCube.com referred to her as "a rich man's Snooki".

 

[Libertas]

Hey, I'm on a roll here with the help the of AoS sidebar.

One more Perry article. This time it's about him requesting an anti-groping law to deal with the TSA.

A Michagander is also looking at the gropers.

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/06/18/news/doc4dfcf8f4f0a41858212127.txt

[Pandora]

What's that supposed to mean, "a Pandora conspiracy"?

Unwarranted, trap.

[trapeze]

What's that supposed to mean, "a Pandora conspiracy"?

Unwarranted, trap.

That's called humor. The guy sells "Pandora" jewelry. I thought it was a humorous coincidence since I had earlier referenced conspiracies. Following that line with "Seriously, though..." was supposed to indicate that the first line had been "unserious."

And obviously, if I have to explain my joke then it wasn't very funny.

My apologies.

[Pandora]

What's that supposed to mean, "a Pandora conspiracy"?

Unwarranted, trap.

That's called humor. The guy sells "Pandora" jewelry. I thought it was a humorous coincidence since I had earlier referenced conspiracies. Following that line with "Seriously, though..." was supposed to indicate that the first line had been "unserious."

And obviously, if I have to explain my joke then it wasn't very funny.

My apologies.

I didn't check the link, so I missed it and I apologize as well for taking your comment as a knock.