It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: Pandora on June 20, 2011, 07:45:09 PM
-
Rick Perry: A Moderate's Conservative (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/rick_perry_a_moderates_conservative.html)
If you liked George Bush, you will love Rick Perry.
Every day we in Texas hear disbelieving conservative citizens on local talk radio asking "...is the national media serious about Rick Perry as a conservative president?"
Because here in Texas, we know Rick Perry is anything but a conservative.
As the moderates realize the country wants a conservative president, they want to find us one. Romney was fine until ObamaCare was modeled on his RomneyCare. Kind of looks fatal to the moderates. So, who's next?
How about Perry? Hey, he is a conservative -- the moderate's kind of conservative. Does that Bible thing, talks secession. Let's go!
Perry, as was Bush before him and Romney is today, is a slick, chameleon politician who changes his colors for the times. Rick Perry is a former Democrat, Al Gore's state chairman in 1988, a big government type who used an executive order to try to force Texas children entering 6th grade to be injected with Gardasil, a drug to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Mandated -- sound conservative to you?
So you think government is getting intrusive? Think ObamaCare is forcing you to choose one kind of healthcare? So just how does it feel to have your 11-year-old daughter tell you she has to be treated with Gardasil to protect her against STDs?
That's Rick Perry, folks. And fortunately both houses of the Texas Legislature overruled him after he signed the executive order demanding such a fatuous action. Sound like a small-government conservative to you?
Any concerns on illegal immigration? Maybe you feel open borders are a problem? Well, Rick Perry has quite an answer for you. His signature legislation was the Trans-Texas Corridor, where 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.
If you like open borders, you will love Rick Perry.
And the Arizona immigration law passed last year? "It's not for Texas," says Perry.
Perhaps you do not understand hate crime legislation is an underhanded way to control free speech. Rick Perry is your guy. He not only signed the Texas hate crime legislation, he made a very big deal about why it was needed.
The Rick Perry interest today is instructive in how gullible non-conservatives are for anyone who seems, well, conservative. These moderates hate conservatives -- see how they attack Sarah Palin even when she is not a candidate. Yet they pant ravenously about a new, clean, successful "conservative" like Perry, who is anything but a conservative, to lead them to the Promised Land.
The Texas Governor's office is among the weakest in the country. The Texas Governor does not do much -- so the massive success Texas has shown in job creation does not come from Rick Perry, but from the people here who live their lives and run their businesses, conservatively. They elect a conservative legislature that passes conservative laws. That conservative legislature overrules Rick Perry.
Moderates who are now championing the need for a "conservative" like Perry are the same ones who tell us Sarah Palin cannot win. They tell us Michele Bachmann is a nutcase. Palin and Bachmann cannot win because, well, they are really conservative -- out of the mainstream. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Perry is their kind of conservative, a moderate's conservative.
While we welcome Rick Perry to the conservative party, we know he is here because it is the best party in town. And when it isn't, he will be a moderate again, with great hair, trying to open our borders and force our children to be inoculated against STDs, against their parents' will.
I hope that we will have a conservative legislature to reverse him.
-
last line: I hope
I have had enough of hope.
-
Perry, as was Bush before him and Romney is today, is a slick, chameleon politician who changes his colors for the times. Rick Perry is a former Democrat, Al Gore's state chairman in 1988, a big government type who used an executive order to try to force Texas children entering 6th grade to be injected with Gardasil, a drug to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Mandated -- sound conservative to you?
Not to me.
I'm sick of every time a moderate or liberal acts even remotely conservative or says something conservative people fall all over themselves trying to define him as conservative!
We have enough real conservative candidates we don't need their pathetic attempts to help us along!
-
I knew it. I just don't trust the guy.
-
If you read the multitude of columns and stories at WND over the last decade you would have seen the Perry connection to Gardasil's madate signed by Perry. He's well spoke therefoe, I trust him less, however after the Gardasil fiasco, he can stay where he's at in Tx doing little as a Gov. should. The Tx state legislature only meets every other year leaving very lettle time to do the damage so many other state bodies can and do.
He had an oppurtunity to arrest the usurper months back but chickened out. No sir, not needed or wanted, RINO stay home.
-
It seems the best thing you can say about a lot of these candidates (or would-be candidates) is "he's certainly better than what we've got now!", and indeed the very same could be said about a wad of chewing gum on the sidewalk or that turd that steadfastly refuses to go down your federally-mandated low flow toilet. The point is, the country is in a precarious condition where another anointed Ruling Class choice isn't going to cut it.
On another note - yes, it may be a facile complaint, but do we really want our standard bearer for 2012 to be another Texas governor whose speechifyin' is so immediately reminiscent of W?
-
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 (http://www.americanthinker.com/jay_valentine/) anyway? Anyone, besides me, at all curious?
As to the Trans-Texas Corridor or TTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor#Criticism)...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 (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-USA-American-Threat/dp/B002RAR3TC/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308635172&sr=1-5) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_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.
-
Seems to me that immunizing women (who get cervical cancer from HPV) is not a particularly bad idea.
But we're not talking about women. We're talking about mandatory immunization of 11-14 year old girls.
No.
-
Seems to me that immunizing women (who get cervical cancer from HPV) is not a particularly bad idea.
But we're not talking about women. We're talking about mandatory immunization of 11-14 year old girls.
No.
Again, it's a point of view thing. We can agree to disagree. Would I have done it? Probably not. But there is most certainly precedent. That is, mandating an immunization for a communicable disease is nothing new.
-
Seems to me that immunizing women (who get cervical cancer from HPV) is not a particularly bad idea.
But we're not talking about women. We're talking about mandatory immunization of 11-14 year old girls.
No.
Again, it's a point of view thing. We can agree to disagree. Would I have done it? Probably not. But there is most certainly precedent. That is, mandating an immunization for a communicable disease is nothing new.
This is not just a "communicable disease". It involves conduct, not proximity or breathing, and of activities of an intimate nature that children should not be engaging. Besides the high-handed nature of government insisting on vaccinating girls against STD's, it smacks of "stick your 14 year-old on birth control, avoid pregnancy" type of condoning since "you can't stop them".
No governor of any state has any business mandating such a thing, particularly one that touts his pro-life/pro-family credentials.
I'm not even going to go into the NAFTA Superhighway dealio, since I looked closely into it at the time and it friggin stinks to high heaven.
This man has no hard and fast principles either and I'm sick and tired of having to look the other way on this type of thing.
Business as usual is over.
-
Seems to me that immunizing women (who get cervical cancer from HPV) is not a particularly bad idea.
But we're not talking about women. We're talking about mandatory immunization of 11-14 year old girls.
No.
Again, it's a point of view thing. We can agree to disagree. Would I have done it? Probably not. But there is most certainly precedent. That is, mandating an immunization for a communicable disease is nothing new.
This is not just a "communicable disease". It involves conduct, not proximity or breathing, and of activities of an intimate nature that children should not be engaging. Besides the high-handed nature of government insisting on vaccinating girls against STD's, it smacks of "stick your 14 year-old on birth control, avoid pregnancy" type of condoning since "you can't stop them".
My knowledge of HPV is, admittedly, limited. But what I think I know is that an adult woman not previously immunized could be infected by her husband if he became infected earlier in life and was unaware of it. Since it is a sad reality that some "girls" do, in fact engage in sexual relations at a very early age I can see the intention of picking this age range to begin immunization. Not that I agree with it. I would make it voluntary with full parental involvement and buy off. But I would most certainly offer it to girls at that age under those conditions. That's me.
Perry f**ked up the execution IMO.
For me, this, in and of itself, is not a deal breaker. It just means that he's capable of making a mistake.
It bears closer and further investigation.
-
And again, IF Perry is going to run THEN these things become relevant.
Romney IS running and has steadfastly refused to walk back RomneyCare. He refused to sign the pro-life statement last week. He stubbornly clings to AGW as a belief (article of faith) and paradoxically as "science." Thus, I don't see Romney as a credible candidate in the primary.
IF Perry runs and if he, like Romney, has no answer for these issues or refuses to admit a past mistake then I will have no use for him either.
-
Seems to me that immunizing women (who get cervical cancer from HPV) is not a particularly bad idea.
But we're not talking about women. We're talking about mandatory immunization of 11-14 year old girls.
No.
Again, it's a point of view thing. We can agree to disagree. Would I have done it? Probably not. But there is most certainly precedent. That is, mandating an immunization for a communicable disease is nothing new.
This is not just a "communicable disease". It involves conduct, not proximity or breathing, and of activities of an intimate nature that children should not be engaging. Besides the high-handed nature of government insisting on vaccinating girls against STD's, it smacks of "stick your 14 year-old on birth control, avoid pregnancy" type of condoning since "you can't stop them".
My knowledge of HPV is, admittedly, limited. But what I think I know is that an adult woman not previously immunized could be infected by her husband if he became infected earlier in life and was unaware of it. Since it is a sad reality that some "girls" do, in fact engage in sexual relations at a very early age I can see the intention of picking this age range to begin immunization. Not that I agree with it. I would make it voluntary with full parental involvement and buy off. But I would most certainly offer it to girls at that age under those conditions. That's me.
Perry f**ked up the execution IMO.
Offer? Yes. Mandate? No. Not.his.business.
Here's a little info on HPV:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm)
Keep in mind, women should be getting regular PAP smears to check for all sorts of things, so if they're doing as they should, this cancer is catchable and treatable early.
What alarmed me about this vaccination issue initially, besides the governor mandating it, was the side-effects. They overrode the need to vaccinate, in my opinion, unless it was left to the individual or her parents to decide on the risk-factors.
For me, this, in and of itself, is not a deal breaker. It just means that he's capable of making a mistake.
It bears closer and further investigation.
That's true, and if he admits it as a mistake, I can deal with that. If he defends it, then no.
Aren't you by now, trap, equally disgusted with people like Perry deciding for you and your children how to live?
-
Pan, I have to agree with you on the gardisil. This vaccine is/was supposed to be a money maker for Merck. I mean what parent wouldn't want their child to be able to have indiscriminate sex starting at 11 years old? No, but wait it only protects against 4 of the several strains of HPV so you still have to get a pap smear every year! What a protection. Children and women have died from this in addition to other side effects. The outcry about this has been so great that I guess Merck needs states to mandate it. I did a lot of research on this when it hit the news and I didn't read anything that even remotely convinced me that my 4 daughters were getting it. Since then my two adult daughters looked into it and they said no way.
No doubt Perry heard all these complaints and just couldn't leave it to families to decide. That tells me a lot about him.
-
Pan, I have to agree with you on the gardisil. This vaccine is/was supposed to be a money maker for Merck. I mean what parent wouldn't want their child to be able to have indiscriminate sex starting at 11 years old? No, but wait it only protects against 4 of the several strains of HPV so you still have to get a pap smear every year! What a protection. Children and women have died from this in addition to other side effects. The outcry about this has been so great that I guess Merck needs states to mandate it. I did a lot of research on this when it hit the news and I didn't read anything that even remotely convinced me that my 4 daughters were getting it. Since then my two adult daughters looked into it and they said no way.
No doubt Perry heard all these complaints and just couldn't leave it to families to decide. That tells me a lot about him.
Don't forget mentioning Merck's heavy contribution to Perry's political world.
-
Not Highway 69 again....
::foilhathelicopter::
-
Not Highway 69 again....
::foilhathelicopter::
::hysterical::
-
On a sober note, that article on Perry is certainly not written to be flattering of the Texas Governor. Is he a moderate like W before him? Probably. Is he worse than Huntsman who just announced? Doubtful. Are citizens, as the MFM is saying, dreading electing another Texan? Probably overblown, as usual. The better question is are conservatives weary of another Texas moderate, that could be yes. Would I take him over Obamakov? In a heartbeat. As it is he hasn't even announced yet, and if he does, the primaries and debates will pin him down and while some may take issue with some of his decisions, I don't view them as fatal, the process will sort them out. If that article is all they have on Perry, there is nothing there that is not recoverable, and Trap did a good job explaining to deep federal role in the TTC. I see no reason to get my shorts in a twist...yet.
-
"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
-
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.
::rolllaughing::
-
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.
-
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.
::rolllaughing::
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!
-
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...
-
"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.
-
"Do not confuse justification with motivation. I justify no one. "
Point taken
-
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 (http://www.americanthinker.com/jay_valentine/) anyway? Anyone, besides me, at all curious?
As to the Trans-Texas Corridor or TTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Texas_Corridor#Criticism)...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 (http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-USA-American-Threat/dp/B002RAR3TC/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308635172&sr=1-5) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_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 (http://www.americanthinker.com/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. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_the_21st_century_i.html.)
It was:
Jay Valentine blogs at www.jayvalentine.com (http://www.jayvalentine.com).
-
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.
-
Found at AceOfSpades on the sidebar, A Case For Rick Perry (http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/06/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 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57381.html) in the sidebar re Perry, rumors and the media.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6983315.html#ixzz1PvQlNjUk) 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.
-
Hey, I'm on a roll here with the help the of AoS sidebar.
One more Perry article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/us_nm/us_texas_groping;_ylt=Ao.l7sJGJ71dKI5M8GxlgwVh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTMxa2xoaDUyBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNjIxL3VzX3RleGFzX2dyb3BpbmcEY2NvZGUDb2ZmZ21wZQRjcG9zAzgEcG9zAzgEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN0ZXhhc2dvdmVybm8-) This time it's about him requesting an anti-groping law to deal with the TSA.
-
And, for you IowaHawk fans, here is a Perry related tweet. (http://twitter.com/#!/iowahawkblog/status/82866453308649474)
-
And HotAir has had this post (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/20/everythings-bigger-and-now-also-brighter-in-texas/) up for a while about Perry signing a law that would cancel out the federal light bulb mandate.
-
So just what do we do? The wisest and most intelligent political sage of our lifetime has all of the answers right here. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/20/meghan-mccain-s-7-tips-for-mitt-romney-michele-bachmann-other-gop-presidential-hopefuls.html)
It came from the HotAir headlines and here are the totally expected comments that go with it. (http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/06/21/seven-tips-for-republican-hopefuls/comment-page-1/#comments)
This one really needs its own thread.
-
So just what do we do? The wisest and most intelligent political sage of our lifetime has all of the answers right here. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/20/meghan-mccain-s-7-tips-for-mitt-romney-michele-bachmann-other-gop-presidential-hopefuls.html)
It came from the HotAir headlines and here are the totally expected comments that go with it. (http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/06/21/seven-tips-for-republican-hopefuls/comment-page-1/#comments)
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/ (http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/06/perry-adds-anti-tsa-bill-to-special-session/)
-
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".
::hysterical::
-
Hey, I'm on a roll here with the help the of AoS sidebar.
One more Perry article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/us_nm/us_texas_groping;_ylt=Ao.l7sJGJ71dKI5M8GxlgwVh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTMxa2xoaDUyBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNjIxL3VzX3RleGFzX2dyb3BpbmcEY2NvZGUDb2ZmZ21wZQRjcG9zAzgEcG9zAzgEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN0ZXhhc2dvdmVybm8-) 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 (http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/06/18/news/doc4dfcf8f4f0a41858212127.txt)
-
What's that supposed to mean, "a Pandora conspiracy"?
Unwarranted, trap.
-
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.
-
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.
-
14 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-reasons-why-rick-perry-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-reasons-why-rick-perry-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president)
Supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry are not going to like this article at all. Right now, Republicans all over the United States are touting Rick Perry as the "Republican messiah" that is going to come charging in to save America from the presidency of Barack Obama.
Many believe that if Rick Perry enters the race, he will instantly become the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Perry certainly looks the part and he knows how to give a good speech, but when ordinary Americans all over the country take a hard look at his record, they may not like what they see. The truth is that Rick Perry is a big-time globalist, he has raised taxes and fees in Texas numerous times, he has massively increased the size of government spending and government debt in Texas, he has been trying to ram the Trans-Texas Corridor down the throats of the Texas people and he tried to force young women all over Texas to be injected with the Gardasil vaccine. No, Rick Perry is not going to save America. In fact, he would likely be very, very similar to both Bush and Obama in a lot of ways.
Right now, Rick Perry is trying to portray himself as a "good conservative" so that if he enters the race he will be accepted by Christian conservatives. If Rick Perry did win the Republican nomination, he would have a great chance of winning the general election because he would very much be an "establishment" candidate.
But before Republicans get too excited about Rick Perry, there are a whole lot of things that they should know about him.
The following are 14 reasons why Rick Perry would be a really, really bad president....
#1 Rick Perry is a "big government" politician. When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government.
#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control. According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932. If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.
#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor. So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry?
#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.
#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a "track record" of not raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.
#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does.
#7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president. In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore's campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.
#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent. In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period.
#9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the nation. The following is from an opinion piece that was actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year....
• ?We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.
• ?We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.
• ?We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.
#10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 2007. Associating himself with that organization should be a red flag for all American voters.
#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states.
#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.
#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.
#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with a highly controversial vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light. Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do. According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when "apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck's hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work."
Rick Perry has a record that should make all Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents cringe.
He is not the "conservative Republican" that he is trying to claim that he is. He is simply another in a long line of "RINOs" (Republicans in name only).
If Rick Perry becomes president, he will probably be very similar to George W. Bush. He will explode the size of the U.S. government and U.S. government debt, he will find sneaky ways to raise taxes, he will do nothing about the Federal Reserve or corruption in our financial system and he will push the agenda of the globalists at every turn.
Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.
But so would four years of Rick Perry.
America deserves better than the "lesser of two evils".
Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.
Hopefully things will be different in 2012.
-
I'm gonna lay it out. I believe that Perry has some issues
BUT
You lose me with the whole Highway 69 bit.
::foilhathelicopter:: Seriously, it's just a highway. ::foilhathelicopter:: Highways are good. ::foilhathelicopter:: Leftists too often want to do away with highways ::foilhathelicopter:: Because we'll ride their choo choo trains if they do ::foilhathelicopter:: So enough with highways are bad because Bilderburgs are calling for the black helicopters that are being manufactured in Mexico to be transported into the US on roads that need to be a mile wide in order to surpress the movement that is about to discover that Sarah Palin is really a reptile in human form that was sent here from the Planet Ickes to foil a Perry presidency ::foilhathelicopter::
-
I'm definitely not sold on Perry, but I couldn't help notice a few contradictions in that list. It, on the one hand, complains that Perry has as Governor seen state spending and taxes increase, but on the other hand the list complains about low teacher salaries and proposed toll roads. By implication, should those things be remedied by increased funding from the state then? What about that whole state spending thing?
As I learn more about Perry, I think the one thing that bothers me most (so far) is his squishiness on illegal immigration. I seem to recall him being basically dismissive of what Gov. Brewer was doing in Arizona with their 1070 law, saying it wasn't a solution for Texas or something like that. I'm looking for unambiguous positions in defense of our borders against this invasion, because an orchestrated invasion is exactly what it is.
-
Highway 69 is US-59 widened and repaved. There is uncertainty if it will become Interstate-69.
-
America does deserve better than the lesser of two evils but I'll vote for Scooby Doo if that's the nominee.
-
America does deserve better than the lesser of two evils but I'll vote for Scooby Doo if that's the nominee.
True. But I don't want the "Scooby Doo factor" to give the green light to Ruling Class pukes in the GOP to do whatever they want and stick us with another doomed candidate either. I want a fighter. So far my gal Michele looks the most promising to me, as the field stands right now.
As for Perry, not near the top of my list, not on the bottom either, I think Huntsman occupies the latter for me!
-
I heard on the radio this morning that Bachmann topped the latest poll (don't know which one but presumably it was a major) for Republican contenders. Cain was in second with Romney in third.
However, the leading candidate who respondents thought would eventually win is still Romney by a wide margin.
Need to turn that number around.
-
We need a lot of debates allowing the candidates to fully air themselves out.
-
As for Perry, not near the top of my list, not on the bottom either, I think Huntsman occupies the latter for me!
Hell yes. I heard his grand announcement played on Rush and Mark Levin's shows yesterday. The guy sounded like he was declaring his candidacy for PTA Treasurer, not the Presidency of a country in dire straits on almost all fronts. And this civility BS? Who is this puke to preemptively admonish the conservative base when it's the Leftists who spew poisonous vitriol and form violent mobs when they don't get their way? That whole "I don't believe you need to run a candidate down; I respect President Obama and we simply have a few disagreements about how to help the country we both love" bit made me literally almost vomit. I had never even heard of this obsequious, pusillanimous little twerp until the past few weeks! The first I'd heard of him was when Mitch Daniels declined to run and his name began popping up everywhere as the Ruling Class began their efforts to insinuate another of their ilk to the top of the heap -- that tells you a lot about both him and the "leadership" brigade.
I am so glad Rush pulled up that recording of Reagan speaking at the same place in 1980, the contrast was amazing. Hearing Huntsman yesterday, I seriously wanted to reach through the radio and bitchslap that little milquetoast wimp.
-
Here is the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/21/bachmann-surges-primary-lead/) on Bachmann's poll lead. And it was Zogby.
-
Bachmann in first place. Who could have possibly thunk?
-
Huntsman/ Romney....last on list and Perry falls behind Bachman, Cain and Palin when she gets in. So I'm not too worried about him now, but I am concerned of his handling of the illegal issue and the whole mandate thing. Conservatives don't "mandate", imo.
-
Here is the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/21/bachmann-surges-primary-lead/) on Bachmann's poll lead. And it was Zogby.
I see the Paulbots are out in force in the comments section of that article. God, they're obnoxious.
-
Here is the article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/21/bachmann-surges-primary-lead/) on Bachmann's poll lead. And it was Zogby.
I see the Paulbots are out in force in the comments section of that article. God, they're obnoxious.
Yeah, they're like a rash that won't go away!
:P