Posted on 08/16/2011 9:42:18 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
This is a brief discussion of some of the controversies brought up in conjunction with the candidacy of Gov. Rick Perry, together with observations on polling data and his base of support.
Gardasil
Gardasil is a drug from Merck & Co. developed as a vaccine for certain types of cervical cancer, which was only effective if administered before exposure to certain STDs. Those who attack Perry point out that Perry issued an executive order in February 2007 mandating that all Texas girls be vaccinated with Gardasil before admission to the sixth grade. His chief-of-staff from 2002-2004 had become a lobbyist for Merck; Merck also donated $6,000 to Perry’s re-election campaign.
Perry’s defenders counter with two points: first, that the Executive Order was not truly mandatory, as there was an opt-out clause for parents; and second, that Perry had received $24 million that year for his re-election campaign, so that $6,000 was merely a drop in the bucket.
But all of this seems to me to miss the main point. With all of the furor over Obamacare and mandatory payments, why is it a good thing to order mandatory vaccines for something which is picked up through *voluntary* behaviour? If we are interested in conservatism, and part of conservatism is sexual morality, why was Perry implicitly “throwing in the towel” by ordering a mandatory vaccine for STDs, with only an opt-out? Doesn’t this undermine the moral authority of the parents? This sounds more like a Romney-type stunt than the behaviour of a true conservative!
Trans-Texas Corridor
This was supposed to be a superhighway going from the Texas border to Oklahoma, with branches running all over the state, at a cost of $175 billion dollars. It was introduced by Governor Rick Perry in 2001. It would have set up multiple-lane highways (up to almost a quarter of a mile wide!) for six car lanes, 4 truck lanes, and two tracks each for various rail (high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail), together with rights-of-way for underground cable and utility lines.
The road would be financed and operated by Cintra, a Spanish firm, which would not *own* the highway, but collect toll revenue.
Civil libertarians, concerned over misuse of eminent domain, were up in arms. In addition, other people were concerned over what would have amounted to “double taxation” -- having to pay tolls for the TTC, and yet having to pay gasoline taxes for state roads.
And of course, one of the “selling points” of the project was that it was needed to accomodate increased MEXICAN truck traffic following passage of NAFTA.
Those who support Perry are very proud of pointing out that the TTC is dead, and that even references to it have been removed from State Law. However, the Houston Chronicle pointed out in a 2009 article that the state
“...will move forward with a serious of individual project that had been considered part of the Trans-Texas Corridor plan...[the] renewed effort now will operate under the name ‘Innovative Connectivity in Texas’ to usher in a new method of operation.”
This doesn’t sound like Perry and the backers of the TTC got the message. Kind of like Boehner and his supposed $100 billion in cuts at the beginning of 2011...
And come to think of it, what kind of a conservative goes around pushing transportation infrastructure jobs as a keynote effort? Especially when it includes tolls going to a foreign company instead of an American company? Something does not compute, here, if he’s talking about restoring the American economy. Aren’t we sending enough money overseas for oil, without adding tolls?
And, what’s with the, *ahem*, high-speed rail? Sounds awfully “green” to me. Thomas Friedman would no doubt approve Perry’s acting like China. And speaking of green jobs...
Perry ran Al Gore’s campaign in Texas in 1988
While some people claim that Gore was much more centrist back then (he opposed federal funding for abortion, and agreed on funding of the Nicaraguan Contras, for example), he was still a moonbat when it came Global Warming: according to The Guardian(U.K.) he held congressional hearings on Climate Change back in 1976 and began writing a book on environmental conservation in 1988.
Those who defend Perry claim that it was a long time ago, and that people are allowed to change their minds. But think back to 1988. Who was finishing as President back then? Oh, *that’s* right. Ronald Reagan. What a perfect time to back a Democrat, if you’re *really* conservative.
And, by the way, Perry endorsed Rudy Guiliani for President in 2008. Does anyone remember what Free Republic did to Guiliani supporters? Do the words "bug-zapper" mean anything to you? Colour me unbelieving.
Perry supports the Dream Act
This allows illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition at college provided that they have lived in Texas for three years and graduated from high school -- and they apply for citizenship.
While this *sounds* good at first blush, it is really amnesty light for young illegals: and once they are citizens, they will likely try to bring their extended family to live with them, with predictable long-term results (“Heartless, racist Republicans want to split up families.”) Trying to cut down on the number of illegal immigrants by rewarding their long-standing residence is like trying to scare ants away from a picnic by leaving a trail of crumbs on the ground.
Perry is as tough as marshmallows on illegal immigration
In addition to the Trans Texas Corridor and the Dream Act, Rick Perry has opposed the idea that Texas should adopt Arizona’s immigration law, since he does not want law enforcement to be REQUIRED to determine immigration status. He wants it to be voluntary. In addition, despite all of the noise about Perry being against Sanctuary Cities, and with the issue being introduced in a special session, somehow it managed to not get passed. Liberal blogger brainsandeggs mentions some of the gyrations the bill went through before failing:
”Recall also that during the regular session, the “sanctuary cities” legislation was approved by the House on a 100-to-47 party-line vote, only to be blocked by Democrats in the Senate on a 12-to-19 party-line vote. But during the special session, essentially the same legislation was approved by the Senate on a 19-to-12 party-line vote (the two-thirds rule was not in force during the special session) — only to fail to make it out of the House State Affairs committee, the same committee which in early May had heartily endorsed it on a 9-to-3 party-line vote.”
So it looks like Perry gets to have his Taco and eat it too: he can posture about being against sanctuary cities, while in the real world, a bill abolishing sanctuary cities fails with the Governor’s backing.
Creative incompetence.
Incidentally, this is an excerpt from a speech which Perry gave in 2001. Tell me if this sounds like someone who is tough on illegal immigration, or someone who will continue pandering to illegals in the hope of votes to come, as quoted in The Washington Post:
"We don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there. And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. The doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede [education is the future, and yes, we can]"
Soft on Islam
Everyone by now has gotten tired of hearing the mantra enforced from on high that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" -- with some going so far as to mock the phrase by calling it a "Religion of Pieces" (a macabre reference to suicide bombers and beheadings favored by jihadists).
And Rick Perry seems to be continuing in the same vein.
Here's a speech of Perry's from 2008.
In which he quotes the Koran, knowingly:
"The Quran says: Truly those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabeans – whoever believes in God and the Last Day and is virtuous – surely their reward is with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.”"
Gee, why does this make the hair on the back of my neck stand up? Haven't we had enough of Ramadan Greetings and the Muslim call to prayer with Barack Hussein Obama?
What is ironic is that it was yet another Texan, George W. Bush, who seemed to push for the "ROP" meme. Too bad this idiocy didn't get squelched in time to stop Maj. Hassan at Fort Hood.
For more on Perry and Islamicists, see here.
With that list completed, it is time to move on to political metaphysics -- observations which do not fit neatly in one category or another of the above, but help place these factors into focus, or interpret the landscape in the early days after Perry’s declaration.
Changes in polling data
Rasmussen now shows him at 29%, with Romney at 18% ,Bachmann at 13%, Ron Paul at 9%, Cain at 6% and Gingrich at 5% -- 72 hours after declaring.
Several important points here.
What was Perry’s popularity in polls before he declared?
Rasmussen performed a telephone survey of likely Iowa caucus participants on August 8, less than a week before his announcement. Perry got 12% compared to Bachmann’s 22% and Romney’s 21%, Ron Paul’s 16%, and Tim Pawlenty’s 11%.
And yet, no breathless specials, no major speeches during that time frame.
He did call Bernanke treasonous on August 16: but that is *after* the data for the polls had been collected. His support must have come from somewhere else. Where cold that be?
Look at the poll again. Tim Pawlenty has dropped out of the race. And according to Rasmussen, 16% of primary voters *remain* undecided: so T-Paw’s supporters did not disappear into the noise.
Could it be that Perry may have just picked up most of Pawlenty’s support, together with a small slice of Romney, Bachmann, and Paul’s support? And if that is true, does it really argue for a massive groundswell among the Tea Party, or for the substitution of one lukewarm RINO for another?
Note : Compare this to the actual Ames straw poll results from Free Republic:
1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)
The straw poll is by definition “self selection” and not random, i.e. liable to shenanigans).
If one includes the straw poll, one has to account for Romney placing below even Cain and Santorum; which is sure to skew the results, given that conventional wisdom has Perry and Romney as the front-runners among declared candidates.
2) The GOP astroturf factor
The LA Times reports that Perry’s Texas donors are doing quite well in Texas, hinting at a combination of class envy and a tu quoque argument about the kind of “pay to play” environment long enforced by Democrats. But there is a more significant fact contained within this article:
”Perry has received a total of $37 million over the last decade from just 150 individuals and couples”
--which works out to $240,000 from each of these donors. This is not the kind of grass-roots, $20-at-a-time donations characteristic of a true populist.
And when one looks at a “spontaneous” outpouring of articles at places ranging from RedState.com (which inspired this piece) to The Weekly Standard, including personal attacks on detractors of Perry -- and thoughtful lists of talking points all ready to go, “spontaneously” ?
Usually it takes time to come up with such things, particularly for a brand new campaign.
Having the fawning articles (such as the publicity that Perry won in the Alabama State Republican Executive Committee Summer Meeting Straw Poll, with 101 votes out of a total of 205 cast!) appear from all points of the compass at once, makes it look like strings are being pulled.
A further curious phenomenon is seen in Real Clear Politics.
In the latest polly, Perry jumps to 29% on Rasmussen Reports form 8-15: but for all other polls from 8-2 to 8-9, Perry tops out at 18%. Either this is a bump from the announcement, or Perry is drawing someone else?
Here’s a hint: according to Real Clear Politics, Perry never showed up in Rasmussen’s results until mid-June. Then all of a sudden, his numbers started climbing, even though he hadn’t declared.
Here’s another hint: Rasmussen does not include Palin among the possible candidates.
Is Perry merely the latest establishment candidate designed to stave off a Palin candidacy, given that Romney was not catching fire with the base?
No, it's an informed statement based on the characteristics of the Hispanic population in Texas, with which I am very familiar. A significant number of our Hispanics either have no healthcare or rely upon Medicaid. Medicaid certainly would not pay for Gardasil. And our churches would likely not pay for it either due to moral objections. So relying on charities, Christian or otherwise, would not have been a realistic option. In fact, I would leave my church if it wanted to use my charitable contributions to pay for Gardasil vaccinations.
Whether it was a small number or not is really irrelevant when one considers the approach taken.
Then why did you raise it as a point of discussion?
I sympathize with your gut; lets see how it works its way through the primaries.
Lets just see how it works out.
Worst case: they nominate Romnuts.
‘Tea Party’ people throw Palin into office via write-in, yes? Remember: it doesn’t matter WHAT Palin thinks ‘bout th e matter. WE - as Americans - do NOT care what any arbitrary women things (or feels), we just THROW her into office. PERIOD.
Whatta weird government...
You are apparently determined to miss the point: Palin gave Perry a ringing endorsement in 2009, saying, among other things, "He does what is right regardless of whether it is popular. He walks the walk of a true conservative." You can find the full text of the endorsement letter here: http://republicancandidates.blogspot.com/2009/02/governor-sarah-palins-endorsement-of.html When or how she became a conservative is completely irrelevant to the question, and is not in the least bit addressed in my post, nor in your original observation. You said conservatives should distrust him. I replied that Palin evidently has no such distrust, based on her most recent statements. You counter that Palin has always been a conservative. O.... K....
By the 1950s Reagan was formally CAMPAIGNING for Republicans, Eisenhower in 1952, and 1956, and Nixon in 1960.
Again, irrelevant. Please actually read my post before you "refute" me with a claim that is entirely impertinent.
1990 is 21 years ago. That is when Perry became a Republican. Reagan campaigned for a Democrat in 1950. The chronology pretty clearly marks his last break with any liberal notions around 1951, but he did not become a Republican officially for some time after that. I won't quibble with you: Whenever you wish to draw the line is fine with me. Now count back less than a decade from that date and you will find Reagan was a solid supporter of FDR. If you hold support for Gore against Perry, you cannot give my favorite President a pass on that basis. If 21 years is your statute of limitations, then he was still radioactively untrustworthy when he came out for Goldwater in 1964.
But of course, he wasn't.
And that's the point.
The issue is not when Perry "converted." The issue is what does he believe now. What does his record as a Republican show? That is what concerns me.
Yes and clearly you haven't a solid grasp on what those numbers actually reflect because you repeat them as if they're a conservative credit score. They aren't. They don't reflect what you think they do. Look it up.
Quit trying to push that leftist Al Gore here.
I am NOT pushing Al Gore at Free Republic. Accusing me of doing so is disingenuous. My posts were meant to inform people about Gore's positions in 1988 NOT to promote him. He's pure scum!
All you’re doing is tossing up chaff to obscure Perry’s Gardasil decision. We only have your word for it that large numbers of people couldn’t afford the vaccine and no way could private charity be used to provide it. You offer no facts, just opinion.
The historical record speaks for itself. Governor Perry opted for the statist approach. Not only that. He fought for it against the popular will of the people. I’m told he now admits it was a mistake. Fine. That’s certainly a plus, but it still calls into question the ideology that drove it. Was it the kind of thing a small government guy would do?
Keep in mind, I don’t see the Gardasil thing as a make or break issue for Perry, but it’s another snippet of information that shouldn’t be ignored when one forms an opinion of the man and his ideology.
BTW, I’m not the one running for president and claiming to be a small government conservative...
I supported Perry for Governor as well, of course Palin supported him over Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
You don’t seem to understand that it makes a difference what era you were a democrat in, being a post Carter, anti-Reagan, pro Al Gore democrat is totally different than having been a democrat in the 1930s and 1940s, Palin understood that as she registered as a Republican just before Perry was registering as a Democrat candidate during the Reagan Revolution.
As far as what he believes NOW, he evidently believes that Rudy Giuliani “He’s the closest thing we have to a Ronald Reagan Republican in this race” speaking of 2008.
FredZarguna: “The issue is not when Perry “converted.” The issue is what does he believe now. What does his record as a Republican show? That is what concerns me.”
Bears repeating.
I knew who Al Gore was in 1988, I did not want him to replace President Reagan, Rick Perry did, and you are fiercely defending his decision.
ansel12: “As far as what he believes NOW, he evidently believes that Rudy Giuliani “He’s the closest thing we have to a Ronald Reagan Republican in this race” speaking of 2008.”
Yikes! That one certainly left a mark...
Guiliani = Reagan? LOL!
I am not obscuring Perry’s Gardasil decision. I’ve repeatedly said it was wrong and a bad idea. The author of this vanity offered a very small amount of information about the Gardasil decision. There are other factors to be considered when coming to a conclusion about the matter.
I would expect that as a FReeper you’d want all of the information you could obtain in order to make an informed decision. If not, ignore my posts.
You are capable of verifying the information I’ve supplied about the Texas Hispanic population. If you don’t want to, don’t. I won’t supply facts for your reference because I’m not trying to convince you. I am simply presenting information that I think is relevant to the discussion. What you do with it is your responsibility. Others will exercise their responsibility.
No, I am not. I am offering information that I considered when looking into the matter, which was the subject of this vanity. You don't have to consider it. You're free to ignore it, but it's wrong to accuse me of pushing Al Gore on FR.
What's laughable is your conclusion. LOL.
I don’t know that much about Perry, so any information, plus or minus, is appreciated. I didn’t know anything about this Gardisil issue. It is troubling, as it is not something a small government conservative would do. Also, it just happened in 2007. I can forgive supporting Al Gore in 1988, as that was a fairly long time ago.
Perry is certainly not ideal. I think it’s pretty well established he’s weak on immigration. It sounds like he’s pretty comfortable spending tax money.
Still, he’s not Romney. I have dismissed Romney, as there is virtually nothing about him I support. At least Perry seems to hate global warming, which is one of my litmus tests. If you pay lip-service to this ridiculous, job-crushing hoax, you are not qualified to be President, period. I have eliminated Pawlenty, McCain, Chris Christie, and Newt Gingrich from consideration based on this.
I would like to see Palin run. I don’t know much about her either. I like her story better than Perry’s. That being, she is the outsider, not beholden to the good-ol-boy network of big government. Of course, I’m not sure the reality would live up to the story. Furthermore, I question whether Palin’s record as governor is any more conservative than Perry’s. I haven’t researched it, and I don’t know, because she’s not running.
Detailed gardasil history from Michelle Malkin-> http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/20/obamas-ministers-of-culture-and-agitprop/
That EO ramps up that particular negative just a little bit. That and TTC and Perry’s’ own Amnesty make it difficult for me to see why a conservative would support the man.
I agree with you, but you will get nowhere with Perry bashers. No one is good enough for them. Either that are they are Obama supporters, hard to tell.
I suspect the only way the Republicans are not going to have Nominee Romney is the kenyanmugabe gets a serious primary challenge and the Democrats have to worry about their own contest and don’t flood the Republican primaries.
Wrongney is less conservative than Perry, who is less conservative than Bachmann, Palin, and Cain.
I’ll vote for Perry... if he is the only option other than Wrongney.
It gives me a bit of the heebie jeebies to know Perry was his Texas campaign manager in 1988, but it's not a deal killer for me as long as Perry truly has become conservative.
That being said, please don't pretend Gore was any kind of conservative, it doesn't help to believe a fairy tale.
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.