(Vanity) Thoughts on Perry

grey_whiskers | Aug. 16, 2011 | grey_whiskers

[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?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, he voted the wrong way according to our conservative standards. The fact remains that his was the last pro-life Democratic presidential campaign. His votes and ACU ratings don’t change that.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Sorry, but that three year average is an acurate representation of where he was living politically speaking.

I understand that you believe that, but his position on a single amendment to abortion funding in D.C. in 1986 doesn't reflect that he ran his 1988 campaign as a pro-lifer.

I think your understanding of Gore's political position during that time frame is a little flawed.

Likewise. You apply today's conservative logic to a Southern Democrat in 1988. It doesn't work. Gore was not conservative by our standards. He was conservative by Democratic standards. And that is entirely the point. Perry was a Democrat at that time and supported Gore because Gore was the most conservative Democrat in the primary in 1988. Pointing to a conservative interpretation of Gore's votes on individual bills in 1986, 1987, and 1988 doesn't change that basic fact.

[BuckeyeTexan]

At this point, we’re arguing over how to interpret data. I didn’t want to go there. My only purpose in posting information to this thread was to present balanced information for FReepers to consider. It wasn’t my intent to sway your opinion one way or the other or to convince you to agree with me. You’ve reviewed the information and reached a conclusion. I’d like to leave it there.

[TBP]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/08/ten-things-about-rick-perry-that-may-worry-some-conservatives/

[SoConPubbie]

I understand that you believe that, but his position on a single amendment to abortion funding in D.C. in 1986 doesn't reflect that he ran his 1988 campaign as a pro-lifer.

Do you have any links that would support that?

The one link that talked about this at all talked about his campaign manager basically saying they were denying all Pro-Life votes.

It did not sound like they were running on a Pro-Life message.

[nathanbedford]

(What would your namesake have felt about Perry?)

What's not to like, they were both for seseesh. :-)

As to our exchange, our differences are matters of subjectivity, how much weight do we put on the implications of his actions? There is not much profit in arguing about how important or how insignificant a subjective judgment is. That is probably why we see so many of these arguments degenerate into the ad hominem on these threads when it comes down to a subjective judgment which is not subject to proof.

All we are trying to do is determine whether we are going to nominate a bona fide conservative in Perry or are we going to go back into da bushes?

By way of example in this context, I think Perry's role in mandating this drug is revealing but I'm not sure that we learn much more by arguing about whether it is a procedural or substantive difference in the manner of the parents' opt out. Even so, I'm not terribly distressed and do not put much weight on the mandate because it contains an opt out, however cumbersome. My subjective judgment tells me the governor who thinks he's dealing with cancer gets a certain amount of leeway over a governor whose mandating health insurance without any opt out and certainly more leeway than a president whose mandating health insurance on the federal level without any opt out.

As for Palin, we know we would get a bona fide conservative but we fear she cannot get elected. My subjective conclusion is that her disadvantages concerning electability are more to be feared than Perry's defections from orthodox conservatism. I weigh the likelihood of the two and the degree of harm from the two and come up with a subjective judgment: if we lose the election we lose everything (and that includes our whole experiment in democracy) but if we get Perry, we get almost everything.

I fully understand a subjective judgment that says we have got into this mess because we had 12 years of Rinos, 8 of them out of Texas, and we don't need anymore. In other words, if we win the election with Perry, we won't get much of anything.

All the best and thanks for a great vanity.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

They weren't according to Real Clear Politics -- but they were right *before* the declaration, and T-Paw dropping out.

Correct, the other RCP polls were at least a week old. This movie is just starting....

[Lakeshark]

I appreciated your links, I read them much like soconpubbie did, Gore was no longer pro-life nor conservative by the time his 1988 campaign happened, he was tacking hard left for several years.

Like I said earlier, Perry's support for Gore is not a game changer for me, but it gives me a bit of the creeps, as it should give to any conservative.

I'll be more interested in Perry's pronouncements on illegals as we go forward, I worry about that part of his past more than any other issue. I really don't want a stealth dream act GOP president.

There is something to be said about electing the most conservative person who can win, but I'm waiting to see how the race shakes out, and what comes out as we proceed.

It's barely begun.

Thanks for the back and forth, it was a spirited, intelligent and worthwhile discussion.

[Lakeshark]

Thanks for the input.

We don't know if Palin will get in the race, I gather we'll know by early September.

I would say one thing about the "unelectable" charge. My own belief is if there is one person capable of overcoming her so called negatives, it's her. Reagan did it, he was 35 points behind Carter in the middle of the primary campaign, with high negatives. She has great instincts, and if she runs I believe she will have a harder time in the GOP primaries than in the general.

The reason I am saying that is simple. She has great opposition from within the GOP, and in order to win she will have to persuade the GOP voters she can indeed stand up and beat Obama. With GOP voters overwhelmingly wanting to beat Obama, this will be her hardest sell, the whispering that she is unelectable will be a huge mountain to climb. Mitt will whisper it, heck, Ed Rollins and the Bachmann minions already started it, and Perry will do the same. If she runs and overcomes that tide, there is no question she will be able to win over the so called "independents" in the general.

Honestly, do you think they will go back to Obama after all he's done to turn them off? He has a record (a horrendous record), and she'll go after that record like a pit bull.

[Servant of the Cross]

Thank you for your analysis NathanB. IMHO, each time you post, the IQ of FR goes up several notches. And in this time of regular 'degeneration into the ad hominem on these threads', your reasoned posts are a breath of fresh air.

I agree with the question you pose as the central issue here:

All we are trying to do is determine whether we are going to nominate a bona fide conservative in Perry or are we going to go back into da bushes?

While we disagree about 43 (I think history will be much kinder to him than you are), I also agree your overall conclusion (with Gov. Perry we get almost everything).

FReeregards.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Do you have any links that would support that? The one link that talked about this at all talked about his campaign manager basically saying they were denying all Pro-Life votes. It did not sound like they were running on a Pro-Life message.

Yes, I do have a couple of links. I'll look for them. It took me a while to find them the first time. When I first looked into this, I ran across some 1988 Gore campaign materials and an article by someone who worked for his campaign that said Gore's 1988 campaign "was the last pro-life Democratic presidential campaign." For now, you can review Wikipedia if you want. The wiki page for his 1988 campaign states that he ran opposed to federal funds being used for abortion. While that may not indicate "pro-life" to you, it is an important position to many pro-life advocates.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Excellent analysis! It is my hope that we can discuss the issues during primary season without slinging mud. I support Perry. (And Sarah.) I don’t need to convince FReepers to agree with my analysis or reach the same conclusion I did. My goal is to raise the level of discourse by presenting multiple perspectives.

[nathanbedford]

My goal is to raise the level of discourse by presenting multiple perspectives.

And I think you have done so to your very great credit respecting Gov. Perry. Thank you for that. I think we all should ask ourselves before we mash on the reply button: how will this elevate the discourse, what value added do I bring to Free Republic with this post?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Wow. I am very flattered. Thank you for the encouragement. I wasn’t sure I had accomplished what I intended on this thread.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Perry did well in the recent Gallup and PPP polls. That doesn’t mean that he won’t go down later, of course.

It will be interesting to see if Dems will vote for their “favorites” in the GOP primaries this time.

[grey_whiskers]

There are some liberals who believe their own propaganda that Sarah is unelectable.

It'd be great if they turned out in droves in New Hampshire etc. to support her.

Cheers!