We wish it grew there
Please Donate
Posted on 08/12/2011 9:56:32 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Rick Perry is rapidly becoming known as a politician who talks a good game, but whose actions belie his words. Last year, he waved the bloody shirt of secession, which horrified the New York Times...until they dug deeper and found that Perry wasn't just talking about seceding. He was aiming to hook up with Mexico in order to fulfill his "shared with [Mexican President] Vincente Fox for open borders." Seriously, though, Perry is becoming a caricature of himself. He first waved the tenth Amendment on gay marriage and abortion, first supporting the interpretations that states should be responsible for defining marriage and related issues, and in a flip-flop worthy of Mitt Romney, came out in favor of a federal constitutional amendment to ban both.
Perry's open borders positions tell us that he is not a conservative. His political pan-gyrations on gay marriage, abortion, and the Tenth Amendment suggest he is not reliable there either, but would trim his sails at the slightest pressure.
Well, he must be good on something. How would he handle judicial appointments, for example. Bear in mind that in Texas, in contrast to states such as Alaska (where a Commission presents the Governor with three choices from which he or she MUST select a Judge), the Texas Governor has pretty much unfettered control of the appointments process to fill judicial vacancies. In a conservative state like Texas, it would be easy to remake the courts in a conservative mold. In fact, it would almost follow de facto, since the appointed justices must face election state wide. No doubt Perry will try to take credit for the relatively conservative state of the Texas judiciary as he has done with the Texas economy when the relative health of both has been more in spite of, than because of, Rick Perry.
I have not done an exhaustive study of Perry's judicial appointments, although undoubtedly conservatives in Texas would have done so. I found one particular judicial appointment, the subsequent election, and Perry's reaction to it to be most instructive about his orientation toward strong judicial conservatives.
In 2001, one of Perry's first selections to succeed the staunchly conservative Greg Abbot (who had been elected Attorney General) was Xavier Rodriguez, a self-described moderate. In trying to move the Texas Supreme Court to the left, he drew the ire of conservatives in Texas. An up and coming young conservative, Steven Wayne Smith stepped forward to challenge Rodriguez. Smith, who was superbly qualified, had argued and won the landmark 1996 case of Hopwood v. Texas which successfully challenged affirmative action at the University of Texas Law School. In effect, he was a hero to conservatives in Texas and an anathema to the Establishment. The Establishment, including Perry and John Cornyn, no doubt detested Smith for dismantling affirmative action at the UT Law School. But when Smith stepped forward to challenge a self proclaimed moderate appointment of Perry, who happened to be Hispanic, that was the last straw. Perry and his cronies in the Establishment did all they could to stop Smith but he prevailed over Rodriguez easily and was in stalled as a justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
In 2004, Perry encouraged a challenger to run against Smith. The Establishment lined up with Cornyn and Perry on one side and the Texas Eagle Forum,Kent Hance and Ward Connerly on the other. This time the Establishment prevailed and Smith was defeated. He attempted a comeback in 2006, but Perry recruited another challenger, less conservative than Smith, and he lost by less than 1%.
Perry's actions, and his vindictive crusade against an up and coming conservative legal superstar, suggest that a Perry Presidency would be more likely to yield David Souters and Harriet Miers than Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases. When it comes to Rick Perry, the message to the Federalist Society and constitutional conservatives is caveat emptor.
I don't know where this lie started, but it's spreading like wildfire on FR.
Maybe this will help you out in the future so you don't continue to paste the same inaccurate arguments:
Letter from Governor Rick Perry to Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President:
Welcome to the Lone Star State. The purpose of this letter is to reiterate the dire threat amassing on our southern border in the form of international drug cartels and transnational gangs, and to again request sufficient federal resources to combat the increasing violence.
Drug cartels and related forces are waging war in Northern Mexico, their tactics including death threats, torture, car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and beheadings. Since 2006, this war has taken 28,000 lives.
Absent stronger federal action, it's only a matter of time before that violence affects more innocent Americans. There is mounting evidence of spillover violence on U.S. soil. A few highprofile examples from media reports:
In January 2009, a grenade was thrown into a bar in PhalT, Texas, where three off-duty police officers were customers. Fortunately, it did not detonate. Federal investigators say evidence links this incident to grenades used in separate attacks on the U.S. Consulate and a TV station in Monterrey, Mexico.
In May 2009, Jose Daniel Gonzalez Galeana, a midlevel member of the Juarez Cartel living in EI Paso, was shot eight times outside of his Texas residence. Experts believe his slaying may be the first time assassins from one of Mexico's violent drug gangs have killed a ranking cartel member on U.S. soil.
In May 2010, a Walmart store in McAllen, Texas, was the site of a suspected kidnapping and murder attempt. The FBI says the number of kidnappings in the McAllen area nearly quadrupled from 11 in 2008 to 42 in 2009. That same month, armed Mexican pirates attacked Texas fishing boats in the binational Falcon Reservoir.
On June 29,2010, several bullets believed to be from a gun battle in Ciudad Jmltez struck El Paso City Hall. Nine months earlier, a building and a vehicle on campus of The University of Texas-Brownsville were hit by stray bullets.
Drug-trafficking organizations have established connections with transnational gangs throughout Texas and use them to traffic in drugs and humans, providing the cartels with willing soldiers who operate on both sides of the border and in our communities. The Mexican cartels have recently added a new deadly weapon to their arsenal: Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED), which they use to attack their rivals and the police. These car bombs were used in attacks in the Mexican border city of Juarez last month and in Ciudad Victoria just a few days ago.
We cannot afford to allow these criminals to believe they're free to extend tlleir reach across the border onto American soil. On any given day, the Mexican border region is beset with vicious murders, torture, kidnappings, and armed confrontations with Mexican law enforcement and military.
The need for border security along the Rio Grande should no longer be underestimated by the federal government, Mr. President. An unsecured border is a threat to our national security and to the safety and security of all our citizens.
Your administration recently announced plans to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border. Secretary Napolitano wrote that the intent of this plan is "to ensure that law enforcement personnel have the resources and supplies they need to confront the complex and dynamic challenges that exist along our borders." Given that goal, the deployment of just 286 National Guard personnel along the 1,200 mile Texas-Mexico border is clearly insufficient.
In recent years, the State of Texas has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in state funds and state personnel into border safety and security. Texas has developed a proven and successful multi-agency border security strategy that leverages state and local law enforcement agencies in communities along the border to fill in the gaps where the U.S. Border Patrol is stretched too thin. These brave federal agents are all doing what they can, but more help is desperately needed.
As you are aware, I have a standing request with your administration for 1,000 Title 32 National Guard troops for Texas, and have provided Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Gates with a law enforcement sensitive deployment plan. Texas Military Forces would be embedded with law enforcement contingencies along the Texas-Mexico border on land, on water and in the air, providing direct support of current security operations. I urge you to reconsider the current deployment numbers and approve our requests for greater resources.
I also recommend an expeditious deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles to provide real-time surveillance and intelligence to law enforcement officials along the Texas-Mexico border. The combination of sufficient "boots on the ground," modern technology and the strategic fencing already built in key border areas will help secure our southern border and make America safer.
In Texas, just as in our nation as a whole, border security affects our safety, job creation our quality of life. America cannot have a rational discussion of immigration reform without real, effective border security. The federal government must step up and finally do what is needed to secure our borders.
My previous invitation to you, Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Gates to meet with me, my homeland security staff and local law enforcement expelis still stands. Border county sheriffs,local police, Texas Rangers, state troopers and Texas military forces are all working hard together to protect our citizens and border communities.
Better border safety is an issue all Americans can agree on, regardless of political party or ethnic or regional differences. It matters greatly to the citizens of Mexico as well. I respectfully but urgently request that the federal government quickly deploy 1,000 troops to the Texas-Mexico border, as well as additional law enforcement tools and technology. We must show the cartels that Washington will no longer tolerate their terrorizing and criminalizing the border region.
American lives, jobs and safety depend on a more robust federal commitment to border safety and security.
A letter to Obama when Perry is contemplating a run for President in no way cancels out his earlier actions, including vigorous support for the Corridor, in-state tuition for illegals and his earlier statements (when he wasn’t running for President) that he shared the Mexican President’s vision for open borders. The letter is a transparent attempt to curry favor with the GOP primary electorate. It is fishwrap.
Nice try, but who do you think you are kidding? I was born at night but it wasn’t last night.
Well, you're determined to continue to be wrong on his statements. What he said was:
"President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity. Clearly we have a long way to go in addressing those issues."
Perry deserves to be called on some of these issues, but you will still be called out for mischaracterizing his words no matter how often you post them.
No. And I never said it did. You have to understand something here, especuially with me. I believe with all my heart and soul that islam is the biggest danger the world faces today and has been for over a thousand years. I do not trust any of them, especially the *charities* they run. Gulen has a network very much like the one aga khan runs. So does hamas and hizbullah. The entire premise that islam has contributed anything of value to the world, let alone the western culture, is provably false. THAT is my sticking point and it ain’t gonna change. And if you deal with devils, devils end up in the details. Look at Chris Christie. We have already been through that becausr of GW’s close friendhip with the saudi royals. Where did you first hear after 9/11 that islam was a religion of peace?
So you will forgive me when I find that Perry has had a best friend relationship with aga khan for a long, long time. Been there. Done that.
And why did Perry feel the need to ask a muslim about the victory mosque at Ground Zero? Doesn’t he have a mind of his own? And how DOES he feel about it? Do YOU know?
I could get past the gardisil. Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes loyalty is misplaced. I have no idea if there was a quid pro quo with big pharma directly involving Perry. I would hope not.
But islam wants me dead. That is the fact. Moderate or not. Businessman or not. I am a Jew and islam wants me dead.
I'm a Texan and I wasn't born last night either.
“and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity.”
That is nice high sounding rhetoric but it means nothing. Rick Perry can’t reverse Mexico’s poverty. It just gives him the slightest bit of cover while he pushes the Corridor and incentivizes illegae entry by offering free tuition breaks to illegals.
That is just the fact. He is going to have a hard time explaining this and some of his other positions. It is not an attack to call him on it. He has been sold as a genuine conservative and the more we hear about him, the less he looks the part. He and Romney will be drinking from the same moderate trough, and that helps Sarah Palin. So I welcome Perry to the race. I really do.
I think you might have him mixed up with our current president who, will be in office for 4 more years if we don't stop this senseless destruction of GOP candidates.
If you insist on mischaracterizing a 10 year old quote, I think you'll find it's effectiveness is rather moot when people hear it in context.
You have debunked nothing. My opinions are based on the facts in the article which have not been refuted. Not a single fact. The truth is coming out about Perry, which was bound to happen. It is why, as an incumbent Governor (even with Sarah Palin’s help), he was only able to convince 51% of the GOP primary voters to vote for him in a huge GOP year.
It is why he was reelected with only 39% of the vote in 2006. This guy is no part of an electoral powerhouse, which will soon be evident to all.
I'm not, there is far more information from Perry himself which attests to his view of Immigration....I have certainly investigated further and do not agree with how he stands on the issue, even taking into consideration his states dependence on using those from Mexico for crops etc. Still, he is in the opposite ballpark than I am concerning immigration and the borders. He wants a "secure" border but opposes fencing or walls.....putting manpower at levels he wants is fruitless as we have seen already
I am now also looking further on his deals with Islamic Clerics...and they are no small bannanas he's dealing with...rather some top Islamic religious leaders. That goes against him as well IMO...and I am not at all comfortable he wants students to learn about Islam as part of those deals.
It is why he was reelected with only 39% of the vote in 2006.
In a 4-way race in 2006, he beat his closest opponent by 10 points even with a former Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent in the race. In a 3-way race in the 2010 primary, he beat his closest opponent (Hutchison) by 20 points.
Nothing that you've said is the least bit accurate.
More lies. They just keep coming.
Check his letter to Obama above where he mentions needing fencing and unmanned aerial drones as part of border security.
“Palin is not running”
Did she email you? Post your link for her statement.
I think she is at the Iowa State Fair. Here is what Governor Palin said today about the Texas Governor at the Iowa State Fair:
“Palin: Alaska has a very powerful executive position. Texas, it’s not as powerful.
Palin: You have different functions in the state of Texas and the state of Alaska in terms of governing powers from the governor’s office….So it’s tough to compare what the executive duties are. We have a very strong governor’s office..”
In other words, her experience as Alaska Governor is more valuable than Perry’s and her accomplishments are more significant. Sure sounds like she is running to me. She certainly doesn’t seem to be trumpeting Rick Perry’s qualifications by commenting on the institutional weakness of the Texas governor. Some of you were swearing on threads just yesterday that Palin would endorse Perry. You might want to pull back on that one just a bit.
Keep telling yourself she is not running. just remember...wishing don’t make it so.
Only because you choose to see the benefits of his money in your state....but you are very much in the dark if you think for even a moment the man sees Business first....maybe business being used to secure Islam in our country but his BUSINESS first and foremost is to get a stronghold in this country in order to establish Islam's agenda in this country....."First and Foremost"
Muslims have stated very clearly they will win this country by infilitrating business, politically and "peaceful" ways....but Peace to Muslims is ONLY thru Islam.
You having even provided a link/source just your self absorbed opinion.
Who are you spamming for? Paul, Palin?
Will be a little late if she does. She's barely out of the single digits.
And I don't think the 30 months of executive experience in the least populous state transcends 12 year as Governor of the 15th largest economy, even though most of the legislative power rests with the Lt. Governor and not the Governor. At the very least they're equal, and that's being generous.
Well if that's the case, and you know all about his involvement with Islamic Imams...then do you support him in that endeavor?
Any incumbent that gets 39% of the vote is weak. I don’t care hos many candidates there are. Conservatives in TX were getting sick of Rick Perry even then.
Only two other governors in TX history have been reelected with less than forty percent of the vote...in 1853 and 1861.
And the formidable field he was running against included Kinky Friedman (who got 13%) and Scott McClellan’s mommy Carole Strayhorn (who got 18%) along with a no name Dem Congressman. The votes garnered by Kinky and the Dem Congressman were more than Perry got, which suggests that if Kinky had backed the Dem, Perry would have lost.
I repeat. Perry is no political powerhouse. And the facts establish it. He won’t get the nomination.
was lucky to be running against KBH and the truhter in 2010 and to have had Palin’s help. If he had had a real conservative like Ted Cruz running against him in the GOP primary one on one, he would have lost.
“You having even provided a link/source just your self absorbed opinion.”
Do your own research. Try google. Then come back and tell me where I am wrong.
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.