Skip to comments.Rick Perry: Rhinestone Cowboy
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.
When you live in a state heavily involved in the oil business, you will come across many business owners who are from the Middle East.
I don't really see the point. Palin lost to Obama on the McCain ticket and she polls the worst out of all of the GOP candidates. Where are her huge electoral powerhouse victories?
I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am perfectly capable of saying what I mean. Bush’s friendship with the saudis completely twisted his judgement. His misunderstanding of islam and his trust in his friends has been disasterous for this country. I fear that.
“Nope, she’s not running. Already put money on it.”
Hope you didn’t bet too much.
Single digits. Yada yada yada. none of them are far out of single digits. and of course, she is not running, according to you. So she shouldn’t be in any digits at all.
What do early polls mean? Ask President Giuliani or President Cuomo or President Thompson.
Rick Perry is gonna have to tee it up with her in a debate. I saw how she wiped the floor with Frank Murkowski in 2006 and you must have seen what she did to Joe Biden. Both experienced politicians and debaters. Rick Perry is not known for his work ethic. He had better kick it up a notch or three when he meets Palin. Heck, he is gonna have trouble with Gingrich and Ron Paul.
“Where are her huge electoral powerhouse victories?”
I have observed that the polls and the news readers have taken to reminding us that Sarah Palin’s nomination spells certain defeat for the GOP in 2012. Let’s examine the question of Sarah Palin’s prowess as a candidate, measured against the current field:
It has been noted that former Senator Rick Santorum won his Senate seat in a big GOP year (1994) and lost it big in a Democrat year (2006), sweeping in with one tide and out with another. This is evidence of weakness as a candidate. Let’s examine the rest of this field, using 2006 as the barometer.
Tim Pawlenty won reelection in 2006 by the skin of his teeth, less that one half of one per cent. He is no political power house if, as an incumbent with no scandal, he can BARELY hold his seat against a no name Democrat challenger. Had it not been for the Green Party siphoning off Democrat votes, Pawlenty would have lost.
Huckabee, who was Lieutenant Governor, backed into the Governor’s Mansion in 1996 when the previous governor went to jail. He managed to hold it through the salad years of Clinton’s impeachment and Bush’s early ascendancy, but the polls In Arkansas showed him losing badly in the big Democrat year of 2006, so he tucked tail and took his traveling medicine show out West to run for President.
Mitt Romney similarly saw his poll numbers so low that his defeat for reelection in 2006 was all but certain. Rather than face certain defeat and the end of his Presidential ambitions, Romney followed the same path as Huckabee.
So which candidate successfully swam AGAINST the tide of a big Democrat year in 2006 and registered two huge victories? SARAH PALIN. First, she dispatched Governor and three time U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary by 51-19%. Then she entered the general election campaign. Unlike Pawlenty, who was aided by a challenge from the fringe left, Sarah Palin faced a third Party Challenge by a former GOPer, Andrew Halcro, who self financed a campaign against her and drew nearly 10% of the vote. Facing these adversities, and alone among the rising stars of the GOP, Sarah Palin swam hard against the big Democrat tsunami of 2006. She easily defeated popular two term former Governor Tony Knowles by 8% (the polls near election day said it was a dead heat). That, my friends, is empirical evidence of electoral prowess.
So when the Lamesteam media is telling us who is and who is not electable, based upon their early (and “cooked”) polls let’s follow the wise counsel of former Governor and 1928 Presidential Candidate Al Smith: “Let’s look at the record.” And, more to the point, let’s force the media to look at the record.
If we do that, they will be forced to acknowledge that it is Sarah Palin—based not only on her great successes of 2010, but also on her tremendous “swim against the tide” in 2006— who is by far the most formidable candidate the GOP could field in 2012.
As far as 2010 is concerned and what Palin did for Perry:
Rick Perry similarly faced a very competitive GOP primary against a sitting U.S. Senator, who is more liberal than he, and a solid conservative, Deb Medina, who was very popular with conservatives in Texas and nationally. In essence, he was squeezed from both directions, a challenge on the left and on the right. As she did with Bachmann, Palin went to Perry’s aid early and often, endorsing him in the summer of 2009, ahead of the March 2010 primary. The first poll of Perry (by Rasmussen on September 16, 2009), which included both Hutchison and Medina, showed Hutchison pulling ahead of Perry 40-38, with Medina in single digits at 3%.
Perry crowed ad nauseam about Palin’s endorsement in order to prevent Medina from gaining real traction and eclipsing him among conservatives. At the time of the endorsement, Perry had this to say about the value of Governor Palin’s endorsement and their warm personal friendship:
‘Facing a tough Republican primary fight next year in his bid for a third term, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is brandishing the heavy artillery: Sarah Palin’s endorsement of his campaign.”If there’s a bigger endorsement in the Republican universe, I don’t know who it is than Sarah,” he declared in a telephone interview over the weekend. He described the Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee as a “close personal friend” who knows my heart.”’
As Matt Lewis observed in the article, “Palin’s nod is indeed an asset for Perry, helping him cement his appeal to social conservatives in the Lone Star State.” While Perry never again fell behind, even Palin’s endorsement could not totally blunt the momentum for Deb Medina, who continued to rise in the polls, reaching a high point of 24% on February 7, 2010, three weeks before the primary, and reducing Perry’s showing to 39% (Hutchison had 28%). Enter Palin again. She appeared at a nationally televised rally in Houston that drew over 8000 people on Super Bowl Sunday, February 8, 2010. After the rally, Medina never again broke 20 in a poll.
With Palin’s conspicuous and staunch support, Perry barely beat back the challengers in March 2 primary, winning 51% to 30% for Hutchison and 19% for Medina. Even with Palin’s support, Medina nearly forced a runoff, so great was conservative revulsion with Perry in Texas. Had Palin backed Medina as strongly as she backed Perry, it is quite possible that Medina and Hutchison would have been in a run off, and Perry would have been odd man out. Had Palin done nothing for Perry, it is a foregone conclusion that he would have faced a tough runoff. In other words, Perry owes Palin his political hide.
Does that answer your question?
Oh really...her ya go...more from Perry's own mouth.
During a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Mexico City. ..........Perry said ......that border fences "absolutely won't work," according to published reports......."We know how to deal with border security, and you don't do it by building a fence."
Perry On Ammnesty:
Question...." But just to be clear, if border security is accomplished, you can envision some sort of 'path to citizenship' for people who are here illegally.
This isnt just a business owner GunRunner.....It's an Islamic Cleric....and a leader of hundreds of muslims. Furthermore ...just because you do "business" with them doesn't mean you put their religion within the school system...nor allow them to set up their own schooling to teach Islam.
No mattter how you avoid the obvious, Perry has been instrumental in accomodating and inviting Islamic teachings and their agenda into 'Our' Country....of which Texas is a part of. And that teaching was a part of the agreement. That's very bad!
Is that also from 10 years ago? No source?
I'm not going to try and convince you on this issue because I know how you feel about all Muslims. In this case I guess you will just have to vote present if Perry wins the nomination.
Sure, that could change. But why is it that even non-starters like Jon Huntsman and Herman Cain poll better against Obama than she does?
The debates are altogether anti-climactic. The field is too big for their to be any real debate, and the only way the debates could hurt Perry is if there's some huge gaffe made on his part. One of his weaknesses is that he's been in government so long; he's been a legislator, cabinet secretary, and political executive for nearly 30 years. But the upside to that is that this isn't his first rodeo.
Still don't think Palin is running though. Even her loyal crowd around here is getting anxious.
I take issue with this guy's use of the term "barely beat back". I don't see how you can use the word barely to describe a 20 point win.
His record speaks for itself. He’s been a businessman for fifty years, way before he ever became the head pooh bah imam, which he inherited. He did not seek it.
I’d be willing to bet you hate communism, but if you walk around your house almost everything in it that moves, flashes, speaks, or nukes was produced in Red Communist Freaking China! And you’ve supported them with every freaking nickel you could scrape up! Including silk freaking flowers strung all over the place and car parts!
Yaa know Rush had a caller today much as you.....Rush finally said some folks are just not worth the time because no matter what facts they are presented with won’t make a difference in the mindset they have ...and simply not worth the dialogue...they are stuck and will remain that way.
And so without further dialogue it’s time for this dialogue to end. Not worth the energy...just as Rush said.
“I take issue with this guy’s use of the term “barely beat back”. I don’t see how you can use the word barely to describe a 20 point win”
Barely avoided a runoff. Getting 51% of the primary vote for a two term incumbent governor is pretty weak. If half of the party in your state is against you after six years in office, it suggests something is wrong either with your administration you as a candidate or with your administration. I imagine it may be the latter if this is true:
“A two-year budget tentatively approved May 29 in the Texas legislature, predicts that 335,000 jobs would be destroyed, including 146,000 private sector jobs and 189,000 government jobs. The budget also includes major cuts to retired teachers’ health insurance, state health care programs, state environmental programs, and funding for state universities.
The Texas Senate Finance Committee voted to approve $4 billion in cuts to education Under the approved budget, as many as 43,000 fewer working class students in the state will receive financial aid for college. In the nearly $9 billion Rainy Day Fund, which was created in the 1980s specifically to prevent cuts to education, will remain untouched under the current budget. $4 billion in planned cuts to education.
And this is just the tip.”
Looks like Perry’s chickens in TX are about to come home to roost. Maybe that is why he has flown the coop to run for President.
Palin by contrast upended an incumbent Governor in a tough year for the GOP and got 51% of the vote in a three way primary. In a three way general she got 49% of the vote in 2006 (against a former two term Dem governor)while Perry the incumbent could only manage 39% against the likes of Kinky Friedman.
I don't see how the two compare. Texas has over 35 times the population of Alaska. It's like comparing a state Senate race to student council.
“I don’t see how the two compare. Texas has over 35 times the population of Alaska. It’s like comparing a state Senate race to student council”
If you want to talk numbers, Sarah Palin got 60 million votes for Vice President in 2008. Rick Perry got 1.7 million for reelection as governor in 2006.
Alaska is nearly three times the size of Texas and very complex to govern. It is why the Governor is so much more powerful and her decisions so much more consequential than the Governor of Texas.
The fact that Texas has more people just gives nanny staters like Perry an opportunity to insert themselves into the lives of the people by forcing gardasil on teenage girls and forcing taxpayers to pay tuition for illegals.
Maybe the complexity of governing a state with 35 times less people was why she quit after two and a half years.
I could care less if he's even been invited to the White House or spoken on the steps of the Capital...under any President....or state Governance. Heck one of the most respected guests and businessman to the Whitehouse ended up funneling money to Hisbollah and now serving sentence for that. They all turn when the Islam agenda calls them to.
He's an Islamic Cleric with a huge following in the Middle East.....first and foremost no matter when he acquired that position. .....And for that he is under the Islamic agenda regardless how he makes it appear otherwise while operating here in the states.
"Islamism is not our problem;... radical Islam is not our problem;.... extremist Islam is not our problem..... Our problem is Islam itself......unless we get past this blithering nonsense that Islam is a religion of peace we will continue to pursue policies that make us less safe every day."
"Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives which (are) on any jihadist website and then come up with the right (and) proper objectives to not only secure our Republic but secure Western civilization."
(Col. Allen West)
And just as I said....for those who accept this Imam.. it's all because of the money he generates into your state....it's always the money...no matter the cost otherwise to our country.
As long as there are those such as yourself who spam every Perry thread with the same old tired inaccuracies, I’ll continue to defend him.