Interesting question, PapaNew. IMO, the chief (apparent) difference between them is their respective view of American constitutional government — how they respectively understand it.
It seems to be the view of a substantial majority of the American people that constitutional government resides only in Washington, D.C. (Which of course, leaves out the States and the People, the other parties to our constitutional compact). The view seems to be that Washington writes the marching orders, and the states compelled to supinely carry them out.
It seems to me that Gov. Perry is aware that the Tenth Amendment was originally conceived as a means to "balance the respective powers" of the federal government vis-à-vis the several states. In short, I think he is far more sensitive to constitutionally-guaranteed "state's rights" — which include everything that the federal government has no express constitutional warrant for — and sees their constitutional exercise as the major means of checking the vast, overweening, expanding power of the federal government and the egregiously corrupt, self-dealing political class thereof.
Michelle Bachman's constitutional focus seems to be mainly on the federal government and its operations.
The problem is, the federal government is increasingly operating in areas that historically had fallen to the purview of the several states — e.g., education, marriage, abortion, and so forth. Without strong tenth-amendment push-back by the states, their legitimate powers will increasingly be transferred to elite Washington bureaucrats in a totally stifling and liberty-killing top-down — and largely unconstitutional — Big Brother government by "experts," a Leviathan eating out our substance, and quashing our historic American liberties.
The only other candidate that I've heard say anything about the Tenth Amendment is Newt Gingrich — who mentioned in passing that Perry's interest in the Tenth was well-justified, and that he had sparked his, Gingrich's, interest, too.
Anyhoot, since I believe it's well past time for the American people to make a searching reconsideration of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and their indispensable constitutional role), I'm a Perry supporter.
To me, he's the best constitutional conservative in the entire field. And so I hope I will have a chance to vote for him next November. If he can take his Tenth Amendment, balance-of-powers message to the people in a way they can appreciate, maybe I'll have a chance to do just that.
Yes, I think that's true about Perry and that's one reason why I thought maybe he might be the guy. But his gaffe problems and his terrible performances in these three-ring-circus MSM events mislabeled "debates."
He has sort of come across as a bit of a lightweight IMO. Rather than being a friendly, amicable guy who's serious about the issues, he's come across a bit like a hot head who almost carelessly blurts things out. A hot head is not the kind of person we need running the show.
Maybe there's another, better Perry that the general public hasn't seen. I hope so but he needs to rehabilitate and repair SOON.
Well said! I'm with you.
If we can get back some of our rights from fedzilla we may not always agree with what happens in a state we reside in, but we will have the option to move to a state that better represents our values. IOW, we will be free and the govt will be subject to our will. As it stands now we are approaching a time where our only alternative is to submit to the govt, or leave the country.
The only other candidate that I've heard say anything about the Tenth Amendment is Newt Gingrich — who mentioned in passing that Perry's interest in the Tenth was well-justified, and that he had sparked his, Gingrich's, interest, too.
My second choice behind Perry. My concerns with him are electability and his tendency to look to big govt solutions to big problems. I think he could be a great VP for Perry.
Perry is my #1 though for a lot of reasons. The most important to me being I think he is the kind of person you could do business with on a handshake. He has that middle America rural background that places a premium on honor.