Posted on 01/25/2010 11:27:22 AM PST by meandog
Former President George H.W. Bush has endorsed U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for Texas governor. He is the third prominent national figure to endorse Hutchison in her race against Gov. Rick Perry. Last November, she garnered the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and early last week former Secretary of State James Baker gave his official backing.
Last Friday, in front of his home in Houston, Bush said that he and his wife Barbara were supporting Hutchison because she has the right vision to lead the state...
(Excerpt) Read more at ourtribune.com ...
I have my issues with Perry, but he’ll get my vote.
if bush likes her, that should be the kiss of death.
This is what I don’t understand: why does Hutchison want to trade a cushy job in DC with essentially zero accountability for the pressure and executive responsibility of being a governor? Doesn’t make sense to me.
BIG mistake supporting Perry. Sarah would do better to support a woman and a conservative.....Perry is old politics as usual.
Perry for me, warts and all.
Got news flash for the GOP/RNC, I am NOT going to vote for KBH. This citizen is NOT endorsing her, especially at the voting both. I voted McCain, but I said then, and I'm saying now... never again. I'll vote Perry. I refuse to vote KBH. Can't stand that woman.
I've wondered the same thing. Governing Texas is not a ceremonial job. Do they even work three days a week in the Senate? From out of state, Perry's record looks pretty good, although he should have handed the job off by now to a realiable candidate. The worst mark against him is that he's had the job too long, and Kay had originally promised to serve only two terms in the SEnate. He corralled the powerful trial bar, and as a result a flood of doctors re-entered Texas (after Texas first educated them, then let the lawyers run them out of state.) He doesn't seem ashamed to be a conservative, the way Kay and the Bushes are.
Il bacio della morte.
She's been telling people for years how much she detests Washington DC and, to hear her tell it, the only reason she ran to keep her Senate seat in 2004 was because Bush/Rove told her she needed to in order to get a Republican majority.
I think she wants to return to Texas in the worst way (who can blame her?) but I think it is a huge mistake to let that be the reason for running for governor. She ought to just retire and enjoy the Dallas high society life.
I don't hate her but she hasn't positively distinguished herself from Perry whom I have my own problems with.
Bottom line - all the Republicans with DC connections will get behind Hutchison (favors owed, you know) and all the Republicans who hate the Beltway will get behind Perry (especially fellow governors). When seen in that context, guessing who will endorse who is pretty easy.
And you know this because???
(this ought to be good)
You may have something there!!! That may be very telling...
Well, she (Medina) would be like that annoying piece of spinach stuck in your teeth that someone else has to tell you about then...
So we got boogers and spinach flecks to choose from...
Ain’t that a quandry we’re in now??? hehehe
Where’s the barf alert?
“Bush got us Obama, please no more from the Bush family!”
Don’t for get that George H W Bush got us Clinton...
"Open borders" are a myth. Sure, you can cross the U.S. Southern border (or any border) if sufficiently determined. But it's nothing like as easy as it used to be. When Reagan was president, btw. Then, in the 80's, it was literally a five minute walk. And at popular crossing points, there would be cabs waiting. Or it would be close enough to the city (if not IN the city) that you could walk to a bus stop.
In the 80's illegals working in Texas used to cross the border both ways, two, three, four, six times a year. Come to work during harvest season, or when construction work was heavy, go home for the winter. They'd leave wives and children in Mexico, where the cost of living was lower, and they could keep the farm or ranch running, and otherwise look after their interests back home. Why bring the wife and kids when you could easily visit them?
Or brothers and cousins, etc, would take turns coming to the States. Both brothers, or a father and one brother, might come when the job market was good. If jobs weren't so available, only one brother would come. Some years, maybe none.
I used to drive some construction workers back to their apartments back in those days. The whole apartment complex was filled with nothing but working age men. Not a dependent in sight. And in the winter it would be three quarters empty.
That's all changed now, because the borders are not by any means "open" any more. Yeah, you can get across -- probably -- but by no means certainly. Not certain enough to keep a job if your employer expects you back on a date certain. And it'll cost you. Cost you a long day or two days walk through rough country in remote areas. Or as much as several thousand dollars if you want an easier crossing assisted by an experienced people smuggler.
THE FACT is our borders are tighter right now than they have ever been, at any point in our history.
The result? Circularity in border crossing (illegals coming to work seasonally, or for a year or two, and then going back home to Mexico, or wherever) has decreased drastically. Now most illegals, once they get here, remain here. And if they intend to remain, they are far more likely to bring their dependents along. Those apartment complexes that used to be working men only, are now filled with women and children as well.
The need to stay year round (because tight borders make it too difficult and expensive to cross back and forth) also means that illegals are more likely to look for permanent, i.e. non-seasonal work, and therefore more likely to compete for jobs with natives.
In some ways, "open borders" (when they really were open) where better.
The best would be a work program that allowed willing labor to legally work here, and still keep their homes abroad. But the kneejerkers won't even let us consider sensible solutions, since they're obsessed with a myth: that the problem is "open borders".
Can we make the border tighter still? Sure. But I'd bet we're already very near the point of diminishing returns. We've already steadily tightened the borders more and more and more over the last 25 years. Even more resources probably won't make much difference.
The problem isn't the borders. The problem is an unwillingness to even look at where the problem really is.
We've got several fine Texas Republicans -- I favor Michael Williams -- interested in that seat who can't definitely map out their plans because KBH can't be bothered to set a date (and can't be trusted if she doesn't).
That’s the biggest pantload I’ve heard in a while.
They’ve caught thousands of Chinese coming across the southern border. We’ve caught scads of Al-Quaeda linked middle easterners. Those are the ones we catch. Lord knows how many get in.
It ain’t just your lettuce pickers, dude.
As to Bush's endorsement, well, he's retired, he left men who fought for him twisting in the wind, and I burned my Bushbot Action Hero costume when he pissed away his political clout appeasing domestic enemies.
Endorsements are a joke. I hope everybody can see through them by now.
Do you think Hutchinson has the presidency on her mind?
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.