Posted on 07/10/2011 3:47:00 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
If Rick Perry does mount a successful bid for the U.S. presidency, it will be interesting to see whether he can translate his past and present criticisms of the federal government into concrete changes to the sprawling bureaucracy.
Perry has yet to say he will or won’t toss his hat into the Republican race for the right to square off against President Barack Obama in 2012. He is, however, making all the moves of a potential candidate testing the waters. Insiders are mixed on the odds. Some say he’s definitely in; others put the odds at 50-50.
But the mere possibility the longest-serving Texas governor will join a party battle featuring hopefuls who conservatives and the tea party are not particularly excited about has pundits of all stripes from coast to coast offering their views of how a Perry candidacy would play out.
Perry, who’s never lost an election, has a good chance of rising quickly to the frontrunner position against Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman. His unabashed conservative message puts him at or beyond Bachman’s position on the far right end of the political spectrum. His executive experience compares well to Romney, Pawlenty and Huntsman.
And, like him or not, there’s little denying Perry knows how to campaign, raise money and deliver rousing speeches.
While polls show Obama in danger of losing to a generic Republican candidate — and the prevailing wisdom in the punditry sphere is the 2012 race is the GOP’s to lose, there is a real question whether a candidate who energizes the conservative base can do so without having his or her far-right stances turn off center-right independents, pushing them into Obama’s column.
But should Perry manage to keep his perfect election record intact and find himself in the White House, we’ll find out whether his Washington walk matches his Texas talk.
Assuming the GOP holds its House majority and gains control of the Senate, we can imagine Perry’s to-do list starting with the repeal of Obamacare and ending with a full makeover of the Environmental Protection Agency. In between, he’d likely put a host of agencies to work shredding scores of regulations he’s railed against. He’d also likely push Congress to end or redesign a variety of federal programs he views as overreaches in violation of state rights laid out in the Tenth Amendment.
Perry’s real test would be border security. He’s decried the federal government’s failure to secure the border, but the problem has stymied presidents from both parties for decades. Perry might be able the change that, but the odds are he’d merely find himself transformed from the critic to the criticized.
While some pundits question whether voters will back another Texas governor so soon after George W. Bush’s divisive two terms at the helm, others see Perry as a different sort of conservative. Unlike “compassionate conservative” Bush, some see Perry as more like Ronald Reagan.
But unlike the easy-going, grandfatherly Gipper, Perry is more like the Texas A&M yell leader he once was.
“Our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let’s stop trying to curry favor with them,” he said in a recent speech.
We’ve agreed with Perry, and we’ve disagreed with him. He’s certainly not perfect, but no candidate is. But if sending Perry to Washington would balance the budget, address the debt and rein in over-regulation, it would be a welcome change from the current state of affairs.
We already know that Obama’s walk is way short of his talk. No way Perry could be half as bad.
Unfortunately, Perry talks a good game but that’s about it. For example: Before election, “I will seal the border.” Two weeks after election, “It ain’t gonna happen.” and on and on.
If he was in any other state than Texas would he still have supporters behind him?
I’m just thinking that too many people are visualizing voter support for a candidate from Texas, only Texas.
Is it because to Americans Texas is the biggest state thus portraying strength?
I think there is another state even bigger.
Which side of what issue is Perry on today, hop!e they come up with a good compute program to trace the flip flops.
*******
...."The vaccine, Gardasil, is manufactured by Merck, which was represented in Austin by the lobbyist Mike Toomey, who was chief of staff for Mr. Perry from 2002 to 2004." [NOTE: Three years earlier]
The governor’s office denied any connection between the governor’s proposal and Mr. Toomey. A Merck spokesman declined to comment on the company’s lobbying.
But Merck, which had begun a campaign for Gardasil in legislatures around the country, reacted to growing opposition to proposed vaccine mandates by announcing in late February that it was dropping its legislative campaign...."
*******
I saw nothing about Merck "desperate for cash" -- so I did some checking for that time in early 2007, when you say a political pac for Rick Perry received $6000:
Merck in $2.3 billion tax settlement with IRS -- In this article the business reporter concludes that Merck's reported cash flow seems more than adequate.
That's a broad swipe. Care to make a charge?
I’m trying to understand you.
Are you saying people might vote for Rick Perry because he comes from a state with a lot of square miles?
Those "lot of Texans" were mainly his ex-Chief of Staff Mike Toomey who was then pharmacutical company Merck's Texas' lobbier, his then Chief of Staff Dianne Delisi's mother-in-law who worked for Merck's state advocacy group, and himself with kickbacks. Do you not see a bit of conflict of interest there? Merck a chief of staff and a chief of staff's MIL doesn't raise red flags with you?
If Perry were to beat out the other GOPs to get the nomination, this Texan might have to go third party. I’m sick of holding my nose when casting a GOP vote.
If you’ve been reading posts by Texans, Gardasil and the Corridor are NOT the only two problems with Perry. I’m not going to waste my time listing them AGAIN because you obviously don’t want to listen. A small start would be doing a search yourself for his version of the DREAM Act, illegals, Al Gore, and using tax dollars for his own personal use.
I’m sick of holding my nose when casting a GOP vote.
I can’t disagree but in the long run it’s damn hard to get a candidate much right of center elected nationally. I have one objective in my cast of a vote and that is to eliminate the current occupant of the WH. I only hope that I can vote for the GOP nominee as that is our only shot, imo. I hope that Romney isn’t that shot as I’m not sure that I can pull that lever.
Remember:
Bush I’s “thousand points of light”
Bush II’s “compassionate conservatism”
Just think of perry as being the “Progressive Conservative” and pull that lever.
Had no idea the Feds owned that much of Alaska. Very informative. Thanks deport.
In the grand scheme of things you should research donations made to political action committees (PACs) and direct contributions that companies like Merck make to ALL politicians. That's what lobbyists do. They prowl the halls of government buildings across the country. (Where do you think Barack Obama's $1Billion is coming from, the poor?)
Lobbyists start out in government--where they build up their rolodex. Then they move on to represent businesses who know it is required that they come hat in hand to pay tribute to the legislators who will be passing or not passing legislation that will be levying taxes and regulations upon them.
It is the nature of the beast -- why we need to have elected officials spend less time on the job and go home to work a real job. The Texas legislature meets every 2 years for 140 days (additional days if special sessions are called).
Rick Perry's platform in brief:
1. Don't spend all the money.
2. Have fair and predictable tax and regulatory policy.
3. A legal system that doesn't allow for over suing (lawsuit abuse) and make loser pay (no more jackpot justice).
With that as Rick Perry's platform and political ideology, I conclude that Merck contributed to Rick Perry's PAC to have less government entanglement in their business, which would do considerably more for their bottom line than what you are suggesting.
AK is small in population but large in acreage. They have something around 710,000 population per the 2010 Census which is just about the number used for Congressional redistricting.
No, she does not.
Nor does she care about putting dangerous materials
into children not at risk, as long as there were profits
for BigPharma and her RINO Perry and others who knew
a priori about the upcoming MANDATE by RINO Executive Order.
Merck’s political campaign contribution won’t be an issue nationally if Perry becomes the nominee. Hell the $6000 isn’t enough to get in the hello/handshake line at a fundraiser. Texas uses/allows these type donations for campaigns. This maybe bad or good but that is the way it’s done. If you don’t give a five figure contribution to the campaign you aren’t even in the who’s that line.
A limited government conservative is going to have some problems with anybody who ever had substantial responsibility for running a government. Governors have to govern; they have to run a modern, bloated state that is deeply involved in private matters as it runs schools, finances health care, constructs infrastructure, etc., ad infinitum.
That's why conservative and libertarian voters tend to fall in love with obscure Congressmen (and women) every presidential election year. Consider John Ashbrooke, Phil Crane, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann, just to name a few. A member of Congress can snipe from the sidelines and never get too soiled by close association with the monster they are part of. Governors and Presidents don't have that luxury.
But an ideologically appealing Congressman is never going to win a GOP nomination, let alone a national election. Anyone who has been a Governor will have some scars, but those are the price of admission to the presidential game. An unmarked candidate is an unserious candidate, so you had best learn to live with the scars.
Perry has remarkably few. There is no rational conservative case to be made for the proposition that he's not an acceptable presidential candidate. His most recent book makes his ideological orientation very clear and nothing in his record is so inconsistent with that orientation as to cast real doubt on his conservative credentials.
People who want to brand him as a “RINO” are doing us all a disservice, usually because they want to promote some candidate who hasn't got the proverbial snowball's chance or some potential candidate who may very well never run. That's just juvenile and stupid.
Unless Sarah Palin chooses to run, Rick Perry is going to be the only game in town for conservatives. That's the reality we all have to deal with. Picking nits just isn't productive.
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.