Posted on 08/08/2011 12:38:21 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Lol, no.....I was bracing myself for the collective eye roll of “please, no more Texans”, but for the most part, I see many conservatives willing to support Perry. I did my homework, looked at the records of the other candidates, and IMO its not such a bad idea.
My question is, if we lose another governor to the White House, what do you know about the record of our current Lt. Gov? Afraid I’m out of touch with issues on the state level since all of my energies are always directed at federal policy.
Let’s just say, we’re going to have to deal with that.
There will be a lot of jockeying.
At least we know where Perry stands. He at least tried to work out an announcement before the debate but didn’t others participate before officially announcing I can’t recall?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/Perry_put_out_feelers_on_Fox_debate.html
Thanks!
I guess things are very fluid in this business of politics.
Yeah but we are not having political propaganda written about the rest of us.
LLS
Even though I'm from New England, Perry first made an impression on me during Hurricane Rita (I believe). He was having press conferences to update the public and seemed so much in control compared to the gov of Louisiana with Katrina. I couldn't get over his take charge leadership vs the whining and finger pointing with the LA leadership.
Heck, I'm in money saving mode and very frugal with my money but I'll even contribute which says a lot because I haven't given a politician a dime since McCain announced Gov Palin as his running mate. It's nice to have that level of excitement again.
Perry could be a formidable candidate. If he declares, I’ll switch to him from a fairly weak Bachmann run.
Do you think you can manage to get a Perry for President yard sign in another year or do you want someone here to make you get one?
He makes exceptions on abortion. He's also pro-choice for states. He has supported an overt pro-abort, a winner of the Margaret Sanger Award, no less, for the presidency in the recent past.
What more does a conservative need to know?
“Governor Rick Perry has always championed the pro-life cause, tirelessly advocating for the sanctity of innocent human life in numerous ways,” Texas Right to Life executive director Elizabeth Graham tells LifeNews.com.
Governor Perry has worked alongside Texas Right to Life, helping shepherd our pro-life bills and eagerly supporting our measures,” Graham said. “As governor of Texas, he has intervened to stop anti-life legislation on a number of occasions, and he has helped clear obstacles when necessary.” ………….
Texas Gov. Rick Perry blasted pro-abortion President Barack Obama on pro-life issues "Perry said that, under Obama “our federal tax dollars can now be used to fund abortion all over the world. With the stroke of a pen, abortion essentially became a U.S. foreign export......."
”Perry has pleased pro-life advocates in Texas many times with signing pro-life legislation — most recently signing an ultrasound bill allowing women to see them before an abortion and hopefully changing their minds on it. He has been strongly supported by pro-life groups. Perry supported or signed into law the Women’s Right to Know Act and the Prenatal Protection Act in 2003, parental consent law in 2005, and funding for alternatives to abortions in 2007 and 2009."
*******************
"We would aggressively work to defeat him [Perry], of course," said Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, which describes itself as non-partisan but typically backs Democrats. Star Telegram
I'm from Illinois, I became familiar with Obama long before most of FR (he ran against my Congressman in 2000 and lost the Democrat primary), so I speak with some pretty accurate knowledge about what Obama was like when he was in state government.
Perry's position on the issues are conservative and Obama's views on the issues are liberal, but their philosophy on the relationship of state/federal government isn't "SO unlike" at all. In fact, it's pretty similar. For example, both Perry and Obama claim they are "personally against" gay marriage but it really "best left to the states" and they're OK with individual states legalizing it on a case-by-case basis ( http://newsone.com/nation/ggaynor/obama-believes-gay-marriage-best-addressed-by-states/ )
When Obama was a state legislator, he certainly shy away from asserting "strong state's independence" from federal policies, nor was he shy about making an "anti-federal government stand" and using his position as a state official to criticize federal decisions (not surprising, since at the time the Bush administration was in power). Then Illinois Senate President Emil Jones actually assigned Obama all kinds of legislation (written by other people, Obama would just put his name on it) to puff up his track record and make it look as though Obama was responsible for all kinds of state programs. In fact, I would argue state and local government in Illinois decided to stick their noses into plenty of areas they had no judistriction over, like the Chicago City Council passing a resolution condemning the Iraq War (with Obama's blessing at the time)
You could make a good case that President Obama's policies are very different from candidate Obama (i.e. candidate Obama claimed a President should never attack another country with Congressional approval, President Obama did exactly that in Libya, etc.). However, many times when Obama makes a "bold statement" about state powers, it tends to be show and not his actual beliefs. For example, while Obama insisted he did not think state officials should be choosing U.S. Senators instead of the voters of a state, in reality he did the opposite. Our Governor got indicted for corruption relating to taking bribes to fill Obama's senate seat and was absolutely the last person you'd want to make the appointment. Obama was a newly elected President with sky-high approval ratings at the time and could have embarrassed the state legislature into passing legislation for a special election, if it was truly his belief that state governments should not make the appointment. Instead, he sat on his hands and allowed Blago to appoint whoever he wants. Clearly what Obama says and what Obama does are entirely differnet.
Rick Perry has a similar pattern... what he says and what he does are two different things. Candidate Perry was extremely confident that he would personally take action to secure Texas' border with Mexico, whereas Governor Perry ducked the issue and said it was entirely the federal government's job (when it was suggested that Texas enact a AZ style immigration law, he refused to even consider the idea)
Rick Perry's views on a whole host of issues are different from Obama, but whether the relationship of state-federal governments to each other will be any different under his watch than it was under Obama or George W. Bush is doubtful.
Sure, right. Senator John Tower (R-TX) must have been a flaming liberal in the 1960s whereas Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) was to the right of Ronald Reagan at the time, right?
Sorry, those of us who have researched the facts know all this "the two parties switched sides, the Dems were the conservative party back then" is B.S. The media and some misguided freepers continue to make this claim but it doesn't stand up to scrunity. Most of these "conservative" southern RATs eagerly enacted all kinds of socialist legislation throughout the 20th century and were big fans of Woodrow Wilson's "progressive" policies and FDR's statist "new deal". Some Perry fans have been insisted Al Gore was an "old fashioned conservative southern Democrat" when Perry ran his campaign. Then a freeper researched Gore's ACU rating in the 1980s. His score was to the LEFT of Bernie Sanders of Vermont the year that Perry endorsed him. Gore wasn't even a "moderate" back then, the first President Bush used to call him "Mr. Ozone" at the time.
Additonally, it doesn't help your cause that you guys spreading the "Dems were the conservative party" B.S. can't even get a consensus date when the Dems "became" liberal en masse. It always seem to occur whenever the candidate you're touting got on the side of the GOP. "Prior to 1964, the Dems were the conservative party". "Prior to 1976, the Dems were the conservative party". "Prior to 1989, the Dems were the conservative party" "Prior to 1994, the Dems were the conservative party".
Well sorry, during the height of Reaganism, Texans that were on the side of Al Gore and Mike Dukasis were not "conservative". They were liberals who decided to change their views when they realized their careers were endangered.
None of that changes the truth of what I posted one iota.
All it does is show the corrupt nature of the so-called “pro-life” organizations.
Again, he excepts some babies from protection.
He’s pro-choice for states.
And he uses his political capital to forward the political ambition of pro-abort, pro-homosexual candidates for the highest office in the land.
Every one of these things is part of the public record.
Why would any conservative who understands and stands for the most fundamental principles of our republic support such a man?
I want Sarah Palin to BE the President of the United States!
Then, I (and many, many others) would have complete trust that someone in WASHINGTON would be there who:
- would, first, have the BEST INTERESTS of the 'hard working tax-paying people' of this country in mind!
- would apply the same priorities (demonstrated by her record) to take on 'established interests', be they corporate or political, for the betterment of the "hard working tax-paying people'.
- would already have a broad-based following at the grass roots level, unlike ANY other candidate out there right now, to pressure and support for actions to take on the difficult decisions that need to be made to get our financial debt under control.
Perry's February 02, 2007 Executive Order RP65 states:
"The Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner shall adopt rules that mandate the age appropriate vaccination of all female children for HPV prior to admission to the sixth grade."
His EO doesn't name the vaccine and it offers an out, so that might be why you believe he didn't mandate Gardasil®:
Parents’ Rights. "The Department of State Health Services will, in order to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care, modify the current process in order to allow parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form via the Internet while maintaining privacy safeguards under current law."
RP65 – Relating to the immunization of young women from the cancer-causing Human Papillomavirus.
To mandate or not to mandate...
Perry refused to rescind his EO, so the Texas House passed HB 1098 on March 14, 2007, overturning his executive order by a vote of 119-21.
The Senate followed suit with a vote of 30-1.
You might have a point there. Some very 'strange' type of people there in Texas who are called "CONSERVATIVES" who would actually head up the GORE CAMPAIGN in 1988 when Reagan was still in office.
You are right, I definitely DON'T HAVE A CLUE.
And...we are also supposed to SWALLOW that all of a sudden within ONE YEAR'S TIME (from 1988 to 1989), Perry had a "conversion" of philosophy from GORE "Texas Conservatism" while the person you compare him to (Reagan) was actually still in office after 8 years, to REAL "Conservatism" less than a year later?
Since Obama never had any executive experience at the state level and at most just voted “present” most of the time in state senate debates, we need to go with what we DO have.
And her’s what we DO have:
We have Obama’s failed policies on the national level to draw from, and we have Governor Perry’s success as a Texan governor to compare it to.
Pardon me if I don’t see much of anything at all similar between Texas and Illinois, dear poster friend. I’ll look at the results, and well.... there’s just no dang comparison at all there.
Yes, I have. Very good exhibit on it at the Bob Bullock History Museum. Reconstruction ended in 1876 with the election of President Rutherford B. Hayes. Even if we go with your silly little 1972 date (which ignores the various times Republicans won Texas handily before that date), it still has nothing to do with a party switch that occurred in 1989. Wow, and I thought Obama was desperate blaming something Bush did 8 years ago for today's events. You're blaming something that happened 113 years earlier for Perry endorsing an envirowacko socialist? Maybe reconstruction made him endorse Giuliani in 2008 too. You never know.
>> Perry is conservative and fearless and electable. <<
Ah, I see the problem. You're thinking of another guy named "Rick Perry" that has nothing in common with the one currently in office. Reminds me of the "fiscal conservatives" who voted for Obama. Because the Rick Perry who's Governor right now is a gutless flip-flopper, a guy half your fellow Texas Republicans despise and who is lucky to win 50% of the vote in a 4-way race even though he's running in a state that always votes Republican (must be "Reconstruction's" fault he polls so poorly)
>> We are so lucky he is going to be our next president. You too, even if you're too arrogant to acknowledge it. <<
Yes, and we all get behind Rick Perry Fred Thompson right now, because he's the only one who can beat Romney Rudy. Once Fred gets in, it's a guranteed victory!!!
Yawn.
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.