[af_vet_rr]

My point is that all the things you mention as the origin of fights over Texas had nothing to do with the reason that modern Texas is valuable and that’s oil.

My original point is that too much credit is given to Perry for Texas' economic success. It took two solid centuries of economic and population growth to get to where we are at, and yet we have idiots running around trying to claim that Texas success = Perry.

Who gets rich with cattle ranching these days?

Actually the agricultural industry, from the single-family farm, to the large corporate farming/ranching companies is huge. Because of all of these varied interests, Texas is able to weather a lot of the economic problems.

[Locomotive Breath]

All fair points. But if Perry were the wrong kind of Dem (or Rep for that matter) he could have certainly fouled things up. Perry gets credit for that. A lot of good governing is just getting the heck out of the way and letting people go about their business which Obama doesn’t want to do. I feel Congress influences domestic issues far more than the President who really has more to say about conducting foreign policy. Personally, I’ll take almost any Rep as President just as long as we get a good Rep Congress who can bend him/her to their will. For example, for a Rep President to veto a Rep Congress bill is pretty much unthinkable but a Dem President would do it out of reflex.