Posted on 08/20/2011 1:13:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
You’re probably thinking, “I’ve seen this movie before: West Texas boy makes middling grades in college, gets elected governor and — to the consternation of gobsmacked Democrats, who misunderestimate his folksy appeal — runs for the Republican nomination for president.” But if that’s all you know about Rick Perry, you should be asking whether the country is ready for another White House occupant from the Lone Star State. The fact is, the most recent entrant into the GOP race is nothing like the caricatures being promoted on the left and the right. Here are some myths that need debunking, and quick.
1. He’s a Bush clone.
Biographical similarities aside, Perry is not the second coming of George W. Bush, either stylistically or substantively. Bush governed Texas with a light touch and had a good relationship with the Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Texas legislature. Perry is more hard-knuckled in his dealings not only with Democrats (now a minority in the House and the Senate) but with insufficiently conservative Republicans — what we in Texas pejoratively call “moderates.”.....
2. He’s a hillbilly dimwit.
That’s bias against Texas, pure and simple. Just because he wears cowboy boots and drops his G’s doesn’t mean he’s a dummy. Perry may be a small-town boy who went to an ag school (Texas A&M University), but he’s an extremely cagey and strategic politician who has been among the state’s most successful governors at getting what he wants. (Put another way: Even if he’s not book smart by University of Chicago standards, he’s plenty street smart — and street smart is still smart.) The better lens through which to regard Perry is inside vs. outside, establishment vs. anti-establishment, elitist vs. jus’ folks. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that jus’ folks is jus’ dumb.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The numbers don't agree. Most population growth in Texas is coming from other states.
The whole "economic miracle" idea is subjective. Whenever somebody makes that claim, somebody else will dispute and deflate it. There are no "miracles" in economics, and any good result is going to be compared to some better, ideal result that critics assume is in reach.
But from what I understand, Texas has been doing well economically. Whether Perry's the person responsible or not, the state's economy is a plus for his campaign.
Perry may not be George W. Bush, but I have to wonder if he might have the same problem Jeb Bush has: whatever he deserves, he's got an uphill fight to win over people who are still p.o.'ed at W.
Perry’s going try his best.
My error. I thought the anti-TSA-groping and the anti-sanctuary-cities/immigration bills were both calendared by the same process, viz., by the expiration of the regular session. Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst wanted it to die in the regular session, after Perry had taken political credit for the "gestural politics" of putting it on the agenda of the regular session last spring.
The sanctuary-cities/immigration bill was definitely brought back in by the senate Democrats' maneuvering in running out the clock on the regular session -- a parliamentary maneuver and mistake on their part, that created a headache for Perry and Dewhurst.
I thought the anti-TSA bill was one of those issues recalendared by the Dems' mistake.
She wouldn't do what Obozo has done, viz. sue Arizona and the States for trying to do something to stop the invasion themselves.
And she would stop the invasion.
No comparison. Night, meet day.
Only one. Alexander Hamilton. Representing Noo Yokk City ...... by himself, of course (the Mrs. Moskowitz gambit, 100 years earlier) ...... screw the rest of the convention, we're doing this the New York way.
Fulton Fish Market citizenship wrapped in a Bill Blass suit.
It will be nice when we get the TTC here in TX.
No, it won't -- it'll be a nightmare for the people who get Kelo'd (think that state law will stand up to Philadelphia lawyers pleading the Commerce Clause to SCOTUS?), and then the people of Texas won't be sovereign over, or own, their own infrastructure. Which is the whole idea of privatizing infrastructure -- it's a turnstile, a choke point the rentseekers of the world crave to own so they can, like Frank Herbert's Beast Rabban, squeeeeeeeezzze all the people of the world without further need of clergy, until the juice runs down their grinning triple chins. It's pure greed -- greed for evergreen, everlasting, ever-lush, vast revenues.
They are making a Pure Greed play in Texas to get our road systems away from us, and you think it's a good idea.
Meanwhile, you're up early and up late, push-push-pushing Rick Perry, the Best Candidate Billions Can Buy.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. But that never stops you.
That's what is so annoying about Perry. The parts that are good are very, very good -- the background, pre-Bushified-non-PC A&M, pro-life, pro-defense, pro-RKBA -- but the parts that are bad are just rotten beyond saving, like bad lettuce.
You can't blame illegal immigration on the socialists -- except for Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Lying Baines Burn in Hell Johnson.
It was the big farmers and meatpackers and chicken magnates and construction contractors who wanted them in here, replacing American workers. That is exactly what the play is now.
At Obozo's level it's socialists trolling for socialist votes. In California it's socialism, too. In Texas, it's chicken-killing Don Tyson and Bo Pilgrim and the hammer-swingers like Bob Perry that are all behind this.
No, they won't. Because Sarah isn't in bed with people like Don Tyson and Bo Pilgrim and the other chicken-mongers.
Yes, you people are most fortunate that the tornados that devastate Missouri and Iowa stop right at the state line ~ (/s)
I'm glad to hear it, because that is where the solution lies.
The choice is NOT between “Open borders” ***or*** deportation.
Of course it isn't -- you and the other Perry backers have been the ones suggesting that dichotomy. Of course that choice is a false one. But the right policies, prefigured by Arizona's embattled law, will lead to a massive efflux of Mexican illegals.
Nobody is busting immigrants' chops. The problem is Mexican immigration for reasons that are specific and fourfold:
Fourthly and lastly, Mexican intellectuals are also major authors of Mexican immigration, and their intentions are historically hostile and revanchist, and their policies toward the U.S., including immigration, monetary, and industrial policy, need to be seen through the prism of historically not-friendly relations, exacerbated now by the determination of the top political circles in Mexico to attempt seizure, through NALEO and the other racist-political Mexican NGO's, of "the catbird seat" of swing political power in the U.S., in order to advance a policy of revanchism and de-Anglicization of North America. It sounds fantastic, but you keep tripping over it in MeChista and Aztlanist literature, and the lines run back to the very top of Mexican society and politics. At some point, you have to stop ignoring it and deal with the problem.
We need to reform our immigration policies overall to exclude culturally hostile and dangerous groups whose members are poor bets for good U.S. citizenship (Moslems, Chinese) and exclude the overrepresented and problematic Mexican immigrant for the next few generations.
Not that other populations' immigration is not also a problem, politically and culturally. But right now Mexico and the Mexican border are The Problem.
The choice is who is going to lead the US into developing a system of foreign worker registration and a realistic path to US citizenship.
No citizenship for Mexican citizens. Not until Mexicans learn to split their votes like Central American and South American immigrants do -- those guys split "about" 50-50, Mexicans do not: and that is why Lyndon Johnson fought for more than 20 years to jam the door open to Mexican immigration, because he knew they'd vote Democratic like the Puerto Ricans do, and form a usable political bloc to shut the Republicans out of the White House for the next 120 years.
People who flunk "plays well with others" don't get to immigrate into the U.S. That is Rule One. And Mexicans fail on the mega scale overview. Sorry, they just do. Nothing personal -- they just vote for the LBJ's of the world, and they don't like people who speak English. We don't need to put up with that.
The Census is massively undercounting illegals, by mutual consent.
You can see that in West Florida, the Louisiana Purchase, and later acquisition of the PAC NW.
Mexicans sought to obtain those same territories themselves and looked on the efforts by Spaniards to become part of the United States as treachery.
I think the Spaniards were correct, and as a consequence the Mexicans have no legitimate right to be here under any guise ~ not even as tourists. That war ain't over ~ and most Americans don't even realize it has been underway for nearly two centuries.
Prove it. Post up. Post links. Sources. I know Texas politics as well as you do -- unless, of course, you're that pro you keep saying you're not.
But just keep arguing ad hominem and trying to poison the well ..... eventually, the rep will start to stick to you. As for my rep, I like it just fine. Want references? Ask around on the Texas board (don't see YOU there much ....), opinions vary but then I don't do PR. That's *your* game.
But that never stops you.
YOU don't stop me, that's for sure.
You're correct about the original relationship being between Spain and the U.S., not Mexico and the U.S.
Mexicans who complain about U.S. social attitudes are really cruising for a bruising -- Mexico revolted against Spain because of new Spanish laws liberalizing the old social rules, lessening the social distance between proud, stuffy, racist criollos (Creoles) like, oh, Presidente General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, on the one hand, and humble mestizo Mexicans on the other. So Mexican independence was actually founded on Creole ethnic and social pride -- no kidding!
But the original deal the U.S.-born empresarios had was with the King of Spain. In fact, Moses and Stephen F. Austin were both Spanish subjects when they lived in Missouri, and they were granted commissions by Spanish officials to carry out a Roman-style scheme of Anglo-American settlement in Texas (think, back-fire break) under the protection first of the King, and then, after the Spanish were sent home, under that of the Mexican Constitution of 1824. The idea was, orderly settlement and pledges of loyalty under Spanish law, to prevent a disorderly mass invasion and total loss of control. Guess who broke that deal? Gringo-hating Santa Anna, that's who.
Wow! I sure struck a nerve.
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.