Posted on 08/28/2011 8:37:20 PM PDT by smoothsailing
By JOE HOLLEY
August 28, 2011
At first glance, it would seem that the 30th president of the United States and the man who would be the 45th have little in common. Famously silent Calvin Coolidge, after all, not only had little to say but also hated to campaign, unlike White House aspirant Rick Perry, an indefatigable campaigner whose tongue occasionally runs ahead of his brain. Coolidge was a rectitudinous New Englander presiding, paradoxically, over a raucous Jazz Age; Perry is a gregarious Texan who, paradoxically, stands to inherit a nation shaken by a stubbornly slow economic recovery.
In reality, the two Republicans are similar in several ways beyond party affiliation. Coolidge, like Perry, was the first in his family to leave the land. Coolidge - like Perry, so far - never lost an election in 15 tries, serving as a city alderman, mayor, state legislator, Massachusetts governor and vice president before becoming president in 1923 upon the death of Warren G. Harding. Like Perry, Coolidge enjoyed physical exercise, although his preferred method wasn't jogging along a country road but bouncing atop a mechanical horse in his White House bedroom.
Most of all, the two men share a commitment to minimalist federal government. Writing about Coolidge in 1926, columnist Walter Lippmann noted the president's talent for "active inactivity," an attribute that, in Lippmann's words, "suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably. It suits all the business interests which want to be left alone. ... And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy."...
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Well, the quotes I posted are sourced and published and available to the public.
Your "quotes" are fantasies of your imagination, therefore irrelevent.
Publicly available information about Perry includes his plan to vaccinate all girls in Texas against HPV, a sexually transmitted disease.
Don’t we have a problem with a President who wants to force everyone to buy healthcare? Perry’s had to walk back his plan, which was rightly rejected by the legislature, but it seems that the difference between Obama and Perry on the proper role of government is one of degree, not kind. Perry is a Texas moderate, just like the last Republican President.
“Liberal” is becoming another way to say “corrupt,” but simply being honest instead of corrupt is still not enough to claim to be conservative. I plan to vote for Perry if he is the nominee against Obama, but I’m not going to call Perry conservative. Perry is no more conservative than Romney.
Conservative is a subjective term so your interpretation will differ from mine.
That being said, I believe Rick Perry to be THE most conservative person currently in the race and I say that as one who is a native Texan who has watched him from the beginning of his political career! Is he perfect? No he isn’t and no candidate ever will be! Is he the best currently available? I think the answer to that is yes!
Rick Perry was VERY conservative even when he was a Texas democrat!
If both Bush and Perry are Texas moderates, then I would say that Perry is to the right of Bush on that scale.
I'm sorry to hear that; it breaks my heart. Bo Pilgrim is the one who was videotaped walking around the floor of the Texas senate while it was in session, handing out $10,000 checks.
Remember that?
Sorry to hear he's out.
No smear, FReeper -- these guys do talk like that to senators and governors (see my last). And they're on the public record doing it.
In an article which otherwise is a vile hit piece on Texas and Texas governance and the idea of smaller government (these guys think the American West was settled by people who had live-in bureaucrats helping them), there is one bit of useful information about concentration of donorship among Perry's supporters:
Accompanying Gov. Perry’s denial is cronyism and patronage, both good ole boy-style and corporate (of the $102 million in campaign contributions raised for his gubernatorial races, Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote, half came “from just 204 sources,” and the Los Angeles Times reports, “Nearly half of those mega-donors received hefty business contracts, tax breaks or appointments under Perry.”)
Source: http://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/26/rick-perrys-texas-delusion/
Despite the source's obvious bias, a fact is still a fact, and I cite it for support of my statement that you doubt, about Perry's indebtedness to a small circle of donors.
And yes, I'm perfectly aware Tyson's operation is up in Arkansas. And I know he was hip-deep in U.S. presidential and Texas politics, up until he died in January, and he was one of Rick Perry's big backers. He was in the room in that 2005 meeting with Kay Bailey Hutchison I referred to above, that was written up in the Houston Chronicle.
Here's a Tyson Foods press release from 2008 showing 10,000 Tyson employees in Texas, and supporting Gov. Rick Perry doing a political favor for Tyson Foods by calling for a reduction in government support for ethanol, which was driving up Tyson's feed costs:
Tyson Foods 2008 Press Release.
Current stories:
I think he is. Romney is politically a cipher; he has no agenda, just a need to be in office.
Bush 41, it was once said, had a conviction that "the right people", "people like us" (meaning, fellow Yalie elitist country-clubbers) needed to be in charge of the nation's affairs. He had other ideas and values to go with that. Romney doesn't have any other visible values beyond holding office that I can see. He's a freshwater stingless jellyfish, if such a thing exists, just jellying along and floating downstream. He is palpably decayed, a decomposition product of what was once an identifiable political class and grouping that had some sort of theme and texture to it. Now, in Romney, it's just jelly.
Perry so far has stood up for RKBA and the death penalty "no foolin'" and for rights of the unborn in some fashion (although that is not my issue, I let others carry that fight and measure people like Perry). He's not all bad; he's just sold, and that's the hell of it. He's like a pretty good dog that won't come when you call, runs off with the guy giving him gainesburgers and table scraps, and then pees on your car's hubcaps and dumps on the lawn.
The contrast, though, isn't between Rick Perry and Barky at the moment, but among the contenders for the honor of drop-kicking his sorry ass back across the Pacific where he came from. That has to be the discussion now.
Me, I like the lady Republicans right now. They're going to demonstrate why women in public affairs need to avoid wearing open-toed pumps when kicking a poofty guy's butt through the Golden Gate and across the sea. (Let's leave it there.)
Not when they're fully descriptive of the essential process of "Texas gubernatorial politics" and have explanatory power for what he's going to do in the future.
Rick's sold, amigo. No longer available. You can't have his attention for $250,000 now. He's fully engaged and engorged -- on a mission from The Man.
Like the other poster said, nice try.
Somehow, ma'am, I don't think they're listening.
They're like a dog running with a bone, right out into the street in front of a truck. All they can see, hear, taste, and smell is that bone.
Don't flatter yourself, it doen't matter to me what you think of Perry, as long as you vote for him should he be the nominee. I believe you indicated you would, thereby displaying the good sense God gave you.
Well, I’m not Texan, so I only know what gets out into the national news, or here on FR. One problem that we have is that the libs have made the labels; “moderate” means only one thing: pro-abortion. “Conservative” means “church-attending” or that the person described seems church-attending to reporters who wouldn’t be caught dead in a place of worship (we’ve all heard Catholics described as evangelicals, or Jews described as Christians because of this kind of lazy bias.) Accordingly, Romney was a “moderate conservative.”
I mean moderate to be “same-but-less” Republicanism; that is, one who does not want to get rid of any programs, but just wants to balance the budget. By that standard, only Ron Paul is not a fiscal moderate. Yes, most Pubbies running say they’ll repeal Obamacare, but it really hasn’t been implemented yet. Voters are still afraid that the ax will fall on them. If Obamacare had been in place for five years, would the present candidates be brave enough run on repeal?
Since both Bush and Perry have proposed new spending, it’s hard to even call them fiscal moderates. I’ve heard that Texas has a line-item veto, so perhaps Perry has been more of a budget-cutter than Bush. Like I said, I’ll vote for Perry when the time comes, but I’d have higher hopes for smaller government under Cain or Bachmann.
I don't think Cain or Bachmann will survive the early primaries. What will be needed to start down the path to smaller government is large majorities of limited government fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate. If they don't appropriate, the Executive can't spend.
Oh, really? And why should I be "sensible" when you guys so obviously are not prepared to exercise the common sense God gave a doorknob?
Why should I vote for that corrupt, sold-out timeserver? You may have just turned me around, talking down to me like that when I'm in the right!
You can get off right here, this is your stop.
Now that's funny, I don't care what anybody says! :o)
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.