Rick Perry for President!

I’m not sure what Sister Toldjah thinks of Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), though to judge from her Twitter Feed, maybe not much, though a lot of it could be just snarkiness. But, at least on my first look, I like him and think he would be a strong candidate to unseat President Obama.

There was a link on Sis’ Facebook page to an interesting article, Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry.

Over the past couple of months Rick Perry has been considering a run for POTUS. As of Thursday, August 11, it looks like the decision has been made and he’s in.

Since he’s been Governor of Texas for over ten years, folks from the other “56 states” are asking Texans what kind of governor he’s been and what we think. I decided that what I “think” isn’t good enough – I could be wrong. So, I decided to do some research on Perry’s record and form a more accurate, fact-based opinion on his qualifications instead of relying on my general perceptions.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Perry in each of the three gubernatorial elections since 2002 and I am a conservative and a registered Republican. It was easy for me to vote for Perry since the alternative(s) were either uber-RINOs in the primaries or liberal Democrats in the general elections. Under the circumstances, my choice was always easy.

While researching Perry’s pros and cons, I’ve read every article and blog post that I could find – over several weeks. Many of those posts had 2-300 comments associated with them – I read them all.

After reading literally thousands of comments, it’s become apparent that there are quite a lot of anti-Perry activists out there throwing all sorts of disparaging rhetorical crap against the wall in hopes that some will stick and they can influence someone, anyone, to become anti-Perry too. The unfortunate thing is that most of their negative statements are either completely false, at worst, or misleading, at best. They’re simply parroting something they saw on another hater’s blog. Yet they maintain that they are the knowledgeable ones and those supporting Perry are ignorant clods who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time – “ignorant” is an adjective that they like to use a lot.

It’s ludicrous to think that some asinine statement like “Gardasil, Perry blew it – ‘nuff said,” deserves any consideration. No, it’s not “’nuff said,” there is usually more to know about an issue before a reasonable person can make an intelligent decision. For that reason, I have attempted to present some additional facts that have not been widely publicized just to educate those who have not been privy to Texas politics until now.

In that spirit, I do realize that anyone who reads this summary has a right to be skeptical of my facts. I therefore invite those who might dispute my findings to challenge them by verifying what I’ve presented here. And cross-check via reliable sources rather than relying on a single posting by some anonymous blogger – some spout “facts” which have no basis in the truth. I will identify the source of my data and in many cases, I’ll provide a link to the source so you can see for yourself … the real facts.

And finally, remember that any politician in office for ten years will have his/her critics and will have stepped on some toes during their term(s).

The rest of the article, which I’ll encourage you to go to and read for yourself, examines seventeen potential negatives concerning Governor Perry, and it’s clear: there are people who don’t like him, some for reasons I find silly, and others for policy reasons which are serious.

As for me, I look at Governor Perry’s record, and the state of the economy in Texas as opposed to the state of the economy nationwide. Regular readers will recall that Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) made a trip to Texas to find out where all of the jobs California has lost have gone.

Governor Perry cannot be credited with every good thing which has happened in Texas, nor blamed for every bad one, but, like every other chief executive, he winds up with the responsibility for all of them. Some of that is unfair — in both directions — but it’s undeniable that Texas’ economy is in much better shape than that of the nation as a whole. If Governor Perry is the Republican nominee, it will be his record of success versus President Obama’s record of failure, and that’s a powerful argument for Governor Perry to make.

Of course, things could change. If our national economy turns around, and the American people see real improvements in the economy and real decreases in unemployment come November of 2012, President Obama will be re-elected, period. It won’t matter if his policies led to such improvement, he’ll still get the credit, and win. If, on the other hand, the economy doesn’t noticeably improve and unemployment doesn’t come down significantly, President Obama will be defeated. It won’t matter if his policies were to blame, he’ll still get the blame, and lose.

This is my early endorsement, and it could change. There are things I like about some of the other Republican candidates. Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) has a lot of beliefs with which I agree, but her résumé is unfortunately thin. I had said before that the one thing she needed to do to overcome the experience argument was to have a strong, 5½ year record as Governor of Alaska; instead, she resigned from office early. I understand the reasons, having to do with the ethics laws which would have hamstrung her financially had she continued, but that doesn’t matter: most people will only see that she quit. Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) says a lot of things with which I agree, but she has no record at all of executive experience of accomplishment; believing the right things does not mean that she could perform well in office if she won. Of course, a record of no experience but no failures beats President Obama’s record of some experience now, and nothing but failure. :)

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) just isn’t the man. He’s supposedly the frontrunner, and the safe candidate, and he has strong executive experience, but he put through a state-mandated health care plan in Massachusetts that’s not all that dissimilar to ObaminableCare, and I am concerned that, as President, he would continue to support something along the lines of the current health care law. And his flip-flopping of positions, depending upon the office for which he was campaigning — he was pro-abortion when he ran against Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), but pro-life when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 — does not demonstrate to me that he has any strong convictions. If Governor Romney does win the nomination, it will be a choice between holding my nose and voting for him, if the race is seen as close in Pennsylvania, or voting third party.

I voted for now-former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) in 2006, and he has the right ideas, but he has no chance to win the nomination, nor any real record of executive accomplishment to his credit.

This article is not the “Official CSPT Endorsement,” because the other authors might well disagree, and have every right to have their say, nor will it be the “Official Truth Before Dishonor Endorsement” when I cross-post this there, because only John Hitchcock can make that. And there is always the possibility that Governor Perry will do or say something with which I am so in disagreement that I will change my mind. But for now, if the primaries were held today, Rick Perry would get my vote.

Here is Rick Perry’s campaign website. His campaign website is still a bit on the sparse side, and needs a lot of work. The most glaring omission is a lack of an “Issues” menu, but I’m sure that they’ll get to that. I’ll be including a list of links to all of the presidential candidates’ campaign websites in the sidebar, and I’ll even include Barack Obama’s, just for reference. But, I guess that I don’t have to go to the trouble of adding Tim Pawlenty’s now. :)
________________________________
Update: I wrote that I wasn’t sure how Sister Toldjah viewed the Perry candidacy, but then I found this:

At this stage in the game, I’m a Perry girl – although that could change if Sarah Palin were to announce her candidacy, which she’s hinting around at doing no later than next month.

On Hot Air, Ed Morrissey tells us why Perry may be the real deal.

Hillary Chabot, in The Boston Herald, called Governor Perry Mitt Romney’s “worst nightmare.

And a CNN poll has President Obama losing support among Democrats. :)
________________________________
Cross-posted on Truth Before Dishonor

44 Comments

  1. Pingback: Bachmann #1 in Iowa Straw Poll while TPaw Bows Out | Midnight Blue Says

  2. Tania wrote, yesterday:

    Ames Straw Poll is going on today. A crucial must pass first step on the road to the GOP Presidential Candidate nomination. This non binding straw poll can make or break a presidential candidate hopeful. Do well in this poll and your campaign continues, do poorly and your campain will most likely collapse. No pressure, right?

    I guess that she got it right about Tim Pawlenty!

  3. Frankly I’m tired of two small electorally wise states picking who I’m going to vote for president before I even get a chance to say. Then we seem to wind up with dumb and dumber like 2008.

  4. It’s a fouled up system. Trouble is, it’s better than the alternatives. :(

    Because we are not a parliamentary democracy, the head of government is not simply the leader of the majority party in the legislature, and, with the exception of Lyndon Johnson, I can’t think of any party leader in Congress who has even been elected President. In fact, it’s rare for sitting congressmen and senators to be elected President, period, even though it seems like every senator thinks he’s presidentibili. Senators have a reasonably good record at winning the nomination, but a much poorer one at winning the general election, primarily because they (usually) have so little executive experience, and working in Congress is an exercise in compromises. Governors have the best record at advancement to the White House.

    And that means they have to go through our nomination process. It’s cumbersome, it gives more weight to some states than others — the Pennsylvania primary occurs late, on April 24th in 2012 — but it puts the eventual nominees through a test of fire before they ever get to the general election, and I think that this is a good thing.

    There is another flaw: the skills required to win the presidency are very different from those required to be a good President, and not every President has had the second set, the incumbent being a primary example.

  5. It’s a fouled up system. Trouble is, it’s better than the alternatives

    Such as, say, a democratic system – which Dana is on record as being against.

  6. Dana Pico says:
    14 August 2011 at 16:50 (Edit)
    It’s a fouled up system. Trouble is, it’s better than the alternatives.

    As a kid I liked the “REAL” Conventions held by the parties. They were a good free for all TV entertainment. Then the delegates had a real vote, not a predetrmined vote. Some of the voting went on for days. Now, one poor showing, and your dog crap. We will never know if Pawlenty would have won in a different state, or not. Does Iowa represent all of us?? Does NH represent all of us?? And we get a predetermined convention that is a TV Production, not one for nominating anyone. Obama’s Convention represented a Coronation, not a selection. As we found out his hat was two sizes too big, and NO CATTLE, just pure unadultrated Bovine Feces (Bullshit)

  7. It is a democratic system, although the addition of democracy has made it more, rather than less, chaotic.

    It wasn’t that long ago that most of the delegates to the nominating conventions were selected in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, with few primary elections. Now, most states have primaries, while those which do not have open nominating conventions.

    Some sort of national primary would result in a plurality winner who received 24% of the vote. Regional primaries would change which states had the most say, but the most say in the nomination would still go to the region which held its primary first.

    It’s an admittedly messy way to do things, but given our size, probably the best we can devise.

  8. Dana Pico says:
    14 August 2011 at 17:30
    It is a democratic system, although the addition of democracy has made it more, rather than less, chaotic.

    It wasn’t that long ago that most of the delegates to the nominating conventions were selected in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms, with few primary elections. Now, most states have primaries, while those which do not have open nominating conventions.

    I had heard someone mention four years ago that there should be a rotation of the primaries, or a lottery. Now it’s a popularity contest and who can stack the deck in the IOWA Caucuses with out of state attendees. To me, IA’s system is ripe for party bosses to stack the deck with outsiders

  9. Frankly I’m tired of two small electorally wise states picking who I’m going to vote for president before I even get a chance to say. Then we seem to wind up with dumb and dumber like 2008. >yorkshire

    ++++++++++++++

    Yeah, this lib completely agrees with that sentiment.

    Perry certainly fits the dumb and dumber classification — his college transcripts were released; he got a D in Principles Of Economics, at Texas A & M. http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript

  10. There is virtually no doubt in anyone’s mind that Rick Perry executed an innocent man, and that he knew he was doing it. I link to the relatively conservative publication The Week, which rounds up a few opinons about it:

    http://theweek.com/article/index/216692/rick-perrys-death-penalty-disgrace-a-2012-dealbreaker

    Other opinons shouldn’t matter, though. No Catholic current or former – no one even mildly sympathetic to the barest at-core version of Catholicism – can in good conscience entertain the idea of Rick Perry for president. He is a murderer.

  11. burninbush says:
    14 August 2011 at 22:09 (Edit)
    Frankly I’m tired of two small electorally wise states picking who I’m going to vote for president before I even get a chance to say. Then we seem to wind up with dumb and dumber like 2008. >yorkshire

    ++++++++++++++

    Yeah, this lib completely agrees with that sentiment.

    Perry certainly fits the dumb and dumber classification — his college transcripts were released; he got a D in Principles Of Economics, at Texas A & M. http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript

    Actually, I feel more partial to either Herman Cain because he ran a nationwide business and knows how to make a payroll, invest in capital(people) and negotiate for products. Also, I like COL. Alan West. He was escorted to the door while putting his troops’ safety first and not give in to some whiner. Kinda a Patton like.

  12. Rick Perry has aptly been described as “a bad caricature of George W. Bush”.

    On the remote chance he is elected, I fully expect to see the w1ngnuts here worshipping the ground he piddles on and decrying him as the Second Coming of Jefferson – right up to six months before he’s turfed out, when they notice just how badly he screwed up and left America in an even deeper hole, at which time they’ll suddenly announce he was never a conservative.

    Based on past form of course…

  13. cbmc wrote:

    There is virtually no doubt in anyone’s mind that Rick Perry executed an innocent man, and that he knew he was doing it. I link to the relatively conservative publication The Week, which rounds up a few opinons about it:

    The Governor of Texas does not have the authority to commute a sentence or pardon an offender on his own; at most, he can delay an execution, one time, for thirty days. The sentence can only be commuted if the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends it.

    The criminal was convicted in court, had numerous appeals which went nowhere, and was unable to win the sympathy of the Board. I have no idea whether he was innocent or not, but even if he was, there wasn’t much Governor Perry could have done about it.

  14. cbmc wrote:

    Other opinons shouldn’t matter, though. No Catholic current or former – no one even mildly sympathetic to the barest at-core version of Catholicism – can in good conscience entertain the idea of Rick Perry for president. He is a murderer.

    This, compared to your support for the slaughter of over a million unborn children every year? It’s the Democrats for whom no Catholic could ever in good conscience vote.

    In 2002 (or was it 2004?) I voted for Bob Casey, a Democrat, to be our state treasurer. My goal was to help put a pro-life Democrat in office, hoping that he could influence other Democrats that the pro-life position was acceptable within their party. Well, now he’s a Senator, and Bob Casey may be personally pro-life, but he votes in favor of abortion every chance he gets.

  15. “This, compared to your support for the slaughter of over a million unborn children every year? It’s the Democrats for whom no Catholic could ever in good conscience vote.”

    Speak for yourself, Dana.

    Moreover, you must be reminded again that a vote for women’s choice is not a vote for abortion, it is a vote for women’s choice.

    Your crusade ought to focus on the women themselves on moral grounds, rather than to deprive them of a choice in a dictatorial fashion typical of the absolutist position which you have chosen for yourself.

    Finally, you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a fetus and a person wrt the law. To equate a pregnant woman who chooses a legal abortion with a convicted murderer is highly questionable, yet this is exactly what you are attempting to do!

    I can understand your passion, but I do not support your dictatorial means to the end you seek.

    Interesting how your passion for freedom and liberty ends with a pregnant woman’s passion for freedom and liberty, of which you wish to deprive her of that freedom and liberty of choice!

    What happened to small government for this particular issue, Dana? To the pregnant woman, small government suddenly becomes huge!

    PS: And then also, how do your reconcile your support of our waging a war of choice, being the pro-life Catholic you claim to be.

  16. This, compared to your support for the slaughter of over a million unborn children every year? It’s the Democrats for whom no Catholic could ever in good conscience vote.

    This is a makeable case and a fair argument, and one that can be had, but it doesn’t really answer what I’m saying, like, at all? This is a guy who 1) with full knowledge of what he was doing executed an innocent man and then 2) when the commission appointed to parse the incident appeared interested in doing its job, fired them all.

    I mean – it’s a free country! Support whoever you like! But your faith turns on a story of an innocent man put to death by a bloodthirsty governor; Perry represents the latter figure here, pretty clearly – a vote for Perry is a vote against your faith, quite plainly. You can argue, when it gets to the general election, that you’d rather vote for the guy who executed an innocent man but was pro-life than for the guy who’s pro-choice, as to your way of thinking the latter has more blood on his hands; that’s fair enough. But to give primary support to a man who openly murdered a prisoner – who flaunts the fact that he may have put an innocent man to death, who fast-tracked it so he could get one more execution on his record – well, I’m glad it’s your conscience and not mine!

  17. Perry wrote:

    Your crusade ought to focus on the women themselves on moral grounds, rather than to deprive them of a choice in a dictatorial fashion typical of the absolutist position which you have chosen for yourself.

    Oh, good grief, Perry, you are anti-choice on everything other than abortion. If someone doesn’t want to buy health insurance, you are all for the government forcing him to do so. If someone doesn’t want to wear a seat belt, you have no problem with the government using legal force to compel him to do so. If someone wants to buy incandescent light bulbs, you are perfectly happy taking away that choice from him. Heck, you have even endorsed an return to military conscription, the forcible compulsion of young men to serve in the Army.

    The insanity of your position is clearly revealed if we just change one word: “I really don’t think it’s right for you to own that slave, but it is, in the end, your choice.”

  18. cbmc, Governor Perry does not have the authority to carry out an execution, or to stop one. Under Texas law, the executions proceed without the requirement that the governor sign a death warrant, and the governor cannot commute the sentence on his own.

    231 executions have taken place while Perry was governor. He commuted the death sentence for 31 inmates -– mostly those where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the crime. In Texas, clemency can only be granted by the governor if it is first recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole -– he cannot grant clemency without a prior recommendation by the board.

    If the Pope were to be elected Governor of Texas, it wouldn’t make one bit of difference: absent the recommendation of the Board, the Governor cannot stop an execution.

  19. “Oh, good grief, Perry, you are anti-choice on everything other than abortion.”

    Dana, instead of refuting my arguments supporting choice, you redirect the topic to choices which have to do with whether or not to violate an existing law, all of which I favor btw. I also support a woman’s right to choose, as covered by the law. If you don’t like any of these laws, then lobby to get them changed, which you have every right to do.

    And your example of choosing to own a slave is not analogous either, because it is illegal to own a slave. It is not illegal for a woman to have an abortion, but you would deprive her of that legal right anyway, if you could, is that it? If so, that’s anarchy.

    [Added: If you folks are successful having Roe overturned, it would be like prohibition was: People drank anyway, and women would have abortions anyway, as it was pre-Roe. Do we want those coat-hanger days back again, not to mention depriving a woman of her right to choose?]

  20. Perry says:
    15 August 2011 at 10:49 (Edit)
    “This, compared to your support for the slaughter of over a million unborn children every year? It’s the Democrats for whom no Catholic could ever in good conscience vote.”

    Speak for yourself, Dana.

    Moreover, you must be reminded again that a vote for women’s choice is not a vote for abortion, it is a vote for women’s choice.

    Ijust love how Progressives use “Choice” as a code word for Abortion. If it’s CHOICE, what is it a choice of??? Life or Death. It’s the only Choice available, life or death. But the deeper meaning is Abortion. So, if you have a problem with Pro-Life, why don’t you call it Pro-Death?

  21. The Living Fossil just can never reconcile his ridiculous stance on choice and life. He will not lobby to have laws changed regarding abortion (if though he is supposedly against the procedure), but WOULD lobby lawmakers to outlaw capital punishment. IOW, the lives of the totally innocent mean [a lot] less than to Perry than the lives of brutal murderers.

    That should tell you plenty about the Living Fossil’s morality.

  22. Hey Herr Censor, ever hear this quote? “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so”?

  23. “Ijust love how Progressives use “Choice” as a code word for Abortion. If it’s CHOICE, what is it a choice of??? Life or Death. It’s the only Choice available, life or death. But the deeper meaning is Abortion. So, if you have a problem with Pro-Life, why don’t you call it Pro-Death?”

    You forgot one important item, Yorkshire: I have been consistently pro-life re all aspects of that term, anti-abortion, anti-war of choice, anti-death penalty. On the other hand, you “Conservative” folks on here are more concerned about the life of a fetus than you are about a birthed human being. Why not be concerned about preserving all these lives, like I am?

  24. “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so”?

    I agree with this statement, although due discretion can be exercised, depending on which law is in question!

  25. On the other hand, you “Conservative” folks on here are more concerned about the life of a fetus than you are about a birthed human being.

    Citation please.

    Which is more moral — being concerned about the life of an totally innocent human being, or being concerned about the life of a heinous murderer?

  26. Ijust love how Progressives use “Choice” as a code word for Abortion.

    Yes, we’re fully aware that you’re senile enough not to understand the English language. Hube doesn’t have that excuse – he just likes the idea of sticking his nose into strange women’s private… business.

    It is a choice because the woman chooses what to do with her body. Not you, not me, not the government – herself.

    The fetus is incapable of making such a choice because it isn’t a huamn being yet. That’s why the pregnant woman’s voice is the only one that counts.

  27. Perry wrote:

    And your example of choosing to own a slave is not analogous either, because it is illegal to own a slave. It is not illegal for a woman to have an abortion, but you would deprive her of that legal right anyway, if you could, is that it? If so, that’s anarchy.

    No, that’s what the law ought to be!

    You are absolutely right: it is against the law to own a slave. And I would make it against the law to have or induce an abortion. Your position seems to be that, since abortion is legal, it must always be legal. But slavery was once perfectly legal, too; dopes that mean that it shouldn’t have been outlawed?

  28. Perry added:

    Added: If you folks are successful having Roe overturned, it would be like prohibition was: People drank anyway, and women would have abortions anyway, as it was pre-Roe. Do we want those coat-hanger days back again, not to mention depriving a woman of her right to choose?

    Murder is against the law, but that hasn’t stopped all murders, has it?

    And yes, I would much prefer to return to the days when abortion was illegal, and those abortions which did occur were clandestine, because there would be many fewer abortions.

    Making abortion illegal would not save every unborn child, but it would save many of them.

  29. And yes, I would much prefer to return to the days when abortion was illegal, and those abortions which did occur were clandestine, because there would be many fewer abortions.

    Proof?

  30. “Proof?”

    You and I both know he doesn’t have any, PiaToR.

    The irony to Dana’s position about reducing abortion by making it illegal, is that we already have in place a mechanism for reducing abortion which he and his ilk strongly oppose: Planned Parenthood

    To them, abortion is a last resort.

    Since I support woman’s choice, I still want to see abortions continue to be legal, but rare, which is why I am a supporter of Planned Parenthood.

  31. The Phoenician asked for “Proof?”

    While no one can say that the future would mirror the past, if you look at these statistics, taken from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Allan Guttmacher Institute, you’ll see a tremendous increase in abortions from 1973, when Roe v Wade was decided.

    And while nobody knows, for certain, how many abortions occurred before Roe, the National Organization of Women gives the (very large) range of 200,000 to 1,200,000 per year for the 1950s and 1960s. Even if we use the top end of those statistics, that’s fewer than today, but the real number is probably nearer the middle.

    If abortion were made illegal again, both common sense — some women would be afraid to break the law, while others who wanted abortions couldn’t procure them — and past experience tells us that abortion would be less frequent.

  32. if you look at these statistics, taken from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Allan Guttmacher Institute, you’ll see a tremendous increase in abortions from 1973, when Roe v Wade was decided.

    You mean the chart that’s headed “Reported Annual Abortions – 1973 – 2008″? Let me stress that again – you are basing an assertion about illegal abortions prior to 1973 on a chart headed “Reported Annual Abortions 1973-2008? And it never occured to you, say, that from 1973-1980, when reported abortions plataued, it might have something to do with abortion clinics opening, state law changing, and abortions becoming reported?

    You are really making a fool of yourself here, Dana.

    And while nobody knows, for certain, how many abortions occurred before Roe, the National Organization of Women gives the (very large) range of 200,000 to 1,200,000 per year for the 1950s and 1960s.

    Wow – and in 2008, there were about 1.2 million reported abortions despite a doubling of the population from 1950.

    Once again, Dana, where’s your proof?

    I will point out that there is one thing demonstrated to reduce abortions – free and open access by girls and women to contraception.

    [retrieved from moderation - pH]

  33. And, gee, yet another case of w1ngnuts lying:

    So what you need to know is that the Texas miracle is a myth, and more broadly that Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment.
    [...]
    In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida, but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the “job-killing” Affordable Care Act.
    [...]
    So Texas tends, in good years and bad, to have higher job growth than the rest of America. But it needs lots of new jobs just to keep up with its rising population — and as those unemployment comparisons show, recent employment growth has fallen well short of what’s needed.

    If this picture doesn’t look very much like the glowing portrait Texas boosters like to paint, there’s a reason: the glowing portrait is false.

    Still, does Texas job growth point the way to faster job growth in the nation as a whole? No.

    What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.

    In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem.

    So let’s see what President Perry’s America would look like – lower real wages and more debt for most Americans, less social services, and a continuing deficit.

  34. As we look at another election, I think we all need to realize what a psychopath is and the mental health professionals have recognized that more than in the deepest of poverty might one find a psychopath, most often that one in a hundred that are out there dangerous, quite literally in the highest of the political, (D and R; economic; religious ends of the social spectrum is where you find them. How do we recognize them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgGyvxqYSbE&feature=player_embedded

  35. Well, Phoe, y’all can make all of the excuses/arguments you wish, but the fact remains: jobs are growing in Texas, and they aren’t in the rest of the country. That’s what the voters will see.

    And when your arguments are all along the lines of, “Well, President Obama hasn’t done a very good job, but his opponents are all worse,” you’re already losing.

  36. “Well, Phoe, y’all can make all of the excuses/arguments you wish, but the fact remains: jobs are growing in Texas, and they aren’t in the rest of the country.”

    Yes, jobs are growing in Texas, but they are in NY and MA, which you conveniently failed to point out, even after PiaToR showed you the evidence. Can I now conclude that the Dems have double the success in job growth than Rick Perry and his TX Repubs. The answer is yes, if I use the logic you just used, Dana.

    Where I live, in Sussex County, DE, the unemployment is 7.3%, and in all of my state, a Dem state, 8.4%, well below the national figure. So chalk one more up for the Dems, right Dana? I will say that our Governor Jack Markell is doing an excellent job growing jobs in our state.

    Let us look at some of the facts about TX, most of which have nothing to do with who the governor might happen to be, thus independent of Rick Perry per se:

    1) TX is the beneficiary of employment and revenues from the boom in energy prices, a main factor, driven by global demand, thus out of the control of the governor.

    2) The warm climate and low cost of housing and living has attracted immigration to TX, retirees included, bringing new purchasing power which accounts for an increase in private sector jobs to service these new residents, which has practically nothing to do with who the governor happens to be.

    3) Texas had no mortgage bubble because of strict regulation of mortgages, particularly on cash-out refinancings and home equity lines of credit. In short, the state discouraged most of the products that blew up the housing bubble. This dates back to the founding of Texas in 1845, so Governor Perry can take no credit for this.

    4) “Texas really benefited from something you won’t hear Perry tout on the campaign trail: the Recovery Act. Over half of the states job growth over the past two years came in health care, education and local government, precisely the areas boosted by the stimulus. In addition, the stimulus filled a gaping budget hole in 2009 with $11 billion in stimulus funds.”

    5) “The TX 2011-2012 budget was filled in with accounting gimmicks, mostly, all of which hit after the 2012 elections, just out of reach of the Presidential race.” So there is a Governor Perry hit on TX that has of yet not been felt by Perry’s constituents.

    The downside for Governor Perry himself is that TX has a high number of minimum wage jobs, 10% of the TX workforce, well above the national average.

    Moreover, one in four Texans have not health insurance, hardly an enviable statistic. That’s on Governor Perry!
    [h/t David Dayen of firedoglake.com.]

    So this is the “miracle” upon which Rick Perry will run, a miracle he hardly produced because he inherited a low-tax, low wage, low-services petro-state with warm weather and a solid mortgage regulatory apparatus. Anyone of a large number of people could have done Rick Perry’s governorship equally as successfully; there is absolutely nothing unique about this man. If you disagree, make your case!

  37. Well, Phoe, y’all can make all of the excuses/arguments you wish, but the fact remains: jobs are growing in Texas, and they aren’t in the rest of the country. That’s what the voters will see.

    Look up “fallacy of composition” sometime, m0ron. If one state can beat others to a race to the bottom, and steal jobs from them by offering corporations the biggest tax breaks and most beaten workers, that doesn’t mean they all can.

    I think it would be amusing to see Perry elected and try to do this. No doubt when it turns out to be an even bigger pile of sh1t than normal Republicanism, you’ll find some way to blame Obama.

    The sooner America is reduced to a dystopian corporate feudalism, the better.

  38. Gee, Governor Perry has not done to well on employment to population ration during his ten years as governor. See here:

    Not such a hot record, is it? I don’t think so. I’m curious to hear what Texans themselves have to say about their governor.

  39. Hmmmm…..Why do you all have your panties in a wad if Rick Perry is so wrong about everything? Yeah, that’s what I thought…

  40. I noted in the main article that Governor Perry’s campaign website still needed a lot of work, with the lack of an “Issues” page as the most glaring problem. Well, it’s still a bit on the sparse side, but an Issues menu has now been added. It still needs work, and the listed issues are still more platitudes than detailed positions, but at least the work is progressibg.

Comments are closed.