1996 was a simpler time. Back then, billing the federal government for incarcerating illegal immigrants wasn’t controversial. Rick Perry billed U.S. Department of Homeland Security for nearly $350 million to cover the costs he says Texas has incurred incarcerating illegal immigrants in state prisons and county jails.
I’m so happy President Clinton solved this problem for the United States.
I haven’t made up my mind about Rick Perry. The Daily Plunge has written a lot about the Texas governor over the past six weeks, but that’s because he’s the most compelling political development in the GOP race at the moment. Also, there’s a very good chance that he could become the next president. Another interesting thing about Perry is that Team Bush is firmly opposed to his nomination. Since Reagan left office no other family has dominated a political party like the Bush family. The Bush family has had a stranglehold on the GOP establishment.
In 1980, it was George H. W. Bush who coined the term “voodoo economics.” When Reagan picked Bush as his VP it was like picking the ultimate company man. Bush had been the head of the CIA and the head of the GOP. Every GOP nominee for president since 1980 has had a testy relationship with the Bush family. Bob Dole had a long history of disagreements with George H. W. Bush. John McCain’s problems with George W. Bush are well documented. Let’s not forget about Texan Ross Perot. Perot’s 1992 campaign was the greatest anti-Bush crusade ever, aside from MoveOn.org and the legions of leftists who lost their marbles during the W presidency.
How has the Bush family managed to get away with this for so long? I can’t say, but the rise of Perry could threaten the Bush “kinder gentler, compassionate conservative” garbage that conservatives have had to endure since 1988. George W. Bush escaped the wrath of conservatives because of his Texas accent and 9/11. The party rallied around the President after that terrible day and he piled on big government while conservatives turned a blind eye.
Matt Latimer has a great article in The Daily Beast about the rift between Team Bush and Team Perry. Team Bush is already well underway trying to derail the Perry campaign.
While in the White House, Bush 2 and his aides regularly scoffed at Perry for reasons that were never fully clear, making fun of his syntax and intellectual prowess without any sense of irony. In 2010 the Bush family, along with Rove and Karen Hughes, undertook an unprecedented effort to kick him out of the governor’s chair, handing a crowbar to Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom they judged more “electable.” Perry walloped her in the GOP primary, then went on to win a historic third term in the general election by a double-digit margin. So much for electability.
But Rove is nothing if not persistent. Now he and his operatives seem to have something close to a war room against Perry, scrutinizing his every statement in an attempt to cut his young candidacy short. After Rove called Perry “unpresidential,” former Bush press secretary Tony “Ralph Malph” Fratto joined in—calling Perry, you guessed it, “unpresidential.” This was followed in quick succession by similar sentiments from a former Rove aide, Pete “Potsie” Wehner. Meanwhile, two “unnamed” Bush aides (wonder who they could be?) issued the following warning to The New York Times: “If you’re really trying to be the nominee and want to go the distance, you just don’t want the former president of the United States and his people working against you.” (Then again, that’s what the Bushes told Kay Bailey Hutchison.)
Latimer gives Rove too much credit. This has been the Bush modus operandi for decades. Karl Rove is to George W. Bush as Lee Atwater was to George H. W. Bush. Atwater and Rove were both great political minds at the disposal of their boss. The story here is of Texas. Texas is a big state and I’m sure there are plenty of natives who remember the state before it became synonymous with Team Bush. John Connolly, John Nance Garner or Sam Houston anyone?
In hindsight, the problem with George W. Bush wasn’t that he was from Texas. The problem with Bush was that he was the son of the established Big Government GOP and Ivy League to boot. There’s no other family in America that represents the GOP aristocracy better than the Bush family. That doesn’t mean they’re evil, but controlling the GOP is not something that the family wants to give up. The next GOP president who isn’t named Bush will loosen their stranglehold on the party. If the next GOP president is from Texas they might lose their hold on the Lone Star state and Texans of all stripes will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
I canceled my subscription to The Economist several months ago. The British news magazine has suffered from a tilt to the left over the last decade. Once the paper endorsed ObamaCare with no compelling reason other than simply because it was better than doing nothing they lost me. There’s nothing logical about that position and signaled the best example ever of a once great economics magazine on the decline.
The Economist has an article on Rick Perry that was actually pretty good. I think it’s a fair analysis of the Governor from Texas. Perry’s record is far from perfect and the things that have made Texas special aren’t because of Perry. However, Texas has succeeded because of its citizens and not because of the government. That type of citizen ownership of the problem is what President Kennedy meant when he said “ask not what your country can do for you…” President Obama’s view of government is much different.
A fight between Mr Obama and Mr Perry would offer an invigorating choice between different visions of America’s future. But Republicans should remember that there are reasons why Texas remains exceptional, one of which is that, for all the nation’s ritualised espousal of self-reliance, millions of voters still look to government for help in hard times. Blame the New Deal, if you like; but that’s just the way it is.
The author is right about voters. Since the New Deal the number of people looking to the government for handouts has increased exponentially and it’s crippling the nation’s economy. The author mentions that Texas has an “underfunded school system and an inadequate safety net.” This reveals the liberal bias at The Economist. Some of the most funded school districts in the nation have the worst grades and I’m not sure what he means by “an inadequate safety net.”
“The way it is” is the problem. If Perry is to lose because the nation is addicted to the government then the American people deserve the looming economic ruin. Let’s be frank, on the present course most of the nation is headed toward poverty. There will be no safety net. The United States has to ween off the freeloaders or the American dream is over. The Great Depression created this beast and it’s pushing the nation towards the Final Depression. President Obama represents the sinking ship Status Quo. If the Americans are comfortable letting the captain sink the ship then so be it.
Earlier today I wrote about the ludicrous lawsuit being filed against Rick Perry by concerned atheists (aka Christianphobes). Larry Sabato at The Crystal Ball makes a good point on Twitter. This is something I totally overlooked:
There does seem to be something lucky about Rick Perry. There’s even a New York Times article today that focuses on Rick Perry’s days as a Democrat in Texas back in the 1980s. Perry’s defense for being a Democrat is that he came to his senses. No matter, the real meat of the story is this bit:
Mr. Perry’s timing, now legendary, could not have been better. He was one of only two Republicans elected to nonjudicial statewide office in 1990. Eight years later, Republicans swept every one of them.
“Perry has been a risk taker,” said Mr. Hance, the party switcher who became the chancellor of Texas Tech University. “And if you look at Perry’s timing in every race, he’s been the golden guy.”
It looks like lady luck is on his side yet again. The GOP field is in disarray. The frontrunner is Mitt Romney, a deeply flawed candidate that no one is enthusiastic about. Michele Bachmann is all the rage right now, but she’s no more qualified to be president than Obama (and look where that got us). Perceptually (that’s all that matters in politics), Perry is positioned as the Washington outsider from a big state who also has plenty of executive experience. Plus, Texas is one of the few states that’s creating jobs.
Yes, Perry’s record is far from perfect, but no candidate is perfect. There’s no other GOP candidate who can unite the GOP, Tea Party, and beat Obama. However, a lot can change before now and November 2012.
Texas Governor Rick Perry has suddenly caught the attention of Christianphobes. Governor Perry is participating in an all-day prayer event on August 6th. Apparently, his mere presence at the event is an establishment of a state religion. It’s amazing that a Texas governor could have that much power in the United States.
It is indeed possible the Rick Perry is holding the event for political reasons. It’s impossible to know the heart of a man. However, have we gotten to the point that even mentioning God is unconstitutional?
The Freedom From Religious Foundation, which claims more than 16,000 members, including 700 in Texas, filed the federal lawsuit Wednesday in Houston, contending that Perry’s actions violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause by “giving the appearance that the government prefers evangelical Christian religious beliefs over other religious beliefs and non-beliefs.”
“We always say, beware prayer by pious politicians,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, who co-directs the group with her husband, Dan Barker, a former evangelical Christian minister who is now an atheist.
“Nothing fails like prayer,” she said. “It’s the ultimate political cop-out.”[emphasis added]
Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker’s real grief is with God and people who believe in God. It’s not Rick Perry or the Constitution. Doesn’t Rick Perry have a constitutional right to participate in any religious event he wants? Doesn’t he have a constitutional right to say God’s name? You don’t sacrifice your religion to run for higher office. President Abraham Lincoln mentioned God six times in his magnificent second inaugural address and it’s written on the wall of the Lincoln Memorial.
Indeed, Lincoln’s second inaugural address is the greatest inaugural address by this nation’s greatest president. Here is the second half of Lincoln’s address. According to Gaylor, this is the most unconstitutional speech in American history.
Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
The speech is mesmerizing in its honest and humble appreciation of God’s sovereign will. Obviously, not everyone believes that is the case, and they’re free to believe whatever they want. Christianphobes are allowed to believe, say, and think whatever they want. No one is forcing them to kneel before God; however, they don’t have the right to stop Rick Perry or forget about the powerful words of President Abraham Lincoln.
Club Soda adds: This is yet another shining example of how the Establishment Clause is misused. By participating in, and even favoring one religion over another, Rick Perry or any other politician is not “establishing” squat. However, if Rick Perry advocated forcing everyone to convert to whatever sect of Christianity he belongs to, that, my friends, would be an “establishment” of religion and therefore unconstitutional. You could argue that the dogmatic teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools is an establishment of religion. The religion in this case would be Materialism, which is as much a faith-based system as any religion. It is, in fact, a religion by definition, and one that does not allow dissent from any of its precepts. But, as usual, I digress. To digress even further, I wonder if it’s okay for Minnesota’s Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to favor Islam over Christianity. It’s certainly okay with me, and it’s apparently okay with the hyperventilating anti-Christian crowd if one professes Islam, Judaism, Materialism, Atheism, or any other faith over Christianity. Either be consistent or leave everyone the hell alone about their beliefs. Ultimately, this is not about the Constitution or religion or anything other than one group attempting to force its will and its own beliefs on others. If you don’t like the fact that we are absolutely free to believe and say what we want, then please move to one of the world’s Utopian societies, like Saudi Arabia.
Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. was executed in Texas on July 7th for the rape, torture, and murder of a 16-year-old girl back in 1994. There’s no controversy about whether or not he committed the crime; he even admitted to it before being executed. President Obama asked Governor Perry for a stay of execution to appease the International Court of Justice. Leal, as a Mexican national (a.k.a., illegal alien) was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul. He didn’t receive it at the time of his arrest because the officers didn’t know he was an illegal alien.
Well, isn’t this a Catch 22? Liberals don’t want police officers to ask for papers because it’s racist, but at the same time liberals want the United States to abide by international law. How then are the police supposed to offer foreign counsel? What liberal signed this stupid treaty, you ask? It was none other that that crazy neo-con President Bush. He signed the treaty with the International Court of Justice, but it’s never been ratified by Congress so it’s non-binding.
The Supreme Court refused a stay of execution by a 5-4 vote. There is some fear that the execution damages the United States’ image abroad, especially with Mexico, though Leal had been in the United States since he was two years old. Mexico is going to find it difficult to find anyone who feels sorry for Lear given the heinous nature of his crime. Before Leal was executed he apologized to the victim’s family and then shouted twice: “Viva Mexico!”
There are rumors in the wind that Texas Governor Rick Perry might run for president. Perry would be a high profile candidate and I’m actually a little surprised he hasn’t announced already. Texas is one of the few states that created jobs recently. Perry’s executive record is far superior to Obama’s and the philosophies couldn’t be any different.
I assume he’d be a good candidate just because the left already hates the guy. Just look at the picture the Washington Post used in an article discussing his possible bid for the White House.
I laughed out loud when I saw this for the first time. I can just hear the editors of the Washington Post screaming at interns to find the “evil Hitler” picture of Governor Perry. I can’t even imagine the Washington Post running a similar picture of President Obama. We’ve had four years of award winning photography of Obama. If Governor Perry wants to run for president he’d better be prepared for much worse.
If the liberal press had their way Texas Congressional nominee Kesha Rogers would be the new face of the Republican party. She’s wants the United States to get out of the United Nations. Plus, she wants to impeach the president? Why haven’t we heard of Rogers before? She’s a Democrat. Oops, there goes that talking point.
Rogers, 33, told TIME she is a “full time political activist” in the Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement, a recruiting arm of the LaRouche political organization that is active on many college campuses. The LYM espouses LaRouche opposition to free trade and “globalism” (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) and it also calls for a return to a humanist classical education, emphasizing the works of Plato and Leibnitz. On her professional looking campaign website, kesharogers.com, she touts the LaRouche political philosophy — a mix of support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama — and calls Obama a “London and Wall Street backed puppet” whose policies will destroy the Democratic Party. During the campaign, she was photographed carrying an oversized portrait of the President with a Hitler-style moustache penciled on his lip.
I can’t say I know much about Rogers political philosophy, but I must say I’m intrigued. The left is spending so much of its energy branding everyone on the right as crazy, but there’s more than enough to go around on the left.
Recent Comments