Rick Perry: Facts, Instead of Media Myths

Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for essentially (maybe even literally, as I don't remember when Gworge W. Bush actually left, but Bush was running for President while Perry was lieutenant governor) ALL of the 21st Century Perry has been governor of Texas for almost as long as FDR was President of the United States. If Perry completes his present term, to wich e was REELECTED in November of 2010 (less than a year ago, which nothing having changed in Texas since, other than Perry running for President), Perry will have served as governor of Texas LONGER than FDR was President of the United States (FDR having died early in his 4th term).


Read the above two or three times. Then realize that MSNBC has taken the position that Perry is "loathed in Texas". And CNN has previously (I heard thme) cited Texas "polls" saying that Perry is not "popoular" in Texas. These things, of course, say NOTHING about Perry. He has won the "pollls" that matter--the actual votes of the voters. Saying noting about Perry, these ridiculous MSNBC and CNN assertioins about Perry say voumes about those networks. MSNBC is merely a leftist political action committee, as it proved by conducting an actual political campaign in Wisconsin. CNN is just as leftist as MSNBC-just more hypocritical and less open about it. In all events, neither netowrk is capable of even knowing the truth. They are not even close on Rick Perry. Neither, for that matter, are the people of the unfair and unbalanced network (forever after nameless in this blog).


You don't get to be governor for 11 years, and lieutenant governor before that, without being part of the Texas "establishment". After that period of time, you might be said to BE the Texas "establishment". The idea that Perry is some kind of conservative idologue is absurd. He has also been president of the Republican governor's conference (or council or whatever). More about that later. One of the best things about Perry (getting to the worts later)--from my point of view--is that a PART of the Texass "establishment' has taken him on. That is the part headed by Kay Bailey Hutchinso. Hutchinson is one of the two Texas U. S. Senators, and a person for whom I would not vote for dogcatcher of Mt. Ida, Arkansas (the small Arkansas town of my childhood) In 2010, Hutchinson actually took on Perry in the Republican primary (without, of course, taking any national media flak for conducting a "mocderate" PURGE of of a suppsed conservative governor) Hutchinson (begging for a primary opponent I hope she gets next time, assuming she even runs) was seemingly ARROGANT enough (with true Washington "establishment" arrogance) to believe that Perry should just "step aside". Perry did not. This is not ancient history, It happened just last year.


The fight between Hutchinson and Perry was a viciously negative affair---especailly by the "allies" of both candidates. Both Perry and Hutchinson were accused by the other side of NOT being a "true conservative"--somewhat accurately on both sides, especailly as to Hutchinson. But it is also true that Perry's emergence as a "strong'" conservative of solid conviction has beeen RECENT--not a consistent characteristic of his time as governor of Texas. Again, see below. Perry DESTROYED Hutchinsons--a sitting United States Senator--in the primary. So much for Perry being "loathed" in Texas. But the bruising primary fight DID have an effect. Perry won the general electin, but with a reduced margin (especailly in comparison with the GOP national landslie) Now Perry won by a not much different margin than Obama beat John McCain, but there is not much doubt that Perry felt the effects of the Hutchinson primary fight. Perry's "perception" (media) as some sort of extreme conservative comes from the primary fight, and from Perry positioning himself as a possible Presidentail candidate, more than from Perry's record over the years. For example, I have lived in Texas during the entire (LONG) period of time that Perry has been either governor or lieutenant governor, and I can assure you that Perry never came across as a "religious conservative" appealing specifically to evangelical Christians. I am sure Perry is moer of a committed Christian than Barack Obama (low bar here, as both Billl Maher and I agree that Obama is not a Christian at all). But this recent "prayer event", and continued references to personal prayer and seeking personal gidance from God are NEW. They (references to Perry's religious beliefs) may have been present before, to some degree, but were NOT prominent. But the point is that Perry has won election after election n Texas, and anyone who wants to say that Perry has been some sort of failure as governor of Texas is merely exposng himself or herself as a FOOL (and/or a dhishonest political hack with no concern at all for the truth). Texas has done pretty well with Perry as governor, and Perry has been perceived as a reasonably good governor. The record id CONCLUSIVE on this point.


You h may have heard the criticism that Texas may have created more jobs than any other sate, but that Exas still has a pretty bad median income. Forget it. I am serious. This is another spurious charge. It is absurd. I live in El Paso. Texas has a LONG border with Mexcio. Texas, therefore, has a LARGE Hsipanci population Contrary to the leftist "spin" you get, this does NOT mean that Texas "discriminates" against Hispanics. But this DOES totally explain why Texas income figures are not that high. Just what is it people don't understand about Mexico being a POOR country (except for a "rich" upper class and "rich" drug lords)? Illegal immigrants, especailly, and many legal immigrants, are POOR. That is why El Paso is a POOR city (along with being stuck iin the very corner of Texas) . These POOR people have endedup in Texas more than other states. Why should they leave (although they do leave poor El Paso), when Texas has more opportunity than most places. But if you start POOR, it takes TIME for you to get out of that position. This totally explains ALL "statistics" about how Hispanics lag behind "white" people in icnome, educatin, etc. It would be astounding to find anything else. It has nothing to do with Texaas. It has everything to do with so many Hispanics being recent immigrants, or the sons and daughters of recent immigrants. Contrary to what lefftists might want you to beieve, it is NOT the responsibility of Texas or the USA to put MEXICO on an equal footing with the USA, and it is NOT our responsibility to IMMEDIATELY make new immigrants equal in income and education to the people who have lived here (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) a long time. Along the Mexican border, inclduing on the U.S. side, poverty is mainly related to being along the Mexican border. Cheap, mainly unskilled, labor, etc. No, Hispanics don't have to stay that way. My 100% Mexican-American ex-wife got a master's degree in speech thearapy from UTEP (local university), and is a MAJOR success (to the point of being almost "Obama-rich" in income, in California).


Another spurioius charge--raised in the negative Hutchinson campaign--is that Rick Perry is some sort of hypocrite for using Obama "timulus" money to help balance the Texas budget. It is not only that Texas was ABLE to balance the budget with limited Federal help (as distinguished from so many other states). This is one of those charges that shows wht is wrong with so much THINKING n this country, including by the dishonest hypocrites of the mainstream media (asssuming that vegetables think). Texans provide TAXES to the FederalGovernment. And they will provide future taxes to service our growing debt. "Stimulus" money that goes to other states, instead of Texas, means that TEXAS is being used to support other states. Governor Perry could not stop the "stimulus" program, although I would assert he did not show that much LEADERSHIP against Obama (until recently). It would have been INSANE for Governor Perry to REFUSE Federal money to help balance the Texas budget. If the Federal Government were not suciking so much money out of tghe country, including Texas, then Texas would have more money to sovle its own problems. It is like me turning down Social Security or Medicare. I PAID for it (and am not, like Warren Buffet, rich enough so that it is immaterial to my ay of life). In fact, I paid more than most people (when I was an active lawyer). This kind of thinking (leftist and media thinking that asserts "hypocrisy when none exists) really does suggest that conservatives have to act IRRATIONALLY to avoid being labeled as "hypocrites" by the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Eartth (on two legs or 4). Contrary to this leftist absurdity, most conservatives do NOT "condmen" people for ACCEPTING Federal money to which the people are entitled. What conservatives condmn-even at potential costs to themselves) is the POLICY of unrestrained government spending. This absurd charge has also been leveved at Michele Bachmann by the dishonest hypocrites of the mainstream media: that, somehow, she should fail to try to get a "fair share" of the pie for her consituents, and even herself, even though the Federal Gvernment is TAKING from her constituencts and herself (one way or anttoher) to fund those dangerous programs. Leftists are ALL much MORE hypocirtical to say that our taxes are too low, and then fail to CONTRIBUTE more to the Federal treasury (although the argument against this being real hypocrisy is pretty much the same as the conclusive argument that it is not hypocrisy to benefit from programs which you oppose as bad for the country).


That is Perry's best argument: Texas. Texas has done better, under Perry, than the Federal Government, and most other states. sure, Texans are better people. . STill, it is likely that this has moe to do with SYSTEM, and overall attitudes toward government.


Impressive case for Perry, right? I think so. And the mainstream media is making itself look ridiculous by most of its present attacks on Perry . Why, then am I not supporting Prry for the nomination.? I can't shake my own experience as a resident of Texas during all of Perry's political career. Contrary to media LIES, partly to condemn Perry, Perry has NOT been an "extreme conservative" for his entire career. His lifelong employment has been in government, and Perry has been a "politics as usual" kind of guy. I woul dgo so far as to call him a cynical OPPORTUNIST. Illegal immigration? You have not seen Governor Perry tryng to take ACTION, like Governor Brewer in Arizona. You may say that is a raional response to the need to relate to Hispanics in Texas, but it is NOT PRINCIPLE (or the mainstream of conservatism). It is more "estalbshment' 'politics as usual' Now you may have seen Perry recently engate in THEATER about how badly the Obama Administration has done in securig the Mexican border, but that has been all show. Perry has NOT ben in the forefront of trying to get our immigrations laws enforced--NOT at the forefront of fighting the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill back in 2006. Similarly, what has Perry DONE on ABORTIN in Texas? I have not noticesd Perry LEADING on pushing the envelope on restrictive abortion laws in Texas. He is like Obama in many ways; leading from behind.


Thus, I laugh--so as to avoid crying--when I hear Perry described as a "Tea Party conservative". It is not like Perry "embraced" the Tea Party earl on. How many times do I have to telly you that Perry is an ESTABLISHMENT guy? Further, he is a cautious politician. Then the media basically contradicts itself by calling Perry a "social conservative" The thrust of the Tea Party, despite Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is NOT toward "social" conservatism. This inherent ambiguity and compexity agains shows the DISHONESTY of the media in their attempt to LABEL people, and then trash the labels. As many have stated, the "Tea Party" is a movent (not reallly much related to social issues), and not an organized political party. The movement has many diverse strains, but Perry has not been a LEADER of any of them. . Other Repulbicans in his administration have been more outspoken on conservative issues than Perry--at least until recently. . As stated, I have not noticed previusly that Perry was that much of a religious conservative. As I have stated, I believe it is absurd to suggest that a politician should not talk about his religion as providng him comfort and guidance. OBAMA has done. it, without much criticism. That is because no one--much less his supporters--believe that Obama is really a believing Christian. I believe Perry is probably more of a Chrisitan than Obama (without, obviously, being totally sure), but NOT as much of a religious conservative as Perry has recently represented.


Doubt me? Never do that. It just makes you look like afool. =This blog has criticized Perry in years past--even asserting that I would never vote for him. One such incident was the saga of Governor Perry and the HPV vaccine. The HPV virus (assuming I am getting the letters right, and there are really multiple viruses) is a sexually transmitted disease. One strain has been shown to put women at risk for cancer later in life, if they are infected with the viruse early in life. You cannot--in normal life--catch the disease without being sexually active. What Perry did, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (so mcuh for not believing in cenral control and believing in parental rights), was to have Texas school districts REQUIRE that youg teenage girs be vaccinated against the virus that seems to increase the risk of cancer. Now there may be rational reasons for not wanting a girl to have this vaccine, even though I am not one of those who is paranoid (irrational) about vaccines. Still, this is a matter of FREEDOM. It was absurd. How can you be a "social conservative" and tell parents they have to not only subject their teenage girl to a vaccine, but ASSUME that she is going to be sexaully active? Nope. You can argue a thousand years that such a positoin is consistent with being a "social conservative", and still not conficne me. It follows that you CANNOT convince me that Perry is a true 'social conservative". Now YOU may take the positoin that Perry was RIGHT, and flexiclbe, to put the health o fgirls ahead of "ideology". Fine. Just don't try and tell me he is some sort of extreme social conservative. Hogwash. Further, I argued this on AOL serveral years ago, when I was participating in the AOL blogs that then existed. I was told that I was too "idological", and that Perry is a more "moderate" and "pragmatic" Texas conservative. At the time, that is EXACTLY my view of Perry--no real principles, alghouh an "establishment" conservative in a conservative sate. My pharmacist brother, by the way, in Denton and hardly a religioius conservative (as I am not, being an agnostic) agreed with me that the Perry position on the vaccine was absurd. The idea that this was a MJAOR health risk for Texas girls made no sense. Perry, in contrst, never took any strong action against a rEAL health riks (AIDS)


Bioe, Perry is a "politics as usual" guy, unless he has become a "converted" consrvative. Now has Perry really wffled as much over the years as Mitt Romney? Of course not. Perry is in TEXAS, for Go'd sake. He did not have to. Would he have been the same as Romney? I don't know. I can only say I don't trust him, and have never noticed that he is especially convincing in explaining conservative IDEAS. But he can run on a RECORD, and is an accomplished politician. That makes him a formidable candidate. I just refuse to buy inoto the "sotryline"--even put out by Rush Limbaugh--that Perry is a conservative "saviior". Goerge W Bush was not such a conservative, and neither is Perry. I am not sure Perry is reall more conservative than Bush, atlhough it is possible. I said the same thing about George W. Bush in 20000, and I was correct. That is, I said that Bush was TRUTHFUL when he represented that he was NOT a "conservative", but a "compassionale conservative". I have heard Perry described as "Bush without the 'compasion'", but I have never perceived any real difference between them.--no real indication that Perry is more conservative than George W. Bush (not very conservative). Ye. I hae heard the rumors that Bush does not much like Perry. But I have seen no indication that this relates to POLICY differences. I never noticed Perry taking on Bush when Bush was President.


Am I , then, still adamantly opposed to Perry? Well, I do not support him for the nomination. But I MIGHT vote for him against Obama. This is really the same situation as Romney in 2008. I don't trust Perry's principles, just like I don't trust Romney's. But Perry MAY become an effective advocate for conservative principles, whehter he fully believbes in them or not. But he is going to have to show me that he can articulate more than conservative talking points, and actually argue for conservative principles. I still have not decided, by the way, on Romney either. Wil I support either Perry or Romney against Obama? I am not sure. It might depend onwhether I have WALKED AWAY from a Repubican Party that has again betrayed me. I am morally certain that Romney and Perry can STOP a sell out on this "super committee" system. If Repubicans end up gong for a SHAMM "grand deal", then you will know that Perry and Romney have their fingerpints all over it (if merely by WANTING it to happen without doing antything go promote it). I am conflicted enough about Perry and Romney that my attitude toward the Repubican Party is going to spill over to them I still expect the Repubican Party to sell me out, and to sell the country out, with "politics as usual". I wil not forgive that, unlesss you are a person who has fought the good fight even when not running for President. Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum fit that bill right now. I would vote for any of them over Obama, even if I have abandoned the Repubican Party FOREVER. I cannot say the same about Perry and Romney--unless they stand up and STOP a sell out. They can. I don't think they will (if it comes to that). I am already unhappy with romney's attemt to distance himself from the onging battle on spending and taxes.


There you have it. Even if you disagree with my opinions (either because you are pro-Perry or anti-Perry), I think the above should give you a better picture of Rick Perry than you are getting anywhere in the medai. You can read between the lines, and filter out my opinions, if you wish. But I do not distort the RECORD to psh an preconceived idea of Perry. My ideas of Perry may not be totally correct, but they are hardly preconceived. I have been an observer of the man's entire political career. Do not underestimate him. But don't delude yourself that he can be put in some kindof "conservative hero" "box". For better or worse, I a m conficent that is not true.