Why Rick Perry should run for president
Fresh from delivering a major address to the RNC, Texas Gov. Rick Perry as GOP presidential candidate is going viral even while the candidate himself insists that he is not running. On that, I believe him. I do not think he is running. But I also believe he should, and may be persuaded to, reconsider. Here are a few of the reasons the Texas governor would make a formidable candidate for the presidency.
Experience
Gov. Perry has been governor of the nation’s second largest state for 10 years, and was Lt Gov, Agriculture Commissioner and a legislator before that. Texas geography, population and economy make it larger than most countries, thus, experience at the helm of Texas is excellent preparation for the presidency. There is a negative in all that, that Perry can fairly be called a “career politician,” but he is one career politician who has a real record to tout and who has retained his deep skepticism of government as the source of all our answers. Texas under Perry’s watch has avoided the dire straits the other large states find themselves in, and it has consistently been the nation’s economic leader, creating more jobs and winning more accolades than any other state. Texas’ housing market has been the nation’s most stable during Perry’s watch, and Americans keep voting with their feet by making Texas the nation’s top interstate migration destination. Perry does not deserve all of the credit for this record, but he does deserve a good share of it, because during his tenure the often divided Texas government, in which 29 major offices are elected statewide, has functioned as a unified team with Perry in the lead. This team has kept Texas’ tax burden low despite hard times, and has kept Texas’ government among the smallest in the nation. Rick Perry is, as he is quick to mention, not George W. Bush. If he ran for president the comparison would be unavoidable, but Perry’s record is to the right of Bush’s. Perry is in many ways the man the liberals feared George W. Bush was, but Perry is a better stump speaker and has served in office at more levels than his predecessor.
I would really, really, really like our next President to respect and defend our borders. I don’t believe Mr. Perry would.
Perry has gotten Voter ID passed. Perry has publically chastized O-BOMB-AH for NOT protecting the border, for refusing to send more national guard to protect the borders and called for finishing the border fence. Who do YOU think is going to protect the border? Romneycare?
Take it from someone who actually LIVES in the Texas Border, Perry has done nothing for this state, aside from talk. The Voter ID does not protect the border! He passed it because he knows it benefits his party at the voting booth. Criticizing someone else for not being tough on border security does not amount to actually being tough himself. He is all talk… President Obama at least made a trip here last week. I can’t recall last time Perry was actually here, except to garner up votes.
Er, Tito…
Obama came “here”, to Austin, for cash. He wanted Perry, who was in Austin, to meet him in El Paso, even though Obama was coming to Austin.
You see Tito, I live in Austin and know what’s going on in this town, unlike you.
I guess YOU are unaware that Perry was the main supporter of the TEXAS TRANS CORRIDOR….. which will make possible Mexican truck drivers using TAXPAYER FUNDED highways to haul their loads. But hey, who should worry about THAT when Perry got VOTER ID passed? Wake up and smell the tacos.
I have been saying to people for over a year that Governor Perry would be an excellent choice for running for the Republican nomination. I am exhausted of looking at the same recycled and no chance candidates. Let us hope the Governor will give strong consideration to running.
Oh, I believe him, too. He’s technically not running right this instant.
But I think he has been planning to run all along. Get this pesky legislative session out the door, declare victory with a balanced budget (not entirely true) with no tax increases, take a few weeks to let the buzz build while he contemplates how much the nation needs him, and off we will go.
Seems like a golden opportunity for both Perry and the GOP.
From the beginning, I’ve thought that being from Texas (and even the South) was a fatal flaw, which doesn’t have anything to do with the governor. It hurts him because of the 8-year smear campaign against George Bush, which has to have a continuing impact on swing voters in other states. A southern accent has become a treat to the pavlov dogs who listen to the mbm. But maybe that is abetting somewhat as dubya’s star rises as the country sees what a disaster Spike is.
Perry’s hints at secession will be a prime time show on the networks. I loved it when he said it, but it won’t play well in 2012. The career politician bit will hurt as well. Rick has lots of enemies.
But given the way the field is shaping up, I would like to see him jump in and see how he stands up to Palinization. If he was paying attention to the Donald and learned from it, and is more circumspect than Newt about what he says about his allies, he might be a viable option.
I continue to hope for a large and respected field of candidates who cover conservativism to middle of the roadism, speaking out against the red menace from a variety of vantage points and backgrounds. So far, our field seems to be better at shooting themselves in the foot.
Yea, Perry could become POTUS, which would continue the CFR open border agenda, and sell roads paid for from tax payer monies to the highest bidder. That way we can have toll roads, and a North American Union.
Hey Bryan, why did Perry go to the Bilderberg meeting in 04? Isn’t that breaking the Logan Act?
Go salute your flag with the fringe on it and listen for the black helicopters, ronulan.
Do you have an agrument with facts, or are you just running your suck?
@Leatherneck. I guess you missed President Obama’s snuff of Governor Perry when he tried to hand him a letter on proposed border security. Governor Perry has pushed for troops on the border, but has had no support from Obama (and little from the Bush administration). While the trans national highway might not be the greatest idea, it sure beats socialized medicine (with waivers to unions and Muslim groups), support for our adversaries (China, most of the Middle East), snubbing our allies (UK, Israel, France), accumulating a bigger debt AND spending more than all previous Presidents (minus G. W. Bush–we’ll be able to include Bush by end of next year) combined, allowing foreign leaders to bash our citizens and then allow them to sue individual states (Mexico vs Arizona), picking and choosing which dictators to support and which to conduct “kinetic operations” against, and finally destroying our energy industry with substantial EPA restrictions and restrictions on drilling while giving money to other countries for their energy exploration.
“Snuff” was Osama…
“Snub” was Rick Perry!
The search and destroy misson goes forward. Why keep up such nonsense when Mitt Romney is willing to run and able to defeat the Marxist. Once again the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. But then again, we must stop the cultist at all costs, right?
Riiiiiiiight.
Mitt “MassCare” Romney.
Oh, Romney is more than willing. He’s just an awful candidate who will never beat Obama. I might not be excited about Perry, but I could rally behind if need be (toll roads — c’mon, get serious), but never Romney.
Why would anyone vote for Romney when they have Obama?
Yeah, let’s run Romney and finally admit that the GOP is the Socialist II Party. You can’t be both for smaller government and bigger government. Romney wants bigger, as shown by his rationalization of MassCare.
I must agree wholeheartedly. We need adult candidates like Perry to compare and contrast against the juvenile we now have in the White House.
Confrontation of the ridiculous administration and lap dog media is what’s desperately needed.
PLEASE! BRING US SOME SANITY!
Perry has the best chance of beating Obama. He would solidify the south & Perry performs around the magic number of 39% of the Latino votes needed to win. Plus, Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno campaigned with him in TX, I suspect Fortuno would be his VP Pick-no need to risk the political careers of Martinez, Sandoval, Rubio & Latino congressman & women this early in the game. Plus, picking a lation VP for the Republicans would be especially beneficial-if they get the Sarah Palin treatment, which they will, it will drive Latino voters to the GOP & expose the democrat party for the scumbags they are. Besides, the choice is clear: A 3 term Governor in Rick Perry, or one of the worst POTUS’s of all time in Obama. A man who knows how to foster job creation, one who knows how to kill jobs. Perry/Fortuno!
One thing is for certain Rick can run a campaign and he can debate. A lot of nit-pickers will attempt to knock him but he is fearless and will not lead from behind.
this is a persuasive comment.
Everybody has flaws. We need somebody who can and will take it to them. As for the politics of it, the roadmap is basic conservatism. Perry or whoever doesn’t need to be a founding father, just kind of agree with the concepts and be able to talk about what has worked for 230 years and then the stuff that has been a hopeless failure since 2008.
Of course, it would be nice if Perry doesn’t eat babies for breakfast or do strange things with lizards. But even then, he could point to Drooling Barney Franks.
He won’t run. He probably has had some extra-marital affair like Mark Sanford or Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he does not want that to come out.
That has to be the reason.
5/10 on the troll meter. Nice effort, and I especially like the mention of a current scandal, but still too obvious. You need to be subtle.
Perry’s run about a half-dozen statewide races in Texas against well-financed Democratic opponents. Most recently, he won a contested primary against the senior sitting U.S. Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and then beat the popular former mayor of Houston, Bill White. Perry’s opponents have had essentially unlimited resources to do opposition research, yet he continues to beat them one after another, like rented mules.
It’s interesting how you’re so much better informed than any of Perry’s opponents, with all their resources, have been.
The true Texas conservatives want Kay Bailey to retire. We didn’t want her inflicting her big-government Potomac Fever on Texas. When you’re in DC that long, you begin to slide left and don’t even recognize it.
Governor Perry’s opponents have been smearing him with a “gay” label for years. If you don’t know about Austin politics you haven’t been paying attention. If the leftists down here could have discredited him, they wouls have a long time ago. Nice tr, though.
I don’t get it : if Romneycare is a dealbreaker for Romney’s candidacy….
….then why isn’t Obamacare fatal for Obama’s chances?
are you suggesting romney run against obama in the democrat primary?
BRILLIANT!!!
Who says it isn’t?
You are absolutely right. If Romney is vulnerable for Romneycare in Massachussets then Obama has to be at least as vulnerable for Obamacare which was shoved down our collective throats nationally.
President of Texas? Great idea!
YESSSSSS!!!!
Actually, what I would like to see are two different countries: The U.S.A. and the N.A.R. (North American Republic). the loonie socialists live in the USA, and the rest of the people live in the NAR. Which one would fail the fastest?
What about men like Cameron Todd Willinghams whom Perry allowed to be executed even though he knew there was new substantial evidence that he was innocent. Rick Perry is a scumbag.
Just from the number of trolls on this thread, I think Rick Perry does indeed scare the hell out of Obama!
Recent events may have gone far to inspire Gov. Perry to make a run for the White House.
For over a month the Obama administration contemptuously sat on the Texas application for disaster relief in the wake of the state’s massive wildfires. Then, after the wait, the application was denied. Both the wait and the denial were clearly political retribution against Texas for being what it is, a business-friendly low-tax state.
So Rick Perry running for the White House would have some of the elements of a grudge match, but a grudge match carried out against those who have attacked his state. As such it’s a match I hope he wins.
Speaking as a lifelong Texan I have to say that the idea of Rick Perry as president disgusts me. I think the rest of the country believes that he is some kind of rock ribbed conservative since they have only seen the speeches where he threatens secession or tells the federal government to leave Texas alone. But all that he ever does is pander to whatever audience he is speaking to. He’s for tough border controls when he believes his audience is, but he didn’t think the Arizona law was the right approach. He is the most insincere politician I think I have ever seen.
Perry is a good, very astute and successful politician. He is also very good-looking (like Romney, unlike Danials). It is expected that politicians tell audiences that which most endears. So what? We need to eject O from the WH in 2012 and anyone who might do that is worth considering. Perry spoke to a Houston tea party group on Monday (that I attended) and was very impressive. I immediately began to think President Perry. While W has turned off a lot of the country to another Texan in the WH, lets face it, desperation will make those people overlook this drawback. Besides, W was actually a yankee from New England.
Texas trains its governors.
If your heart bleeds for those on death row, Perry is NOT your man. Maybe Brown in Kalipornia. Texas has offed quite a few since 1979. Kaly wants to warehouse them until they “naturally” die. Brown did veto a new $700 million warehouse to provide “creature comforts” to the THOUSANDS on death row.
And Perry would not be shy about debating our half-white pResident. He’s already confronted him on Obammao’s hating on Texas by denying FEMA assistance for 2 MILLION acres going up in flames, troops for REALLY securing the border and numerous other things.
Put joint firmly between the upper and lower lip, close lips around it–
Inhale.
Mr. Preston, this is a fine post, comprehensive yet succinct. And as a fellow Texan I certainly agree that Gov. Perry, should he choose to run in 2012 or any other time, would make a formidable candidate. Whether he’d get my vote in a GOP primary would depend on who else was on the ballot, but he’s had my vote in statewide elections before and I can imagine many scenarios in which he’d get mine in a presidential race.
Since I’m a UT-Austin alum, but a big-tent Republican, I can forgiven, and have forgiven, Perry for being an Aggie.
But you — and anyone else who is a fan of Gov. Perry’s — would do well not to sugarcoat his history as a Democrat. Yes, he changed parties in 1989, but in 1988 he was Al Gore’s Texas campaign manager. That’s a fact well known in Texas, less so elsewhere. So it ought to be broadcast often, and ALWAYS simultaneously with an explanation of his conversion and penance.
Ronald Reagan, too, was a converted Democrat, and he used that very effectively — playing offense with it, not defense. Gov. Perry could profit from that example.
I’m a sixth generation Texan and conservative who voted for Bush both times and would again, and I’d hate to see Perry run for President, let alone get elected. Aaron’s right: don’t be fooled.
With respect — are you nuts?
Speaking as a native Texan and lifelong Republican, nominating Perry would be an unmitigated disaster. He’s been, at best, a passable governor (although one must remember that under the Texas Constitution, the governor has very little real power), but his executive ability and political agility is suspect at best. But for the fact that Obama is so unpopular in the Lone Star State, Perry would have lost handily to Bill White in the last election.
Bill White – milk toast. He didn’t have a chance against Perry. Didn’t have anything to do with the “O”.
I’m always puzzled by comments like this one. “Milk toast”? What does that even mean?
Texas Law School doesn’t announce a valedictorian, but White was Grand Chancellor. Nobody knows what Barack Obama’s class rank was at Harvard, but because he was Grand Chancellor, we can know to a mathematical certainty that among “the sixteen law students who have achieved the highest grade point averages in their class through their second year,” he ranked first. He was the editor in chief of the Texas Law Review in the class ahead of me, and I am 100% certain that any law review member you ask from the class ahead of his, his class, or the class which followed it would tell you he’s among the smartest people they’ve ever met. (Again, in contrast to Harvard Law Review, where Obama’s election to the comparable position was described by his classmates to the NYT as a “political” election, selection of the EIC at the TLR was entirely based on the brilliance and diligence of the candidates’ legal thinking and writing. He was a successful litigator at Susman Godfrey, a firm on any consensus list of the best half-dozen corporate litigation boutiques in the U.S. He was a cabinet under-secretary for Clinton.
Bill White was elected, then twice re-elected, mayor of Houston by large margins. If he hadn’t been term limited, he likely could have been mayor for life. In pro-business mostly-conservative HOUSTON, not Austin or El Paso (Democrat strongholds).
I dunno what brand of milk toast you favor, and it’s clear you don’t think much of White personally, but he was a formidable candidate, the best available to his party and the best it had fielded in at least a decade. Perry didn’t take him for granted, and would have been badly mistaken to do so. White’s likely to continue someday in public service in some capacity. Why would you take him for granted?
Sorry for the indeterminate pronoun. Meant to say “White ranked first.”
It’s milquetoast – a dated insult defined as: somebody regarded as timid or submissive, especially a man.
Three words: Cameron Todd Willingham.
Good luck living that one down, Mr. Perry.
Last time I checked, Perry didn’t arrest, try or convict him……
I didn’t say he did. You can read my reply to Beldar below for why I think Perry’s handling of the Willingham execution was unacceptable.
oh crap…conservatives are gonna lose anyway….they/we have no guts…
The Trans-Texas Corridor is a strength, not a weakness. Privatizing some new road and rail construction is the only way to do it. If you’re against that, you’re for much higher taxes and/or fewer/crumbling roads.
Absolutely correct, his mistake was not calling it an Autobahn and raising the speed limit to 90.
And the attempted Gardasil mandate for sixth grade girls? Strength, not a weakness among the GOP core voters when he’s asked about that 2007 decision during the debates?
The firing squad has completed the circle around Mr. Perry.
We need Daniels, Perry, and Romney to run. I hate the idea of Romney winning the nomination, but we need real a vigorous primary campaign to get ready for the real deal in the fall.
That said, I am glad Huckabee and Trump dropped out. They might have muddied the waters without having the benefit of being plausible candidates if they won.
LBK (#22), you wrote, “But for the fact that Obama is so unpopular in the Lone Star State, Perry would have lost handily to Bill White in the last election.”
I don’t think that’s so. The Dems haven’t won a statewide race in Texas since 1994. Obama lost in Texas by a wide margin.
You’re certainly right that disgust with Obama fueled conservative turn-out in 2010, and that in turn boosted the GOP’s margins in statewide races and, more importantly, the GOP’s control over both chambers of the Texas legislature. I also rated Bill White (whom I’ve known since law school) as the best candidate the Dems had available to them, and the best they’ve put up in some years. But while we’re all necessarily guessing, my guess is that Gov. Perry’s bigger re-election challenge was in the GOP primary (which he won handily to the surprise of many old-line Texas Republicans).
I can’t max your six generations in Texas — I’m only sure of four — but my granddad was the Republican postmaster in Dawson County in the 1920s, when Texas Republicans were considerably more scarce than hens’ teeth. (It was a patronage appointment, of course.)
We Texans know Perry’s warts, and he has a considerable share. But there are no wart-free candidates, and I see several who are currently in the race who I’d rank behind Perry in my own present, highly tentative list.
Well, I was hoping he was someone we could look up to. Why do you Texans hate each other so much?
Nemo’s on it. Perry is a very, very effective governor. I can’t stand the guy, honestly, because he’s Janus in a suit. He’s done a great job with Texas, but I would not want him running for President — he’d subvert the Tea Party in a cold, hard, instant.
@ Tman (#23): You realize, don’t you, that Gov. Perry didn’t convict anyone who’s on Texas’ death row, or who’s left it via the execution chamber?
The Texas governor’s pardon powers are very limited. And a very large majority of Texans support our death penalty enforcement. Indeed, conservatives by and large would consider Gov. Perry’s tough but not reflexive rulings on stay applications to be a feature, not a bug.
You’re just not a very effective troll, is what I’m trying to tell you. With due respect.
Beldar,
“The Texas governor’s pardon powers are very limited.”
This is true, but it does not change the fact that Perry could have stayed Willinghams execution. The fact is that Perry refused to review the evidence that clearly showed there was no scientific basis for the charge of arson, and in so doing Texas executed an innocent man. In fact, it appears that This is unacceptable. Willinghams guilt was not proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” by any means, and Governor Perry most certainly had the power to get this decision right before he was executed. He chose poorly.
I’m surprised that you as a lawyer would find this failure to provide a fair trial that Perry easily could’ve corrected -that resulted in the execution of someone who was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- to be so easily ignored. I understand that most Texans support the death penalty, but I would safely assume that they also believe that the outcome of the decision to put someone to death is based on scientific evidence that proves someones guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Willingham’s case did not meet that criteria. Perry could’ve corrected this error and apparently chose not to for political reasons.
Again, this is unacceptable.
I see. Gov. Perry should have anticipated before the execution in 2004 that in 2009, the New Yorker and a bunch of other death penalty opponents would dream up new impeachment theories that were never presented to the state trial courts, the state appellate courts, the federal trial courts, the Fifth Circuit, or the SCOTUS. And he should have granted a 30-day stay, which he has the power to do exactly once, in order that the not yet discovered new evidence (which he should have known about through temporal projection?) could be discovered during that one 30-day period.
Because Superman was going to fly around the earth so fast that he went back and forth in time to bring these documents to the Texas governor.
You assert that “Willinghams guilt was not proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ by any means, and Governor Perry most certainly had the power to get this decision right before he was executed.” The trial court jury and judge, who actually heard the evidence, disagreed with your assessment. So has every state and federal court that considered his case. And the Texas governor has no general pardon power: The state constitution was amended in 1934 to strip that power from the governorship in reaction to Democratic Tex. Gov. Ma Ferguson’s 100-per-month first-term average number of pardons, granted amid serious allegations of bribes.
As a lawyer, I know not to accept one side’s arguments without considering the other’s. You may be parroting defense points you’ve read or heard elsewhere, but you are perhaps either unaware of, or have chosen to ignore, all contrary arguments. That diminishes your credibility, with all due, in the eyes of anyone who thinks both sides’ arguments ought be considered.
Beldar,
“Gov. Perry should have anticipated before the execution in 2004 that in 2009, the New Yorker and a bunch of other death penalty opponents would dream up new impeachment theories that were never presented to the state trial courts, the state appellate courts, the federal trial courts, the Fifth Circuit, or the SCOTUS.”
No, that is a false assessment. (via Wiki)”The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Willingham a writ of habeas corpus a month before his execution. Dr. Gerald Hurst, an Austin scientist and fire investigator, reviewed the case and concluded there was “no evidence of arson”, the same conclusion reached by other fire investigators. Hurst’s report was sent to governor Rick Perry’s office as well as Board of Pardons and Paroles along with Willingham’s appeal for clemency. Neither responded to Willingham’s appeals.” To me, this says that Willinghams guilt was not proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” if an overwhelming majority of fire and forensic experts testified that Arson was not the cause of the fire during appeal. And this was presented to Governor Perry before the execution. I’ll admit that the New Yorker article definitely raises even more troubling aspects of the case, but to keep it to the timeline, Perry had an opportunity to review the conflicting evidence before the execution and he chose not to do so. Whether or not you believe in capital punishment, I think we can all agree that the decision to execute someone should be based on a guilty verdict proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
If you believe that Willingham was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then my point is irrelevant to your support of Perry for president. My point is that I don’t believe the evidence in this case proved that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and as Governor Perry had an opportunity to ensure that an innocent man was not executed. Considering the manner in which Perry has responded to the report about the case in 2009 by the Texas Forensic Science Commission I’m not convinced his judgment in these matters in beyond reproach. Executing an innocent man is the most heinous act our legal system could commit, and the fact that Perry doesn’t seem to respect this issue with the seriousness he should tells me that he doesn’t care if the state executed an innocent man.
This is again, unacceptable.
By the way, your repeated attempts at ad hominem arguments that I have been snowed by the New Yorker article and have failed to examine both sides of the argument and therefore I am “trolling” does not make your argument any stronger.
It is none of your personal qualities that I attack, sir or madam, but your arguments themselves, for they fail to take into account things like the three unsuccessful trips this individual made to the SCOTUS before his execution. They ignore his prior criminal history. They ignore all of the circumstantial evidence of guilt from the trial that did not depend at all on expert testimony. They fail to take account of, for example, his last words:
So yeah, he maintained his claims of innocence, and his basic personality, to the very end.
We can argue all day about Willingham, but none of that will change a word of the Texas constitution. I make no criticism of you, but of your argument, when I point out that it precludes the thinks you say Perry should have done.
It would make as much sense to continue arguing this as to argue the odds of successfully milking a unicorn. I’m not calling you a unicorn or a unicorn-milker, but I’m respectfully bidding you farewell.
Perry is establishment Republican Party. His interests are in supporting the party’s interests and its members. This has been demonstrated not to be good for the general welfare.
Oops — visual error on my part, I mis-attributed James’ six Texas generations to LBK. Sorry to both.
@Beldar (#28): My point is that we Texans know Perry’s warts, but I don’t think the rest of the country does, and when they find out I don’t think he’ll seem to be such a great candidate. The perception of him that people in the rest of the country have is only slightly connected to reality.
I have to agree with Aaron above: I dearly want to see a credible challenger emerge, but there’s a reason we call him Goodhair.
Beldar: hey, no problem — my family’s been in Texas since before the Republic of Texas, so that’s eight generations if you count my daughter. (And I also went to UT Law, BTW.)
I stand by my assessment of Perry v. White, however. I know a lot of good Republicans like me who thought White was the better candidate and would have crossed party lines to vote for him, but for the palpable disgust The Annointed One has engendered against all things Democrat.
@ Aaron (#33): It’s a glass-half-empty thing, I guess. Texans know his warts; presumably Minnesotans know Pawlenty’s, etc. My point is that if you or I knew the other candidates as well as you and I know Perry, he might look better in comparison than he does in a vacuum under a spotlight.
I generally agree with the Buckley rule — pick the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win. I can see scenarios where that might be Perry. He’s not my top choice, but my top choice for now insists he’s not going to run.
One thing we might be able to agree on, regarding Gov. Perry: He’s not likely to be anyone’s Veep choice because Texas isn’t in dispute for 2012, despite fantasy stories to the contrary.
@ LBK (#35): I was on the Texas Law Review editorial board that followed Bill White’s tenure as editor in chief, so worked with him for more than a year on law review stuff. Then he was at Susman Godfrey in Houston while I was at Baker Botts in the early 1980s, and I flirted with going to work with that firm. He’s one of the smartest guys I’ve ever met, and very capable, and I consider him a friend (although I wouldn’t presume to describe us as close). I happily voted for him every time he ran for mayor of Houston, and with a few reservations, I’d agree that overall he did a good job. But he was Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, and he’s a thorough-going Democrat who, in any office higher than mayor, would almost certainly vote/act like a thorough-going Democrat, meaning opposite from what I’d prefer.
Until the national Democratic Party changes position very substantially, no Democratic candidate for state office in Texas is going to win. It’s not just that Obama is toxic in Texas, but he’s certainly upped the amperage.
Isn’t Gov Perry the one who tried to impose vaccination of all pubescent females against the HPV virus? Seems kinda “big brother government” to me…
Perry thought Texas was moving to the left after he won a four-way re-election battle in 2006 with under 40 percent of the vote, and wanted to get ahead of the nanny state curve, but had to back down when Texas Legislature members went to court to block his edict. He then realized in 2008 that he was going to be outflanked by Kay Bailey Hutchison on his right in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary because of his record in the most recent legislative session and made a major, major effort to move back to the right and assiduously court the evangelical Republicans in anticipation of a primary challenge.
That’s why Rick Perry was situated so well in 2009-10 to handle the Obama-Reid-Pelosi blowback that reached the state level. As long as Perry sees the electorate staying strong on the right, Rick Perry will be a strong voice for those causes. But if Perry sees a rerun of 2006 on the horizon sometime in the future, he’s also shown the ability to put his core values in a lock box if they’re going to clash negatively with polling trends.
Just a four-gen Texan here. I particularly agree with the section of the Bryan’s post on Perry’s experience, and you can’t argue with results, either. Look at how Texas has done. I’ve been flabbergasted to see Obama consulting with governors like Jennifer Granholm instead of with governors of healthy states.
He may be establishment GOP as some claim, but if he is, what is the alternative? Romney, Pawlenty, and possibly Daniels: competent governors but very establishment.
I worry he’ll be fatally Palinized if he runs, but I don’t want to let fear of that dictate the choice.
One more related item: Texas votes rarely count in the primaries–it’s a done deal by the time Texas gets to vote.
@ Jeff (#38): Yes, but are you under the impression that state law in most states don’t already require a wide range of vaccinations as a condition for attending public schools? You’re anti-measles but pro-HPV perhaps?
He’s not serious (even weak) on illegal immigration, so he’s not even a consideration as far as I’m concerned.
It’s funny (funny-odd, not funny-ha-ha; or maybe both I guess) that nobody ever comments on how much Dubya’s legacy complicates Ron Paul’s presidential bid(s).
I think this guy has a lot of positives, and is an excellent voice for conservatives. But he needs more of a national voice, and right now is sort of in the same vein as Jeb Bush; well-respected, and an exemplary governor … but doesn’t quite have the national platform and voice that’s needed. Now, if he’s drafted, it’s a different story …. and his adept handling of modern media will put him in a good position against Obama.
But, right now, he’s the sixth man off the bench for November 2012. Let’s keep him in reserve, and see what the next six months brings.
@ Dannyboy (#41): I’m not sure why you think Perry is “not serious (even weak) on illegal immigration.”
Perhaps you’re referring to his position that Texas’ immigration history and situation are different from California’s or Arizona’s, and his disinclination to copy Arizona’s statute (which of course is still being litigated in the federal courts). But despite GOP majorities in both chambers of the Texas Legislature, no Arizona-type bill was passed for Perry to consider vetoing, so wherever Perry is, he seems to be pretty close to the Legislature.
Indeed in the current legislative session, the Texas Legislature is in the process of debating several immigration-related bills. The House has passed, and the Senate is considering, a bill that forbids Texas cities from declaring themselves “sanctuary cities,” and Perry supports that bill and put it on a fast track, but it’s hitting snags in the state Senate. How it’s going to turn out is unclear, but Perry certainly seems interested in doing what a state government may do on this problem. He’s certainly joined Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in being very vocal in demanding that the federal government assume its proper responsibility and enforce federal law.
Perry famously shot a four-legged coyote while jogging earlier this year. You want him to start running the border looking for the two-legged kind? ‘Cause I don’t think that’s the best use of his time.
My preferred candidate is Palin, but I could vote for Perry – which is something I can’t say about Romney, Daniels, or Huntsman. Perry may not be perfect, but he has no fatal flaws, either. And he’s an authentic conservative, which is something else I can’t say about the establisment’s favorites.
Being at the helm of a large state didn’t bode well with Pres. George W. Bush as president. Quantifications tend to be short sighted. Perry and this author represent the dawning of an age that hopefully, will diminish. Demographic projections and realities make it so. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
I believe Perry may run but not in 2012 as his chances of winning would be better in 2016
What excites me most is in the Texas house they passed a tort reform bill where the loser pays and a great chance to pass it in the senate Perry has said he will sign the bill, a great way to put many ambulance chasing lawyers out of business and allow the states businesses to grow and prosper. Former Texas gov. Bush partially rode sucess with medical malpractice reform, well we know the fed realitiy of the east/west coast lawyers quickly struck down any chance of malpratice reform nationwide. I would love to see Perry run and win the presedency, as I met him at the GOP officies last Feburay and he warning about the EPA’s over reach on oil and gas regulations. So in conclusion Us Texas will continue to grow and prosper, I hope the same for my country.
A great series of perceptive and informative comments, from which I emerge a Perry supporter primarily in sync with #45 DeRay; a Palin fan who cannot stand the GOP establishment which has and will continue to run the country into the ditch of irrelevance under the Mantra: “Offend no one; Fight for nothing; and Lose!”
The key, seminal issues for saving the USA from the current hard-left radical transformation are federal taxation/spending and regulation. These are the the primary tools for crushing our economic and individual freedoms and turning us into a nation of dependents with a permanent voting majority for the authoritarian socialists. Obamacare, Amnesty, the Global Warming Hoax, Green Energy and the elimination of petroleum, coal and our other vital sources of energy, and federally-mandated, left wing indoctrination of education, etc. all flow from the financial and regulatory power of the current socialist federal government.
These are the central issues of the TEA Party/Conservative Movement which exploded last fall into the greatest electoral counter-revolution in our history. It was obviously against the Obama Left, but also against the GOP Establishment; and that is our most immediate and potentially dangerous problem.
The Country Club will not–cannot–acknowledge that grass-roots conservatives, including millions of Independents and Reagan Dems (look at the massive turnout numbers)constitute the great majority of potential GOP voters. We are not a “wing” of the GOP which needs only to be tolerated and placated with crumbs from the more “nuanced,” sophisticated, “moderates” at the main table. WE ARE IN CHARGE!
We do not want–and cannot afford– any more GOP moderates who, like Daniels, believes the current socialist, union-dominated Dems are merely “opponents not enemies” with whom “we must try to be friends.” We need a strong candidate who can be both an effective, inspirational leader and a tough, confrontational warrior.
We are in a war for the survival of America. As Sun Tzu (would have) said: “He who fails to recognize he is at war will surely be beaten.”
@OB – very well said.
Great post!
On balance, Perry sounds like he could be the lever to rid us of this hoodlum administration, and whatever shortcomings he may have, that in itself covers a multitude of sins for me. The real dirty fighting these cornered rats will unleash hasn’t even begun yet, and we need to send a pit bull into the ring with O when things break loose. Perry’s evident media sophistication and campaigning skills as described make him sound as though he’d nuke anybody who even came close to trying to deliver the drubbing O gave Trump at the recent press dinner, rather than slink away as Trump appears to have done, at least in the short term, so very disappointingly. (As an aside, I’m still trying to figure out why the hell Trump went to the event in the first place, and frankly, I’d be really surprised if at some point he doesn’t give O reason to rue the day he ever tried to take him on. Having just finished several of Trump’s books, I am convinced Obama seriously underestimated the enemy he made.) In any event, IMO, ousting Obama is Job One, and whoever the un-Obama ultimately turns out to be will get my vote. The mess they’ve left can be addressed post facto, when it will be easier to succeed with the momentum a re-energized Congress would gain from a Republican victory. Maybe we can even make it a landslide.
Huge conservative from Texas, Rick Perry is not the answer. He is not very popular down here, and his plan to balance the budget by cutting education funding has not won him any friends at all in this state.
@ HP: You assert that “Perry is not very popular down here, and his plan to balance the budget by cutting education funding has not won him any friends at all in this state.”
Forgive me if I point out that this sounds a lot like Yogi Berra’s line, “Nobody goes to that restaurant any more, it’s too crowded.”
He’s getting reelected a lot by awfully large margins for someone who’s unpopular and has no friends at all.
We have one incompetent fool for President why would we push for another to run against him? Perry has fallen into his position just as Obama did – got the govn’ship by default when Bush won the Presidency then won reelection through luck and timing. Has been derided as “landslide Rick” in Texas due to his 2006 non-majority win. The Governorship in TX is a joke as far as power goes. Legislative victories are due to the Lt. Gov/Speaker by a large margin, gov. basically appoints and barnstorms and Perry has been very weak at both. Perry is basically the same politics as 5-6 others already in the race and if he gets in and has to face the real pressure of national politics you will quickly see what a complete empty suit we’re discussing.
@ Oilfinder: You assert that “Perry has fallen into his position just as Obama did – got the govn’ship by default when Bush won the Presidency then won reelection through luck and timing.”
But Perry was only in a position to benefit from George W. Bush’s presidential election because Perry had won his own contested race after Democratic legend (and frequent Dubya ally) Bob Bullock retired from the lieutenant governorship. As you rightly point out, the lieutenant governorship in Texas is a big darn deal. Perry performed that job pretty impressively.
And as for luck and timing, those are great qualities if you can get ‘em. You might explain one Perry re-election on one or both of them. But all three re-elections (2002, 2006, 2010)? With respect, it’s hard to swallow any suggestion that those are more important than Perry’s actual performance as governor.
Everyone needs to understand that we need to keep our eye on the prize here. If Barack Obama remains in office another 4 years there is a very good chance that he will have the opportunity to elect anywhere from 3-4 supreme court justices either through natural death or retirement. This IS the Holy Grail for the democrat party. Look at the following justices’ ages.
Justice Ginsburg 78
Justice Kennedy 74
Justice Breyer 72
Justice Scalia 74
I am at the point where I don’t care who gets the nomination, as long as they are willing to at the very least nominate a right leaning moderate to the court. My preference would be a dyed in the wool constructionalist conservative like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas but for the sake of our republic I’m not going to be picky on this point.
Perry with his (most of the time) small government mentality is honestly the best choice for the Republican Party at this Juncture. He is articulate. He is good looking. He is intelligent.
Oh, and since we are throwing our parentage around and I had ancestors who fought at the Alamo with Bowie and Travis and at San Jacinto with Houston.
As a lawyer who practices here daily, my impression is that by and large, most conservative Texans are satisfied with the many, many, many judges that Gov. Perry has had occasion to appoint to vacancies on the Texas civil and criminal courts, both trial and appellate. Texas judges are elected; the governor’s power only runs to filling vacancies. But essentially all of Perry’s appointees who’ve run for reelection have been then been elected in their own right by Texas voters, many of them repeatedly.
And indeed, there’s sufficient confidence in Perry’s appointment priorities and performance that many Texas GOP judges have returned to the de facto near-universal practice dating back decades to when Texas was a one-party Democratic state: They resign to leave office, rather than simply not running for re-election, precisely so that the governor can appoint a well-qualified and fully-vetted judicial conservative to then run for election as an incumbent. That’s implicit, but very high, praise from those in a position to know.
Wow, what a lively discussion, and since my fellow Texans are bragging about how man generations their family has lived in Texas, I proudly wave my own. I am also a lifelong “Goldwater” Republican who has NEVER voted for ANY Democrat or other Socialist in my life.
The Governor of Texas is a weak position created so by our Constitution. ANY Governor who is actually able to LEAD the State of Texas must do so by force of will and political ingenuity. ANY man who can get ELECTED Texas Governor three times has plenty of both.
That being said, Rick Perry has his share of political “warts” that would be picked bloody by the democrat press, their fellow travelers and other useful idiots. Unfortunately, that is going to be true no matter WHO the candidate is.
To my fellow Texans I say that you need to get OUT of the I-35 Corridor and talk to Texans, not transplants or graduates of our fine LIBERAL Universities. You will find a lot more about how Texan’s think by visiting Amarillo than you will by visiting Austin.
My personal political belief for the next Presidential Election cycle is ABO: ANYONE BUT OBAMA
If Governor Perry is the choice of my party, then he will get my vote.
P.S. I STILL prefer Craddick to Straus for Texas Speaker.
Have a great day Ya’ll!
i agree
i also think r perry is a politician who can easily clothe himself in the classical conservative principles so long as the voters encourage him to do so; perry thrives on positive reinforcement– this is a good thing
this political fight is about ideology- on both sides
we need a candidate who can present the counter point to obama’s welfare statism
free markets versus welfare socialism
limited government versus excessive government
concepts and importance of federalism
we need someone who can explain coherently why our government needs to move back towards its constitutional constraints versus obama’s alternative
this is what reagan did so well
he skillfully kept the discussion on the important principles in a milton friedmanesqe fashion; he made the collectivists defend themselves– essentially CHECKMATE
have a few charts or powerpoints handy to keep hammering simple principles
perhaps a GDP chart and the percentage of government spending or something
when assaulted with one’s imperfections turn the tables– ask the accuser “who’s perfect;” “if everyone were perfect then government would not be needed…”
we have the better foundation, arguments, facts, historical precedence
our strength is in our message’s simplicity, brevity, and overall common sense—
If nothing else makes crystal clear the failure of politics in the USA by dependence on candidates from established political parties, this floundering around to find a candidate worthy as THE representative of the American nation and her people is evidence enough. All this even in the face of those who now stand as representatives of Americans to the world.
An incumbent,touted by pollsters, for what that’s worth, as a shoo-in. An incumbent whose character defects need no emphasis, with a public history of having lied and lied and lied again to the American population not only about his aims, but means by which to further them; his failure to obey the laws over which he is pre-eminent officer; his playing citizens against citizens as only the most egregious examples of his unworthiness to represent the Constitutional Republic of the USA and its citizens. And then there are his unrepentant gangster/blitzkrieg tactics to establish his program into that Law he so eminently disrespects virtually every single day.
In addition of course his open contempt for American citizens in secreting, using the protection of US Law, materials about his personal and public provenance. Behaviours supported by members of both political parties,loyalty to their private and exclusive gentlemens clubs of Party superseding that to the Republic and the citizens they putatively “represent”.
To add insult to injury their sneering dismissal and slanders of citizens who object to these behaviours. All indicative of their ideas of “representation” of ALL Americans, not only those in their special cohorts.Being party in effect to an uncivil civil war. IS this really what self-governing citizens chose in their representatives?
That the Parties in “opposition” to that of the incumbent, mockingly called the “Democratic Party” can find no single REAL American to counter this alien, power crazed and criminal cabal is a disgrace.
IS this, Was this, the intent of the most privileged citizenry in history, with rights protected in Law to choose individual destinies without interference from over-arching government of corrupt politicians and unaccountable bureaucrats. Citizens “educated” by their “betters” who, to save the American People from her “criminal past” have spent the past half century in training citizens to sing mea culpa at the tops of their voices.
Did those generally laudable and admirable citizens sell their birthright of freedom of expression, freedom of belief, freedom of movement and freedom of association, for a mess of pottage. Americans for long admired world-wide. Now seen with dismay in the throes of national moral and civic suicide, culmination of the Manchurian brainwashing of the past decades.
This inability of any of the opposition political parties to select a candidate worthy to truly represent the common American, on which this nation stands, shows just how costly the sell-out to these destructive “elite” has been.
The only person I can think of who fills the bill you have sculpted so starkly, by chipping away what *shouldn’t* be part of the ideal candidate, is Sarah Palin. I have made it a point to read everything she writes and every interview she gives to the best of my ability since she came on the scene, and how anyone can call this woman dumb is simply beyond me. She is relentlessly, almost dumbfoundingly on point, with a consistency demonstrated by no other public figure I am aware of other than Allen West–who also fills the bill but I get a different vibe about his willingness to run at this time–could be wrong, hope I am! The woman is a human jackhammer! She hews so consistently to her positions on every plank that she’d be the class nerd…except that there’s also her wholesome, glowing, electric presence; smashing good looks; figure a woman of any age (much less a grandmother with five kids in her 5th decade!!!—and always modestly, though stylishly clothed) would be proud to have, that speaks *volumes* about her self-discipline; marathon class athletic ability; marriage that’s not just intact but thriving; pretty damn happy family (especially for these times); and vibrant spiritual life. She reminds me of the old joke used by folks who are mystified by high task orientation: What’s the difference between a boss and a vulture? Ans: Vultures always circle twice before they pounce. I am having a really hard time accepting as a given that the unprecedented savaging of this bright star by the msm has already rendered her “unelectable.” Can there really be a voting majority out there who are so willingly gulled by second-hand information? I can only think of the words of a wise elder from my childhood, “It’s the hounds that bring down the stag.” If we deny this woman the opportunity to lead us to the higher ground we so desperately need to reach, and *soon,* perhaps we really do deserve to go down gasping and flailing.
Excellent in analysis and conclusion. Thanks–ob
Oh I did mean to say that I would love to see Rick Perry run for president just to see apoplectic Austin Democrats foaming at the mouth and wetting their diapers over such an outrageous concept. Would absolutely be worth the cost of admission! LOL
I’m getting a strong feeling the majority of the anti Perry rhetoric is coming from Austin tea-sippers. His electability is golden, he took out Fudd with one TV spot and sent Kay B into retirement, the Kenyan would be looking for his TelePrompTer within minutes in a debate.
If Perry is all we conservatives have to offer, we’re in trouble. Don’t forget HPV vaccine, Trans-Texas Corridor and he was a democrat until 1998 and worked for the Al Gore Texas campaign. We can do better, in my opinion. It’s still early.
Stosh, I’m not surprised or offended that you haven’t read all the comments or else choose to ignore mine on the topics about which you’ve spoken. But I’m disappointed to see you misstating an important and objective historical fact that’s right there in Mr. Preston’s post: You’ve tried to paint Perry, falsely, as being a Democrat for a almost full extra decade longer than the facts permit.
Ugh — “a almost full extra decade longer.” My proofreading skills are deteriorating, so I ought to stop adding to this thread. (Unless I see something irresistible ….)
I gotta throw in my two cents here, as a lifelong Texan (I can only brag about three generations that I know of, but I haven’t researched it any further back). I will say unequivocally that I don’t like Rick Perry. I don’t like his back-door resurrection of the Trans-Texas Corridor (a horrendous idea when it first materialized, and even worse now), I don’t like his say-but-don’t-do attitude about the border situation (if Perry was serious, we’d have 10,000 Texas National Guard troops on the border right now, instead of telling the Feds to step up and do their jobs), and he has truly done nothing about the state economy – it just kind of goes along on its own. Add to that the spending of thousands of dollars a month on a lavish Austin apartment after the Governor’s Mansion burned (and it’s STILL not fixed – despite his attempt to raise donations to repair it – and why don’t State funds pay for that?), and he wouldn’t be my first choice for President.
I remember when Perry was elected to the State Legislature from Haskell in 1984. At the time he didn’t impress me, except for the fact he was young (34) and seemed eager to go to work. He really hasn’t done much, but has been associated with a lot of successes. There’s a lot about him I don’t like, but I voted for him over Bill White because I dislike the Democrats a lot more. If he were to run for President, I’d have to think long and hard about throwing my support behind him, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann. None of the others interest me in the slightest, being as how they’re all propped up by the media.
I’ll let the TPPF speak for themselves. I was addressing the Democrats’ objections as stated on their own web site.
If you could have 10,000 Texas National Guard, would you “442*” the ones of Mexican descent of being able to serve in that theatre? And should we be villifying the Zetas; they actually have the biggest kill rate of (prospective) illegal aliens as judged by their activities in San Fernando Tamaulipas?
* This weekend, I saw “Going for Broke”, a b/w movie about the 442nd Division in World War II.
I will only comment on that which I know, so I will only say this. I am a Texas National Guardsman and for the last couple of years we have heard that we will be deploying to the border. Come to find out, The reason why we were not is that the state could not afford it. It is tremendously expensive to mobilize military units. The state would have to train, equip, feed, house, and maintain those Soldiers and their equipment. Gov. Perry asked the federal government for funding to deploy a large number of us and was denied. Also I find the number 10,000 to be wildly implausible. The Texas Army National Guard I believe has about 19,000 personnel, thousands of which are deployed overseas at any one time. To deploy that many troops puts an extra strain on 10,000 families and loved ones. And let’s not forget, the vast majority of us have full-time jobs, so imagine the economic strain of the instant drop of 10,000 workers in the state. Trust, my comrades and I are ready and willing to deploy anywhere in the world at any time to defend Texas and the USA. In fact many of us would love to undertake a large scale border mission.
As to the main topic, I believe that it is far more important to find not the perfect candidate, but a solid one who can win. I believe that could be Gov. Perry. As my platoon sergeant always says before a mission- A good plan now is better than a perfect plan later. Lets apply that to this election and go out and win.
YES! YES! YES! Perry is my choice. He has the experience and is a dynamic speaker, able to get his ideas understood (unlike “you know who”). Governor Perry should run. We should do what we can to convince him.
Perry sound’s like a good idea to me.
I would like to see Gov. Perry run if not for any other reason to watch him debate Obama. I suspect Perry would chew “O” up and spit him out.
As for the secessionist thing, during a debate Perry could say, “no I’m not really serious about that, down in Texas we want to show the rest of the country the way to create private sector jobs, as we already lead the nation in —-blah blah blah brag on Texas— and when you want to LEAD the nation, you don’t want to LEAVE the nation. Thats just something we talk about every once in awhile down in Texas when we get fed up with the big bloated federal government, just to kind of remind ourselves who we are!” And if he glared at Obama when he said it I think the polls would show just how many Americans would love to see somebody take on Obama and get under his collar like McCain never could.
I can say this much, even if he doesn’t run, who ever Perry endorses will get a major boost.
Want to know more about Rick Perry? Have an inquiring mind and want to know? I’ve put together two rather long, factual compilations of information about Governor Perry. One is devoted to what his critics are saying (the negatives); the other covers the positives that supporters see in Perry. These are not my opinions, the data was compiled from many sources, but it is all verifiable – not gossip, nothing from personal blogs. Sources are cited and direct links are available for many statements.
Also please note that there are no advertisements or pop-ups, I get nothing out of a visit except the personal satisfaction of providing some facts to counter so much misinformation that is beginning to surface.
Check out either one, or both, at Pesky Truth. Just Google “Pesky Truth,Wordpress” and it’ll get you to the “positives” piece, from there you can simply click to access the “negatives” one.