One career politician dukes it out with another wannabe career politician. Meanwhile, a certain governor continues to build up the best actual record in the nation.
Since Perry became Texas Governor in December of 2000, Texas has added 1,078,600 net new jobs, while the other forty-nine states have lost 2,190,100 net jobs (1,111,500 lost net lost jobs, nationally). Looking at only the job-adding states over that time, 2,392,900 new jobs were created. 1,078,600 is 45.08% of 2,392,900.
In other words, since Perry has been Governor, Texas has added more than 45% of the entire nation’s net new jobs among job-adding states. Keep in mind that Texas has about 8.1% of the nation’s population. You could also say that Texas, during Rick Perry’s tenure as Governor, has added more jobs than the other 49 states combined.
There’s more at the link. Does Perry deserve credit for all of this job growth? No. But he does deserve credit for a great deal of it. When the economy tanked he could have gone the big government route. When the media and Democrats were making health care the crisis du jour, he could have done what Romney did and signed off on a massive expansion of government power. But he didn’t do either one. He keeps Texas’ government out of the way despite the never-ending push to expand the power of government. For a conservative, that’s a good thing.
One could argue that, well, Texas is big so of course it’s leading on job growth. Problem with that argument: California is bigger, and its jobs record is a whole lot worse than Texas’. Policy does matter.
I know, I know, Perry’s had some bad debates and a gaffe or two or three. That makes him a dicey prospect against Obama in the debates next year, unless he can improve that part of his candidacy. But unlike Cain, who has been great in the debates, Perry has an actual record in office, and it’s a very strong record. Unlike Romney and Gingrich, he also has a record of not chasing the latest policy fad (global warming, national health care mandates) and of standing his ground. His higher education reforms ought to become a national model. He has a record of helping turn the Democratic Party in Texas into a shell of its former self.
President Obama is so awful, dangerous and occasionally clueless that I’ll happily vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination. They will be a vast improvement just by not being Obama. I’ve always been a Republican, but Obama has made me a yellow dog Republican. But there is an idea floating around out there that I think is appropriate as we get closer to the first caucuses and primaries. A candidate who is weak at debating can become better at it, but no candidate who has a weak record or no record at all can go back and create a good record.
Re debate performance: we’re electing a chief executive, not a talk show host.
To be perfectly honest, a semi-intelligent talk show host might well be an improvement over the clown we have. But your point is well taken, maybe we should try giving the job to someone who actually has accomplished things rather than a career babbler.
I live in Iowa, so I’ve seen both Romney and Perry speak at a local event. I’d have no trouble supporting either against B.H. Obama, but this piece articulates why Perry ought to be the Republican nominee. Perry definitely has the track record of getting the right things done and keeping government out of the way so that the private sector can create jobs. (Government never creates any permanent jobs except permanent government jobs.) Whatever your view of G.W. Bush as President, he was a great Texas governor, and Rick Perry improved on Bush’s accomplishments. There’s no question Rick Perry is a true conservative and neither a flip-flopper nor a paid lobbyist for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. (Newt’s claim that he’s never been a lobbyist rings completely hollow, even if he never registered as one.) Perry is a Washington outsider who would really like to shake up business as usual, such as making being a member of Congress only a part-time job.
Thank you Bryan, I was beginning to think maybe Perry had dropped out and I missed the announcement. Seems the only time we hear anything about him is only in passing as the subject moves on to another candidate. Agreed, he has done terribly in the past debates but, as Rob Crawford pointed out, we are not electing a talk show host. When given time he has come out with some very good ideas on the issues, he just hasn’t been able to express them in a debate format. He seems to be learning though and has done better in each debate. Still not great but better.
So far I have heard very little bad said about him. They say Texas politics is different and he really doesn’t have much say in running the State. That sounds like BS to me. They say his plan about educating the illegals is a magnet, again BS. Besides, it wasn’t his plan, a majority of the Texas legislature voted it in and to me it sounds like a very good way to deal with a badly dealt hand. Texas has done a great job of creating new jobs while he has been Governor but again I hear the argument that he hasn’t got any real power over this. I also hear all these jobs being created are going to illegals and this is his fault. Again I call BS. If he doesn’t have any real power then how is it he can create all these jobs that are going to these illegals?
I have to admit I perked up when he said he was entering the race. I wasn’t impressed with the choices we had. I’m still not but I must admit I have become a fan of Gov. Perry. I really think that if people would forget about his debate performance to date and read the plans he has put forth he would be a lot higher in the race. I do believe, with a bit more practice and a half way unbiased moderator, he would be able to beat the teleprompter in chief when the time comes and make a very good President.
I’m still a Perry supporter. I think he is the best combination of experience, electability, and a conservative record with positive results.
A response to responses:
“We are not electing a talk-show host.”
I beg to differ. It is harder to be a Republican than a Democrat. The playing field is tilted against you. The referees are crooked. You have to be MUCH better than the other side.
Republicans should win every single contest, but they do not, because they are terrible at messaging, at making their cases to the people. If we are going to get this thing turned around, then we have to get the American people on board with it. This election should be a complete walkover, but because Republicans are so inept at communicating, there is a possibility Obama could win.
No, Newt is not a lobbyist. He is a sometimes paid consultant. Please learn what words mean. A lobbyist is a shill for a company, one who uses his connections and knowledge of government to promote a company and its interests. A consultant is one who offers his knowledge in exchange for pay, much like a teacher.
He is a brilliant man with much knowledge of the government, and has a doctorate in history. He is a professor by trade, originally. Various people pay him for the value of his knowledge. Should he not be allowed to make a living with that knowledge in the arena where it is truly valuable? F&F paid him for advice, then did not take his advice. Their is nothing disreputable in his imparting advice to F&F. God knows, they could really use it. Being a consultant is honorable work. It is teaching.
Does Perry deserve credit for this job growth? Yes, but not for the reasons you think. He deserves credit in that he has not screwed things up politically. Only when Republicans screw things up do they lose power. Then the Dems come in and ruin everything they touch. The key to prosperity is keeping the Dems out of power. Perry has been very effective in that regard.
However, he did that in a friendly environment. Can he do that in national politics? Not unless he can communicate better than he has. Bush and company were why the Repubs lost power. They became like Dems, true, but mostly, it was Bush’s failure to communicate. When he was out making his case, he did well. Eventually, though, he stopped making his case, and played defense, or simply stuck his head in the sand.
A President has to communicate well, in order to be effective. Bush was poor at it, and Obama is dreadful. Perry has to become more nimble, verbally, or forget it. Yes, achievements matter more than words, but with national politics, you can achieve nothing without your words being effective, because we are not mostly homogeneous like Texas. In national politics, words DO matter more than deeds, because the right deeds depend on the words being right.
Both Perry and Palin have lousy, regional speech habits, but Palin is a truly effective communicator, withal, while Perry is not. She really knows how to get her message out, while Perry clearly does not. Also, Palin does not play the Party game, while Perry does.
If Perry is the nominee, he will get my support, and he will win the election, but I do not have very high hopes for his success as President. He will be embattled from day 1, because of his poor communications skills.
If Palin were the nominee, she might lose, because she would serve to motivate the opposition. However, if she won, she would have a huge honeymoon period and could get much done. Then, having achievements to which to point, and having very good ability to appeal to America, she could well continue it. A Palin Presidency would be very, very effective… if she could just get there first. “Draft Palin.” Okay, back to reality. (sigh)
As a side note, other Red States are doing well, too, lately. The redder they are, the better they are starting to do. This is the message that needs to go out. Show how things have improved as voters have turned out the idiot Blues and have gone Red. Mind you, many States vote Red for President, but vote Blue for Congress and locally. As they have gone Red locally, things have greatly improved.
Precisely: “A candidate who is weak at debating can become better at it, but no candidate who has a weak record or no record at all can go back and create a good record.”
That, in a nutshell, is Perry’s continuing appeal. Like many above, track records do matter. Actions speak far louder than words. And yep, policy does matter.
The simple metric of jobs created or lost is mostly irrelevant. Other factors such as population growth, the net economic impact of the jobs created/lost, etc. are more important. If the number of jobs created does not even keep pace with population growth, then who cares?
If the government “creates” jobs by spending tax dollars, that results in a net loss, since every dollar spent by the public sector towards job creation results in a loss of at least two dollars available for jobs in the private sector. Or if one $60K/year job is replaced by two $30K/year jobs, that also hinders tax revenues. The two $30K/year jobs don’t produce any tax revenues, while the single $60K/year job did. If the job involves a service or product that brings in revenues from out of state, that is also more beneficial.
In some industries, there is currently a huge demand for skilled labor. For example, in the aircraft industry there is a big demand for A&P mechanics in jobs that pay $80K/year or more. The same is true for electricians or welders.
Rather than Rick Perry, better examples of what a state governor should do to improve their state’s economy are those of South Carolina’s Gov. Haley or North Dakota’s Gov. Dalrymple.
If Perry wants to win the nomination, he needs to get off the “rhetoric hamster wheel” and go a new direction. IMHO, this election is going to be about who has a real plan to put the nation back to work. I spent several days over Thanksgiving in Midland and Odessa and I cannot say enough about how desperate they are for employees to fill every job description imaginable. I hear that it’s the same in Dakotas. Who’s ever heard of $15 an hour to man the counter at KFC and more if you can cook?
You’ve got a President that has only offered unemployment checks and more job destroying regulation, and excepting Cain, the rest of the candidates are barely giving lip service to jobs. The best thing Perry can do for himself is to drag a camera crew down to the Permian Basin and SHOW the nation what is available to them if they chose to take some risk rather than keep taking a government check. He needs to show the nation what happens when you keep government involvement out of the way of business. And then he needs to go to the coasts and coal regions and show the country what Obama’s regulation and union driven policies are doing to put people out of work.
Obama’s got a record he can’t defend and the best thing that can happen is to directly beat him over the head with it. His entire campaign is built on an American workforce that is helpless victims – The person who wins this race will be the one who restores that confidence in an America that works hard and thrives. Perry has the tools – he needs to take advantage of them.
Gov. Perry didn’t do too well on the debate. I don’t think the TV talk show will help him to win the primary election.