Why I am supporting Rick Perry

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Governor of Texas is a fun position.  The Texas state constitution allocates most of the administrative responsibilities to the Lt. Governor and the State Legislature, far more than any other state in the union.  Most Texas Governors are nothing more than figureheads.  Dewhurst is a rather weak Lt. Gov who Perry controlled like Putin controls Medvedev, but Perry probably had more of a direct influence on the state when Bush was Governor than he did when was Governor.

So it was Bullock who ruled Texas from 1995 to 1999?

[greenforest32]

For the millionth time, Rick Perry's terrible record will be his downfall. He won't be Generic R for long. (and why is Oklahoma a toss-up?)

What's so horrible about Perry's record? Texas appears to be economically successful, and in 2012 the economy will be the decisive issue so I don't see why that would hurt Rick Perry (even if Perry probably isn't responsible for the state of the economy in Texas).

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

It's amusing to see liberals spout that class warfare statement given Obama's own record on 'income inequality' as you put it.

Which is atrocious. Right.

Unfortunately, for leftists, American politics is increasingly a game of less-bad options.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I've tried to always keep an open mind as to who I'd support for President during an election. In 2006, following George Allen's gaffe and subsequent defeat, I threw my support behind Senator John McCain, even though I found myself more conservative on the issues. I felt McCain had the experience to be Commander-in-Chief. I held firm in my support of McCain in the pre-exploratory stage, then during the hard times of the McCain campaign in 2007, all the way to his nomination and eventual defeat.

This time around I truly was stumped as to who to support. Romney has a record of flip-flopping, but seems strong on economics. However, his position on health care while Governor of Massachusetts is a massive turnoff. Rick Santorum is a strong conservative and spent over a decade as a Senator from an electoral-rich state, but is prone to controversy and at least during the initial process, has little national recognition beyond politicos. Newt Gingrich faltered, Jon Huntsman did as well and is clearly just dipping into the process for a possible 2016 run, and Tim Pawlenty just doesn't have the fire in the belly to win a national election, in my view.

Why Michele Bachmann is running I really don't know. I mean, I don't mind her but the way she suddenly entered this race and has enthusiastic support surprised me. I don't really know what she ever really did to suddenly have the gravitas to jump in.

Ron Paul, to me, is a non-contender. He isn't a conservative, will not win the nomination, and why he got in again is beyond me. His position on the issues is so far from even the more liberal Republican base that it's like a member of PETA applying for a job at a slaughterhouse. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Herman Cain has no elected experience. He is a great speaker and trumpets conservative principles, but he doesn't have a real shot either.

So who should I support? In all honesty, when the list looked like that, Santorum looked best, as did Pawlenty or Romney but the support was lukewarm. I don't want this to be a Kerry 2004 type of deal where it's just "Anybody but Obama" type of language. I want to be excited for the prospect of a new Presidency and excited for a candidate, not just excited at seeing Barack Obama concede in a year.

Then I turned to Governor Perry. I am very excited about the prospect of a Perry candidacy. First, Rick Perry is an incumbent Governor of a large and prosperous state of which he has been for a decade. Second, he is a solid conservative. He can attract support from tea party people as well as the mainstream Republicans (me) and from swing voters who will be voting in a little over 14 months on the economy. Third, whether his doing or not, he can and will campaign on the fact that all Americans see Texas as this growing, booming, prosperous state while Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and the rest of the country are in an economic recession that continues to deepen. I highly doubt people will care about whether or not Perry is the 100% reason for Texas' booming economy or whether or not Obama is the 100% reason for worsening economic recession. They will vote on the records. Governor Perry can and will tout that record, and it sure is an appealing one. Remember, I live in Ohio which is a swing state that went for Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. When I bring up Perry with people I work with that leads to conversations about Texas. "Oh yeah, my sister just moved there she loves it there, ect ect ect". Texas has become sort of dreamy in many American's eyes. The cover of the New York Times even, "Want a job? Move to Texas." Whether just or unjust, Texas' appeal can indeed out-perform Obama-mania part deux.

That record is the third reason. Fourth, he has charisma, charm and is tall, and attractive for a candidate. Those who vote on style over substance may be more persuaded by Rick Perry than even Barack Obama.

Number five, Perry will bring our evangelicals in enormous numbers, possibly bigger than in 2004. These will solidify "Bush states", make the prospects of victory in places like North Carolina, Missouri and our west much more likely, and even make a popular vote victory seem more plausible.

That leads me to reason number six...electability. I understand the media will be bias against Rick Perry. I already saw Chris Matthews showing his dislike for Perry and Texas, and I saw Juan Williams pressing how many of the jobs in Texas were minimum wage jobs, and Mr. Mustache himself Axelrod trying to begin the smear campaign against Perry. They will talk about "secession" and make the George Bush comparisons, and say he is too folksy for the mainstream. Just remember, three years ago, a Nebraska electoral vote went for an African American Senator who was a liberal Democrat. Anything can happen in politics. Does that mean Perry can win California? Doubtful, of course. How about a state like Pennsylvania? Don't doubt it.

All that aside, it seems every time Republicans nominate someone very conservative and who most question their electability...we win. When we nominate "safe" or "mainstream" candidates (Dole, McCain, Romney-types) we lose, often badly.

Rick Perry can do what John McCain was unable to, which is solidify the "Bush" states and focus on swing states.

In my opinion, the GOP's best shot at winning the Presidency next year, is to win just a few states, and solidify what is already red.

McCain had rallies in Tennessee in the closing days for goodness sakes...and lost Indiana and North Carolina. Rick Perry could solidify Tennessee and Indiana and North Carolina behind his campaign much better than McCain or a Romney would be able to do. When polls closed on election night in 2008, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi were all too close to call. That equated to an 8pm electoral count of 82 Obama, 39 McCain. Someone like Perry could solidify those states to where next year's 8pm electoral count is 75 Obama, 64 Perry or something to that effect. Basically, keeping it at least close if not over-topping early on. Indeed, a Perry ticket, if strong, could make the 9pm electoral map (even if Obama wins) look something like this:

Perry: 162
Obama: 108

Obama could still win the election, of course...but that's a hell of a lot better than McCain's 9pm total of 100 electoral votes and Obama's 175.

All of these factors and more excite me about the prospect of electing Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, our next President. That's why I am supporting him.

Cool story, bro.

[redcommander]

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

It's amusing to see liberals spout that class warfare statement given Obama's own record on 'income inequality' as you put it.

Which is atrocious. Right.

Unfortunately, for leftists, American politics is increasingly a game of less-bad options.

It doesn't have to be though. Progressives really need to create their own Tea Party movement to take control of the ideology of the Democratic Party.

[Ben Romney]

I dont see a way how Perry can win against Obama
 he will win IN FL OH NC VA back-no question but thats not enough
I dont see him winning NH
NV CO IA? I doubt!
so where is his way to do so???

[J. J.]

I'm not a big fan of Perry, but I've got to admit that his record was more impressive that I thought.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

It's amusing to see liberals spout that class warfare statement given Obama's own record on 'income inequality' as you put it.

Which is atrocious. Right.

Unfortunately, for leftists, American politics is increasingly a game of less-bad options.

It doesn't have to be though. Progressives really need to create their own Tea Party movement to take control of the ideology of the Democratic Party.

Some of us have been trying (and it's been working in some states, mainly in New England), but it's incredibly hard to do on a national level because the right has controlled the dialogue for a few decades now (not implying anything sinister about the right (pun intended), but that's just the way its' been).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I dont see a way how Perry can win against Obama
 he will win IN FL OH NC VA back-no question but thats not enough
I dont see him winning NH
NV CO IA? I doubt!
so where is his way to do so???

IN is the only one I would say Perry wins 'no question' ...

[pbrower2a]

Sorry but there is no reason at all to believe that Rick Perry would magically turn North Carolina solidly Republican.

...or Georgia or Indiana, either. I wouldn't be so sure about some of the Clinton-but-not-Obama states which President Obama could take if Perry suggests privatizing Social Security or Medicare.

[pbrower2a]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

Prime case for the abolition of the death penalty!

Even Dubya saw evidence that murderer Henry Lee Lucas, sentenced to death in Texas, was even more a serial "confesser" than killer and got that horrible man 'reprieved' to life imprisonment.

Rick Perry wanted the condemned Cameron Todd Willingham rushed to execution even though evidence that could show his innocence was forthcoming. One can be tough on crime without supporting travesties of justice and showing contempt for life.

[krazen1211]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

[Link]

Texas's growth has come from the rich growing richer. Like any bubble, just below the surface Texas consistently remains a terrible state if you aren't rich and white. 9th largest income inequality gap in the nation, chronic corruption (up to and including Perry himself), and a heap of skeletons in the closet.

It's amusing to see liberals spout that class warfare statement given Obama's own record on 'income inequality' as you put it.

Which is atrocious. Right.

Unfortunately, for leftists, American politics is increasingly a game of less-bad options.

It doesn't have to be though. Progressives really need to create their own Tea Party movement to take control of the ideology of the Democratic Party.

Uh, wow.  No.

One crazy extremist caucus is enough.  Democrats and Republicans need to be moving to the middle not the fringes of society.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

Uh, he actively impeded the investigation.

[Holmes]

Is Jerry Brown running for president again? Lots of allusions to California here.

[krazen1211]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

Uh, he actively impeded the investigation.

Not really, but that happened 5 years after the alleged offense. Not that anyone other than the left cares.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

Uh, he actively impeded the investigation.

Not really, but that happened 5 years after the alleged offense. Not that anyone other than the left cares.

Unless conservatives have turned into the stereotypes liberals portray them as, I highly doubt they are going to be all smiles when they hear that Perry had an innocent man executed and then tried to cover it all up, or that he worked for Al Gore once upon a time.

[krazen1211]

Unless conservatives have turned into the stereotypes liberals portray them as, I highly doubt they are going to be all smiles when they hear that Perry had an innocent man executed and then tried to cover it all up, or that he worked for Al Gore once upon a time.

You're just making up crap now. Because Perry didn't have him executed.

I suggest you read up on the law.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Unless conservatives have turned into the stereotypes liberals portray them as, I highly doubt they are going to be all smiles when they hear that Perry had an innocent man executed and then tried to cover it all up, or that he worked for Al Gore once upon a time.

You're just making up crap now. Because Perry didn't have him executed.

I suggest you read up on the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Mikado]

Governor of Texas is a fun position.  The Texas state constitution allocates most of the administrative responsibilities to the Lt. Governor and the State Legislature, far more than any other state in the union.  Most Texas Governors are nothing more than figureheads.  Dewhurst is a rather weak Lt. Gov who Perry controlled like Putin controls Medvedev, but Perry probably had more of a direct influence on the state when Bush was Governor than he did when was Governor.

So it was Bullock who ruled Texas from 1995 to 1999?

Bullock ruled Texas for most of the later part of his life.  Fascinating man.  Both Ann Richards and George W. Bush were in awe and terror of him during their respective terms.

[John Dibble]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

There's this thing called "stay of execution" that the Texas governor does apparently have the power to issue. If there's evidence that could exonerate someone falsely accused, one can be issues so the evidence can be re-examined in a court of law.

[J. J.]

In addition to his atrocious record, this guy might come back to haunt him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

There's this thing called "stay of execution" that the Texas governor does apparently have the power to issue. If there's evidence that could exonerate someone falsely accused, one can be issues so the evidence can be re-examined in a court of law.

Willingham had appealed his case, according to Wikipedia.  It was denied, even after the "new" evidence.

[krazen1211]

There's this thing called "stay of execution" that the Texas governor does apparently have the power to issue. If there's evidence that could exonerate someone falsely accused, one can be issues so the evidence can be re-examined in a court of law.

No, they don't, permanently. A single stay can be issued for 30 days.

Of course, the defendant didn't really do anything to convince a court in the 13 years that he had.

[krazen1211]

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. In response to allegations that he allowed the execution of an innocent man, Perry was quoted as stating "he was a wife beater." "The whole case was based on the purest form of junk science," Hurst later said. "There was no item of evidence that indicated arson." Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said the Governor had weighed the "totality of the issues that led to (Willingham's) conviction." She said he was aware of a "claim of a reinterpretation of (the) arson testimony."

From this, one can only gather that you are profoundly ignorant. Once the Board of Pardons and Paroles denies an appeal, the governor has no power to do anything.

Execution warrants in Texas are of course signed by the sentencing court and not the governor as they are in some other states.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

Technically yes, the Governor cannot pardon anyone unless he have a recommendation from the Board and all he can do unilaterally is to issue one-time 30-days reprive.

BUT, Perry, just like Bush before, controlled the Board via their appointments and surely could pressure the members if only wanted. 

[krazen1211]

You know, that's one of the more ignorant complaints around given that the Texas governor does not have the power to pardon anyone unilaterally.

Technically yes, the Governor cannot pardon anyone unless he have a recommendation from the Board and all he can do unilaterally is to issue one-time 30-days reprive.

BUT, Perry, just like Bush before, controlled the Board via their appointments and surely could pressure the members if only wanted. 

The entire point of the board is to be immune from pressures of the Governor.