Katie Thompson makes the case for Rick Perry at Legal Insurrection.
Perry is certainly intriguing. A captivating speaker who can work a crowd like no other, Perry inspires unwavering enthusiasm among his supporters. His speech at the Republican Leadership Conference left the roaring crowd chanting, “Run, Rick, run!”
But he’s not just flash. Having served as a Texas State Representative, Commissioner of Agriculture, Lieutenant Governor, Governor for an unprecedented ten years, and Chairman of the Republican Governors Association for two terms, Perry certainly has the experience – both legislative and executive – desired in a presidential candidate. Throughout his career, he has been one of the most outspoken and effective champions of limited government, free market economic principles, and common-sense laws that benefit people, not politicians.
Thanks to the solid fiscal conservatism Perry has advocated in the past ten years as Governor of the Lone Star State, Texas was the last to enter the recession and the first out. Perry credits Texas’ remarkable economic stability to “keeping taxes low and regulations predictable, and maintaining a fair legal system.” Since he took office in 2001, Texas has created over 700,000 new jobs – more than any other state – and over a third of all new jobs in the past year. The country’s top exporter, Texas remains one of the largest economies in the world and is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state. The state’s healthy job market is drawing folks from all across the country, attracted by the business-friendly environment and the lack of personal income tax. The state has a balanced budget, but it also has a $9 billion rainy day fund, just in case.
He’s also a strong social conservative, having recently introduced legislation requiring women seeking abortions to have a sonogram beforehand. Perry also backed bills to eliminate sanctuary cities and require photo identification to vote. His support for gun rights prompted one company to make a special handgun in his honor.
Those are all great things, but….
There is always a but, right. These “buts’ really make you wonder.
Some on the right will slam Perry for being too moderate. There are two particular policy decisions that have drawn fire from conservatives and, while not exactly hot-button issues, seem inconsistent with his limited-government philosophy and threaten to erode his support base. In 2007, Perry signed an executive order requiring that all sixth-grade girls receive a vaccine to prevent HPV and cervical cancer, citing economic and health benefits. Though the order allowed parents to opt out, most opponents said mandating the vaccine stepped on parents’ toes and was a government over-reach into family decision-making. “I always stand for life,” Perry said without apology in defense of this initiative, which was overturned by the legislature.
Still others objected to Perry’s former plans to use eminent domain to create the Trans-Texas Corridor, a 4,000-mile shipping pathway including toll roads, rail lines, and utility lines. Intended to improve transportation of commercial goods with minimal expenditure of taxpayer money, the part public, part private infrastructure project sparked heated criticism. The plan was reworked into smaller projects in 2009 and scrapped in 2011 in response to public outcry over the intended acquisition of land, involvement of private companies, and potential for heavy tolls. Perry still defended the decision: “I don’t think it was a mistake at all…we had to come up with some concepts and some ideas of how to move people effectively and efficiently.”
The Gardisil issue is the one I really have a problem with. Further, his refusal to admit that he may have been wrong even after the fact is extremely troubling. Can I trust a guy who would try to force my children to take a vaccine to a sexually transmitted disease even over my objections because HE thinks it is a good idea. That seems awful Obama-esque, no? I am tryin’ got put this in perspective, but I am having a hard time of it? Is this as big a deal as I think it is?
June 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I'm a Texan, and I love Rick Perry, but yes, I always remind myself about the Gardisil issue. To make it even worse, Perry had ties with Merck, the company that sells it (for 65% profit).
I don't see Perry as being presidential enough to be able to get the swing voters to vote against Obama. I hate admitting that, because he really is great.
June 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Did anyone see the article linked on the Drudge Report yesterday about Governor Perry being "Bilderberg-approved"? Do you think there is anything to that, or is it just conspiracy-theory stuff? (Google "bilderberg approved perry" if you want to see the article. I question the reliability of the site where it is found, so I'm not going to provide the link.)
Regardless, I'll most likely be voting for Ron Paul in the primary, or maybe Herman Cain or Rick Santorum.
June 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm
I am a Texan through-and-through. I have voted for Perry every time he has run for statewide office. That being said, I don't trust him. He is a politician to the max. He will talk out of both sides of his mouth. He will make back-room deals that tear down others. He will do what is politically expedient.
Right now there is a big controversy brewing on the campus of Texas A&M because of him. He has been trying to micro-manage A&M for years (we are both former students – Aggies are not alums). His meddling has really caused a lot of bad blood from a lot of good conservative leaders from A&M, including our outgoing Secretary of Defense and the former President of A&M – Bob Gates.
Perry may be one of the better choices, but I don't trust him. You shouldn't either.
June 21, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Marcel runs one of the most informative Catholic blogs on the internet (at http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/), and lives in Texas, so I'm going to put a lot of stock in what he says above. And the part about Perry being a "politician to the max" squares well with what I have heard about him from several other people.
June 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I certainly DON'T trust him. The guy is oily – slick like a former governor of the state to his northeast. He smacks of opportunist.
That said, he is, unfortunately, a better potential candidate for president than most of the other stiffs in the GOP race.
Which does NOT mean that I'd vote for him.
June 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Patrick, I feel exactly the same way about the Gardisil episode. It is just the kind of nanny-state overreaching we expect from the Obama administration.
But the Trans-Texas Corridor scheme bothers me also. Not as morally troubling as a vaccine mandate, but still a dangerous encroachment of government into what should be the free decisions of individual consumers, producers and investors.
Perry's words in defense of the corridor remind me of other GOP "technocrats" who are always cooking up new schemes to have the government solve our problems. "We need to get things done!" they say. They invoke a need – but necessity, as Milton wrote in Paradise Lost, is "the tyrant's plea".
I wonder if Perry has governed (mostly) as a conservative, simply because that is what it takes to succeed in Texas; rather than because of inner conviction.
June 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm
I am glad I am not the only one.
June 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm
If the election were between Obama and Perry, I'd look to a "third party" candidate based on the Gardasil issue. For what it's (Fort) worth, I'm a Texan by birth.
June 21, 2011 at 6:57 pm
The good prospect with Perry is the potential for a massive 10th amendment resurgence. Texas is being abused by EPA, FEMA, TSA, ATF et al, which I like to think would cause Perry to cut those agencies way back.
I don't believe that Perry is simply a politician. How many politicians do you know who also manage to grow an economy and create jobs during a recession?
June 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I do not see the big deal, Patrick, since the order allowed parents to opt out. Also, 10 years is too much in power, surely mistakes (sometimes big) are carried out.
I would choose Santorum, but I think Perry has much more chance.
June 21, 2011 at 7:22 pm
I was really against Gardasil but actually HPV is not only a sexually transmitted disease – it can even come from common warts, which is why they're trying to get it to kids early, and a lot of doctors want it to be for boys and girls, not just as a cervical cancer preventative, just so you know.
Perry looks good in a lot of ways, but I don't get as much coverage here in Moscow, so I am having a hard time judging these guys, and am glad for posts like this that help me inform myself.
June 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm
As a transplanted Texan I've always thought of Perry as being in the "more hair than wit" school of politicians.
Trans-Texas Corridor: awful idea that would have damaged the quality of life of plenty of Texans, overused eminent domain, created "monopoly" businesses accessible from the Corridor (driving local businesses out of business) and created a pathway for foreign truckers to keep on truckin' through half of America (up to Missouri, I think, if I'm remembering the details right) without having to be licensed to drive in America or to have visas etc. Now there's a good notion, right?
Gardasil mandate: awful idea to require girls to take a shot (manufactured by Perry's cronies and political supporters) that has (as of 2010) been implicated in at least 53 deaths (according to data entered in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the federal database that collects evidence of vaccine-related injuries and deaths). The decision whether to vaccinate with Gardasil is one that should be made by parents in conjunction with their doctors, as each girl's medical history, previous vaccine history, etc. will need to be carefully considered; this is NOT a time for mandates.
My honest opinion: Rick Perry has all of the cronyism and big-business interests of G.W. Bush, but none of the personal charm or authentic humanity.
June 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I find the Gardisil thing unsavory, but I don't know that it's a deal-breaker. Don't public schools require kids to get other kinds of vaccines before they can even attend? Furthermore, if it allowed the parents to opt out, then I don't see it as a huge issue. I agree it's stepping on parents toes and pretty distasateful, especially given whatever ties he had with Merck, but if it allowed parents to opt out then I think I'm not too up-in-arms about it. Public schools have so many aspects to them that overreach parental authority that I'm not going to be up-in-arms about this one extra thing. I think I'd take him over the other guys in the primary, none of whom have any chance.
Furthermore, if it's coming down to a choice between the lesser of two weasels, I'd rather have a weasel who has been consistently pro-life like Rick Perry than a constantly flip-flopping weasel like Mitt Romney, and definitely rather than a consistently pro-choice weasel like Obama.
June 21, 2011 at 7:56 pm
@John, I agree. We don't put our faith in princes or politicians, either.
Ron Paul! You talk about a sleezy, slimey politician! He rants and raves, then votes for and takes earmarks and everything else. Corrupt hypocrite.
We need to win this with somebody we can agree with 70% of the time.
And, Jesus is probably not going to run for president and most would not vote for St Paul.
June 21, 2011 at 8:16 pm
The incessant need by conservatives to make perfect the enemy of the good is so counterproductive, so inimical to our stated goals, I would posit that if Ronald Reagan himself were running today, he couldn't pass the "smell test" any more.
OF COURSE Perry is a politician. He's in POLITICS! He's the governor of Texas, and he didn't get there by being Johnny Milquetoast. Cain, Bachmann, Santorum…all of them. All have blemishes on their record. So for people to say they will not vote for X because he/she slipped off the ranch one time, and will vote third party, or that perennial loon Ron Paul, only ensures that Obamunism, and its secular-humanist culture of death will get another 4 years to metastasize in the body politic.
The goal is to find fault with THEIR GUY (and he has SO much to answer for), not to tear down our own.
June 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Rick Perry has NEVER lost an election! As a Texan I know there are many more pros than cons!
Check out
Rick Perry vs. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/06/19/perry-vs-rousseau/
June 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm
My biggest problem with Perry is the whole North American Union thing. He lead the effort to lease Texas roads to foreign companies. Either you believe in national sovereignty or you don't.
That's where the Bilderburg stuff comes into play. We know that they laid the groundwork for the European Union, which is just going along swimmingly /irony alert/ Perry went to the Bilderburg meeting, in violation of the Logan Act, in 2007.
What makes the Gardisil vaccination different from other vaccinations is that the rest go through state legislative approval. This one came by executive order apparently in exchange for money. This man will trade his signature on an executive order for a vaccine that was not fully tested and has shown to have major side effects.
June 22, 2011 at 12:43 am
Only a bully and a tyrant makes little girls get shots for a sexually transmitted disease by executive order. This Texan has never trusted Perry, who was Al Gore's campaign chairman in 1988. He's Romney with a twang and better hair. If you're looking for someone whose political principles don't shift with the wind, look elsewhere.
June 22, 2011 at 1:35 am
I say we focus on who we already have v. who we want to have.
Santorum and Bachmann all the way!!!
June 22, 2011 at 2:39 am
What RepublicanMother said, about Gardisil, with this added:
I'm really not comfortable with someone who is either so ignorant about vaccines that he doesn't realize they come with risks, so callous about individual rights that he thinks a vague "future savings" or "it's good for you" type justification is enough to require a vaccine, or so corrupt that he knows the risk and realizes forced vaccination is a rather major thing and ordered it anyways. One of my big problems with Huck– and with most classic Dems– is the "for your own good" tyrannies. Good heavens, he compared this to polio. Uh, no. Just… no. Herd immunity is unlikely to be an influence, here.
He strikes me as someone that is OK on a state level, but I wouldn't want him in charge of the nation.