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 22, 2011 at 2:48 am
Nzie (theRosyGardener) –
The STD HPV is a different strain than the one that makes normal warts. It's also generally not the same ones that cause genital warts (which can also show up in the mouth and throat if that's the infection route).
Gardasil works against some strains for the genital wart and cancer types.
June 22, 2011 at 5:49 am
The Gardisil vaccine order troubles me greatly. I will never allow my daughters to get that vaccine, no matter who orders it. I'm still firmly in Santorum's camp.
June 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Michael has a point, that there is no perfect candidate, and we mustn't make the perfect be the enemy of the good. And to be sure, any talk of voting third-party is destructive. We need a candidate who can beat Obama.
But that being said, surely we are allowed to make distinctions between candidates, and try to find the one who best represents our values, while still being electable. Yes, Rick Santorum has lost some good will from conservatives because he supported RINO Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the PA senate primary a while back. And Herman Cain has lost some conservative support because he supported TARP. I'm sure Michele Bachman has done something to alienate conservatives at some point, although off-hand I don't know what it is. But as far as I can tell, these three are all committed conservatives who truly care about the well-being of our nation. That is a far cry from being a craven politician who only cares about his own career.
June 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I WOULD VOTE FOR NEARLY ANYONE OVER OBAMA! WAKE UP PEOPLE!
June 22, 2011 at 4:27 pm
That's nice– now if we only had a voting majority of folks who feel the same way, we could run "person with a pulse."
Seeing as that's probably not the case, we should carefully examine the options at hand, debate the pros and cons, and not make the same mistake we did last time– assuming we can even agree what that mistake was. (I say it was going as DemoLite, based off of the number of folks who simply stayed home rather than vote for McCain, even with Palin to sweeten the pot.)
June 22, 2011 at 4:52 pm
There is a lot to like about him and I would certainly vote for him over Obama. That's a no-brainer. Naturally he's not perfect, but the real question is, is he the best of the candidates out there? I'm not sure that he isn't.
And I have a question for all those who are against the Guardasil vaccine: Putting aside the nanny-state problem (I agree that is a problem – I don't like it being mandated), let's assume that everyone is a perfect parent and raises their children in complete accord with the Church in all ways. All parents teach their girls about the evils of premarital sex, etc. and because we are perfect parents in this example, we have done a perfect job of raising these children. So now, here's the question:
Does anyone believe that our children don't have free will to go ahead and fall to temptation and have premarital sex anyway? To me it is ludicrous to assume that, EVEN if we are all perfect parents – and we obviously are not – our children may not still make tragic mistakes anyway.
If there is some other reason not to use this vaccine I'd like to know what it is, because maybe I am just not well-informed about some other aspect, as I admit to having not read very much on the topic. (If you want to say "side -effects" then let's see a list.) Otherwise it seems prudent to protect my child from a disease that could kill them.
June 22, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Yes, Perry is a Bilderberger having gone there in 2007, and may have this year. Wouldn't trust him at all. The government does NOT have the right to mandate vaccines, especially ones that have dangerous side effects, insufficient testing, and provides a false sense of security as it only protects against a small percentage of the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer!
Stick to Santorum & others! I think we need Ron Paul myself!
June 22, 2011 at 5:43 pm
How about "death"? Is that enough of an associated problem for you?
All vaccines have side-effects. (Famously, if not most commonly, Guillain-Barre syndrome.)
At the time he decided to force little girls to take the risk, Gardasil was a fairly new drug, very expensive, nationally known to be associated with deaths and serious medical issues, of unknown duration, made by a company that had just given a large chunk of money.
For a notion of the cervical cancer situation, they figure 70% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. To grossly simplify, let's pretend that this vaccine prevents all of cancer causing HPV strains, and does so perfectly, and further pretend that the entire population of women were magically given this perfect protection. (all simplifications that favor the vaccine)
From 2001-2005, the yearly average of total cervical cancer cases was 1,083 (table 14).
Call that 750 cases prevented. Nation wide, cervical cancer has a death rate of about 2.4 per 100,000; Texas' incident rate is 10.1 per 100,000 which gives 258 deaths a year from cervical cancer, meaning 180 deaths prevented a year in an absolutely perfect, most favorable possible estimate, or 1.68 per 100,000.
Compare this to flu's death rate or 18.8 deaths per 100,000 in the 2006 CDC report, after a startling 12% drop in mortality.
June 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Judicial Watch's HPV vaccine page.
June 22, 2011 at 9:07 pm
I really appreciate that information, thank you. It puts it in perspective. As I said, I don't agree with it being mandated. And something tells me that he knows this was a mistake.
OK here is another question then: Why would someone be DISqualified for going to the Bilderberger meeting? How do you know what was said? How do you know why he was there?
I am defending no one, I am just asking, b/c I intensely dislike it when people are attacked without just cause, or when there is an implication that someone has done something underhanded when we don't know that. It seems a violation of the Commandment about bearing false witness. And makes me uncomfortable until I know the facts. So if someone knows that he did something unsavory or can give some reason why attending that meeting is cause for him to not be considered, I would like to see it. really.
Besides – if he is running against Obama's policies? Can we even compare these things?
@ Foxfier: FYI you may want to check your tone. Or are you just always angry?
June 22, 2011 at 9:30 pm
@Nelly-
when people try to make a strawman about how people objecting to their children being forced to take an expensive new drug that is linked to deaths "believe that our children don't have free will to go ahead and fall to temptation and have premarital sex," I do tend to respond in a somewhat less than sunny, cheerful tone, especially when the person holding that strawman out is ignoring several posts that that did mention specifics about side-effects.
For someone so worried about false accusations, you're quick to make them.
Oh, and you ignored RepublicanMother's explanation of why the Bilderberger thing may be important– that makes a minimum of two false accusations, in addition to the strawman, which would be false witness.
You want others to have a happy tone? Check your own before going after others.
June 22, 2011 at 9:55 pm
@Foxfier:
My! I apologize if I provoked you into this…emotion. But your explanation is not sufficient reason for your reaction.
There was no straw man. How can I be raising a straw man if I am asking a question anyway. A simple question for which I didn't have an answer. You answered it very nicely and helped me to understand more about it. I even said that I didn't read much on it. And I did not "ignore" posts. Someone stating that there are side effects is hardly much of a discussion about the downside of this drug. I also stated quite plainly at the start that I had a problem with the mandate. I said I was not defending that, but asking about other problems with this drug in particular. None of that seems to be sufficient reason for your anger. And yes, my statement about children who are raised perfectly still having free will to go out and make a mistake still stands and a reasonable part of my question which in a nutshell is: WHY NOT use this drug? So why the angst over that exactly – I just don't get it?
Lastly: with respect – republicanmother's post did not come even close to answering my question about that meeting. She mentions the creation of the European Union. Um… so? What Rick Perry at meetings where that was discussed (in the 80's). That doesn't seem to be a reason for disqualifying him, so I was wondering what reason is there? Seems like a pretty reasonable question to me – as someone raised it. Maybe you should re-read my specific question before becoming so angry and also accusing me of using some kind of straw man. What the heck is that about?! I just don't get it.
Really, this is a discouraging experience for me on a Catholic Blog site. I am just not sure why people can't discuss and raise questions without a more civil tone. Maybe I am out of touch, but something tells me that God doesn't really want THIS KIND of back and forth.
So, I am sorry Foxfier, again for provoking you. I don't see why, but I will just sign off from this and reflect on my tone, as maybe I am the cause and I am missing something. A Protestant friend recently commented to me about how Catholics seem to be quick to slash each other to bits and I told her that was nonsense. Maybe I am contributing to that very thing. Again sorry if I did.
June 22, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I quoted your strawman directly.
Red Cardigan pointed out the deaths associated with the vaccine.
You pulled the notion that the children of good kids won't make a "tragic mistake" out of nothingness. The concerns listed about the drug here, from the top, the forced nature on shaky justification, the financial ties to the manufacturer, the over-reach involved, the minimum of 53 deaths it's implicated in, distaste at the disrespect for parental rights, the bypass of the legislature when mandating the vaccine, the ignorance or disregard of the inherent risks of all vaccines, one "troubling" without details.
With all those objections, you decided…it was all about a "ludicrous" belief that kids raised by good parents weren't at risk to the HPV STD?
Now, you are ignoring RM's mention of the Logan Act, which– when coupled with your prior behavior– leads me to believe you are a troll.
I am just not sure why people can't discuss and raise questions without a more civil tone.
Good question– why can't you raise questions and have discussions in a civil tone, without making accusations, assaulting strawmen, complaining about tone and trying to use the Bible as a bludgeon?