Rick Perry has long been my candidate of choice for 2012. Watching the past two Republican presidential candidates debates, I reached the conclusion that Perry might not be my ultimate choice after all. Now, almost all candidates have their strong and weak points:
I like Bachmann for her passionate belief in a small constitutional government. On the other hand, she is not a strong candidate because of her style (which at times can sound kooky); after all style usually wins over substance in the modern age.
I like Newt for his bold ideas that highlight American exceptionalism. On the other hand, he holds views, especially on man made global warming, that bother me a great deal.
I like Caine, Pawlenty, and even Ron Paul for various reasons but for one reason or another they are all off my list.
Finally, although I like the oratory skills and the presidential demeanor of Romney on the upside, but his defense of Romneycare in Massachusetts screams "I am a RINO" as I opined earlier.
Perry, on the other hand, was always appealing to me with his defiance of Washington and free market ideals he has been espousing. Two issues, however, have bothered me greatly about him. The less significant issue is that of forced HPV vaccinations for Texas teens. It smacks of government interventionism in people's private lives and has no place in a free society. The more significant issue is his immigration stance - especially his support for giving illegal aliens in-state tuition. This, to me, is unacceptable. I realize that the governor is looking at it as the lesser of two evils: he'd rather have educated illegals than uneducated and unproductive ones.
This is a fallacy; or a Hobson's choice, if you will. First, even if the illegals are educated, they are still illegal and shouldn't be working in the U.S. anyways. So, why do the good citizens of Texas have to subsidize higher education for illegals, many of whom do not even pay taxes? Second, his objection to the building of a border fence shows weakness.
Taken in its entirety, Perry is looking more and more like he is Bush V. 2.0 (well not that bad since he adheres to free market principles more than Bush family could even dream of).
Perry's Democrat roots are showing. Yes, Reagan was also a Democrat but that was in early 1960s (until 1962) when Democrat party did have a few conservative adherents to the U.S. Constitution. As he said, he did not leave the Democrat party, the party left him (just like Zell Miller did 40 years later as he explained in his excellent book "A National Party No More"). Perry, on the other hand, was a Democrat through 1992. He chaired Gores presidential campaign in Texas. Enough said.
Perry is no Reagan: he does not have the oratory skills of the Great Communicator, nor does he have the passionate conservatism Reagan so proudly displayed.
Like a puzzle whose pieces slowly come together, Perry's credentials as a constitutionalist are looking weaker by the day, thus I am no longer an enthusiastic Perry supporter. The only other candidate with realistic chance of winning the nomination is Romney - one of the other RINOs in the race.
Is this what it was going to come down to: Choosing the lesser of the two evils?
9 comments:
Patriot,
I was disappointed with Perry also. But I disagree on the in-state tuition issue. Right now, the Federal government FORCES the states to educate ALL children under age 16 in our public schools. If we are going to force the states to educate these children, we should reward the ones who work hard at education. I am in favor of refusing to let these illegal children in to our elementary schools, but if we educate them, we shouldn't punish them for doing better than native students.
All foreign students pay out of state tuition. If a kid from Virginia goes to UNC, he pays out of state. If a kid from Kenya goes to UNC, he pays the same tuition as the kid from Virginia. If a kid from Mexico graduates from a North Carolina high school, he should get in state tuition in NC colleges. The real solution is to make sure these kids don't graduate from our schools.
I believe in personal responsibility, but I feel uncomfortable about the idea of punishing children for the sins of their parents.
I also support the idea that government should be given the task of controlling that nation's borders. On the other hand, once the illegal immigrants have settled, got a job, raised kids, etc... you kind of have to face the reality that they are already well and truly over the border.
In Australia, we have a similar problem that smugglers will get people onto dodgy boats that break apart in our territorial waters, and we have signed various treaties that we need to rescue them. They inevitably claim refugee status and show up with absolutely no paperwork, so we have no idea who they are. Our authorities make some pretense at investigating the matter, then after keeping them locked up for a few years, they give them refugee status and let them become citizens.
What can you do?
You have not talked about Jon Huntsman, and I think he has some attractive suggestions for tax reform.
On the other hand he has been happy to state that he just trusts the scientists on the matter of Global Warming. Well, why doesn't he just trust the economists on the matter of job creation? I guess for Jon Huntsman to buy into the whole Global Warming thing, makes it easier for him to be seen as a moderate, but I still think it's a scam, so one more scam artist in power brings us back to why the world is so broken right now.
I'm not even sure whether Huntsman would be able to deliver on his tax promises. After all, Obama promised a lot of stuff (e.g. transparency in government) that I greatly supported but he hasn't delivered.
TGP,
I agree that children are the victims here, so that is more of a reason to strictly enforce immigration laws. If the would be illegals know that they can get no jobs or benefits in the US and will be deported immediately when caught, they will not come in droves and multiply in our country. We need to make punishments to employers and other would be aid givers to illegals very severe so that the stakes are high. We need to protect the integrity of our borders.
And of course, it goes without saying that subsidized college tuition is beyond ridiculous when our military personnel cannot get in state tuition themselves in the states that they are stationed at.
Tel,
the main reason we have the illegal problem now is because we do not enforce our laws and the punishments for breaking them are not strict enough.
Patriot,
It has been some years now, but I got in state tuition at the local community college when I was on active duty. It may have helped that I had a local drivers license, but it had a military unit address on it. All a troop should have to do is get a state issued ID to get in state tuition. Personally, I feel an honorably discharged veteran should get in state tuition anywhere he wants to go. And they shouldn't pay Federal income taxes.
At first glance Perry sounded good. But his stance on immigration, Trans Texas Corridor,Aga/Khan, Bilderberg Group has left me not liking him so much. If Sarah doesn't step into the ring then I guess right now I'm for Cain.
TGP,
I agree 100%. No veteran should have to pay out of state tuition or federal taxes for that matter (well, at least for a fixed period because if it is forever, everyone would be lining up to serve in the military to save what could be upwards of a million bucks in fed taxes during their working years).
Anon,
although I like somethings about Cain, I don't think he has the chance of a snowball in hell. As I said, I wish I could take different aspects of each and make an ideal candidate.
Am Pat,
There is a great deal of misinformation out there about Governor Rick Perry. Before you abandon him you might want to check this series of essays on Rick Perry done by a Texan - they seem very well researched and supported by rich documentation. Part one covers the Gardasil issue in great detail:
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/
Part 2 includes the tuition issue - make sure that you click on the link to the Dallas Morning News article for a deep analysis:
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/seventeen-17-things-that-critics-are-saying-about-rick-perry-part-2/
All the candidates have weaknesses or past mistakes. I am convinced that Governor Rick Perry is the best of the declared candidates.
If Anonymous is checking back there are sections on the Trans Texas Corridor and the Bilderberg Group - both are red herrings. I did my own research on the Aga Khan group and they are largely secular and Perry gave a speech at a Texas university signing of a research agreement. Hardly a smoking gun.
Give Perry another look.
Thanks Common Snse, I certainly will research using your links.
I am aware that there are always parties interested in destroying candidates they fear.
Post a Comment