It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government. - Alexander Hamilton
Monday, August 22, 2011
Class
My first class, "Civil Rights & Liberties" starts in a couple of hours. From what I've heard, the professor is a big fan of the liberal hero Thurgood Marshall. This will definitely get interesting. Especially if we talk about my favorite amendment, Numero Dos.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What to do about Rick Perry? - Part 2
In my previous post about Rick Perry, I looked into his record as a Democrat in the Texas House of Representatives during the 1980's, as well as noted the fact that he was a prominent activist for the Democrats in the 1988 Presidential Election. The next logical step in inquiring as to whether Gov. Perry is a "true-blue" Conservative or an opportunist is to examine his tenure in statewide office as a Republican during the 1990's, as well as the conditions which may or may not have led to his decision to jump ship. Since the latter predates the former, I will start by examining the changing political environment in Texas at the time.
Texas has not always been the GOP bulwark that it is today. In fact, even as recently as 1980, Republicans held only four of the US House of Representatives seats, and had virtually no say in state and local politics. How could this occur in, of all places, Texas? Up until the 1970's, the Texas Democratic Party was a conservative, rural party. During the 70's, the Democratic Party in Texas, like Democratic organizations elsewhere, got hijacked by the moonbat left. These nutcases were so convinced that their candidates and ideas could win general elections - even in Texas - that they started "primarying"more moderate or conservative incumbent Democrats for the sake of maintaining ideological purity.
An ideological shift alone, however, is not enough to produce a massive shift in a state's voting behavior. A more likely factor, and the one that Rove* argues is most significant, is a massive shift in Texas' demographics. As an examination of census data shows, Texas' population skyrocketed between 1960 and now (1960-1990 data available here, 2000-present available here.) As can be seen by examining Presidential election returns (available through the Texas Sec. of State here), as the state's population grew, the Republican candidate generally did better and better, until, starting in the 1980's, the state became a Republican stronghold.
Both trends - voting more Republican and a boom in the population - accelerated throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. This is around the time that the subject of this post, Perry, switched parties.
Is it a possibility that this was all a coincidence? Yes, it certainly is. As was noted above, the Democratic Party had started to be hijacked by the loony left back in the 1970's. With a bunch of old-line Democrats retiring, space was made for new blood, which would have been batsh*t crazy progressives. So yes, it is entirely possibly that Perry took a look around, saw that this wasn't his daddy's Democratic Party, and, with a little persuasion, started sitting on the right side of the aisle since his party had left him.
It's also possible that he took a look around, saw the changing demographics, and decided that he could pass a Republican. Without knowing what exactly drove his decision to change parties, nor the conversations he had, it is impossible to determine the exact reason why he decided to switch parties. However, a look at his record while in statewide office should provide a useful look into whether or not he is actually a conservative.
In 1990, Rick Perry was elected to the post of Texas Agriculture Commissioner. The Texas Department of Agriculture, of which Perry was the commissioner between 1990 and 1998, oversees several aspects of the economy, providing services such as the regulation of commercial weights and scales, and providing farmers and ranchers with financial assistance. In addition, it helps to promote nutrition and Texas' agricultural products. As such, Perry's background in ranching made him an ideal candidate for the job.
Like most Ag commissioners in Texas, and probably across the country as well, not much happened under his watch. However, it is interesting (and revealing) to note his farm related finances.
According to an article in the Austin Statesman, Perry has received quite a bit of farm subsidy money, despite is railing against it. Between 1987 and 1989, Perry received around $72,700 in farm subsidies from the Federal government. In addition, he received about $9,600 from the Federal government to not farm while he was Ag Commissioner, which is kind of like how a welfare queen receives money from the Federal government to not work. In addition, he wrote off ~$17,700 on his 1998 income tax returns when he sold his farm at a loss. In all, Perry has personally benefited to the tune of about $100,000 as a result of Federal policies and spending.
His statements regarding agricultural policy paint the perfect portrait of a political paradox. On the one hand, he has advocated for ethanol subsidies. In December of 1993, he, acting in his official capacity as Ag Commissioner, supported EPA requirements that Ethanol be used in gasoline, claiming that such a requirement would be beneficial to Texas. In 2007, however, as Governor, he reversed his position, arguing that ethanol subsidies were driving up the price of livestock feed.
Why does a certain Senator come to mind on this one?
In addition, Perry, as Ag Commissioner, campaigned for the 1995 farm bill, all whilst saying that we "...must carefully but thoughtfully move our farmers and ranchers away from a subsidized system to a market-driven system..."
Why am I reminded of a certain kind of shoe?
In 1998, Perry ran as (then) Gov. George W. Bush's Lieutenant Governor. As Lt. Gov., Perry didn't do much, at least that I can find. There is, however, one incident I find to be troubling.
In 2000, Perry's state vehicle was pulled over for doing 20 miles over the limit. Based on footage from the citing officer's dashcam, it appears that he attempted to use the influence of his title to talk the trooper out of writing his driver a ticket, claiming that he was late for a meeting.
Let's think about this a little. A prominent elected official attempts to use his public post to avoid having to take responsibility (albeit, indirectly) for violating state law and possibly endangering other motorists.
What kind of a person does something like that? Moreover, from the audio, it appears that the trooper was going to let his driver off with a warning, which is basically a slap on the wrist compared to the alternative (trust me on this, I know from firsthand experience how expensive traffic tickets can be).
You can bet that Obama (of all people to do so) will be replaying this incident all throughout the general election if Perry is the nominee.
Based on my examination so far, Rick Perry is a man who says one thing, and does another. He rails against Federal spending, but gladly takes it when it is beneficial. He talks about free markets, but has supported subsiding industry in the past. He talks about law and order, but tries to influence those enforce the law when he's broken it. His record as Governor, which shall be the subject of my next post should provide further evidence of this trend.
Texas has not always been the GOP bulwark that it is today. In fact, even as recently as 1980, Republicans held only four of the US House of Representatives seats, and had virtually no say in state and local politics. How could this occur in, of all places, Texas? Up until the 1970's, the Texas Democratic Party was a conservative, rural party. During the 70's, the Democratic Party in Texas, like Democratic organizations elsewhere, got hijacked by the moonbat left. These nutcases were so convinced that their candidates and ideas could win general elections - even in Texas - that they started "primarying"more moderate or conservative incumbent Democrats for the sake of maintaining ideological purity.
An ideological shift alone, however, is not enough to produce a massive shift in a state's voting behavior. A more likely factor, and the one that Rove* argues is most significant, is a massive shift in Texas' demographics. As an examination of census data shows, Texas' population skyrocketed between 1960 and now (1960-1990 data available here, 2000-present available here.) As can be seen by examining Presidential election returns (available through the Texas Sec. of State here), as the state's population grew, the Republican candidate generally did better and better, until, starting in the 1980's, the state became a Republican stronghold.
Both trends - voting more Republican and a boom in the population - accelerated throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's. This is around the time that the subject of this post, Perry, switched parties.
Is it a possibility that this was all a coincidence? Yes, it certainly is. As was noted above, the Democratic Party had started to be hijacked by the loony left back in the 1970's. With a bunch of old-line Democrats retiring, space was made for new blood, which would have been batsh*t crazy progressives. So yes, it is entirely possibly that Perry took a look around, saw that this wasn't his daddy's Democratic Party, and, with a little persuasion, started sitting on the right side of the aisle since his party had left him.
It's also possible that he took a look around, saw the changing demographics, and decided that he could pass a Republican. Without knowing what exactly drove his decision to change parties, nor the conversations he had, it is impossible to determine the exact reason why he decided to switch parties. However, a look at his record while in statewide office should provide a useful look into whether or not he is actually a conservative.
In 1990, Rick Perry was elected to the post of Texas Agriculture Commissioner. The Texas Department of Agriculture, of which Perry was the commissioner between 1990 and 1998, oversees several aspects of the economy, providing services such as the regulation of commercial weights and scales, and providing farmers and ranchers with financial assistance. In addition, it helps to promote nutrition and Texas' agricultural products. As such, Perry's background in ranching made him an ideal candidate for the job.
Like most Ag commissioners in Texas, and probably across the country as well, not much happened under his watch. However, it is interesting (and revealing) to note his farm related finances.
According to an article in the Austin Statesman, Perry has received quite a bit of farm subsidy money, despite is railing against it. Between 1987 and 1989, Perry received around $72,700 in farm subsidies from the Federal government. In addition, he received about $9,600 from the Federal government to not farm while he was Ag Commissioner, which is kind of like how a welfare queen receives money from the Federal government to not work. In addition, he wrote off ~$17,700 on his 1998 income tax returns when he sold his farm at a loss. In all, Perry has personally benefited to the tune of about $100,000 as a result of Federal policies and spending.
His statements regarding agricultural policy paint the perfect portrait of a political paradox. On the one hand, he has advocated for ethanol subsidies. In December of 1993, he, acting in his official capacity as Ag Commissioner, supported EPA requirements that Ethanol be used in gasoline, claiming that such a requirement would be beneficial to Texas. In 2007, however, as Governor, he reversed his position, arguing that ethanol subsidies were driving up the price of livestock feed.
Why does a certain Senator come to mind on this one?
In addition, Perry, as Ag Commissioner, campaigned for the 1995 farm bill, all whilst saying that we "...must carefully but thoughtfully move our farmers and ranchers away from a subsidized system to a market-driven system..."
Why am I reminded of a certain kind of shoe?
In 1998, Perry ran as (then) Gov. George W. Bush's Lieutenant Governor. As Lt. Gov., Perry didn't do much, at least that I can find. There is, however, one incident I find to be troubling.
In 2000, Perry's state vehicle was pulled over for doing 20 miles over the limit. Based on footage from the citing officer's dashcam, it appears that he attempted to use the influence of his title to talk the trooper out of writing his driver a ticket, claiming that he was late for a meeting.
Let's think about this a little. A prominent elected official attempts to use his public post to avoid having to take responsibility (albeit, indirectly) for violating state law and possibly endangering other motorists.
What kind of a person does something like that? Moreover, from the audio, it appears that the trooper was going to let his driver off with a warning, which is basically a slap on the wrist compared to the alternative (trust me on this, I know from firsthand experience how expensive traffic tickets can be).
You can bet that Obama (of all people to do so) will be replaying this incident all throughout the general election if Perry is the nominee.
Based on my examination so far, Rick Perry is a man who says one thing, and does another. He rails against Federal spending, but gladly takes it when it is beneficial. He talks about free markets, but has supported subsiding industry in the past. He talks about law and order, but tries to influence those enforce the law when he's broken it. His record as Governor, which shall be the subject of my next post should provide further evidence of this trend.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Real Meaning of the Straw Poll
Yesterday, one of those uniquely American political oddities took place. No, it wasn't Rick Perry's announcement of his patently obvious intent to seek the GOP Presidential Nomination. Instead, it was the Straw Poll at the Iowa state fair in Ames.
Before I delve too deeply into yesterday's results, I will start off with a bit of background on the Straw Poll.
The straw poll has been a "tradition"(and I use this term loosely) since 1979. Why 1979? This is because the Straw Poll occurs in the year before an election cycle where there is not an incumbent Republican president who will be running for re-election.
Often, the straw poll is seen as an assessment of each candidate's organizational strength in Iowa. Since Iowa is a caucus state, organization is more important than it normally is. As a result, the Ames straw poll is often seen as a predictor of who will win the Iowa caucuses the following January.
As political spectacle, the straw poll is useful. It makes people ask questions such as "why does this one tiny state have so much influence over a very important election?" As a prognosticating tool however, the straw poll is less useful than a set of tarot cards and a crystal ball.
Since it's inception in 1979, the straw poll has predicted the winner of the Republican nomination twice, and the winner of the general election once. It's track record at predicting the winner of the Iowa caucuses has, however, is a bit better. Out of five straw polls, it has predicted the winner of the Caucuses three times.
So, who won yesterday's straw poll? Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) did, with a ~200 vote margin over Ron Paul. The losers? Rick Santorum and Herman Cain.
Where did the perceived front runner, Mitt Romney, place in all of this? He didn't, but only because he decided against competing in it.
Think about this a minute. If Romney truly were the front runner, why wouldn't he compete in it? The publicity couldn't hurt, nor could building an organization in Iowa. Even if he didn't win the Iowa caucus, he would still pick up a few delegates, which could help him in the event of a drawn out primary battle, or to gain an upper hand in any deal making at a brokered convention.
The fact that he didn't compete at this straw poll, which he won in 2007, suggests that he is skipping Iowa or, at the very least, not seriously contesting the caucuses. Instead, he's probably going to focus on New Hampshire, which is a risky strategy given how unpredictable it can be.
That much having been said about Romney, it is worthwhile to examine the impact of the straw poll on the race. One thing that is interesting to note is that the establishment candidate, Santorum, placed second to last, but only because of Herman Cain's disappointing dead last finish.
Another thing that is worth noting is that the top three finishers (Bachmann, Paul, and Pawlenty) are generally considered to be the more conservative candidates. This is a complete reversal from 2007, where the top three finishers (Romney, Huckabee, and Sam Brownback) are more establishmentarian.
This shows that the Tea Party has been a force for good in the GOP, driving the direction of our "conversation" in a more conservative direction. This is good because it means that our candidate will more likely be a conservative. This will benefit the GOP in the general election by making our candidate a "bold color" that will provide independents with a distinct contrast to Pres. Obama, not a pale pastel that will blend in with Pres. Obama.
Before I delve too deeply into yesterday's results, I will start off with a bit of background on the Straw Poll.
The straw poll has been a "tradition"(and I use this term loosely) since 1979. Why 1979? This is because the Straw Poll occurs in the year before an election cycle where there is not an incumbent Republican president who will be running for re-election.
Often, the straw poll is seen as an assessment of each candidate's organizational strength in Iowa. Since Iowa is a caucus state, organization is more important than it normally is. As a result, the Ames straw poll is often seen as a predictor of who will win the Iowa caucuses the following January.
As political spectacle, the straw poll is useful. It makes people ask questions such as "why does this one tiny state have so much influence over a very important election?" As a prognosticating tool however, the straw poll is less useful than a set of tarot cards and a crystal ball.
Since it's inception in 1979, the straw poll has predicted the winner of the Republican nomination twice, and the winner of the general election once. It's track record at predicting the winner of the Iowa caucuses has, however, is a bit better. Out of five straw polls, it has predicted the winner of the Caucuses three times.
So, who won yesterday's straw poll? Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) did, with a ~200 vote margin over Ron Paul. The losers? Rick Santorum and Herman Cain.
Where did the perceived front runner, Mitt Romney, place in all of this? He didn't, but only because he decided against competing in it.
Think about this a minute. If Romney truly were the front runner, why wouldn't he compete in it? The publicity couldn't hurt, nor could building an organization in Iowa. Even if he didn't win the Iowa caucus, he would still pick up a few delegates, which could help him in the event of a drawn out primary battle, or to gain an upper hand in any deal making at a brokered convention.
The fact that he didn't compete at this straw poll, which he won in 2007, suggests that he is skipping Iowa or, at the very least, not seriously contesting the caucuses. Instead, he's probably going to focus on New Hampshire, which is a risky strategy given how unpredictable it can be.
That much having been said about Romney, it is worthwhile to examine the impact of the straw poll on the race. One thing that is interesting to note is that the establishment candidate, Santorum, placed second to last, but only because of Herman Cain's disappointing dead last finish.
Another thing that is worth noting is that the top three finishers (Bachmann, Paul, and Pawlenty) are generally considered to be the more conservative candidates. This is a complete reversal from 2007, where the top three finishers (Romney, Huckabee, and Sam Brownback) are more establishmentarian.
This shows that the Tea Party has been a force for good in the GOP, driving the direction of our "conversation" in a more conservative direction. This is good because it means that our candidate will more likely be a conservative. This will benefit the GOP in the general election by making our candidate a "bold color" that will provide independents with a distinct contrast to Pres. Obama, not a pale pastel that will blend in with Pres. Obama.
Pawlenty to Drop Out of Race
via Hotair:
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty announced today that he is suspending his presidential campaign after a disappointing result in the Iowa straw poll.
Really? I can't imagine why he would have had such a poor performance. It couldn't possibly be because he put everyone in the room to sleep with his "Minnesota Nice" schtick. It also couldn't be because he believes that global warming, er, climate change is real.
Is this the end of his political career? As much as I would hope that the answer to that question would be yes, I wouldn't count him out quite yet.
Rumor has it that he is being recruited to challenge incumbent DFL (Democratic Farm-Laborer, or as I call them, Democrats of the Far Left) Senator Amy Klobuchar for her seat in 2012.
I like this move, and think that it is a very smart strategy. Pawlenty has good name recognition in Minnesota, seems to be fairly popular, and is overall a credible candidate. In addition, I think that he would be a good addition to the Republican caucus in the Senate. He's conservative enough that he would vote with his party the vast majority of the time (I'll ballpark it at 75%, though I reserve the right to revise that figure once he has an actual record), especially on major bills and policy shifts.
In addition, he's perceived as being more moderate, which is good for two reasons. The first is that he can use this perception, which, in my opinion, has a strong basis in fact, to gain the support of more moderate members and voters in supporting conservative policies.
The second reason that this would make him a good member of the Senate plays off of the first: those times when he does cross over will help him build the relationships needed to forge the bipartisan coalition necessary to pass Conservative policies. In fact, this was one of his strengths as governor. He was able to work with the legislature, which at the time was controlled by the DFL, to pass fairly fiscally conservative budgets.
In all, I think that it is smart for him to run for Senate. He is likely to win, which would force the DNC to play defense in territory it didn't think it had to, thus reducing the amount of money they have to spend a race elsewhere. In addition, he will be a valuable member of the caucus, who might be able to keep the moderates and conservatives from attacking each other, as well as forging the coalitions necessary to pass legislation.
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty announced today that he is suspending his presidential campaign after a disappointing result in the Iowa straw poll.
Really? I can't imagine why he would have had such a poor performance. It couldn't possibly be because he put everyone in the room to sleep with his "Minnesota Nice" schtick. It also couldn't be because he believes that global warming, er, climate change is real.
Is this the end of his political career? As much as I would hope that the answer to that question would be yes, I wouldn't count him out quite yet.
Rumor has it that he is being recruited to challenge incumbent DFL (Democratic Farm-Laborer, or as I call them, Democrats of the Far Left) Senator Amy Klobuchar for her seat in 2012.
I like this move, and think that it is a very smart strategy. Pawlenty has good name recognition in Minnesota, seems to be fairly popular, and is overall a credible candidate. In addition, I think that he would be a good addition to the Republican caucus in the Senate. He's conservative enough that he would vote with his party the vast majority of the time (I'll ballpark it at 75%, though I reserve the right to revise that figure once he has an actual record), especially on major bills and policy shifts.
In addition, he's perceived as being more moderate, which is good for two reasons. The first is that he can use this perception, which, in my opinion, has a strong basis in fact, to gain the support of more moderate members and voters in supporting conservative policies.
The second reason that this would make him a good member of the Senate plays off of the first: those times when he does cross over will help him build the relationships needed to forge the bipartisan coalition necessary to pass Conservative policies. In fact, this was one of his strengths as governor. He was able to work with the legislature, which at the time was controlled by the DFL, to pass fairly fiscally conservative budgets.
In all, I think that it is smart for him to run for Senate. He is likely to win, which would force the DNC to play defense in territory it didn't think it had to, thus reducing the amount of money they have to spend a race elsewhere. In addition, he will be a valuable member of the caucus, who might be able to keep the moderates and conservatives from attacking each other, as well as forging the coalitions necessary to pass legislation.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
What to do about Rick Perry? - Part 1
The big news story today is, surprisingly, not the Iowa straw poll. Instead, it is the formal announcement by the three term Governor of the Lone Star State, Rick Perry, that he intends to seek the Republican nomination for the 2012 Presidential election. For those who have been following the horse race, his announcement should come as no surprise. For the past few months, he has been aggressively challenging the Federal government on issues such as the constitutionality of ObamaCare and invasive pat-downs and screenings by the TSA.
Despite his high public profile over the past few years, the question still remains as to who exactly is Rick Perry, and what exactly does he stand for? By examining his political career and record, I hope I am able to answer these vital questions.
Karl Rove, who certainly needs no introduction, in his book Courage and Consequence, says that Perry was a Democrat until 1990. What made Perry switch? Did the Democratic Party leave him, just as it left Ronald Reagan? Or was it Bloomberg-esque opportunism?
According to Rove, it was the latter. In his book, Rove states that "Democrat Rick Perry, had planned to retire from the legislature, until his best friend...and I [Rove] talked him into switching parties and running for the GOP nomination for agriculture commissioner" (emphasis mine).
Let's take a look at some politicians who have switched parties recently, as well as why they decided to change parties.
One person who is no stranger to switching parties is New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Up until 2001, Mayor Bloomberg had been a lifelong Democrat. Noticing a crowded field in that party for the nomination, Bloomberg suddenly became a Republican.
Another person who is familiar with switching parties is former Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. In 2001, he switched from being a Republican to being an Independent that caucused with the Democrats, giving them a majority in that chamber until the 2002 midterm elections.
Why did Jeffords switch? Because the Senate Republicans refused to fully fund (read, spend more money on) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and he thought that it would be fully funded if he caucused with the Democrats.
Are party switchers always political opportunists, hoping to gain some electoral or policy advantage? No. In fact, a party switcher by the name of Ronald Reagan turned out to be one of Conservatism's greatest advocates of the 20th century, right up there with William F. Buckley, Jr. However, when Reagan became a Republican, it was because the Democratic party had abandoned him and his principles, not because it was convenient to do so.
Where on this continuum does Rick Perry fall? Is he a principled conservative who, like Ronald Reagan, felt like his core values and beliefs had been abandoned by his current party? Or is he a political opportunist, like Bloomberg and Jeffords?
The first logical step to take is to examine his career as a Democrat. In 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat. During his time in the legislature, he sat on the appropriations committee and helped to push for budget austerity. So it sounds like as a legislator he was, at the very least, fairly conservative on fiscal matters.
In 1988, a certain Tennessean by the name of Al Gore ran for President. As is usual for Presidential candidates, he picked up endorsements from officials at various levels of government from around the country. One of these endorsements came from a Texas legislator by the name of, you guessed it, Rick Perry. In fact, not only did Perry endorse Al Gore, but he managed Gore's Texas campaign. To be fair though, this was while the Goracle was still somewhat sane, and hadn't started worrying global warming/climate change/manbearpig yet. In fact, he ran pretty much as a Southern centrist, which could also be called a moderately-conservative Republican. So he wasn't all that radical...yet. Although I can't find an exact statement, it is safe to say that as campaign manager, Perry would have had to attack Conservative icon Ronald Reagan, which raises questions about the strength of his conservative convictions.
The next logical step, and the subject of the next post in this series, is to examine Perry's record as an elected Republican during the 1990's.
Despite his high public profile over the past few years, the question still remains as to who exactly is Rick Perry, and what exactly does he stand for? By examining his political career and record, I hope I am able to answer these vital questions.
Karl Rove, who certainly needs no introduction, in his book Courage and Consequence, says that Perry was a Democrat until 1990. What made Perry switch? Did the Democratic Party leave him, just as it left Ronald Reagan? Or was it Bloomberg-esque opportunism?
According to Rove, it was the latter. In his book, Rove states that "Democrat Rick Perry, had planned to retire from the legislature, until his best friend...and I [Rove] talked him into switching parties and running for the GOP nomination for agriculture commissioner" (emphasis mine).
Let's take a look at some politicians who have switched parties recently, as well as why they decided to change parties.
One person who is no stranger to switching parties is New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Up until 2001, Mayor Bloomberg had been a lifelong Democrat. Noticing a crowded field in that party for the nomination, Bloomberg suddenly became a Republican.
Another person who is familiar with switching parties is former Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. In 2001, he switched from being a Republican to being an Independent that caucused with the Democrats, giving them a majority in that chamber until the 2002 midterm elections.
Why did Jeffords switch? Because the Senate Republicans refused to fully fund (read, spend more money on) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and he thought that it would be fully funded if he caucused with the Democrats.
Are party switchers always political opportunists, hoping to gain some electoral or policy advantage? No. In fact, a party switcher by the name of Ronald Reagan turned out to be one of Conservatism's greatest advocates of the 20th century, right up there with William F. Buckley, Jr. However, when Reagan became a Republican, it was because the Democratic party had abandoned him and his principles, not because it was convenient to do so.
Where on this continuum does Rick Perry fall? Is he a principled conservative who, like Ronald Reagan, felt like his core values and beliefs had been abandoned by his current party? Or is he a political opportunist, like Bloomberg and Jeffords?
The first logical step to take is to examine his career as a Democrat. In 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat. During his time in the legislature, he sat on the appropriations committee and helped to push for budget austerity. So it sounds like as a legislator he was, at the very least, fairly conservative on fiscal matters.
In 1988, a certain Tennessean by the name of Al Gore ran for President. As is usual for Presidential candidates, he picked up endorsements from officials at various levels of government from around the country. One of these endorsements came from a Texas legislator by the name of, you guessed it, Rick Perry. In fact, not only did Perry endorse Al Gore, but he managed Gore's Texas campaign. To be fair though, this was while the Goracle was still somewhat sane, and hadn't started worrying global warming/climate change/manbearpig yet. In fact, he ran pretty much as a Southern centrist, which could also be called a moderately-conservative Republican. So he wasn't all that radical...yet. Although I can't find an exact statement, it is safe to say that as campaign manager, Perry would have had to attack Conservative icon Ronald Reagan, which raises questions about the strength of his conservative convictions.
The next logical step, and the subject of the next post in this series, is to examine Perry's record as an elected Republican during the 1990's.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)