Rick Perry to Enter Presidential Race?
I like this guy. And with the field narrowing somewhat, it is increasingly obvious how pathetic our choices are. Chris Christie, with his excellent communcation skills, isn’t running. Gingrich is a non-starter after his trashing of the Ryan plan, and Romney’s unapologetic attitude towards Romneycare kills him. Trump is out, and was always a joke. Same goes for Huckabee, in my book. Pawlenty is uncharismatic, and Daniels has the Fred Thompson lack of fire in the belly.
That leaves Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, and possibly Rick Perry. Am I missing anyone? I don’t think so.
I could happily support any of these three candidates, although I have this weird feeling that Herman Cain is the most electable of the three. Perry has the Bush legacy to deal with, and Palin has her high negatives. Still, any of the three would work well. They all seem to have spine and principles. That is sorely needed and in short supply.
And the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to make pronouncements about electability. After all, who thought Obama was electable? I sure didn’t.
I think the news that Perry might run is great. We’ll see if it happens.
The article quizzing if Perry will run seems to quote a lot of anonymous sources. I have a problem with that.
Rick Perry has repeatedly said he would not run. I see nothing in the air that would change his opinion at this point. And he has more than “the Bush legacy” to deal with; he has a clear resentment for Texas that is expressed in the MFM each and every day. After all, you don’t expect journalists (if you can call them that) from states like New York and Illinois to cut Perry a sqare deal, do you?
Perry has a couple of hickups in his administration, Guardicil and the TransTexas Corridor. But when you govern for as long as he has, and there are only two things to find to bitch about the guy, that’s a pretty good record.
Think about this: what other large state has an 8% unemployment rate, has created 75% of all jobs created last year, continues to fight off the state income tax proponents, continues to convince businesses to leave California on a regular basis, and, AND, has the Texas Rangers (no, not the baseball team)?
retire05 (2d538e) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:05 pmSigh. That’s two for three “raw meat for happyfeet to be obnoxious and personal about.” So let’s see if we get the personal insults for just the two, or will he go for the Trifecta of Snark?
Not to worry. Folks will just sit at home and give us four more years of BHO.
Oh well.
Simon Jester (75c592) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:06 pmRich Perry? The secessionist governor who then begged for federal funds for disasters. While taking millions in federal cash to combat epic wildfires, is now accusing Obama of being overly generous to the victims of the catastrophic tornadoes in Alabama and neighboring states:
Victory (8b3a2d) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:16 pmObama was electable because the media carried water for him.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:23 pmDoes Governor Perry support the right wing social engineering that is the Paul Ryan bill? I am asking that on behalf of my friend Newt
VietnamEraVet (35c6c1) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:32 pmPerry is a poser. He is not Texas Tough. He is overly self concious. He is also selling the highways in Texas to foreigners . action speaks. Truth.
bayouboyxlt (2a041d) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:33 pmGo Newt.
I like to ask this of certain candidates:
“Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home, or because it finances terrorists abroad?”
Perry would definitely get the question. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would not.
Palin? Maybe. I like her “we have more important things to worry about than pot.” (rough translation)
M. Simon (a498fa) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:42 pm/hangs head sadly
Sorry, but Newt isn’t Texan tough either. His self serving flip flopping three times on Paul Ryan’s plan is completely unforgivable. He knows his rhetoric is going to make doing the right thing a lot harder. What a selfish jerk. And he has no executive experience.
More like he let a corporation build highways that I drive on. And they are actually really good highways.
Let me be honest: I do not appreciate his TTC proposals. Too much emminent domain, and not enough benefits for Texans (lots of benefit for other states and Mexico, but it’s just using Texas for that. Texas did benefit, but as a state we’ve decided not enough.
And Perry changed heart. Unlike Romney, he isn’t an idiot about when he flip flops, but rather an intelligent politician.
I’ll be honest, something innate in me tells me that Rick Perry is a cynical politician. However, he relies on the Tea Party, and always will, so I think he’s actually a pretty good choice. As President, he probably would act in a way that pandered to me, if anyone. One thing I’ve noticed living under Perry’s governorship is that he doesn’t always grab headlines. If there’s nothing to do, he seems OK with government doing nothing. He doesn’t just make up crap for government to solve.
And the budget has been cut and cut and cut here. Bayouboy says actions speak, and I think Rick Perry’s most important action is presiding over a business friendly, spending cutting government.
I have never loved Perry, but he’s looking better and better.
I am still hoping Daniels shows that fire in the belly, though.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:48 pmBiggest question of the day is not drug prohibition. And Ron Paul is a POS.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:49 pmOh, and maybe he supports drug laws because some drugs are bad when used a certain way. Pretending there’s no benefit to it is not an adult way to discuss a serious issue with legitimate POVs on both sides.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:54 pmSo what if they’re bad? What gives you the right to force someone else to live healthy?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:00 pmYeah, that would be a more intelligent way to discuss this, Milhouse, but it’s just another stupid threadjack. Do you know Rick Perry’s position on this issue? If so, lay it out and discuss whether you like it or not.
If not, I don’t see the relevance. And again, not a priority issue. It’s not going to be changed right now. We have real issues in play that will be impacted by the presidential election and are also much more important to our lives than whether some morons can smoke crack.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:05 pmFor the record, I don’t care if someone smokes crack, so long as they actually know the consequences. However, most of these people are actually NOT talking about this freedom. They talk about legalizing less hard drugs (namely one drug) rather than arguing for legalization of heroin.
I also have to add that there must be a criminalization of drug sales to kids, and perhaps some control on safety standards and some quality.
Politically, this country has long settled the issue of whether the government has a legitimate interest in making sure the foods and drugs sold in this country are actually of a certain quality and safety. They like that. A lot. They actually are scared to death of any potential contamination or defect… much more than I think is justified.
The fact that I disagree is not going to change anything. It’s just as silly as arguing that we stop calling ourselves Americans because Canada is in America. why not argue about more important things that are in more active controversy?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:09 pmForget 2012. Borat Hussein Osama will steal the election anyway – he has had 4 years of time to let SEIU and Acorn do their dirty work.
Christie/Jindal 2016.
Toads (75ca40) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:11 pmI have the same feeling about Herman Cain. I live in Georgia and hear his commentary often. He is a man of solid principle and intelligence, and to me stands out among these some of these cheap politicians. Has anyone noticed he’s about two shades darker than the Poseur-In-Chief, and a genuine African-American? Imagine the utter confusion in the American black community. Priceless. It might just bury the race card forever. I’ll be laughing all night on 11/2/12.
ChipGA (a20000) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:19 pmWhy is it that people love to come on boards and run their mouths about things they lack knowledge of? Things like this:
“The secessionist governor who then begged for federal funds for disaster? While taking millions in federal cash to combat epic wildfires”
Now, perhaps the moron who made those statements would like to tell me, a Texan, just how many millions have been paid to Texas for the over 2.2 million acres, 900 homes and barns, destroyed crops and dead cattle that have been burned up in wildfires that this administration seems to want to ignore?
But you see, people who make stupid comments do it, not because they have answers, but because they are stupid.
Now, for the truth of the wildfires: the federal government has given aid to (Victory, please make a note of this as I am trying to drag you (I know, kicking and screaming) out of your stupidity) 27 individual fire departments, covering 75% of their expenses fighting the fires. No federal funds have been released to aid the people who have lost everything, that would be covered by FEMA relief if the Administration accepted a declaration of disaster as requested by Governor Perry.
FEMA lists all the disaster relief it has given to each state. Nothing is listed for Texas except the FD’s 75% reimbursements.
As I said before, Perry made two mistakes, but there is no mistaking that under his guidance, Texas has, for the second year in a row, been voted the most business friendly state in the Union. That is what creates jobs. Not spending almost $900 billion in a stimulus package that cost jobs in the private sector.
retire05 (2d538e) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:24 pmVictory is one of our previously banned friends. Point and laugh. Mock and scorn.
JD (318f81) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:38 pmI think this is a pretty fair summary. I think the mistakes Perry made justify criticism, but the bottom line is he’s been great, and this is a competition where most of his competitors have either made more mistakes or lack his resume.
He’s not my preferred guy, but I think he should run. We should see how he plays in other states.
ChipGA, Cain is so well spoken, and it really does make other politicians look like politicians. Does he have the experience and circle it takes to run a country that is already totally screwed up? I think Perry, like Bush, would be a competent manager with a business like cabinet. I don’t know if Cain would (And that’s not a weaselly way of saying he wouldn’t). I like Cain, but I think his strength is more of a vote of no confidence in the rest of the pack.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:40 pmPerry is a man who can take care of himself (witness his shooting a coyote while on a jog), and a politician who can speak & act decisively without waiting for some crony to tell him what he should do (witness Perry’s amazing response in taking in the displaced people from New Orleans after Katrina – he didn’t wait for a focus group, he found places and led Texas to open our arms to people who needed a secure place to be).
I think this trio of Perry, Palin, and Cain make the most exciting primary options I have seen in a long, long time. Heck they wouldn’t even have to spend money in the Primary phase. Just get on the ballot, and let the voters make our choices.
A smart winner would bring one of the others on board as VP, and we’d have a beauty of an opportunity to put people of integrity in the white house.
Tina (14f5e4) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:45 pm“Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home, or because it finances terrorists abroad?”
I support drug prohibition because I like to know who is willing to finance criminals at home and terrorists abroad.
Fred (fdbaf6) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:52 pmIt seems like Reagan was some kind of fluke, as a Republican who had so many qualities you look for in a candidate, both style and substance wise. Or maybe an act of God.
Gerald A (8e99c8) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:58 pmTwo comments heard today while traveling in Indiana–1)Cab driver — “Mitch Daniels is the the best Governor Indiana has ever had, I’m voting for him for President, I know he’s going to run”
2) Bank President- “Mitch Daniels is a miracle worker– the best guy the Republicans could nominate by far.
Also– don’t forget Jeb Bush.
Townes (462089) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:21 pmJeb Bush would be great — if he had any other name.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:22 pmI like Perry well enough, given his track record on jobs, but “good” won’t be good enough this time around.
Between vote fraud and the certainty of an October surprise, the good guys must play to win by a landslide. Not just beat the margin of fraud, not just a comfortable margin, as those will be Acorned and Klopped away, but an absolute pounding.
To do this, every advantage must be brought to bear. When the other side has played the race card, so must we. Luckily, we can put forth a Cain/West ticket that brings more than color to the table. A Cain/West ticket offers business experience, military honor, integrity, free-market capitalist beliefs and so much more to the table.
In terms of identity politics, the Dem ticket would need to have Hillary as a newly out lesbian and a newly transgendered Colin Powell to top a Cain/West GOP ticket.
Romney had the opportunity to lead in 2008, but chose to participate in a circular firing squad. Gingrich might be a good policy coach, but his campaign will implode before the first primary.
As for the unknown governors club, it’s a great bunch of (boring white) guys, but it’s just that, unknown, boring and white.
Sadly, much of America picks a president the way they pick a dessert. Do we want to be selling a single scoop of plain vanilla, or a triple-decker, banana-split, hot fudge brownie sundae?
Junk Science Skeptic (04ddfb) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:25 pmWhy isn’t anyone mentioning Jon Huntsman?
norcal (b46c9d) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:37 pmBecause he is a politicial hasbeen.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:39 pmPerry wins, whatever you can say – he wins, and he leads –
However here is a synopsis of Texas under Perry – its an audited independently prepared document enforced for fraud under Texas Statutes:
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Fact_Book/Texas_FactBook_2010.pdf
EricPWJohnson (110d4f) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:52 pmTownes, I think Mitch Daniels’s accomplishments are more impressive than Rick Perry’s. After all, the LT Gov is really the one leading the charge on Texas’s budget. Rick Perry is certainly worthy of some credit, but the atmosphere here has tended to be more favorable than in Indiana. Daniels led, often with fierce opposition, and had to do so deftly.
I just worry that he will have a hard time inspiring the right. I sorely wish to be proven wrong.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:54 pmWhen washe?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:06 pmAnd believes in climate change.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:08 pmI voted for Rick Perry as Texas Governor and I’d vote for Rick Perry over Barack Obama, but remember that Rick Perry has been a professional politician for the last 27 years. At least he’s not a lawyer. Perry started out as a Democrat. The Texas constitution is the real star here because it keeps him on a very short leash. I’d be a little concerned that Rick Perry would confidently grab the levers of POTUS power and start yanking on them given a chance. However, Perry’s Air Force experience is probably beneficial as commander-in-chief and the ivy league elites would absolutely hate his Aggie education in Animal Sciences. He’s the only potential candidate who could imagine holding an Aggie style Bonfire at Camp David.
George B (95143e) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:20 pmAnother point is that Perry has been through enough contests that he’s well vetted. I think his vaccine order was overturned by the legislature, so he never actually saw the light on this issue. I’m not sure how that would play out politically.
Texas’s governor is constitutionally weak, so don’t credit him with everything that happens in Texas.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:21 pmGeorge B beat me to the constitution point, but I agree with him. That’s the real secret to Texas Governors looking good.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:22 pmPerry is an Aggie, so he has that going for him. I will not say whoop at this point because I have to think about his possible candidacy a bit.
Ag80 (867d1b) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:41 pmWhoever the Democrats nominated for 2008 was going to win, so long as that nominee was not HRC. Unfortunately they managed to steer clear of that trap.
Soronel Haetir (b1adf2) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:51 pmhe’s ok but he’s not exciting like Mr. Daniels
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:35 pmI hope Obama gets beeytchslapped.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:12 pmThe next Bush in the White House will be from St.Louis, and she’ll spell her name differently.
AD-RtR/OS! (218d4c) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:33 pmDustin,
Richards and the Democrats had the same constitution – yet spending and taxes were increased regularly, The Cato institute has its rating the states and so does the Taxpayers Union sites – under the Democrats, Texas was bleeding jobs and cash, under Perry the opposite
EricPWJohnson (110d4f) — 5/18/2011 @ 12:29 amNow, if only Sarah Palin and Rick Perry were married—why, some people’s heads would explode.
Simon Jester (75c592) — 5/18/2011 @ 12:42 amHey, Perry deserves some credit, but because of our constitution, the read leader of the spending policy is not the governor, and nor is the real blame for spending hikes Ann Richards.
The Governor has the bully pulpit and must manage departments, but the LT Gov has more of the sort of power we’re talking about.
The name you’re looking for is Dewhurst.
But you bottom line is true. Under democrats, things weren’t so great. And even today, Texas democrats argue for spending. Use the rainy day fund now instead of cutting spending, etc etc. Perry has been steadfast on this issue, and his political fortunes have justifiably benefited greatly.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 1:26 amDustin
Dewhurst works for Perry, its a different relationship that Richards and Bullock. Perry through the veto, after the session closes has controlled the LT Gov in the office of gov.
EricPWJohnson (110d4f) — 5/18/2011 @ 4:11 amI can attest that Perry is an a-hole, a cynic and a poser. That being said, what modern (or more historical) president has not been? Perhaps Cain, Pawlenty, or West are better or would build a good ticket with him.
As an aside, the traditional media will trash anything that breaks their vision. That is no reason not to fight like Hell. Just be smart about it, and several steps ahead.
Barza (deb5ac) — 5/18/2011 @ 5:17 amI am biased towards Herman Caine right now, but maybe because I have met and talked briefly with him twice now,
We had a packed house last night for our Chili Cookoff here in Cedar Rapids and he just about brought the house down with his talk.
But that’s Iowa for you if you don’t meet a half a dozen presidential candidates in the campaign season it’s because you are a hermit living back in the woods 😉
Dan Kauffman (9a7fc3) — 5/18/2011 @ 5:39 amConsidering that Mitch Daniels just loved the Indiana judge who said the cops could walk in any time, he’s off my list. Permanently.
SDN (253696) — 5/18/2011 @ 6:33 amThere is John Bolton, and John Bolton’s mustache. I wouldn’t mind either of them.
SarahW (af7312) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:12 amAnother point to raise here is the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. A lot of people think he was innocent, and Perry allowed him to be put to death. Whatever anyone thinks about the merits of the case, it would certainly get a lot of play in a campaign.
Jim S. (0a0bcf) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:39 amJim s
What some dont know – It was Richards administration that convicted Willingham, not Perry
Perry received a mistake laden fax 11 minutes before Willinghams execution with no time to read it or have it analyzed – he got put to death.
The 5th circuit also held that the Arson invesigation was flawed but there was eyewitness testimoney plus forensic testimony that impeached the statements he gave
Also he confessed
EricPWJohnson (becc0d) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:50 amhttp://enr.construction.com/yb/enr/article.aspx?story_id=159266249
narciso (72470d) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:51 amI’m torn. I think Perry would be a great President, but I’m moving to Texas, so I’d like him to stay as Governor for a while longer.
So my heart still belongs to Herman Cain.
Calvin Dodge (c24b9e) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:22 amhttp://the-classic-liberal.com/mysterious-herman-cain/
I find myself liking what a candidate is saying and then I read more and wonder if we will ever find a good person to carry the conservative banner. It’s very discouraging.
Kathy Hall (15aa66) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:40 amLink to some source showing Mitch Daniels supports that position, please?
Every governor has appointed someone who did something they shouldn’t have. That’s one of the consequences of being an executive. Daniels has been a governor for longer than most, and has been largely very good at it. If he’s actually in favor of this violation of civil rights, then I am also done with him, but I suspect he doesn’t agree with that, and this is just a smear because his opponents actually don’t have anything better to smear him with.
Don’t go this far out of your way to damage Daniels, a governor who has actually effected more conservative change than any of his competitors. Make sure you’re not just bashing the guy because you like one of the candidates he is a great challenge to.
Daniels needs to show he’s a fighter, but that’s a different matter entirely.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:51 ameven conservative pin-up boys Roberts and Alito just voted similarly as Daniels’ wanker judge just did – God help us but Ginsberg was the only judge to come down on the side of freedom
the troof is that oodles and oodles of “conservative” judges have hard-ons for advancing the prerogatives of America’s fascist union whore police monkeys over the freedom and apple pie and rights of the individual
This is not Mr. Daniels’ fault.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:03 amRick Perry would be wonderful in the campaign. He could whine about Obama not sending federal dollars for Texas to fight wildfires and then expound on his own earlier rants to the Tea Partiers about Texas maybe ceceding from the Union for, well, spending federal dollars on the states.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:14 amGranted, Perry is no Newt Gingrich. And many of us hope Newt remains in the race and in good health and full of piss & vinegar (as well as the usual heaping stack of cowpies). But Perry would still be a lot of fun to watch in his own similar downward spiral.
I recall a couple of years ago how much you liked that half-term governor from the hugest state. She’s a real solon, too.
There is a fundamental problem with the Missouri Plan, but he picked a particular pungent choice,
narciso (72470d) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:15 amwho apparently thinks detainees at Gitmo, have more rights than American at home.
Thank you for the JournoList perspective, Larry. It is always so instructive.
JD (85b089) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:18 amSo you’re saying that fiscal conservative who don’t want unfunded mandates shouldn’t receive disaster assistance from FEMA?
Wow.
And you’re saying that when a governor follows the legal path to get aid for a disaster killing his people and destroying their homes, that’s whining?
Damn.
No, I think you fear Perry because the way this administration treated Texas is quite shameful, and yet it would be impossible to keep shills like you from trying to rub our faces in the fact Texas got screwed by democrats. You’re too dim to realize this is a massive political liability you are actually inflating. Keep it up, Larry.
Narciso, every executive who makes dozens of appointments will eventually pick a stinker. I’m not even clear on the appointment process. People keep saying ‘a guy Daniels appointed’ without even naming him (because they don’t remember what his name is). I think Rush covered this, and now it’s just accepted wisdom that Daniels overturned the fourth amendment.
It was a 3-2 decision. Did Daniels appoint the dissenting judges? It’s apparent he didn’t appoint most of the majority judges, since they don’t blame him for those.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:22 amI keep making some of the dumbest typos. JD, do you find that a little insulting? After all, I’m supposedly the good writer!
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:23 amNot in the least, Dustin. I find the fact that Larry Reilly is a JournoList to be far more insulting. The idea that the likes of Mawy and Hax help shape and form the leftist collectivist narrative in the MFM is disgusting.
JD (85b089) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:27 amSteven David, I made the point about the Missouri plan, so I was making allowances,
narciso (72470d) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:29 amJD, I had no idea that some commenters were JuiceBoxers.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:01 amI like all three of those choices, too. But I like Cain the best – no insider baggage or connections to compromise him, at least for a while…
5th Level Fighter (dd5bcf) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:04 amMilquetoast Daniels lacks that difficult to define but easily recognizable quality we demand of our leaders.
It’s the masculine equivalent of what we see as beauty in women. Although both are difficult to describe in the abstract, we all know it when we see it.
Daniels ain’t got it.
ropelight (33f1cd) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:08 amAnother point to raise here is the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. A lot of people think he was innocent, and Perry allowed him to be put to death. Whatever anyone thinks about the merits of the case, it would certainly get a lot of play in a campaign.
I’ll admit I am not familiar with that case, but it seems to me that executing a possibly innocent man is no worse than not executing an obviously guilty one, at least rhetorically. He will receive far less criticism for that than he would had he pardoned a murderer who then killed again.
5th Level Fighter (dd5bcf) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:12 amThis Texan can confirm that Perry is an empty suit with bad instincts (see TTC, Gardasil, Willingham). He wants to turn the University of Texas into a community college with a $10K degree. Supports teaching creationism in schools. Absolutely no chance of winning, but it would be great (for Texas) if he resigned as governor to run for president.
Amazing how many kooks are in the race or considering running this year – Trump, Gingrich, Palin, really?
The only serious candidates are Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Huntsman.
wgreen (77a312) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:13 amropelight, that criticism actually does strike a chord with me. I would rather keep an open mind and see if this impression is shown in the debates. Daniels seems less than focused on the presidential election right now, which may explain why he doesn’t look like the kind of guy who goes out and does. His record shows he gets things done, but we can’t hope to beat Obama without someone really fighting to win the presidential election.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:14 amRomney and serious is like hostess twinkies and hot sauce
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:17 amAwwww, do you think there’s some reason why a University should have billions of dollars sitting around, graduating students with a mortgage payment’s worth of debt?
Why is a school inferior if it costs less to get a good education there? When someone takes a hard look at what it takes to educate someone, they say Rick Perry’s ideas are totally reasonable. How does it hurt UT to produce graduates more efficiently? I think it depends on who you think UT exists to benefit. I think it exists to benefit Texas and her students primarily.
I’ve never heard any whisper of relaxing the rigor of a degree, and while UT is already pretty rigorous, I think the majority of educations in this country aren’t rigorous enough. These complaints pretend a quality exists that is largely a load of crap.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:18 amWill it shake out that being a TARP supporter is a kiss of death in the GOP primary?
Bruuuce (ddac2d) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:18 amI wish it would, but no, it won’t. I’d say the much worse TARP II (or whatever you want to call Obama’s management of it) and his ‘stimulus’ that crippled the economy for the short and long term should be the kiss of death in the general election, though.
You’d think with as much money as the GOP spent, they would have no chance. Unfortunately, the Democrats wasted ten times as much money.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:21 amWhat similarity do you see between the two decisions? And how exactly is it “on the side of freedom” to claim that police who hear what sounds like evidence being destroyed, and who would therefore usually be allowed to go in and stop it, must refrain merely because they had caused that noise by announcing themselves? Where’s the logic in that? If an exigent circumstance exists, who cares why it does? The only question is whether it’s really there or they’re just pretending it’s there, and that question was very much not before the court.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:22 amMr. Milhouse our corrupt union whore police forces are *just* clever enough to claim that they heard what sounded like evidence being destroyed whenever they want to bust on into someone’s house I think.
But that doesn’t make it right. And these days in poor pathetic freedom-raped America the crime our vaunted police buttmunches are breaking and entering to impede is as likely to be the sale of contraband light bulbs as it is anything of for reals concern to the public welfare.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:27 amOh, and about UT, I am pretty sure the idea is not to eliminate high cost and high prestige education. The idea is to make sure someone who isn’t wealthy and doesn’t want to borrow a zillion bucks can get a great education. There is really no reason why education shouldn’t be much cheaper. Making that option available is within the state government’s mandate unless you’re an extremist who thinks public schools must not exist (which is even worse for UT).
This is pure, naked elitism. wgreen calls people kook, but that’s projection.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:27 amHuntsman?! Now I know you’re joking.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:28 amTrue but irrelevant.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:29 amThe freedom this is on the side of is the freedom from unreasonable searches. Seems pretty obvious to me. Should police be allowed to create the circumstances that veto my constitution? Is that how freedom works?
All I’m asking for is a warrant. Sometimes, that makes police work very difficult, but I don’t think they should get to skip that step unless something truly unusual and horrible is noticed. A toilet flushing is not enough. A woman screaming ‘help me’ is what I have in mind.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:31 amHe doesn’t trust police with this tremendous power to detect constitution vetoing circumstances. Some will abuse it. I think that’s relevant.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:32 amI’m too hungry to be completely entirely relevant I think. Plus also me and NG are trying to figure out our lunch agenda for today.
I’m feeling soul food. I’ve never been able to sell it.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:39 amFirst of all, they’re not “constitution vetoing circumstances”. There’s nothing in the constitution to prohibit warrantless searches. Go ahead, look it up; I’ll wait.
The constitution prohibits unreasonable searches; it’s the Supreme Court that has said warrantless searches are usually unreasonable, but that one case in which they’re not unreasonable is where there are exigent circumstances, which make it unreasonable for them to wait for a warrant. One such example is when they have reasonable cause to believe evidence is being destroyed.
Now if evidence really is being destroyed, what difference does it make why? Sure, if the police hadn’t knocked and announced themselves the criminals inside wouldn’t have known to destroy the evidence, and then the police would be able to wait for a warrant. But if there were no criminals inside then they wouldn’t be destroying evidence even after a police knock, because they wouldn’t have any in the first place. The fourth amendment doesn’t exist to protect criminals; there is no “right” to get away with crimes if you can hide them well enough. And there’s no reason why the police should have to hide themselves and avoid spooking criminals; rather the opposite.
What happyfeet raised was a very different issue, which is how we know whether the police really did have reasonable cause to believe evidence was being destroyed. As I wrote in my original comment on the subject, “The only question is whether it’s really there or they’re just pretending it’s there, and that question was very much not before the court”. Deciding whether police witnesses are telling the truth is the job of trial courts and juries, and they’re not doing a good job of it. I do not trust the uncorroborated word of a policeman, because as a class they are notorious for perjury.
But an appeals court has to take the facts as given; the Court in this case had to assume that an exigent circumstance really did exist, and the only question before it was whether it mattered that the police had caused it by letting the criminals (and there is no doubt that that is what they were) know that they were there. And the Court said, 8-1, that so long as the police didn’t break the law, or threaten to break it, it doesn’t matter. And remanded the case back to the trial court to decide whether the police in this case had threatened to break the law, or merely announced themselves.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:10 amI didn’t say otherwise. Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait.
All I’m asking for are warrants, so as to protect against unreasonable searches.
I sure wish you were less obnoxious.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:13 amActually, you did. Twice. “constitution vetoing circumstances”, and “the circumstances that veto my constitution”.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:19 amBryan Preston has an interesting post, and there are interesting comments, about Perry here.
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/18/2011 @ 7:57 pmRe Willingham, I’ll repeat here a comment I left in response to similar uninformed trollery on Preston’s post:
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:00 pmThat’s a great link, Beldar.
He’s not perfect, but Preston is probably right that something about Perry would keep the democrats on the wrong sort of self defeating offensive. I really think there’s something to that.
And all Preston is hoping for is that Perry runs. That should give us more time to explore his record, and there’s no way someone like Perry runs for President without being well vetted with a quickness by a hysterical MSM.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:01 pm(And by the way, the whole “Texas death factory” thing was tried against Bush in 2000, but by 2004 at least most liberals had realized that that dog won’t hunt.)
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:02 pmHow would liberals deal with the TTC issue? Obama’s train plan is an even larger eminent domain imposition, if I understand it.
Perry’s weak spots are that he both wants FEMA to help with disasters and he doesn’t like excessive spending? I think the left will wear itself out trying to explain this as hypocrisy, and moderates would still accept Perry.
I can get over his inauthentic appearance. I think that’s mostly my problem.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:09 pmLove your work and blog, Mr. Dyer (Beldar), but you surely know Perry’s involvement in the Willingham fiasco goes deep. Perry could have issued a 30-day reprieve while the evidence was reviewed – he did not. He could have insisted that the pardons and parole board issue a recommendation to commute Willingham’s sentence. Again, he did not. The board is appointed by the governor and most agree it would have assented quickly to Perry’s request.
But Perry had no interest in any of that. Instead, he called Willingham a “monster” who deserved to die.
I don’t know if Willingham was guilty. Neither do you, and neither did Perry. I do know that the arson evidence presented at his trial has been exposed as a complete fraud without any scientific basis. There was in fact no evidence of arson at all, according to all other fire investigators that have reviewed the case. All of this was known before the execution, and still Perry did nothing.
Finally, Perry replaced three members of Texas Forensic Science Commission just when it looked as if the commission might issue a report favorable to Willingham. The new head of the commission is actively hostile to Willingham, and calls him a “guilty monster”.
So yeah, Perry likely presided over the execution of an innocent man. Or at the very least, a man who should never have been found guilty due to lack of evidence.
I only address the Willingham issue in this comment. This issue will not hurt his electoral chances, but it is illustrative in exposing his character and intellectual capability.
wgreen (542a04) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:09 pmIt’s a sad case.
I’m not sure it proves Perry is dumb. The allegations that he messed with the commission just to throw off the investigation is a serious one, but if I recall, their terms expired.
Regardless of all that, I do agree that this wasn’t good justice. But there’s always been a rush to finally prove an innocent man was executed, somewhere, and in this case, I think that’s yet to be shown. That it was arson is an open question, rather than a settled one.
Can you prove your accusation that he was innocent?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:12 pmExactly. The allegation amounted to an underhanded attempt by these three commissioners to force Perry to reappoint them to new terms; it failed. There was no reason why he should have reappointed them, and the three new commissioners got on with the investigation, which as I understand it is still going.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:45 pmwgreen (#87), thank you for the kind words, and you argue well, and with civility.
But the individual to whom you refer was given due process. His conviction and sentence were reviewed repeatedly, and at every level of the state and federal courts. The system has many, many safeguards, but once again, by provisions of the state constitution, the governor’s pardon power is limited.
Indeed, the Texas governor’s role is vastly less important in the whole process than that of the lowliest Texas state district court judge (if there is such a thing, and I’ve never met one who thought him/herself and his/her powers “lowly”).
With respect, I don’t agree with your guess about what the Pardons & Paroles Board would have done. Its members do not march in lockstep with this or any other governor, but they all agree in most cases because they respect the limits of their position, too, and they respect the more significant roles and interests of victims, prosecutors, juries (as the conscience of the community, applied in every capital case), and the state and federal trial and appellate courts.
I also, respectfully, don’t agree with your assessment as to whether justice was ultimately done, although I can acknowledge the passion and considerable skill of those who argue in this and, indeed, every Texas capital case that a terrible travesty is being committed. Even if it were a travesty, however, it’s not a sort of travesty that can fairly be laid at the feet of any Texas governor, whose role in the entire process is very limited.
I write this as someone who, as a law clerk for a Fifth Circuit judge, regularly handled capital cases from Texas and elsewhere, and who’s represented a convicted capital murderer pro bono in habeas proceedings. With due respect, I had more power as a law clerk — merely by having the ear of a Fifth Circuit judge — than any Texas governor does in any capital case. And that’s just not very much.
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:31 pmI ought not have said just now that the Texas governor’s pardon power is constitutionally limited. I ought to have said that the Texas governor’s pardon power is constitutionally non-existent.
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/18/2011 @ 11:52 pmThis is from the Texas constitution, as amended in 1934 by article 4, section 11(b) at the same time that general pardon powers were stripped from the governorship:
The reason for the 1934 amendment was that during her first term in office, Democratic Gov. Miriam A. “Ma” Ferguson had “averaged over 100 pardons a month” during her first term in office, amidst “accusations of bribes and kickbacks.”
So Gov. Perry had no right to “insist” that the Pardons & Paroles Board do anything. As for his power to grant a 30-day reprieve, I’m not aware of any credible new evidence — impeachment or otherwise — that was found within the 30 days before the execution (which is not a ceremony over which the Texas governor presides either literally or even figuratively).
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/19/2011 @ 12:12 amIt is correct that Mr. Willingham met his fate in February 2004 while proclaiming his innocence:
Alas, from this thread now I gotta go, all you Road Dogs.
Beldar (7c0dd5) — 5/19/2011 @ 12:26 amHis actual final words can be found here. “Obscenity-laced language” is right.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/19/2011 @ 12:41 amOops. That should be:
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/19/2011 @ 12:42 amHis actual final words can be found here. “Obscenity-laced language” is right.