Rick Perry went after Tea Party support when he was running for President and forgetting which three departments of the government he would shut down. But now that he does not need the Tea Party anymore, he is showing his true colors, supporting one of the biggest RINO’s in the nation.
While the Tea Party and major Tea Party groups have rallied around Ted Cruz, Perry is going all in for weird, spooky and rich Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst. Did I mention Dewhurst is the biggest RINO that side of the Mississippi?
From the Houston Chronicle:
Gov. Rick Perry is once again slamming “out-of-state interest groups” backing former solicitor general Ted Cruz in his runoff with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst –this time tweaking Sarah Palin, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and Rick Santorum by suggesting their states could learn a lot from Texas, but Texas doesn’t need their advice on choosing its next U.S. senator.
Perry, standing staunchly behind Dewhurst, brushed off the question about whether his own tea party credibility may be damaged by his opposition to Cruz, who has been endorsed by national conservative and tea party groups and figures (including Palin, DeMint and Santorum) in the runoff for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate.
“There’s a whole lot of people who don’t intimately and expertly know how Texas operates that have come in and endorsed in this race, and with all due respect – I respect each one of those individuals, but they don’t know anything about how Texas works,” said Perry after a hurricane preparedness tour at the Austin airport. “And if they did, they would be endorsing David Dewhurst.”
Without naming Palin, DeMint or Santorum, Perry called them to mind by naming their states: “I appreciate everybody paying attention to Texas – as well they should, they could learn some things on how to run South Carolina and Pennsylvania and Alaska.
“Come to Texas and learn how to do it right, but don’t come down here and tell us who needs to be our next United States senator, thank you very much. We’ll decide that without your outside, Washington, D.C.-oriented help,” Perry said.
Cruz spokesman James Bernsen said his candidate has overwhelming support among Texas grassroots conservatives, “most of whom Dewhurst has not even bothered to meet with.” And, he said, Cruz has “exponentially more Texas donors than David Dewhurst, including more donors from the Houston area than Dewhurst has in the entire state of Texas.”
Rick Perry should spend his time working on his failing memory and not trying to saddle us with another RINO Senator. The future of the Republican Party is conservatives like Ted Cruz.
David Dewhurst’s record in the Texas state legislature was that of a liberal. He worked with Democrats time after time to stop conservatives. Ted Cruz has repeatedly demonstrated his conservative beliefs.
This is the year of the Tea Party Senators. Ted Cruz is the Tea Party candidate. David Dewhurst is just another liberal Republican who has more in common with Harry Reid than real Americans.
When Rick Perry can remember which three departments he was going to shut down, then perhaps we might listen to him. In the meantime, he is simply shilling for another RINO.
I am not accusing you of being a Hutchinson supporter. And I am not sour on Kaye Baily Hutchinson. She is a fine person and served Texas well.
As earlier referenced, I think Perry is an old line, state rights Democrat. He just doesn't have the "blue blood" that is often equated with Republicans. Has he done well for himself? Sure he has! Being Governor of Texas is something to be proud of. Being a three-term Governor is some trick! But, his salary of $150,000 per year is hardly what he would make working in the private sector. When I look at his total personal assets as compared to Governor Romney's, I definitely know who is in the money!
The item that really impressed me about Governor Perry is his understanding of the states' relationship with the federal government. After all, this was the true motivation behind the War Between the States! We all would benefit from reading the 10th amendment again. It also should be noted that to be President of the United States, executive experience is a plus, if not an imperative. Fresh faces are always welcomed in America. But "too fresh" of a face can lead to a chief executive like Barack Obama.
Yes, I undersand the concerns expressed about Perry's toll road, vaccine and time in public office. But if our country proves to be unable to stay together, we will need an experienced hand to help launch and lead the new Republic. At a Hardin County Kentucky Tea Party meeting this past Tuesday, it was revealed that Homeland Security has already ordered thousands of rounds of hollow nosed bullets in anticipation of a civil war following the election. Where we'll draw the borders is unclear. But, you can pretty much expect the energy states to head the movement. From there the question becomes which states would remain loyal to Obama? And would the military remain loyal to him?
One thing is for certain: "If repudiation of the mortgage and student loan debt is part of the package" expect California to cast it's lot with a new Republic. Especially if the leadership is "in touch with the 10th amendment."
There is an underlying fury aimed at eastern banking interests. The true assets of the United States are in the ground and in the intelligence and ingenuity of our people. The 'Fabian-Keynesian" approach is drawing more scrutiny with each passing day. The actual legitimacy of public sector unions is being questioned. We have a health care bill sitting in the high court that mandates that all Americans buy health insurance. We have a Washington D.C. based bureaucracy that has become so large that it's larger than life. Our middle class is feeling that they have been compromised. We may be at a point of no return.
There is a deep seeded desire amoung Americans to put "America first." Our people are evidently coming back to that old saying harbored by my grandmother:
"Charity begins at home."
I spent time in Cape Girardeau. It's a good town with good people. And I have friends who attended SEMO.
Yeah, Dewhearst is a neo-con. He's establishment. But, he is someone with the resources and connections who can help bankroll another run for Perry. Is Perry perfect? Heck no! This is simply the way that it works. Cruz would be a great statesman for Texas. And he will get his chance. I would vote for him. But, Perry's reasoning is different. Like it or not, that's the way it works and is. It's a "short term solution for the long term good."
I always thought Dewhurst was tainted, but reliable. He will play the game. Cruz? Nobody truly knows. But, unlike Dewhurst, he hasn't the resources to help bankroll a presidential run. Is this horrible? Sure it is! But what could Cruz honestly do in the Senate during his first term that Dewhurst wouldn't do?
Yeah, the establishment should be all over themselves with Dewhurst. But they are simply thinking a Senate strategy to get their agenda passed. They know that Dewhurst won't "maverick "on them. Cruz? Certainly not now. And in the second or third term, he might do some monumental things! But, at 41, he will have other chances. Including running against John Corynn. In this Texas Senator, you have another "neo-con." Hopefully Cruz sees this.
Yes, I have watched some of the You Tube videos that accused Governor Perry of everything from being a "globalist" to "practicing witchcraft" to "prefering a one-world government." It's tripe. Most Republicans have disregarded this as "tabloid drivel."
In truth, I think the toll roll was a novel idea. But most importantly, it seems like the majority of Texans favored it.
Therefore, it's none of my business; because I don't live there.
The vaccine was done to facilitate primarily minority girls in large urban areas. There was an "opt out." Was it a mistake? Yes. But not a huge one. And it never was launched anyway. It certainly shouldn't be a deal breaker!
NAFTA, in retrospect had some negative impacts. It was decided in a "bi-partisan" manner. We can blackball any and all politician who voted for it. But I think that's "majoring on the minor."
In short, with Governor Perry, some conservatives are ready to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."
The key questions to ask are (a) What are Governor Perry's positions on the following:
(a) States Rights and the 10th Amendment
(b) Economy- Supply Side of Keynesian?
(c) Pro Life or Pro Choice
(d) Excessivie Regulation
(e) Domestic Energy exploration and production
How has Texas performed with the following issues under Governor Perry's watch?
(a) Job creation
(c) The environment
When you simply remove the "clutter" of trivial, non-general election issue from the map, it is very clear that the GOP made a vast mistake not nominating him. Obviously, he would be preferable to Mitt Romney! The problem is we are confused by our desire for a conservative but we can't recognize the true conservatives. Michelle Bachmann, New Gingrich and Rick Santorum are "neo cons." They prefer a big, Washington D.C. based central government to facilitate conservative principles. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Jon Huntsman is a Democrat. Rick Perry is a "Constitutionalist." He takes a more literal view of the 10th amendment. And I think that the 10th amendment is the key to returning our country to greatness. We have gotten away from the true essence of America. That's why we have this massive "machine" in Washington D.C. that has become more of a "threat and a burden than an asset."
Rick Perry understands this. When our Tea Party finally realizes "who" genuinely represents our convictions, then our movement will solidify, ceasing to be in the fragmented state that it is currently in.
Yea, but Perry's a Bilderberger!!!! That's a joke son....
IMHO, a few "corrections" are in order:
1. "most republicans" did not consider Perry deft enough to stick with him, even if "most republicans" considered some issues "tabloid drivel," or else he would have been the nominee.
2. "the majority of Texans" did not favor toll roads by any stretch of the imagination; anyone that believes this must be smoking crack (no offense, Jeff).
3. the vaccine is an example of politicians and government sticking their noses where they do not belong; only contagious epidemics have the public threat required for such action; the issue is not whether the vaccine is a good idea, but who makes the decision to get it (the individual, or the government); the opt out excuse is not an acceptable excuse -- freedom means you opt in to something; this is analagous to the argument of the 10th against the feds; therefore, it is a dealbreaker; perhaps Perry could not comprehend it then, and he might have relapses in the future.
4. Michele Bachmann does not favor a big central government.
Other than those details, everything else sounds good!
Attending that 2007 confererence is really a sticking point for a lot of people. And, it may have been ill advised. Seems like Romney attended a Bilderburg confererence earlier this month. And we know that Obama is in the fold. Not to mention, Bill and Hillary Clinton. And George H.W. Bush. And Colin Powell. And Jimmy Carter. And Gerald Ford. And Donald Rumsfeld. And Christopher Warrren. And Madeline Albright. And David Rockefeller. And the list goes on...
Not to say that it's something to flaunt! But it does merit some questions and explanations! As I understood it, Perry attended a 2007 conference. Let's learn about it! It's funny! No media wants to discuss it. Why can't we simply ask! If it's true, was there anything to it? These secret globalist groups abound. And there is a always a "conspiracy theory somebody" who attempts to bring the question to light.
Who attended the recent CFR meetings? What about the Tri-lateral commission meetings? This seems to be a taboo topic! When anyone brings it up. they are dismissed. It makes be wonder if they are all hiding something! Let's ask Perry, Romney and the rest regarding their association. It's a fair question! I for one, ask "why isn't the media more involved and doing it's job?" Sure, we can conclude that they are all liberal and corrupt. But that's a cynical point of view. In fairness, could we not simply talk about these secret societies for once? Is is too "hot" for media to discuss?
The toll highway has gotten mixed reviews. From reports that I have had, there were some who were unhappy with the government forcing people to sell their land for the highway. That is understandable. A state owned highway, where drivers can cruse across the state at 90 miles per hour is enticing. Maybe not to everyone! But it is practical, if you think about it! If it was tax neutral, wouldn't it have been hard to argue with? Having made the drives from McAllen to Amarillo and Texarkana to Odessa, I know how wide open the spaces are!
The vaccine was a mistake. Everyone admitted to it, including Perry. But it never went into effect. Isn't it time we got past, "would have been, could have been, might have been." Perry's family has been touched by cancer. That may have influenced his thinking.. If this was the case, he should be given a pass. Anyone who has lost a loved one to cancer would probably concur.
Michelle Bachmann has many of the right ideas. Especially in regard to shutting down E.P.A. in Washington! But, she is not ready to defer certain calls such as abortion, sanctity of marriage and Cannibus legalization to the states. Many conservatives aren't! But the "constitutionalists" are. "Neo-Cons" call this brand of conservatism "relativism." But it's pure 10th amendment. In reality, this is the essence of "strict constructionism."
We all seem to be taking Romney's nomination like "kissing our sister." True, he will be better than Obama. But I haven't seen anything that would convince me that he is more than "Obama lite" as Perry described. We'll vote for him. But, I would be very interested in looking at a midterm challenge from another Republican if Romney proves to be the RINO many believe that he is.
The key is changing the sequence of states. I think it's time to have states other than Iowa and New Hampshire lead. The reason: most of the partie's muscle is now in the south. Why lead with an Upper Midwestern state and a New England state? It definitely favors RINO candidates. If we had started with, say Arkansas and followed it with Wyoming, I have no doubt that Rick Perry would be the Republican nominee.
Hopefully, our people will get past these trivial objections handily thrown at Rick Perry. We should examine Texas as compared to most of the other states. There are too many positives to ignore. We need a leader who understands energy. We also need a president who better represents the average man. I am personally opposed to any Ivy league graduate running for president. They are simply not representitive of the country. I would like to see America put an unofficial, 50-year moratorium on any and all Ivy league presidential candidates. They just don't reflect the average American.
There are some good colleges and universities outside of the east. Besides the east is losing population with each census! It's time to shift some of the authority and influence to other regions of the country. When you see how those states holding Ivy League schools have voted for president over the past two decades, it easy to understand why so many of our politicians' standards have been compromised.
Changing the sequence of the initial primaries! Now you're speaking my language. I totally agree that the lead-off states should be those that are more conservative (i.e. pay the bills but don't get to make the decisions).
But no passes for sympathy can be given. Liberals use this tactic/excuse for every unConstitutional program ever invented. Limited government is limited government. Period. Case closed. End of discussion. No mas, no mas.
Romney is like kissing your own sister, but since we all know he is RINO, attending Bilderberg meetings is expected. The oddity would be if he claimed to be "tea party."
Toll roads and mixed reviews? I guess there are a few in every crowd. But then again, they usually have a self-interests or a selfish perspective. If there is to be a superhighway and eminent domain is necessary, there should be NO private interests involved in the ownership. This opens the door to corruption, and if that door is open, it will be used. Come to think of it, I think that is the actual definition of "politician" in the New World Dictionary.
It appears that our country is so close to a split, unfortunately.
This discussion on the E.P.A. is useful. Everyone needs to begin demanding it's abolition. Kevin Lindley, the Director for "Texans for Rick Perry" sold me that 14,000 jobs were lost in West Texas due to the E.P.A.'s concern over the possible threat to a sand lizard. These were oil field jobs that paid wages of $25 per hour and up! That's deplorable!
Yes, Michelle Bachmann to her credit did say, "as president, I would lock the doors and turn out the lights" of the Washington D.C. based E.P.A. We need this to become a priority for Mitt Romney.
Would Perry do it? Probably! His key constituents are from the energy sector. That's another reason to look at him using the "Ben Franklin approach."
All politicans have negatives. But what about their positives? I am much more comfortable with Perry than Romney. I think, if the entire party was given the choice,(between Perry and Romney) Perry would win hands down!
Yes, but when I look at the alternatives for VP, I see, (a) Establishment types like Portman and McDonnell who offer little appeal to young(under 30) voters, women and Hispanics. Not to mention Tea Party conservatives!
Gingrich would make an excellent Secretary of State. But it's likely that third cousin, Jon Huntsman will get that nod.
We all love Allen West. But, facts are facts! Blacks who amount to 11% of the electorate will vote in mass for the Democrat. In the end, West will be another Palin. He will energize the Tea Party. But he will do little to bring in undecided voters. I do think that he would be an exceptional replacement for Rubio in the Senate. Rick Scott would likely appoint him to complete Rubio's term, assuming Romney-Rubio won.
For those diehards who would rather lose the election than take Rubio on the ticket with Romney, what is your suggestion? Rand Paul? Only if you want ultra liberal Jack Conway appointed by Democrat Governor Steve Bachear as his Senate replacement! That would be in Romney-Paul won, of course.
Santorum? There's a lot of water under the bridge between he and Romney. I don't think it would work.
Christie? He would make an excellent Attorney General. But "pro-choice, pro- gun control, anti-sanctity of marriage" would make him a difficult sell in the south. Still, if we thought that he could bring New Jersey and Pennsylvania into the red column, he might make a viable option. Problem is, he likely can't!
Palin? This is 2012. She was the hot ticket in 2008. And we didn't win! But I would love her in the Senate in 2014. She can win that Alaska seat that's coming up easily!
Ditto for Mike Huckabee. He sounds like a comfortable VP choice. But if Governor Huckabee really wants to help party and country, he should run against Mark Pryor for the Arkansas Senate seat in 2014. That would be an easy pickup for Republicans! Pryor voted for Obamacare and is mistrusted by many Arkansas Democrats. Republicans in Northwest Arkansas loathe him! The Democrat party in the Land of Opportunity(AKA The Natural State) is dying with each passing day!
Problem is Palin is moving to Arizona and Huckabee has already moved to Destin, Florida!
Perry for VP? Personally, I would like to see a Perry-Rubio ticket; with Romney serving as Secretary of the Treasury. Of course, this won't happen! At least, not this time around.