Governor Rick Perry..............Why?
How did Governor Rick Perry become the top pick of the GOP candidates for president?
I’m trying to grasp the tangible evidence that catapulted Governor Perry over every other GOP presidential candidate. He was rated by several polls near the top of the GOP candidate list before he even made his formal candidacy announcement. Once he announced, if you believe the media, the GOP candidate to oppose Obama had been selected.
He’s not the only Governor in the race…what is it? My gut impression is that Perry has an excellent publicity apparatus that has flooded the media with ”Rick is great” slogans, not to mention his democrat background. Frankly, my observation of his appearance in two candidate debates, based on performance and substance, leaves me with less than a favorable impression.
Given, some candidates have more favorable “stage presence” than others…surely Perry’s stage presence provides much room for improvement. He is slow on his feet, searches for words, seems uneasy, and awkward in his answers. Occasionally I have the urge to reach down his throat and pull some words out…
So, being the smooth, articulate Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, Romney, Santorum, perhaps others, Governor Perry is not. However, the method of message delivery doesn’t necessarily count a candidate out…Senator McCain proved that. He couldn’t hit his butt with both hands on the stage.
Then how about substance? Has Governor Perry demonstrated substitutive justification that supports his top of the GOP candidate pile? I have heard him speak and others seem to verify that job creation in Texas accounts for a majority of the employment created in the U.S. over the last two years. Other than jobs, nothing else of significance has surfaced to give one a “tingle down the leg”, in fact, Governor Huntsman claims himself as the job king. Ron Paul says Perry has put Texas in debt, raised taxes and Perry hasn’t refuted Paul. Perry has also taken serious hits on his support for tuition assistance for illegal aliens, his answer for the illegal alien border problem, and the effort to force a questionable inoculation for 11-12 year old girls against cervical cancer without a “parental opt-in”.
Perry’s background hasn’t even been touched yet. There is considerable fodder that should raise serious questions as to his conservative credentials. He should be required to explain his democrat background, international involvements, etc. He may provide a satisfactory answer, but it hasn’t been asked yet.
A point here. Are we going to allow the media to select the candidate to oppose Obama by pushing other credible, qualified candidates into the background while focusing on the two the media desires? We allowed the 2008 GOP presidential candidate to be selected by the media and the political apparatus. As Governor Palin says, “how’s that working out for ya?”
Are we about to select another “McCain” to oppose Obama? We all know Obama made McCain look like the ignoramus he really is…the most valid evidence of the “peter principle” one could imagine. Will we repeat the same error hoping for a better outcome?
Let’s get the strongest candidate that will carry the constitution, bill of rights, and Founding Father principles into the White House…maybe it will be Rick Perry but I’m not sold yet.
I am sold on the courage, strength, moral clarity, solid credentials of Michele Bachmann. Why? Given everything else, her heart beats for America and it will stop before she betrays her principled constitutional positions. She took both Perry and Romney to the woodshed during the CNN debate, and did so with poise and clarity.
We need Bachmann’s titanium spine and leadership. Is she perfect? Probably not, is anyone?
Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret
Rick Perry, my gut feeling about him is he a corporate croonie, he will lie, cheat, and do whatever it takes to become the Republican candidate. He is to full of himself and believe me we have enough of them, most of them run around with their hands in somebody else's pockets. Michele, dont know much about her to form a an intelligent opinion, However, I will say this; she is an Attorney, and Washington is Wall to Wall Attorneys, and in the original 13th amendment forbid, Noblemen, titles of Nobility, which includes Esquires, aka Attorneys, so on and so on. this 13th Amendment was destroyed in the War of 1812 when the British destroy the Library of Congress. its all there in open site, you just have to look for it. So, my thoughts is that we don't need another attorney in Washington my choice is Ron Paul... bar none. one quick note, have you notice that most if not all the candidates are now saying, we need to stick to the constitution and abolish the feds... now who has been shouting this since he first ran for the Presidency.. thanks to the controlled media who demonize Ron Paul for speaking the truth... People if anybody else become President it will be business as usual and the destruction of our way of life. the writing is on the wall all we have to do is look. ............ the rest is up to you.
I am watching the Google debate right now, and just saw Rick Perry speak. I don't care what he
has to say because I suspect he has some self-interested big money behind him that stands against the best interest of the people of the United States. I suspect he has been groomed by something like a Bilderberg group and is no better than Obama. I suspect he will push the Obamacare through with a vengeance after his stunt of making those young girls receive a shot for something they don't have, and probably wouldn't have...and then giving them a risk for something worse.!!! All because his chronies gave him a campaign contribution. Perry is for sale and he might as well be wearing a logo patch on his lapel. No thanks. The pretty posters and the pretty face are not what I believe we need right now. What we need is a President. A man or woman of character and virtue, who has some life experience, and some BUSINESS sense. Of all the GOP characters presented, I like someone like Herman Cain or Michelle Bachman. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I do know who I do NOT want...and that is Dick Very, I mean Rick Perry.
From Ed Divine:
Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) has pointed to job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. But analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data collected by the Census Bureau show that immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this growth since 2007, not native-born workers. This is true even though the native-born accounted for the vast majority of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas. Thus, they should have received the lion’s share of the increase in employment. As a result, the share of working-age natives in Texas holding a job has declined in a manner very similar to the nation a whole.
Among the findings:
Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).
In terms of numbers, between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.
Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data show that more than three-fourths of net job growth in Texas were taken by newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).
The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working-age population (16 to 65). Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants.
The share of working-age natives holding a job in Texas declined significantly, from 71 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole and is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to the overall situation in the country despite the state’s job growth.
Of newly arrived immigrants who took jobs in Texas since 2007, we estimate that 50 percent (113,000) were illegal immigrants. Thus, about 40 percent of all the job growth in Texas since 2007 went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to newly arrived legal immigrants.
Immigrants took jobs across the educational distribution. More than one out three (97,000) of newly arrived immigrants who took a job had at least some college.
These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue the current high level of legal immigration and also whether to continue to tolerate illegal immigration.
See the full report at: http://cis.org/immigrants-filled-most-new-jobs-in-Texas
Note! Arguably, the jobs created in Texas, particularly those going to illegal aliens and foreign nationals do not demonstrate the sort of policies and agenda that true conservative voters want to see carried forward into the White House. The time for Rick Perry to return to Texas, call another special session of the Texas Legislature to address the dozens of popular, prudent immigration enforcement bills (that were prevented from being heard and voted on bu Perry Friend and House Speaker Joe Straus), is growing short. In view of his abysmal record on taxes, economic policy and immigration enforcement in his native State of Texas, no responsible truly conservative voter can consider Governor Perry a viable candidate for higher office.
Unless and until Governor Perry stands up to the cheap labor and mass immigration interests in his own state and calls a special session to deal with these concerns, conservative voters will be best served to withhold their support, and hope to influence other candidates who will honor and respect the will of America's citizens as their guidance in our governance.
This is the kind of data we all need to make an informed decision.....it's not picking on Perry or any other candidate...if a candidate makes statements, then they must be accurate and backed and not shaded by general statements.