Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Don't Mess With Texas

The threat of a Rick Perry candidacy is serious stuff. The propaganda machine is churning to emasculate him faster than they've tried to chop the cojones of Sarah Palin. Yet, it is hard to deny some facts.

Dallas Leads Job Creation. Houston Runner-Up

Those are impressive numbers, but they become serious stuff when viewed in the context of the national job picture.

National Growth Less than One Quarter of Texas Jobs

And it is important to note that this is not a momentary aberration. It is consistent with performance relative to the rest of the country for quite some time.

The contrast between success and failure with regard to something as measurable as jobs in the private sector is a pretty clear subject.


Six said...

Ed, I greatly respect your political acumen. I'm trying to do my due diligence where it comes to potential and announced conservative presidential candidates. I am woefully ignorant of most Texas politicians though I like most of those I have seen and heard. Perry has both supporters and detractors on the right. Is he a serious candidate, one I should be taking a closer look at possibly supporting, should he decide to run?
Thanks Ed.

Ed Rasimus said...

Of the somewhat lackluster list of declared candidates, I would say that Perry is a very serious contender. He's got experience, organization, good public skills and is clearly a conservative, both fiscal and social wings.

There may yet be someone waiting in the wings, but so far I'm not impressed with the field. If Perry were to jump in, he'd have a shot and my support. Dunno if the country could take another TX president--we've had some mixed results from both parties.

Some that I will actively oppose: Romney, Giuliani, Johnson, Huntsman, Bachman.

Six said...

Thanks Ed. I've been researching Herman Cain but hadn't yet considered Perry until I read you and Laura's posts. I'll dig in and do work.
I agree with your list but I'll add Newt to mine.
Thanks again Ed.

juvat said...

Well, the school district is against him. So that' s a pretty good reason to support him.

Dweezil Dwarftosser said...

Rick Perry: Texas' favorite son?
I'll believe he's an electable conservative when he comes out for a 1200-mile southern-border minefield (with overlapping fields of fire, manned 24/7/365).

There's been a few things added to the Conservative political credo since Barry Goldwater - and most of them born of absolute necessity since 2008.

First, No Compromise with the progressive Marxists. None at all on budget-cutting; none at all on restoring the rule and strict observance of constitutional law over the government and its departments; no compromise on restoring favor among our most-cherished long-term allies.

No compromise on reducing government employment, size, and scope to 2007 or 2008 levels; none on the Ryan budget plan; none on eliminating all vestiges of Obamacare, Cap-and-Trade, Carbon-counting by the EPA, and moratoria upon oil/gas exploration, leases, or extraction, along with bans on fishing.

Zero compromise on closing our borders to further illegal immigration; no compromise on sending all illegals home (with some naturalization amnesty possible for those living as 'outstanding members of the American community' for at least 12 continuous years).

THAT is what it takes to be considered a Conservative, today - and there are plenty of them. Most are busy having their arms twisted to declare; none has, as of yet.

BTW - Michelle Bachman is one of them.

Ed Rasimus said...

Dweezil, we aren't talking about becoming a true conservative. We are talking about being elected President and then handling the job.

The candidate must be able to appeal to all of the electorate and not give any demographic a reason to not vote for them.

While your litmus test list is great, it won't get a President in office. That is a lesson the hard right should have learned with Obama.

bongobear said...

Could you elaborate on your opposition to Bachman?

Ed Rasimus said...

Elaborate on Bachman?

She is a lawyer and community activist. (How'd that work out last time we tried it?)

She's got four years in Congress (How'd that experience level work out?)

She's got zero business experience (How'd that work out?)

She's great at throwing red meat to the party extreme, but she simply hasn't got the chops to get the party majority let alone the very important unaffiliated/independent voters.

In short, she's a great conservative but not someone who is currently electable.

Dweezil Dwarftosser said...

Since every nation needs a 'loyal opposition' political party to provide alternatives, it was a shame to see the Democrats self-destruct; completely hijacked by their thirty percent (or smaller) radical fringe. It greatly contributed to the ranks of 'unaffiliated' and 'independent' voters voluntarily aligning themselves with Tea Party ideals.

Throw in the fifty percent of 'leaning republican' voters who dutifully held their noses to vote for yet another elitist RINO 'moderate' (but were truly tired of the practice) - and you had the perfect storm of 2010: a freshman class in the congress composed mainly of Tea Party-backed election winners, and huge turnovers in state houses.

It was no surprise that the Democrats failed to recognize that they were toast, (at least in their current radical-socialist guise).

But the old-school entrenched Republicans also seem to have bought the idea that 'party loyalty' to themselves outweighed America's loyalty to the nation's ideals, so gravely damaged by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

They actually think it was all about them - rather than the renewed Tea Party idealism of the elected freshmen.
They are totally wrong on that. It's about committed, decisive leadership - and no longer is it about who can bend most before the political wind to get elected.

The Republican presidential 'electables' of 2012 have names like Bachmann, Cain, Christie, Demint, Palin, Rubio, Ryan, West and a host of others with similar positions.

If the RNC remains deaf to the voice of the people and ignores them, it will break the Republican party as surely as the Democrats were broken - because they will have shown themselves to be much of the same.

BTW - I can name half a dozen US presidents that never held any prior elected office at all - and none of them led us down the path to destruction.