[quote]forlife wrote:
22% of Americans say they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. II would take Romney or Huntsman over Perry in a heartbeat.[/quote]
And if you took a Poll through the Bible Belt…that % would most likely go up substantially.
“Super Tuesday”/the Southern GOP Primaries should be interesting.
Mufasa
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is from “Sweet Revenges’” Original Post:
I was really hoping this guy would take the GOP presidential nomination plunge already.
Pros:
Good jobs/economy creed in Texas - this is a huge plus
Has presidential looks and personality
Seems to have his feet (boots) on the ground compared to Obama’s tiresome, floaty, lofty platitudes
Cons:
Country not ready for another Texan
Too overtly Christian – with his prayer meeting and all. Maybe he can get away with that in Texas, but it’s a turnoff to other parts of the country. Thinking heavily populated northeast cities
Has publically stated that he’s not interested in Washington
(Sweet Revenge)[/quote]
Texas is one of the few states that vests significant power in the office of Lieutenant Governor, making it among the most influential. By contrast, the Lieutenant Governor position in other states has few (if any) legislative responsibilities, akin to the Vice President of the United States. The consequence of a strong Lieutenant Governor of Texas is that the Governor of Texas is weaker than other states’ Governors.
It is the second most powerful post in Texas government because its occupant controls the work of the Texas Senate and controls the budgeting process as a leader of the Legislative Budget Board.
Compared to the governors of other U.S. states, the Governorship of Texas is often cited as a fairly weak office.[1][2] In some respects it is the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who presides over the state Senate, who is a more powerful political figure able to exercise greater personal prerogatives.[1][2]
Rick Perry is everything I hate in a politition.
Does everyone forget that he threatened to secede from the nation during the whole healthcare bill? This is the type of guy you want leading america? The one that is first in line to jump ship. He has tried numorous times to sell off the state lottery and differnt toll roads to forighn investores to ballance the state budget. Funny that things that are proffitablt are even on the table for this idiot, and he would sell them knowing that they would increase costs. Why not just increase costs and keep all the profits for the state? He is a corporate shill. [/quote]
Regarding the weakness of the Texas Governorship:
Yes, its a weak position. Yes, the advances Texas has made in jobs are in no ways at all related to anything Perry has done. However, he will be able to take full credit for them because, in a general election, there is no way the Obama campaign can come out and say
‘Rick Perry doesn’t deserve credit for making Texas lead the nation in jobs, because its really due to the lack of government interference in its economy’.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is interesting…
Is Perry more popular everywhere else that he is in Texas?
Mufasa[/quote]
Yes.
Except on CNN:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is from “Sweet Revenges’” Original Post:
I was really hoping this guy would take the GOP presidential nomination plunge already.
Pros:
Good jobs/economy creed in Texas - this is a huge plus
Has presidential looks and personality
Seems to have his feet (boots) on the ground compared to Obama’s tiresome, floaty, lofty platitudes
Cons:
Country not ready for another Texan
Too overtly Christian – with his prayer meeting and all. Maybe he can get away with that in Texas, but it’s a turnoff to other parts of the country. Thinking heavily populated northeast cities
Has publically stated that he’s not interested in Washington
(Sweet Revenge)[/quote]
Texas is one of the few states that vests significant power in the office of Lieutenant Governor, making it among the most influential. By contrast, the Lieutenant Governor position in other states has few (if any) legislative responsibilities, akin to the Vice President of the United States. The consequence of a strong Lieutenant Governor of Texas is that the Governor of Texas is weaker than other states’ Governors.
It is the second most powerful post in Texas government because its occupant controls the work of the Texas Senate and controls the budgeting process as a leader of the Legislative Budget Board.
Compared to the governors of other U.S. states, the Governorship of Texas is often cited as a fairly weak office.[1][2] In some respects it is the Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who presides over the state Senate, who is a more powerful political figure able to exercise greater personal prerogatives.[1][2]
Rick Perry is everything I hate in a politition.
Does everyone forget that he threatened to secede from the nation during the whole healthcare bill? This is the type of guy you want leading america? The one that is first in line to jump ship. He has tried numorous times to sell off the state lottery and differnt toll roads to forighn investores to ballance the state budget. Funny that things that are proffitablt are even on the table for this idiot, and he would sell them knowing that they would increase costs. Why not just increase costs and keep all the profits for the state? He is a corporate shill. [/quote]
Regarding the weakness of the Texas Governorship:
Yes, its a weak position. Yes, the advances Texas has made in jobs are in no ways at all related to anything Perry has done. However, he will be able to take full credit for them because, in a general election, there is no way the Obama campaign can come out and say
‘Rick Perry doesn’t deserve credit for making Texas lead the nation in jobs, because its really due to the lack of government interference in its economy’.[/quote]
Yeah, or they could turn it around on Obama and ask what he accomplished of any merit BEFORE he was elected. Or better yet they could point to his horrific record as President. When he was actually in a position to help the economy what did he do? He pushed a national health care bill.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This is interesting…
Is Perry more popular everywhere else that he is in Texas?
Mufasa[/quote]
Yes.
Except on CNN:
Oh come on, they’re just doing their job. Trying to get Barry re-elected is not going to be easy and the more they attack the GOP now (see Newsweek front page hatchet job on Bachmann) the easier it will be to take the republican down when he or she gets the nomination.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
Please no.[/quote]
If I were Romney I’d be very concerned about Perry entering the race. [/quote]
If I were everyone I’d be very concerned about Perry and Romney. This is what sucks about our Govt. these 2 shitheads are hardly Republican.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
Please no.[/quote]
If I were Romney I’d be very concerned about Perry entering the race. [/quote]
If I were everyone I’d be very concerned about Perry and Romney. This is what sucks about our Govt. these 2 shitheads are hardly Republican. [/quote]
Shit heads? Wow, I’m wondering what either did to be called such names. Romney is a graduate of Stanford University. An accomplished business man (made millions). Ran the Olympics, and a former Governor. I’d hardly call him a shit head. Sheesh maybe that’s why more good people like Romney choose not to run for higher office. And as for Perry he is well accomplished too as Governor of the biggest state in the US. The guy even parachute jumps, very cool! Both have been married for decades to the same woman. They are both stable upright citizens and above that proven leaders.
Um…let’s be fair you may not agree with either man politically but they hardly deserve to be called shit heads.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
If he is announcing he is running for president I will have to read up on him. I was spending more time reading up on other candidates as I wasn’t sure he was going to run.[/quote]
He’s just another establishment neocon. No thanks.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
Please no.[/quote]
If I were Romney I’d be very concerned about Perry entering the race. [/quote]
If I were everyone I’d be very concerned about Perry and Romney. This is what sucks about our Govt. these 2 shitheads are hardly Republican. [/quote]
Shit heads? Wow, I’m wondering what either did to be called such names. Romney is a graduate of Stanford University. An accomplished business man (made millions). Ran the Olympics, and a former Governor. I’d hardly call him a shit head. Sheesh maybe that’s why more good people like Romney choose not to run for higher office. And as for Perry he is well accomplished too as Governor of the biggest state in the US. The guy even parachute jumps, very cool! Both have been married for decades to the same woman. They are both stable upright citizens and above that proven leaders.
Um…let’s be fair you may not agree with either man politically but they hardly deserve to be called shit heads.
[/quote]
Ok, I won’t call them shit heads if you won’t call them republicans 
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
Please no.[/quote]
If I were Romney I’d be very concerned about Perry entering the race. [/quote]
If I were everyone I’d be very concerned about Perry and Romney. This is what sucks about our Govt. these 2 shitheads are hardly Republican. [/quote]
Shit heads? Wow, I’m wondering what either did to be called such names. Romney is a graduate of Stanford University. An accomplished business man (made millions). Ran the Olympics, and a former Governor. I’d hardly call him a shit head. Sheesh maybe that’s why more good people like Romney choose not to run for higher office. And as for Perry he is well accomplished too as Governor of the biggest state in the US. The guy even parachute jumps, very cool! Both have been married for decades to the same woman. They are both stable upright citizens and above that proven leaders.
Um…let’s be fair you may not agree with either man politically but they hardly deserve to be called shit heads.
[/quote]
Ok, I won’t call them shit heads if you won’t call them republicans :)[/quote]
Yes, shit heads is not accurate. Criminals, liars, and con-artists would be more accurate. But then again this is true for almost all politicians in history.
Ha ha
I’ve sometimes referred to our good Democrat friends here in NJ that we almost NEVER talk politics with because our political views are diametrically opposed. To clarify, we almost never get to a political discussion because my dem-buddy can’t get past the name-calling! In reference to Gov. Christie or Tea Party/Perry/Romney/etc…it’s ‘What a douche bag!’…‘Have you ever seen a bigger idiot?’…‘M O R O N S!’…‘Fucking Fundy Nut-Job’…‘F’en Mormons’…‘What a disaster’…
Once or twice, I’ve heard a complete sentence without a disparaging label, like…
…‘Tax the millionaires…what’s so hard about that?’
P.S. - in NJ, the dems classify ‘millionaires’ as any household over $250K/year! Don’t ask me why 
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
Please no.[/quote]
If I were Romney I’d be very concerned about Perry entering the race. [/quote]
If I were everyone I’d be very concerned about Perry and Romney. This is what sucks about our Govt. these 2 shitheads are hardly Republican. [/quote]
Shit heads? Wow, I’m wondering what either did to be called such names. Romney is a graduate of Stanford University. An accomplished business man (made millions). Ran the Olympics, and a former Governor. I’d hardly call him a shit head. Sheesh maybe that’s why more good people like Romney choose not to run for higher office. And as for Perry he is well accomplished too as Governor of the biggest state in the US. The guy even parachute jumps, very cool! Both have been married for decades to the same woman. They are both stable upright citizens and above that proven leaders.
Um…let’s be fair you may not agree with either man politically but they hardly deserve to be called shit heads.
[/quote]
Ok, I won’t call them shit heads if you won’t call them republicans :)[/quote]
Well, I’ll tell you I think over the past decade the republican party has lost its way and politicians do what they do to remain relevant. But now I feel that the republican party is back on track for many reasons. First, they saw how a luke warm republican faired against Obama in 08. And they also have the Tea Party pushing them in the “right” direction.
So I think whatever Romney and Perry did to incur your wrath maybe they can be forgiven and given another chance to form better policy. Because it’s a very good bet that one of them will be facing off against Obama next year and I’d hate to think that you’re going to generalize to the point where you wouldn’t support the republican candidate against the failed Obama Presidency.
Think it over huh?
Thought Investors Business Daily had an informative article about the Texas governor, and the employment situation under his administration. He has a good record.
“In Texas, Perry Outshines Obama”
But just as noteworthy is the contrast between the two leaders’ economic records.
By almost every measure, Texas has done far better over the past 2 1/2 years under Perry’s stewardship than the nation as a whole has done under Obama’s, according to an IBD review of government data.
Jobs. Texas is one of only eight states to have seen a net gain in jobs since Obama took office, adding 64,400. Only tiny North Dakota comes close, with 27,800 net new jobs, driven largely by that state’s oil drilling boom.
The U.S. overall has lost a net 2.4 million jobs since January 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
What’s more, since the recession ended in June 2009, Texas has added 298,600 jobs, accounting for 52% of U.S. net job growth.
A recent USA Today report noted that while the energy boom has helped Texas as well, employment growth has been “broad-based,” with gains in sectors including education, health care, leisure, and professional and business services.
Unemployment. Texas’ jobless rate has been consistently below the national average, peaking at 8.3%.The national average topped out at 10.1%. The state’s unemployment rate is still a full percentage point below the national average.
Economic growth. In 2010, Texas’ economy grew 5.3%, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The overall U.S. economy, in contrast, grew 3.8%.
Wages. Texas has seen wages climb faster than the country overall. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010 (the latest data available). For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed 5%.
Population. Texas is also experiencing a population boom, as people flock there for job opportunities.
A recent study by Michael Cox, former chief economist for the Dallas Fed, found that Texas was by far the top destination for people moving in the country, with a net gain of half a million migrants between 2004 and 2008. The vast majority came from other states.
The rest can be read at:
[quote]Menthol wrote:
Thought Investors Business Daily had an informative article about the Texas governor, and the employment situation under his administration. He has a good record.
“In Texas, Perry Outshines Obama”
But just as noteworthy is the contrast between the two leaders’ economic records.
By almost every measure, Texas has done far better over the past 2 1/2 years under Perry’s stewardship than the nation as a whole has done under Obama’s, according to an IBD review of government data.
Jobs. Texas is one of only eight states to have seen a net gain in jobs since Obama took office, adding 64,400. Only tiny North Dakota comes close, with 27,800 net new jobs, driven largely by that state’s oil drilling boom.
The U.S. overall has lost a net 2.4 million jobs since January 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
What’s more, since the recession ended in June 2009, Texas has added 298,600 jobs, accounting for 52% of U.S. net job growth.
A recent USA Today report noted that while the energy boom has helped Texas as well, employment growth has been “broad-based,” with gains in sectors including education, health care, leisure, and professional and business services.
Unemployment. Texas’ jobless rate has been consistently below the national average, peaking at 8.3%.The national average topped out at 10.1%. The state’s unemployment rate is still a full percentage point below the national average.
Economic growth. In 2010, Texas’ economy grew 5.3%, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The overall U.S. economy, in contrast, grew 3.8%.
Wages. Texas has seen wages climb faster than the country overall. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010 (the latest data available). For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed 5%.
Population. Texas is also experiencing a population boom, as people flock there for job opportunities.
A recent study by Michael Cox, former chief economist for the Dallas Fed, found that Texas was by far the top destination for people moving in the country, with a net gain of half a million migrants between 2004 and 2008. The vast majority came from other states.
The rest can be read at:
He believes in free enterprise. Someone like that is always going to economically outshine a person who is far left like Obama. I think he’d make a great President.
I’ll second that. A Rick Perry presidency will be very interesting and effective. I mean, the guy wants to shrink the federal government, so he’s going to be somewhat of a hatchetman. Not the most popular role. And of course the barrel feeders are going to scream bloody murder when their pork is taken away. Hopefully, the ‘dependent masses’ will see that maybe they ought to figure out how to contribute to society and earn a living. Oh! Pesto – a job!
But his best policy by far, in my opinion, is ‘Don’t spend all the money!’.
Obvious. Priceless.
Although Texas is supposed to be a weak governor state (according to the state’s constitution) Perry has been one of the most powerful because of his length in office. His appointees control every (or nearly every) agency. That demand of power bothers me at a time the power of the presidency seems to be increasing. While Bush and Perry are quite different politicians, Bush comes across as much more willing to compromise and more understanding of those in need, I think the trend in Bush, Jr’s 8 years to increase presidential power will increase under Perry.
I really hope a full analysis of Perry’s time as governor gets spoken/written/discussed. He tried to sell the state’s interstates and highways to a Spanish firm (the selling of public roadways is a very bad idea and they, as toll roads, act as a tax on those who use them). Also, in the past four and five years the business communities and the police have pushed back about the cuts to education (employers like an educated work force) and mental health care (putting those in despite need on the street and often into jail - where they cost more money). Currently the major Universities are fighting Perry because of the amount of influence, through his appointees, he has on research and classes and degrees available. Look at what went on in Texas last year with Board of Education where they were literally re-writing history to read and be taught the way they wanted it to read - that is Perry’s base in Texas.
I think anyone who wants less government should worry about Perry. While he preaches a small government he power grabbed everything he could in Texas. Humility is not his forte. All those who think Obama has too much power should worry about this guy.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Here is where you can go for info on Perry:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Too overtly Christian – with his prayer meeting and all. Maybe he can get away with that in Texas, but it’s a turnoff to other parts of the country. Thinking heavily populated northeast cities
Has publically stated that he’s not interested in Washington
(Sweet Revenge)[/quote]
Big deal, he won’t take the heavily populated northeast cities no matter what.[/quote]
That’s probably true, although NJ leans republican now with Gov. Christie.
The only reason Christie got elected is because he was a counter-balance to his democratic predecessor who was a fiscal disaster in bed with the unions. Not unlike Obummer.
New York, Phily, Boston – I don’t see Perry winning those.
But there is a long long 15-month road ahead of us folks! Anything is possible.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Although Texas is supposed to be a weak governor state (according to the state’s constitution) Perry has been one of the most powerful because of his length in office. His appointees control every (or nearly every) agency. That demand of power bothers me at a time the power of the presidency seems to be increasing. While Bush and Perry are quite different politicians, Bush comes across as much more willing to compromise and more understanding of those in need, I think the trend in Bush, Jr’s 8 years to increase presidential power will increase under Perry.
I really hope a full analysis of Perry’s time as governor gets spoken/written/discussed. He tried to sell the state’s interstates and highways to a Spanish firm (the selling of public roadways is a very bad idea and they, as toll roads, act as a tax on those who use them). Also, in the past four and five years the business communities and the police have pushed back about the cuts to education (employers like an educated work force) and mental health care (putting those in despite need on the street and often into jail - where they cost more money). Currently the major Universities are fighting Perry because of the amount of influence, through his appointees, he has on research and classes and degrees available. Look at what went on in Texas last year with Board of Education where they were literally re-writing history to read and be taught the way they wanted it to read - that is Perry’s base in Texas.
I think anyone who wants less government should worry about Perry. While he preaches a small government he power grabbed everything he could in Texas. Humility is not his forte. All those who think Obama has too much power should worry about this guy.
[/quote]
I think it’s natural for politicians to be unhumble and to grab as much power as they can. It’s just in their DNA. Any politician that is truly humble and not interested in increasing his/her power is likely ineffective. But, I’m willing to be proven wrong if you can think of a good example.
If Perry is successful, of course he will attempt to surround himself with his people, but Washington is quite a bit different than Texas. He will confront bigger ‘checks and balances’ than he ever saw in Texas, which will surely challenge his power mind-set.