Rick Perry and the "I don't listen to myself" movement
August 21, 2011 9:21am CST
Perry is emerging as a legitimate Republican candidate. Many of his ideas are gaining support but not all of them for the right reasons. We need look no farther than his own logic. Supposition number 1: the Federal government needs to return power to the states wherever possible. This commonly held concept, popular not only with the Republican Middle Right, Far Right and Tea Partiers is such a constant war cry that Everyday Americans ARE paying attention. But unlike Ron Paul, who embodies this concept, Rick Perry is far more selective. The biggest error in hypocrisy comes from his proposal for two new Constitutional Amendments: Define marriage as between a man and a woman and Make abortion illegal in all 50 states. Alot of people don't have a problem with either of these, but if Perry REALLY cared about the States' rights to govern he would not be trying to dictate these decisions to them. Like alot of politicians, I fear he is only for the States' rights when it is expedient for him. Supposition number 2: Perry believes a "wave of populism", to paraphrase, swept the country when the 16th and 17th Amendments were added. These amendments created the basis for the Federal Income Tax and the direct election of Senators by the public instead of State Representatives, respectively. He wants to see both overturned by new Amendments. I'm not going to argue he is wrong. I like the idea of having the Senators responsive to the States again as they were meant to be. I can even see the hatred of the Income Tax bringing about its demise despite my personal misgivings in that area. The problem is both would need to be caused by a popular, venomous and reactionary movement exactly like (despite moving in an opposite direction) the movement that brought the 2 amendments into being in the first place. It is nonsensical for Perry to attack the origin of these amendments if he hopes to use the same tactics to destroy them. His exact words were "The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage". Of course, he doesn't seem to mind using the "fit of populist rage" that we have today to accomplish his own goals. He just wants to "mistakenly" disempower the federal government. (And if anybody has read me before at all, they'll probably not be surprised to read this prediction: It will be the last mistake we ever make to completely disempower the federal goverment!) His points are decent enough. He needs to just spell out his ACTUAL reasons and leave the sound bites out. If we're learning anything from the Tea Party movement, it's that the public is fed up with business as usual in politics. I'm afraid Perry is proving to be just that: more of the same politics, just more platable to the Right. Comments, dittoes and arguments welcome. Anybody else want to point out some hypocrisy from our favorite people: the politicians?
2 people like this
• United States
23 Aug 11
Bear in mind that Rick Perry has already proven he is not good in US government and history: Perry thinks the federal reserves is the US department of Treasury. Additionally, Rick Perry is a secessionist. You are welcome to follow link on my profile and check-out article titled "Rick Perry and the Texas Myth."
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
21 Aug 11
A bit more hypocrisy from Perry. Proudly proclaims that half the jobs created in the country in recent times were created in Texas. What he doesn't proudly proclaim is that many of those were state government jobs created with stimulus money, a stimulus he loudly criticized. But my point is trivial compared to what you brought up. I suppose in some form of twisted logic, a constitutional marriage definition would make federal government authority over marriage, constitutional. But somehow, I doubt the authors of the constitution would have approved of such trivial use of the article 5 process. It was made very difficult on purpose, so that it couldn't be used for trivial things. Perry should also realize that the president is not even mentioned in the amendment process, either by convention or by legislative suggestion. As for his stance on the 17th amendment (which I currently agree with)....he may hold that belief as a state governor. But given his his willingness to chameleon his stated positions on issues, one has to wonder how long this position will hold up once he is leading the federal government and not a state government. While many of Perry's draconian views may be very popular among hardcore christian righties, they aren't not so much so for a larger swath of Americans at large who just want government to leave them the hell alone if they aren't hurting anyone. Perry needs to get out a little more.
• United States
28 Sep 11
Let us not forget Perry's bill to give in state tuition to the children of illegals in Texas. This is not a good thing either. I don't know how big of an issue that immigration will be in this election cycle....especially when you consider the national debt, economy, and job market, but still. This says that even if he claims to be tough on immigration, he really isn't.....so what else is he lying about that simply hasn't come out yet? Makes you wonder.......