What you need to know about Rick Perry

 

Note: there is a link to a separate post detailing the negative things that Rick Perry critics are saying about him at the end of this piece

[Last updated: 8/27/2011]

Although President Obama has constantly lamented the sorry shape that George W. Bush left the country in, isn’t it interesting that Rick Perry followed that same “incompetent” George Bush as Governor of Texas with no major problems. Could it be that the horrendous problems that have confused and confounded the clueless Barack Obama weren’t really leftovers from previous President Bush after all, but of Obama’s own making?

In the spirit of full disclosure: I am a Texan and live in a suburb of Dallas. I voted for Perry in each of the three gubernatorial elections since 2002 and I am a registered Republican and a conservative. So, you may consider those facts as you read through my summary of Perry’s “positives.”

He’s not perfect, but I think that when his strengths and weaknesses are compared to his rivals, none has his combination of qualifications, experience, and record of successes. I’ve done quite a lot of research on Governor Perry and I’ve found lots of good and some not-so-good, and the good outweighes the not-so, so I’m not blindly following a messiah, I’m a realist supporting a man that (in my judgement) can beat Obama.

~~~

Perry, who has been Governor of Texas for 10 years, has more high-level governmental executive experience than anyone in the nation who hasn’t already served as President. In fact, he has more executive experience than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, combined.

It should be noted that while Texas has been leading the country in job growth and other economic areas, Perry doesn’t deserve all of the credit for this record, but he does deserve a good share of it. That is because during his tenure the often divided Texas government, in which 29 major offices are elected statewide, has functioned (mostly) as a unified team with Perry providing leadership. This team has kept Texas’ tax burden low despite hard times, and has kept Texas’ government among the smallest in the nation.

That said, Texas’ achievements of the past ten years occurred on Perry’s watch – with him at the helm. He deserves at least as much credit for the state’s conditions while he’s been Governor as Obama gets for “killing Bin Laden.”

And finally, it would be wise to remember that Rick Perry is, in the end, a politician. Granted, he is more conservative than most and has an enviable story to tell, but he is still a politician and must be encouraged to follow the wishes of his constituents – by pressure from the people. He has shown that he does listen when the people speak. Two of his major “stumbles” (Gardasil and the Trans Texas Corridor) received pushback from the populace and he backed off. And remember this, that any politician in office for ten years will have his/her critics and will have stepped on some toes during that time.

A challenge: I realize that anyone who reads this summary has a right to be skeptical of some of my content. I therefore invite those who might disagree with  my findings to challenge them by doing your own research. And cross-check via reliable sources rather than relying on a single posting by some anonymous blogger – many make disparaging statements without bothering to verify the accuracy of their “facts.”

1. About Rick Perry

A fifth-generation Texan, Perry was born on March 4, 1950, to Ray and Amelia Perry. The Perrys raised their two children, Ricky and Milla, in a modest frame house with no indoor plumbing in the tiny, unincorporated town of Paint Creek, in the southeastern corner of Haskell County. His father worked their 10,000-acre cotton farm and was a county commissioner for 28 years; his mother was a bookkeeper at a nearby gin. They lived a simple, rural life, milking cows, churning butter, and tending their small garden. Perry attended a one-story brick schoolhouse, he played football, and rounded out his wholesome upbringing by making Eagle Scout. Source: Texas Monthly.

When he was sixteen years old, he went on his first date with Anita Thigpen, a “city” gal from nearby Haskell (population 2,780). They sat together at halftime during a local football game, an innocent beginning to their sixteen-year courtship. They would marry in 1982.

Perry enrolled in Texas A & M University and graduated in 1972 with a degree in Animal Science. While there, he was a member of the Corps of Cadets (a military-inspired leadership program), a member of the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity and one of A&M’s five Yell Leaders (a popular Texas A&M tradition analogous to male cheerleaders).

In 1972, after graduation, he was commissioned in the U. S. Air Force, completed pilot training, and flew C-130 tactical airlift aircraft, cargo planes that were affectionately referred to as “trash haulers” by Perry and his cohorts. Perry was stationed in Germany and Saudi Arabia and flew in Central and South America, North Africa and all over Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977 with the rank of captain and returned to Texas. Unlike the other leading candidates for the 2012 election (Obama included), Perry is a veteran who gave five years of his life in the service of his country.

For the next seven years, Perry farmed cotton and tended the family ranch in rural westTexas with his dad. His wife worked as a nurse in nearby Haskell, her hometown.

He decided to go into politics in 1984 and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives (eventually to three terms), then to Agriculture Commissioner (two terms), and finally to Lieutenant Governor. He took over as Governor in December 2000 when George Bush resigned to run for President. Perry was later elected to Governor three times (2002, 2006, and 2010).

Perry is a self-avowed Christian who grew up Methodist, and currently attends Lake Hills Church in Austin. He is a social conservative who supports voluntary prayer in public schools. He is married to his childhood sweetheart Anita, who holds a master’s degree in nursing and worked as a nurse for 17 years.  The couple has two grown children.

2. Some General Issue Positions

Perry supports the repeal of ObamaCare. In his State of the State Address in February, 2011, he said, “it’s time to repeal ObamaCare, with its mandates that will cripple our healthcare system, and a price tag that will bust our budget. Our Medicaid population and accompanying financial burden are growing as we speak, and, in 2014, ObamaCare will cause them to explode. This Washington-centric healthcare plan puts many states on a collision course with bankruptcy.”

Perry supports the 2^nd Amendment, is a lifetime member of the NRA, and even has a personal Texas concealed carry license. The NRA gives Perry an A+. Support for the 2^nd Amendment is more important than ever as Obama backs a pending United Nations effort that could bring international gun control into the United States and slap America’s gun owners with severe restrictions.

Gov. Perry is a steadfast advocate for the rights of the unborn. He has implemented significant reforms to protect life, including parental consent and mandatory sonogram laws. Perry has been an unapologetic supporter of pro-life legislation and has signed into law all pro-life bills passed by the Texas legislature. Gov. Perry also opposes federal funding of abortion and human embryonic stem cell research. He signed bills into law this session (SB 7 and HB 1) that contain provisions that prohibit tax dollars from funding abortions and will defund Planned Parenthood.  

Gov. Perry continues to be a staunch supporter of Israel. After a trip to the area in 2007, the governor supported Texas’ divestment from companies that do business with Iran, a main opponent of Israeli freedom. Additionally, the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce was created to help launch future commercial interests and solidify the strong business and cultural connections between the two states.

In 2009, Gov. Rick Perry received the Defender of Jerusalem Award, given to public figures who have demonstrated support and commitment to the state of Israel and its capitol, Jerusalem. The governor accepted the award while on his trip to Israel, where he also met with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and business and academic leaders.

During that trip, Perry gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post in which he affirmed his support for Israel, “I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.”

In April 2009 and again in 2011, Perry endorsed a resolution supporting state sovereignty, under the argument that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves such authority. On April 9, 2009, Perry said, “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our State. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the States’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our State from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

3. Energy / Environment

Perry opposes regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and has stated that he supports an “all of the above“ energy strategy including oil, coal, nuclear, biofuels, hydroelectric, solar, and wind energy.

He also signed the Americans for Prosperity pledge  which states that he will “oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”

Under Perry, Texas is moving aggressively to create a diverse portfolio of energy sources, including renewable, natural gas, coal and nuclear power to meet the needs of the growing population in an eco-sensitive manner. Texas continues to lead the nation in oil and gas exploration and production, generating nearly one-third of all domestic natural gas, and containing one-fourth of all U.S. oil reserves and refining capacity.

Texas has more oil refineries, chemical plants and coal-fired power plants than any other state. As a result, Texas does produce the most greenhouse gas emissions and industrial pollution in the country, but Texas is also the national leader in reducing emissions and known pollutants and advancing renewable energy sources. Texas has done so while balancing the need for environmental improvements with fostering economic growth, new investment and job creation.

Yet the oil-and-gas state has nonetheless emerged as the nation’s top producer of a commodity prized by environmentalists: wind power. Eager developers are covering its desolate western mesas with giant turbines. The world’s largest wind farm began operations in Texas in October, 2009, and the state now has close to three times as much wind capacity as Iowa, the second-ranked state. Texas has more wind generation capacity than all but five other countries.

Texas set a strong renewable energy requirement back in 1999 (when George W. Bush was governor) – and quickly exceeded it. By 2008, 5 percent of the state’s electricity came from wind power – by 2010, wind power accounted for 7.8 percent of the total. Source: The Ft. Worth Star Telegram.

Want a more in-depth look at Texas’ energy production? Here’s a link to a detailed discussion of the state’s resources and production capabilities. Source: Consumer Energy Alliance.

Texas cares little for environmental niceties. Gov. Perry does care about protecting the environment and cleaning our air, but in a way that balances common sense policies while protecting jobs and job creators – a priority that seems of little concern to the EPA. Texas has substantially cleaned its air since 2000 while remaining the nation’s number one job creator.

Rick Perry, bashes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at every opportunity, and recently branded the climate bill that passed the U. S. House a “legislative monstrosity.”

Perry had this to say about the EPA: “When we combine lower utility taxes with increased, diversified production, we will preserve our role as the nation’s energy leader. Unfortunately, our strength in petrochemical production and refining makes us a big target on the radar of an increasingly activist EPA, whose one-size-fits-all approaches could severely harm our energy sector; an agency whose potential to harm our state with punitive actions will only increase in the months and years to come.”

He has been a major thorn in the side of the EPA. Texas was the lone state that refused to comply with the EPA’s plans for issuing new, more stringent greenhouse gas permits. The state had been issuing its own permits, a plan that was struck down by a federal appeals court. Under Texas’ own plan, the state had already decreased ozone levels by 27 percent from 2000 to 2009, more than any other state in the nation, and improved NOx emissions by nearly 58 percent.

4. Budget & Taxes

In the 2010-11 legislative session, faced with a $27 Billion dollar budget deficit (a two-year budget), Perry and the Texas legislature had few options except to raise taxes or cut spending in order to balance the budget (required by the Texas Constitution). Perry and the legislature chose not to raise taxes, instead they cut spending while retaining about $6 billion in the state’s Rainy Day contingency fund. Perry is the only Texas governor since World War II to cut general-fund spending from the previous biennium.

It is reassuring to know that Governor Perry has remained committed to his low tax philosophy during his entire tenure as governor. For example, in 2003, he also worked with lawmakers to balance the budget without raising taxes, when the state faced a similar, challenging budget situation. In 2006, he directed the Texas Workforce Commission to give Texas employers a tax credit because of surplus funds in the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, saving employers over $300 million between 2007 and 2008. And in 2008, he directed that the Unemployment Insurance Replenishment Tax charged to Texas businesses be suspended, saving an estimated 370,000 employers $90 million.

In 2009, Gov. Perry cut business taxes for more than 40,000 Texas small businesses by more than tripling the tax exemption from $300,000 to $1 million. In 2011, he fought to extend the exemption until 2014.

Also in 2009, Perry signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, which states that signatories will “oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

Governor Perry has also signed the Cut, Cap, Balance pledge  in 2011, one of only four Governors to do so.

During a speech at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, Perry said, “We’re stuck in this frustrating paradox where Washington actually neglects the things they’re clearly supposed to be doing, while interfering in other areas in which they are neither welcome nor authorized.”

“Americans want government that is leaner, more efficient, and less intrusive into their personal lives. They want government that will live within its means. Americans are obviously fed up with the so-called ‘progressive’ movement that, long ago, set aside the people’s interests in favor of expanding government and raising taxes while doing the bidding of labor unions and activist judges.”

According to a 2009 Census Bureau  report, Texas ranked 49th among the states in per-capita taxes, at a low $1,434 a year. Currently, Texas imposes no tax on personal income or capital gains. Perry remains opposed to a Texas state income tax and recently he vetoed a bill that would have required online merchants to collect sales taxes from Texas customers.

A recent state-by-state comparison study by the Texas Public Policy Foundation  (TPPF) found that Texas had a state tax burden of 7.9%, compared to a U.S. average of 9.8%. And the Texas gross state product grew 94.3% over 10 years, vs. 66.3% for the rest of the country. The  link goes to the TPPF website where you can see for yourself how the states compare.

In April 2011, The Small Business and Entrepreneurial Council  (SBEC) ranked Texas as having the second best tax system in the country for small business and entrepreneurship.

On April 18, 2011, Standard and Poor’s placed the United States on notice that it was at risk of having its pristine credit rating lowered if politicians in Washington could not agree on a plan to bring down the nation’s deficits over the long term. At that same point they lowered their outlook for America’s long-term credit rating to “negative” from “stable.”

When Washington failed to heed their warning they lowered the US rating from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011.

In contrast the State of Texas is on a opposite path with Standard and Poor’s. On August 13, 2009 S&P decided to raise the State’s credit rating from AA to AA+ based on several factors outlined in a Press Release from the Office of the Governor Rick Perry.

Now for the first time both the United States and the State of Texas enjoy the same AA+ Credit Rating from Standard and Poor’s; but based on the recent US downgrade report it appears that the two governments are headed in opposite directions.

Perhaps it would be wise for Washington to follow the policies that are working in Texas instead of the present policies that have failed to produce jobs and a sustained economic recovery. Source:  News Race Article (also contains the Governor’s press release).

Governor Perry is also on record as supporting a balanced U.S. budget and a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

5. Border Security and Amnesty

Perry has said that federal immigration enforcement has failed and that Texas must protect its own borders. The following statement on border security was made at Perry’s State of the State Address in February, 2007. “I am proposing a $100 million investment in a more secure border. There is no such thing as homeland security without border security. It is not hyperbole to say terrorists view our international border with Mexico as a prime point of entry – that is the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community.”

“While the vast majority of people who come here illegally are economic migrants simply seeking a better life, the small percentage seeking to cause us harm doesn’t dress differently. Nor do they put out press advisories in advance of their arrival. They don’t want us to know they are here until they have done mortal damage to our people.”

“I support strategic fencing in urban areas along the border. But I also believe, like border sheriffs, that the best solution involves added manpower, not unmanned walls.”

From a statement on Governor Perry’s website, “Securing our southern border is a federal responsibility, but the effects of the federal government’s failure to live up to that responsibility are big problems in Texas. As a result, our state has spent more than $230 million over the past several years to protect our communities and fill in the sizable gaps left by insufficient federal efforts.”

“Texas is paying border officers overtime to stretch their training and abilities further. We’ve added state-of-the-art aviation assets, including helicopters, and advanced communications and tactical equipment.”

“The state also has established Joint Operation and Intelligence Centers in each Border Patrol Sector and created quick-response units – like Trooper Strike Teams and Texas Ranger Recon Teams – that can effectively counter criminal activity in even the most remote areas of the border region.”

And in another statement the governor said, “The Obama administration must dedicate more Border Patrol agents to Texas. In fact, I have asked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to assign an additional 3,000 agents to the Texas-Mexico border. The current Texas Border Patrol staffing level of 7,700 is entirely inadequate considering that our state shares more than 1,200 miles of border with Mexico – roughly 64 percent of the entire American southern boundary.”

“In January 2009, I requested that until those staffing levels are increased, 1,000 Title 32 National Guard troops be deployed along the Texas-Mexico border in direct support of current state border-security operations.”

“After nearly two years, I have yet to receive a substantial response to my requests for help. Instead, under its own plan, the Obama administration sent just 286 National Guardsmen to the Texas border - a scant 20 percent of the 1,200 Guardsmen the White House deployed along the entire border.” When the Texas/Mexico border extends for some 1,200 miles (out of a 1,954 mile total U.S. border), Texas had every right to expect a pro-rated share of the 1,200 Guardsmen, or 768 guardsmen. Instead, Texas got 286 – a grossly insufficient number.

So, Perry wrote yet another letter to the President respectfully requesting an additional 1,000 federal agents to help secure the Texas/Mexico border. Since previous letters to President Obama got no response, Perry attempted to hand deliver this one directly to the President. The two met briefly on the tarmac as the President de-planed in Austin, Texas in August of 2010. With the whole incident caught on video, Obama refused to personally accept the letter and Perry was forced to hand it to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett. There was already no love lost between Perry and Obama, but to publically rebuff the governor of Texas (or any governor) by refusing to accept a hand delivered letter? What other President would show so little class as to do that? None, except Obama.

After six years of fierce partisan battling, Gov. Perry signed SB 14, the 2011 Immigration bill on May 27, 2011. Known as the “Voter ID bill,” the law requires that voters in Texas will be required to produce a simple photo ID to verify their identity before casting their vote.

Additionally, an amendment was added to a finance bill that requires that every person who applies for a Texas driver’s license be verified in the federal immigration databases through a program called Secure Communities. The change gives the Texas Department of Public Safety the authority to make sure someone is in the country legally before issuing a Texas driver’s license.

On the issue of amnesty, Governor Perry addressed a 2008 Governor’s Conference in Miami and made this statement: “I hope that there are 43 Republican Senators, and some thoughtful Democrats who realize that if you want to be an American citizen here’s the way you do it … you need to get in line just like everyone else. Go get in that immigration line like everyone who came before you. Now do we want to have sensible immigration policies that allow people who want to come into our state and work. Absolutely. Secure that border, have a sensible immigration policy, and if you want to be a citizen of the United States, there’s the line. But to go give 13 million people a citizenship because you came here illegally is … is … Asinine!”

An estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington and exert an enormous strain on the state’s ability to provide the services that legal residents have a right to expect. To see more of Texas’ Hispanic (legal and illegal) population, here is a Pew Hispanic Center  site with that data.

6. Texas under Perry’s leadership

Again the disclaimer, Rick Perry is not solely responsible for the successes (or failures) of Texas. The state’s legislature (with Republicans in the majority) and a generally conservative population are partners in the state’s achievements. But, these successes have come about on his watch and have benefited from his political persuasion. He has led the state for ten years during this growth period in Texas.

In the last five years, Texas – a right-to-work state - added more net jobs than the other 49 states combined (net jobs is the result of jobs created minus jobs lost). Since the recovery began two years ago, Texas has created 37 percent of America’s net new jobs. And even with a record influx of job seekers from other states, the unemployment rate in the state (8.2%, June, 2011) continues to be below the 9.2% national average. Source: Freedom Politics.

Texas has been the hands-down winner in the national jobs-growth contest for quite some time. Since June 2009, when the recession ended, Texas has added 265,300 net jobs, accounting for 45 percent of net U.S. job creation. Over the last ten years, while Perry has been governor, the numbers are even better: Texas created more than 1 million jobs during this period, more than all other states combined; while California, New York, Florida, and Illinois have combined to lose 930,000 jobs. Source : Texas Public Policy Foundation.

In 2005, Gov. Perry signed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Perry supports a U.S constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage. But, until that amendment becomes part of the constitution, he believes that the Tenth Amendment supports individual states determining what is appropriate for their populace.

When questioned about gays in the military returning to Texas, Mr. Perry responded that “Texans have made a decision about marriage, and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas, then maybe that’s a better place for them to live.”

As part of the 2011 session, he also signed a school finance reform package that provided a 33 percent school property tax reduction, a $2,000 pay raise for teachers, and record funding for classrooms. Over the past decade, average teacher salaries have increased by 30%.  ($38,361 in 2000-01; $49,544 in 2009-10).

Perry pushed for better schools through a combination of raising teacher’s pay; a return to the basics of math, history, and science; and enforcing higher standards and greater accountability.

Perry mandated 65% of every tax dollar be spent directly in the classroom and ordered all districts to make their financial records public for all taxpayers to see. Today, Texas has the nation’s largest teacher performance pay program and is recognized as a leader in preparing students to graduate high school, college- or career-ready. While national rankings still suffer, students scores in Texas continue to rise and a record number graduate and enter college.

In 2009, Perry signed legislation that is designed to remake Texas’ accountability system to ensure that high school graduates are ready for college, military, and the workplace.  (The new tests will begin during the 2011-12 school year.). Texas has been a national leader in adopting college- and career-ready curriculum standards, textbooks and assessments that will ensure Texas students graduate prepared to succeed in college and the workplace. The state’s national leadership in this area was noted by Education Week magazine. Under the 4×4 Recommended High School Graduation Plan, students are required to graduate with four courses in the core subjects of math, science, English and social studies. Schools are also required to offer students 12 hours of dual credit in college courses.

The governor has signed budgets that cut overall general revenue spending, while increasing the state’s share of public education spending by 48% between the 2000-01 biennium and the 2012-13 biennium ($25 billion in 2000-01, expended/budgeted; $37 billion in 2012-13, appropriated). The average Texas expenditure per student increased from $6,769 in 2000-01 to $9,965 in 2008-09, a 44% increase.

In 2011, Texas had the largest state-sponsored teacher incentive pay program in the nation. The program is unique in that it gives block grants to districts, granting them local control to fashion their programs to address local needs.

As governor, Perry has actively opposed the federalization of the state curriculum, declining to apply for Race to the Top funds, which would have required Texas to turn over its curriculum standards to unelected federal bureaucrats. His position was that the elected officials of the State Board of Education are in the best position to determine our state’s standards.

As of May, 2011, Texas was one of only three states (plus the District) that have rebounded to their pre-recession employment levels, according to statistics provided by the Federal Reserve Board of Dallas.

Texas placed five locales on America’s Economically Strongest Metro Areas list in Bloomberg Business Week’s review. See the slideshow here.

Six Texas metro areas — Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, McAllen, and San Antonio - were among the 20 strongest-­performing cities in the country, according to the Brookings Institute’­s “Tracking Economic Recession and Recovery in America’s 100 Largest Metropolit­an Areas” from December 2010.

Newsweek placed the “Texaplex” (Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston) first in its “Top 10 American Cities Best Situated for Recovery” poll and ”which has become the No. 1 destination for job-seeking Americans, thanks to a hearty energy sector and a strong spirit of entrepreneurism.”

Texas is now home to more Fortune 500 companies than any state in the nation. Why? According to Perry: “Texas’ low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulatory climate, fair legal system, and skilled workforce have made the Lone Star State a beacon for job creation and economic growth.”

Governor Perry and the law

In 2001, Perry enhanced his diversity credentials by appointing an African-American (Wallace Jefferson) to the Texas Supreme Court. Justice Jefferson won reelection in 2002 and in 2004, Governor Perry appointed him to chief justice of Texas’s Supreme Court. Perry also appointed the state’s first Latina justice, Eva Guzman, to the court in Oct. 2009. She was elected to another term in 2010. Perry said that these appointments are two of his proudest accomplishments.

On May 30, 2011, Gov. Perry signed into law a bill meant to limit frivolous lawsuits. House Bill 274, dubbed the so-called “Loser Pays” act, was deemed an emergency item by the governor and builds on tort reform passed in 2003, that cuts down on frivolous lawsuits, keeping Texas jobs creators in the office and out of the courtroom. The 2011 bill will streamline and lower the cost of litigation in Texas courts, allowing parties to resolve disputes more quickly, fairly and less expensively. Source: Texas Civil Justice League, a summary of H.B. 274.

Since the 2003 tort reforms,  more than 21,000 doctors have begun practice in Texas, improving access to care, including doctors that have brought specialty practices to previously underserved areas. For instance, 52 counties have seen a net gain in obstetricians, including 23 medically underserved counties. Source: Texas Medical Association.

Perry fought the trial lawyers on the tort reform issues … and won.

Even with that, here’s what a Texas trial lawyer has to say about Perry’s judicial appointments: “As a lawyer who practices here daily, my impression is that by and large, most conservative Texans are satisfied with the many, many, many judges that Gov. Perry has had occasion to appoint to vacancies on the Texas civil and criminal courts, both trial and appellate. Texas judges are elected; the governor’s power only runs to filling vacancies. But essentially all of Perry’s appointees who’ve run for reelection have then been elected in their own right by Texas voters, many of them repeatedly. And indeed, there’s sufficient confidence in Perry’s appointment priorities and performance that many Texas GOP judges have returned to the de facto near-universal practice dating back decades to when Texas was a one-party Democratic state: They resign to leave office, rather than simply not running for re-election, precisely so that the governor can appoint a well-qualified and fully-vetted judicial conservative to then run for election as an incumbent. That’s implicit, but very high, praise from those in a position to know.

Supreme Court Judge Don Willett said that the governor has chosen judges who reflect his judicial philosophy, which Willett described as “unabashedly conservative.” And he said that Perry understands the importance of judicial appointments. That is something he said Perry would carry into the White House if he were elected president.

“If you’re president, it’s often your court appointments that seal your legacy with a capital L,” he said. “I’m confident Gov. Perry gets that, consummately. He doesn’t do squishy. His judicial picks, from the Supreme Court on down, will not be philosophical ciphers, but impeccably credentialed conservative stalwarts who act judicially by adjudicating, not politically by legislating.” Read more on Perry’s appointments to the Texas Supreme Court in this Texas Tribune article.

And don’t overlook this: if Barack Obama remains in office another 4 years there is a very good chance that he will have the opportunity to elect anywhere from 3-4 supreme court justices either through natural death or retirement.

It isn’t just Perry bragging. Here’s what others are saying about Texas:

U.S. News (Nov. 2010) describes Texas as “the No. 1 destination for job-seeking Americans, thanks to a hearty energy sector and a strong spirit of entrepreneurism.” Read the article here.

The Wall Street Journal  (Nov. 2010) dubbed Texas the “Mecca for high tech, venture capital, aeronautics, health care and even industrial manufacturing like the building of cars and trucks.” Note that these are not the “low paying service jobs” that some anti-Perry detractors claim are the only new jobs being created in Texas.

“This continues a longer term trend,” the Journal wrote. “Over the last year, as the economy was beginning to grow again, the Lone Star State has led the nation with the addition of nearly 153,000 jobs, while California surrendered 43,700, New Jersey lost 42,300 and New York dropped 14,600.”

In May of 2011, Forbes Magazine notes that Texas cities held 4 of the top 5 positions for best big cities for jobs, 3 of the top 5 best medium-sized cities, and 3 of the top 5 best small cities for jobs. An astounding 10 of the best 15 cities to find jobs were in Texas – and this is Forbes saying this, not some nameless blogger.

Also in May, 2011, CEO Magazine Ranks Texas Best State for Business for Seventh Consecutive Year. Here is the list: Best states for business. And, if you’re interested, the details on how the 556 CEOs made their selections: The methodology used in selection.

Texas has been ranked the top exporting state in 2010 for the ninth year in a row, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce, signaling Texas’ ongoing role in leading the nation toward economic recovery. Source: Texas Wide Open for Business (data from U.S. DOC).

According to the Allied Van Lines’ 43rd Annual Magnet States Report, for the sixth year in a row Texas eclipsed every other state and took the lead as the No. 1 magnet state in 2010 based on Allied’s report, which tracks U.S. migration patterns. Read about it at: Relo Roundtable.

On June, 2011, Dallas Federal Reserve President and CEO Richard Fisher said, “Since the recovery began, 38 percent of all the jobs created in America have been created in the state of Texas…the most important thing that has happened to us is tort reform.”

Site Selection Magazine recently awarded Texas the 2010 Governor’s Cup for the most new and expanded corporate facilities announced over the year. “Gov. Perry has worked diligently in recent years to make his state pro-business, which is why Texas ranks as high as it does on matters of interest to site selectors,” says Mark Arend, editor in chief of Site Selection. “The Governor’s Cup is a clear example of this – and a critical one to the governors, because it objectively measures actual project activity.” Read the article here.

Additionally, according to a USA Today examination of data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Texas moved past New York over the past decade to become the nation’s second-largest economy.

Even a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers from California visited Austin early in 2011 to learn how Texas was creating jobs. Apparently they don’t really understand why they’re losing jobs … to Texas?

Perhaps they no habla ingles?

7. Perry’s relationship with the legislature

Gov. Rick Perry went five-for-six on the emergency issues he declared in the most recent special session. A ban on sanctuary cities, an idea borne of his 2010 reelection campaign, died in the Senate during the regular session and in the House during the special session. Everything else got through the Legislature: Voter ID, pre-abortion sonograms, limits on eminent domain, an appeal to Congress for a balanced federal budget, and making losers pay the costs of the lawsuits they start.

Conservatives - even some who aren’t happy with the session’s outcomes - generally praise the governor. He’s got a knack for keeping the factions in the party happy, or at least subdued in their criticism.

Early in the session, the governor sided with budget hawks who wanted to cut spending in the 2012-13 budget by about $28 billion. That number came up significantly as budget writers did their work and the House and Senate negotiated over whether and how much to cut schools, nursing homes, and other specific areas and programs.

Perry stuck with his general orders - balance the budget without new taxes and without spending the Rainy Day Fund - but left the details to legislators. In the end, he did get them to write a budget without increasing taxes.

It is also interesting to note that Governor Perry vetoed 273 bills since he began his first term in 2001. One can’t surmise anything from that raw number without knowing all of the details of each bill; however, it does show that he is capable of making decisions and is willing to take a stand. In contrast, President Obama has vetoed just two (2) bills since taking office.

8. Perry and George Bush, are they “birds of a feather”?

There’s said to be little love lost between Former President Bush (43) and Perry. Both men honored the tenets of Texas Republicanism: low taxes, small government and limited regulation. But Bush prided himself on his ability to work with Democrats, while Perry took a much more partisan approach.

Bush, or “George,” as Perry called him, “was no fiscal conservative – never was. I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99,” Perry went on, elaborately ticking Bush’s Governor years off on his fingers, “George Bush was spending money!” That statement alone could have cooled the climate between the two men.

The two share some characteristics, like so many Texans. They have similar accents and many of the same mannerisms. But the two come from starkly different backgrounds, approach politics in utterly different fashions and even draw their support from different parts of the GOP. A campaign consultant who has worked with both men said, “It is the difference between Yale and Texas A&M, between Phillips Academy Andover and Paint Creek High School.

When W. began his political career, he had a famous name, access to his father’s huge national fund-raising base, and the backing of the establishment wing of the Republican party. As a late arrival in the Republican ranks, Perry had no fund-raising base and little name identification. He had no choice but to gravitate to the conservative wing of the GOP, where he could prove up his conservative bona fides. There is one other critical difference. Bush lost his first race, for Congress. Perry has won every race he’s ever entered.

Some who know both men say that the animosity is more between their advisors than between the men themselves – especially between Karl Rove and Dave Carney. It is not entirely surprising that many “Bushies” seem to be encouraging others, more to their liking, to enter the race against Perry. If Perry was “just another Bush clone,” wouldn’t they be supporting him?

9. Some notable Perry statements

At a recent foray to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Governor Perry said, “Our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let’s quit trying to curry favor with them,” Perry said. “Let’s stand up; let’s speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our efforts to elect more conservative Republicans. Let’s stop this American downward spiral.” He told a cheering crowd that conservatives should “stand up” and “stop apologizing” for their beliefs.

Perry also lobbed a scathing broadside against Barack Obama’s administration, which he termed “a mix of arrogance and audacity that is an affront to every freedom-loving American.”

“States should be free to make decisions regulating such things as taxes, marijuana and gay marriage,” Perry says. “If you want to live in a state that has high taxes, high regulations – that is favorable to smoking marijuana and gay marriage – then move to California,” he says.

10. Can he win? Does he have the political “chops” to handle a national campaign?

For those considering a candidate to run against President Obama, Perry has a reputation as a deft, animated communicator who can energize a crowd and generate enthusiasm.

Rick Perry would also bring out the absolute worst in the Democrats. They would quickly move from denouncing him as a person to everything he stands for and everything he has ever done. They will trash Texas (more than they already do). They will lie that he is a “secessionist” (he is not) and if the 2010 campaign was any guide, they will lie about him as a person as well. The far left’s hostility will consume them and their party along with them, making them easier to distract and defeat.

Note this: Perry has never lost an election. He’s won all nine (9) of the races he’s entered and he’s been reelected 5 times.

Even critics in Texas offer begrudging praise for his political skills. “He’s somebody that people like. He works a room with the best of them,” said Kirk Watson, head of the Texas Senate Democratic caucus and a former Austin mayor.

“I would say it’s masterful,” says Michael Williams, a former railroad commissioner who’s now running for Congress. “I don’t think I’ve seen a politician as artful as Perry.”

Stuart Rothenberg on Fox News said that Perry is a “great campaigner,” and that he is “very conservative – more conservative than George W. Bush was.” He also said Perry will have a strong message based on his success in Texas in creating jobs, and a message that is more “anti-Washington,” and “anti-Establishment” than Bush.

Mimi Swartz (Texas Monthly magazine) says about Perry: (he is a) “Formidable campaigner. People on the East Coast underestimate him at their peril. He’s relentless. Perry will fight to the death if he wants this.”

Pajamas Media says that “Perry is arguably the best campaigner Texas has ever produced, and assembles campaign teams around himself that flood the zone, using social media and cutting edge fundraising tools in ways that few GOP campaigns can match. Perry’s teams turn their opponents against themselves and skillfully use the media as both messenger and foil. The experience of running and winning statewide in Texas, a state with 254 counties and five major media markets, has prepared him and his team well to take their skills national.” Source: Pajamas Media.

William McKenzie of the Dallas Morning News  says, “GOP candidates beware. Rick Perry will be the hardest-nosed campaigner you’ve faced.”

The Texas Tribune asked  Paul Stekler, an Emmy and Peabody award-winning documentary filmmaker, to help analyze Perry’s political ads.

Perry’s attack ads have been known to take out his opponents – sometimes in dramatic fashion. “They’ve shown absolutely no hesitation to hit back and also to hit beforehand with tough attack ads, so they’ve got a lot of experience,” Stekler said.

“We can debate whether he’s actually been a good governor or not. We can debate his policies pro and negative,” he said. “But nobody debates the fact that Rick Perry is a very, very strong campaigner. He’s gotten much better over the years, especially for somebody who’s this comfortable on camera. Who is this good on camera and is comfortable in his own skin.”

“I think [Perry’s ads] have been very effective, and the reason I think they’re effective is they convey subtle images that suggest values to a very narrow range of voters. Delivering that kind of a message when you’re that charismatic is going to serve him well if he runs for president because he’s much more of the person I think Republican primary voters are looking for,” Stekler said.

And here is an endorsement like no other: Kinky Friedman talks about Rick Perry. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Kinky, he’s a Texas icon. Here’s a brief bio: Kinky Friedman is a country music singer, politician, Texas Monthly columnist, the author of a successful mystery series, and was a candidate for Texas governor in 2006. His most recent book is Kinky’s Celebrity Pet Files. Kinky actually ran for governor in 2006 against Rick Perry as an independent and got 12.4% of the vote. Some of his campaign slogans were: “How Hard Could It Be?”, “Why The Hell Not?”, “My Governor is a Jewish Cowboy” and “He ain’t Kinky, he’s my Governor.”. His “expose” of his relationship with Perry is humorous and typical Kinky. It’s a light hearted, worthwhile read – “Kinky for Perry.”

11. Rick Perry’s college transcripts from Texas A & M

Here are Perry’s college transcripts (he didn’t do too well). Perry accumulated 2-A’s, 20-B’s, 27-C’s, 9-D’s, and one F (tally from the Austin Statesman). I’ve noticed one “curious” thing about the way that Perry critics characterize his grades. On more than one occasion, his grades were described as being “C’s and D’s. One has to wonder why, when there were more than twice as many B’s than D’s, weren’t they described as “B’s and C’s”? Another example of how the “objective” media reports are slanted to reflect their political bias.

Please feel free to compare Perry’s grades to President Obama’s transcripts to see how they measure up.

Images are from the Huffington Post.

 

 

 

 

(This space intentionally left blank so we can include President Obama’s transcripts for comparison)

 

12. The following section contains information on political contributions to Rick Perry as governor

Perry’s top 15 Total Contributors, by Individual/Corporations
Noteworthy Contributor	Years	Records	↓Total↓
PERRY HOMES (no relation)Home Builders	2000-2010	41	$2,306,999
CONTRAN CORP Banks & Lending Institutions	2004-2010	12	$1,020,050
REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION Uncoded	2006-2010	3	$1,000,100
AT&T Telecom Services & Equipment	2002-2010	171	$692,195
RYAN & CO Accountants	2008-2010	5	$650,000
ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS CORP Electric Utilities	2002-2010	62	$469,550
LANDRYS RESTAURANTS Food & Beverage	2004-2010	26	$424,834
GULF STATES TOYOTA Automotive	2008-2010	13	$415,670
NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CENTER Health Services	2010	3	$355,000
BP CAPITAL Securities & Investment	2004-2010	11	$327,900
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS Real Estate	2004-2010	14	$305,000
PILGRIMS PRIDE Non-Categorized	2004-2010	24	$295,877
TEXAS DENTAL ASSOCIATION Health Professionals	2004-2010	30	$255,250
BG DISTRIBUTION PARTNERS Beer, Wine & Liquor	2004-2010	10	$255,000
KIRBY CORP Miscellaneous Transport	2004-2010	12	$253,578

Top 15 Perry Total Contributions, by Industry
Industry	Total
Oil & Gas	$11,189,103
Real Estate	$6,771,745
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$6,754,564
Securities & Investment	$5,873,409
Conservative Policy Organization	$4,148,920
Health Professionals	$3,916,726
Home Builders	$3,429,887
Automotive	$3,045,957
Insurance	$2,456,832
Beer, Wine & Liquor	$2,214,219
Computer Equipment & Services	$2,146,305
Telecom Services & Equipment	$2,054,381
Livestock	$1,994,176
Party Committees	$1,831,763
General Contractors	$1,820,785

And, for those real junkies, here is a link to Follow The Money that will allow you to check out ALL of Perry’s contributors going back to 1998.

~~~

And finally, here is Pesky Truth’s tidbit of wisdom for the day, a quote from Groucho Marx:

“Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.”

Click here to go to “Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry.”

Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 1

Note: there is a link to a separate post detailing the positive things that Rick Perry supporters are saying about him at the end of this piece.

 [Last updated: 10/7/2011]

This is part 1 of a 2-part collection of critical statements made against Governor Rick Perry of Texas. The rather long article was broken into two parts to improve download time, which has become excessive. 

Since he’s been Governor of Texas for over ten years, folks from the other “56 states” are asking Texans what kind of governor he’s been and what we think. I decided that what I “think” isn’t good enough – I could be wrong. So, I decided to do some research on Perry’s record and form a more accurate, fact-based opinion on his qualifications instead of relying on my general perceptions. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Perry in each of the three gubernatorial elections since 2002 and I am a conservative and a registered Republican. It was easy for me to vote for Perry since the alternative(s) were either uber-RINOs in the primaries or liberal Democrats in the general elections. Under the circumstances, my choice was always easy. 

While researching Perry’s pros and cons, I’ve read every article and blog post that I could find – over several weeks. Many of those posts had 2-300 comments associated with them – I read them all. 

After reading literally thousands of comments, it’s become apparent that there are quite a lot of anti-Perry activists out there throwing all sorts of disparaging rhetorical crap against the wall in hopes that some will stick and they can influence someone, anyone, to become anti-Perry too. The unfortunate thing is that most of their negative statements are either completely false, at worst, or misleading, at best. They’re simply parroting something they saw on another hater’s blog. Yet they maintain that they are the knowledgeable ones and those supporting Perry are ignorant clods who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time – “ignorant” is an adjective that they like to use a lot. 

It’s ludicrous to think that some asinine statement like “Gardasil, Perry blew it – ‘nuff said,” deserves any consideration. No, it’s not “’nuff said,” there is usually more to know about an issue before a reasonable person can make an intelligent decision. For that reason, I have attempted to present some additional facts that have not been widely publicized just to educate those who have not been privy to Texas politics until now. 

In that spirit, I do realize that anyone who reads this summary has a right to be skeptical of my facts. I therefore invite those who might dispute my findings to challenge them by verifying what I’ve presented here. And cross-check via reliable sources rather than relying on a single posting by some anonymous blogger – some spout “facts” which have no basis in the truth. I will identify the source of my data and in many cases, I’ll provide a link to the source so you can see for yourself … the real facts. And one more thing, you’ll note that none of my information comes from any Perry-controlled site. I do have quotes from some of his sources, but only items that are specifically identified as a quote – no campaign rhetoric.

And finally, remember that any politician in office for ten years will have his/her critics and will have stepped on some toes during their term(s). 

Following are subjects that are claimed by detractors to be Rick Perry’s failings – they are in no particular order. 

1. Gardasil

Gardasil is a drug developed by Merck & Co.. It is supposed to prevent cervical cancer caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it in June of 2006 and subsequently recommended vaccination in females aged 11 and 12, before they become sexual active. Since it is not effective against an existing infection, it must be given before a sexually transmitted HPV infection occurs. 

In Gardasil, Merck believed that they had a credible, FDA-approved, CDC recommended, fact-backed case for vaccinating young women and lobbied state officials to do so. Were they trying to make money on the drug? Without a doubt, that’s what a business does.

Governor Perry issued an Executive Order (EO) (RP#65, February, 2007) which mandated that all Texas girls be vaccinated prior to their admission to the sixth grade. Parents were allowed to opt out of the mandate by filling out an affidavit. 

Perry was rebuked by both houses of the Texas legislature which overturned his EO by a veto-proof margin. Seeing the writing on the wall, Perry did not sign the law nor did he veto the overriding legislation. He subsequently rescinded RP#65 with another EO (RP#74) and the issue is now dead in Texas.  

As of July 2011, legislators in at least 41 states and D.C. have introduced legislation to require, fund or educate the public about the HPV Vaccine and at least 20 states have enacted this legislation, including Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,  Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Perry’s negatives related to the Gardasil issue were: 

• issuing the EO requiring vaccinations for young girls. Even though a parent could opt-out (for religious or philosophical reasons), refusing the child’s shot, people were upset that the EO required inoculation. Had the vaccination been voluntary, there would have been no question. 
• Perry’s former chief of staff (2002-2004) was a lobbyist for Merck at the time and is thought to have had undue influence on Perry on behalf of Merck’s drug. 
• Merck contributed a grand total of $6,000 to Perry’s reelection campaign. While it is unseemly in its timing, $6,000 is barely enough money to get noticed, much less to buy the support of a governor, least of all a “high roller” like Perry’s critics claim he is. That Merck contribution amounted to .00025 of the $24 million dollar campaign funds that he received that year.

There are still some who are convinced that Merck contributed more than a paltry $6,000 to Perry. They are simply wrong. Merck gave two checks, one for $1,000 and another for $5,000 to Perry in the 2006 election timeframe (in 2008, they contributed a whopping $2,500). Here is a source to view all of Perry’s contributions: ProPublica. In fact, Merck has only contributed $23,500 to Perry over a 1998-2010 span, not exactly George Soros money. For comparison, from 2000-2006 Merck gave $2,460,000 to state politicians across 40 states.

The other side of the story: 

Gardasil was believed to be a way to stop certain types of cancer among young women. Studies appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several (but not all) of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer and genital warts.  

Cervical cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women worldwide.  In the United States, nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 3,700 women die. 

In June 2006, The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended administering the vaccine to girls between 11 and 12 years of age, before they become sexually active. 

Perry’s “justification”

Perry maintains that the justification for his executive order making the shot mandatory was twofold: 1) that the vaccine offered a chance to save lives that might have otherwise been taken away by cervical cancer and, 2) that insurance companies wouldn’t cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen) when it was simply an optional “recommended” vaccine. That put it out of the reach for most low-income Texans. This from the Time Magazine article (linked above), “Some pediatricians and gynecologists are refusing to stock Gardasil because many insurance companies reimburse so little for the vaccine, which costs $360 for the three required doses.”

When Perry mandated Gardasil, it would have become part of a school-related vaccine package which was then covered by insurance for simply the cost of a co-pay.

Some additional insight can be gained by an analysis of 700 pages of e-mails regarding the HPV decision (Politico got from Perry’s office via a FOIA request). Ben Smith and Byron Tau concluded that there was not a record of Merck meddling and that Perry was “largely absent from the internal discussions.”

When Perry made the decision to issue the EO, it is likely that he was relying (at least partially) on his own in-house consultant more than being influenced by a $6,000 contribution by Merck. The e-mails show that his wife (Anita) WAS aware of the Gardasil issue and no doubt, Perry would have relied on her education (MS in Nursing from UT), and her experience, having worked in the nursing profession for more than 17 years. She worked in surgery, pediatrics, intensive care, administration, teaching and as a consultant.

That Anita was intimately involved in the issue is evidenced by the fact that she was the keynote speaker in 2005 at a Women in Government (WIG) conference on cervical cancer prevention and elimination.

Gardasil an unsafe vaccination?

Some critics have claimed that Gardasil has a record of “very serious safety issues.” That obvious attempt to further tarnish Perry’s image by intimating that not only did he do the bidding of Merck in ordering the vaccinations, he did so without considering the possible serious side effects. The CDC has been following Gardasil since its licensing and some current facts follow. Taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website:

“Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. “As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil^® have been distributed in the U.S. and the safety monitoring system (VAERS) received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil^® vaccination. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.”

“Of the total  number of VAERS reports following Gardasil^®, 92%  were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious. Out of 35,000,000 doses distributed, there were 1,498 occasions of serious complications; that equates to a .0000428 chance that a dose will cause a serious adverse reaction.” Hardly enough to consider the vaccine “a very serious safety issue” as claimed by some critics. 

As of June, 2011, the CDC says: “Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines.” Check out the CDC’s statements about Gardasil  for yourself. And specifically check out the Summary at the end for the CDC’s conclusion about Gardasil’s effectiveness.

An update: from Perry’s Speech in New Hampshire at the Home of New Hampshire Deputy Speaker Pam Tucker (8/13/2011):

When a voter in New Hampshire confronted Perry on the Gardasil issue, here’s what he said, “I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

Perry said he’d invested government resources in cancer cures, adding, “I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did.”

A cynic may not buy his explanation, but most politicians would never admit to a mistake at all.

Agree or disagree, at least he accepted his defeat and backed off. 

2. Trans-Texas Corridor 

The “Trans-Texas Corridor” (TTC) term identifies a plan, introduced by Governor Perry in 2001, that some saw as the beginning of a “North American Union” highway system. It was to extend from the Texas border with Mexico to the border with Oklahoma and would be a 4,000 mile system with routes crisscrossing Texas. The $175+ billion dollar project would have been the largest engineering project ever proposed for the state of Texas. 

When details of the plan became public, critics became concerned that it would lead to a “NAFTA Superhighway” that would facilitate the United States, Canada and Mexico merging into a North American Union (a fringe conspiracy theory).

As envisioned, the TTC consisted of multi-use right-of-ways that would be up to 1,200 feet wide to accommodate six 80 mph vehicle lanes, 4 truck lanes, two tracks each for high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail, a 200 ft. wide utility zone to accommodate underground water, natural gas, and petroleum pipelines, telecommunications cables and high-voltage electric transmission lines. A full-sized right of way would have required 146 sq. acres per mile. 

While the concept of multi-use right-of-ways can be considered forward-thinking and progressive (in the proper use of the word), many were concerned that the proposed methods of land acquisition and financing could take advantage of landowners and the taxpaying public to the benefit of private entities. 

In March of 2005, a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA) was signed with Cintra/Zachry, a partnership between Cintra (Cintra Concesiones deInfraestructuras de Transporte,S.A.), an international developer of transport infrastructure, and Zachry Construction Corp., one of the country’s largest construction companies. There were several other participants in the CDA, but these are the two most prominent. 

Headquartered in Madrid, Spain, with subsidiaries on three continents, Cintra is one of the world’s largest private-sector developers of transport infrastructure. Zachry is a privately held company founded in 1924 and headquartered in San Antonio,Texas. The concerns that critics raised over the TTC were: 

• Cintra, a Spanish firm, was the largest financer. They would build, design and operate the highway (that included collecting toll revenue). While the Spanish firm would not own the system, they would benefit financially off of Texas’ infrastructure. All roads in Texas are owned by Texas and managed under Texas’ Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) authority.
• Since most of the Trans-Texas Corridor roads would be toll roads, toll earnings would be used to pay investors (Cintra) and to maintain the roads. If any public money was used to pay for part of the TTC, it would constitute double taxation. Motorists would have contributed gasoline tax revenues towards building and maintaining Texas highways and still have to pay for tolls on the TTC. 
• It was estimated that 580,000 acres (906 square miles) would have been taken from private owners (mostly ranch and farm land) and either purchased by, or seized (via eminent domain) by the state for the Trans-Texas Corridor. 
• The possible misuse of eminent domain – confiscating private land for “public” use – was a major concern.

Perry’s dilemma

Here are the facts that were facing Governor Perry: Texas’ population is estimated to almost double by 2040 (growing by about 1,200 people a day right now). We’ll be approaching 44 to 45 million people by then. That’s not so far away. The TTC was an ambitious attempt to create a state-of-the-art, coordinated system of thousands of miles of roadways, rail lines, and gas transportation systems without raising taxes.

Fifty percent of the population in Texas is in the I-35 north/south corridor (roughly paralleling the route of the TTC). Infrastructure improvements (particularly roads) in that part of the state will be required to accommodate the growth.

What were his options?

The options were: 1) do nothing, and the state becomes so congested, the air quality gets impacted so negatively in those metropolitan areas along I-35 that you stifle economic growth. We know that doing nothing is not an acceptable alternative.

Or, 2) we could raise the gas tax by about $1/gal. That’s what the experts estimated that it would take, and it’s not sure that is even close to feasible. In recent years, it had been politically impossible to raise the gas tax by even a nickel or a dime/gal.

3) Wait for Washington to fund it? Well, good luck doing that. Our congressional delegation has not been very successful in getting Texas much more than nine cents back out of every dime that is sent to Washington in gas tax. Texas is a major donor state. Source: Environmental Working Group.

Finally, the last option was to use a Public/Private Partnership (P3) such that the private sector would build the infrastructure, and then recoup their investment via a user fee, i.e. tolls. It is important to note that P3s are a financing option, not a revenue source. Some current P3 examples in other states are: the Chicago Skyway, the South Bay Expressway in California, and the Capital Beltway high-occupancy toll lanes in DC. Here are more details on P3s from the Federal Highway Administration.

I-35 would have remained in place for those people who chose not to pay the toll. No “free” highways would have been converted to toll roads.

Some people are confused … they use the term “freeways.” There is no such thing as a freeway, no such thing as a free highway. There are only tax-funded roads and toll-funded roads.

Nevertheless, the TTC is now dead in Texas. It cannot be resurrected under any other name. In fact, the governor recently signed HB 1201, which removed all remaining references to the TTC from state statutes. Perry has not attempted to resurrect it or do an “end run” around the legislature and the people. Here is a local (Houston) story that sums up the public outcry over the TTC.

By law, toll roads in Texas can never be owned by anyone other than the state and are not being “leased away.” The public never relinquished ownership of any state roads.

The governor signed a law in 2005 that prevents a free road from being “converted” to a toll road. This is current law under the Transportation Code, Chapter 228.201 and he signed SB 18 on May 19, 2011, a bill which strengthened property owner’s rights when eminent domain is exercised by a government entity. Eminent domain “land grabs” were one of the big concerns that Texans had relating to the TTA. 

Unlike the current administration in Washington, Perry finally heard the people and backed off.

3. He used to be a Democrat and was Al Gore’s campaign manager in Texas 

It is true that Perry used to be a democrat, but he was never Gore’s campaign manager. He was active in Gore’s campaign but didn’t head it up, that was an accusation that was later proven false. Perry was raised in a Democrat family where his father was a long-serving Democrat county commissioner. It was natural for him to start his political career as a Democrat. He won his first election in 1984 when he was elected to the Texas house and soon became a rising star in Texas democrat politics. An opportunity to advance himself presented itself and he joined Gore’s Texas campaign in 1988. 

Those too young to remember wouldn’t recognize the Al Gore of 1988. He opposed the federal funding of abortion, supported a moment of silence in schools for prayer, approved funding of the Nicaraguan contras and was against the ban on interstate handgun sales. Gore’s platform was one that a conservative West Texas Democrat like state representative Perry could support when he signed up to chair the Senator’s Texas campaign.

“This was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming,” Perry said. Growing up in rural Texas, he said, “I never met a Republican until I was 25. … In 1988 when you looked at the candidates, Al Gore was the most conservative candidate that was out there.” Gore’s opponents for the Democrat nomination included: Michael Dukaksis, Jesse Jackson, Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon, Joe Biden, and David Duke.

When Gore failed to win the nomination (Dukaksis won), Perry came to question his partisan identity. “Not only did I vote for George H.W. Bush for president, I switched parties the next year,” Perry said. “When I did that, I made both political parties happy.”

From the election on, the Gore/Perry partnership began to crumble and the way that their paths diverged in the past three decades speaks eloquently to the way American politics has been reshaped. Gore has sailed left, while Perry’s political odyssey has seen him tack in the other direction — and to the opposing party.

Perry says that the Gore experience helped him to “come to his senses,” and he switched to the Republican party in 1989,  fully 22 years ago. Perry switched parties over two decades ago and critics somehow think that  bringing it up now is newsworthy? Sorry guys, as we say in Texas, that dog won’t hunt. When this accusation is leveled at Governor Perry, it illustrates a lack of substantive issues that are available to the accuser (is that the best you got?).

If you’re interested in more details, here is a Texas Tribune article titled “Rick Perry: The Democrat Years.”

If critics insist that it’s fair to criticize Perry now for his actions of 22 years ago, it is also fair to apply that same scrutiny and criticism to cover positions espoused by every other politician covering the past 22 years – President Obama included. Is it time to revisit (in earnest this time) Obama’s anti-American associations, his time in Rev. Wright’s church, his “present” votes, where are his college transcripts, etc.? Let the scrutiny and criticism begin … 

4. He wants Texas to secede from the union 

Some say that Perry wants Texas to secede from the Union and he is a traitor for saying so. The governor never said that he wanted Texas to secede. Scholars know that Texas secession is an urban myth and certainly, the governor knows it as well. 

What actually happened was that after people shouted “Secede!” at an Austin rally, he said that he understood their frustration but added, “We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that. Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.” It was obvious that he was playing to the crowd by implying that it could happen.

Perry emphasized that he was not advocating secession, but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration. He said it’s fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments. Perry’s remarks were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the rally. The governor said he didn’t think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea. 

“Among scholars, the consensus is that the Civil War settled all these issues,” Harvey Tucker, professor in the political science department at Texas A&M, told Factcheck.org. “Texas does not have the right to secede.” Others agree, “There is no doubt whatsoever that Texas does not have a reserved right to secede,” said Sanford Levinson, professor of government at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin.  “One could argue that the state does have a reserved right to split into five separate states (and thus get a total of ten senators).”

While some Texans still harbor fantasies about secession, it is not a serious issue. It’s an urban myth that Texas still has that right – most scholars don’t believe that. When Texas entered the union in 1845, it was with the understanding that it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, in the end, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four or five (there’s some debate) additional states at some point if it wanted to, but did not retain the right to secede. here is a link to the 1866 ordinance declaring secession and here are the operative words: “and the right heretofore claimed by the State of Texas to secede from the Union, is hereby distinctly renounced.” Passed 15th March, 1866.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v White (1869) established the principle that there is an existing prohibition against any state seceding from the Union without the consent of the other States.  

5. The jobs created in Texas have all been low paying jobs. Texas’ average wage is much lower than the national average. 

That statement would imply that most Texans are working for minimum wage and endure a quality of life below that of other states.  

The statement is factually wrong.

The critics who make that statement haven’t done their homework, they don’t care, they want to believe the accusation since it fits their meme. As Ronald Reagan said, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Even if it were true, isn’t a low paying job in Texas better than being jobless in another state? 

Here are some facts: On August 17 2011, Richard Fisher, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, gave a speech in which he separated “fact from fiction” about the record of job creation in Texas. Following are some excerpts from his speech:

Texas Job Growth is Indisputable: “These are the facts. You may select whichever metric you wish. Regardless, it is reasonable to assume Texas has accounted for a significant amount of the nation’s employment growth both over the past 20 years and since the recession officially ended.”

Most new jobs are unrelated to the oil and gas sector: “The most jobs have been created in the educational and health services sector, which accounts for 13.5 percent of Texas’ employment. The second-most jobs have been created in the professional and business services sector, which accounts for 12.5 percent of the Texas workforce. The mining sector, which includes support activities for both mining and oil and gas, employs 2.1 percent (yes, two-point-one percent) of Texas’ workers.”

Most New Jobs Pay Good Wages: “…these jobs are not low-paying jobs. The average weekly wage in the education and health services sector is $790; in the professional and business services sector it is $1,117; and in the mining sector, the average weekly wage is $2,271. Together these three sectors account for 68 percent of the jobs that have been created in Texas in the past two years.” Here is a link to Mr. Fisher’s full speech.

Mr. Fisher quotes weekly wages for the 68% of jobs created. Annualizing $790/week is $41,080, $1,117/wk is $58,084, and $2,271/wk is $118,092 when annualized. Hardly “low wages.”

You can check out the actual data for yourself at Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), (the source of the statistics quoted by Mr. Fisher). Be aware that dataset is massive, but it downloads your selected groups into Excel files that can be “sliced and diced” in many different ways.

If Texas has only been creating only low wage jobs, please explain how the statewide median income is still $48,259? A “building & grounds maintenance” person in the Dallas area earns a median annual income of $20,530 and a “food prep and serving” employee earns a median income of only $17,900, not counting tips (both figures from BLS). The massive number of low paying jobs must really be pulling down the Texas median income. Imagine what the $48,259 would be if not for the thousands of “poorly paid individuals.”

Having a job is only one part of the Texas quality-of-life equation – the other significant part is Texas’ low cost of living. The Cost of Living (COL) index takes into account prices on a variety of basic goods and services, including housing, groceries, utilities, healthcare, and transportation, as well as nonessential expenses like movie tickets and newspapers. These disparate costs of living can mean that a salary in one city has a far different value than the same amount of money in another city. 

While it is true that Texas median household income ($48,259) is less than some states like California, New York, and Connecticut, the state does fare well when the income is adjusted by the Cost of Living (COL). When the COL is factored in, Texas’ median household income ($53,009) exceeds California by $8,550, exceeds New York’s by $10,403, and Connecticut’s by $1,532. These are 2009 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau reported in a U.S. News article. Note that those figures are based on median income (a midpoint, with as many above as below).

Here is a direct comparison illustrating how much the cost of living affects one’s standard of living. Let’s look at two cities, Los Angeles and Dallas. When Dallas is compared to L.A., here is the result: “The cost of living in Dallas is lower than the cost of living in Los Angeles. If you make $100,000.00 in Los Angeles and move to Dallas, you will only need to make $62,862.55 ($37,137.45 less) to maintain the same buying power.” The comparison is from Inflation Data.com  where you can compare two selected cities against one another.

And here’s another objective, authoritative comparison:  

Texas is ranked third among “Best States to make a living.” The ranking is based on an Adjusted Average Income value which considers taxes, housing, and cost of living. Texas’ average is $41,427. Compared to Massachusetts: $38,665, Minnesota: $37,721, and California: $29,772 just to compare a few. This from CBS MoneyWatch, April, 2011.  

And here is another interesting tidbit, Texas places two metro areas, Houston ($60,634) and Dallas ($59,217) among the top ten metro areas in the nation with the highest real income. Real income is the median household income adjusted by the COL. Compare those figures with a couple of other large metro areas from the bottom ten: New York ($35,370) and Los Angeles ($41,331). The figures are from a June, 2011 analysis by the U.S. News  using latest available (2009) data. 

And what about 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 only 5%. This from Investors.com.

Finally, here is a new link, just added due to its excellent analysis of Texas jobs and unemployment. It is an excellent read that digs into the correlation between unemployment, job growth, and people moving to Texas. It’s called “Political Math.”

So, contrary to the poverty implied by the original criticism, the standard of living in Texas isn’t as bad as the “low paying” statement (if true) would indicate – the accusation is just an another attempt to diminish the job creation achievement, Texas’ standard of living, and by association, Governor Perry. And don’t worry, all of us “po’ folks” in Texas will manage.

6. Texas ranks poorly in educational spending and high school graduations 

That statement is partially true. Texas does rank near the bottom of some generalized rankings in spending per student and high school graduations, but as usual, those rankings alone are misleading. The statement is intended to imply that the state does a poor job of educating its students and therefore its Governor, Rick Perry is to blame. It’s just another two-for-one Texas/Perry smear.

With Perry as governor, how does education in Texas really compare with other states?

Well, here’s one example: On August 18, 2011, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan  attacked the performance of Texas schools, and therefore indirectly, Governor Perry. The only problem is … Texas schools do markedly better than the Chicago school district that Duncan actually ran as CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Here’s a link to Duncan’s tirade.

Duncan actually referenced a “massive increases in class size in Texas” during Rick Perry’s time in the governor’s office. But, class sizes actually went down. Duncan didn’t even bother to check his “facts” before blasting Texas (and Perry). Everything you ever wanted to know about Texas schools is available here on  Texas Education Association’s website. Duncan could have saved himself some embarrassment if he had checked his “facts” first.

The obvious political purpose was to attack a Republican challenger to his boss, which, if he is defeated, would put Duncan out of work.  Dallas Morning News’ editorial writer Rodger Jones offers another motive: Perry’s refusal to join Duncan’s Race to the Top.  Perry balked at the program as part of his general opposition to federal interference in state jurisdiction, which Jones calls “political,” but offers it as a reason that Duncan would want to make Texas’ education efforts look deficient. But included in Jones’ expose of Duncan’s charges, there is more – for instance:

Texas is ranked 13th in Education Week’s Quality Counts report. Quality Counts gave Texas an “A” in “Standards, Assessment and Accountability,” and an “A” in “Transitions and Alignment” of the Texas system with college and career readiness.

In 2009, Texas ranked 7th in a 26 state comparison of the only states reporting four-year on-time graduation rates. That year Texas’ on-time graduation rate was 80.6%. The Texas on-time graduation rate for 2010 is now 84.3%, an amazing 3.7 percentage point increase in a single year on the dropout indicator.

The Texas class of 2011 posted a record-high math score on the ACT college entrance exam. The Texas average math score was 21.5 and was higher than the national average of 21.1. See the full text for yourself at a Hot Air posting of the Dallas Morning News article.

Now to get more specific – namely, a direct comparison between Texas and Wisconsin schools.

We chose a comparison to Wisconsin because earlier this year, during their sit-ins and demonstrations, Wisconsin teachers compared their state’s (supposed) #2 ranking in ACT/SAT test scores directly to Texas (which they pegged at #47). Their reason for comparing to Texas was that Wisconsin teachers are unionized while collective bargaining by teachers is illegal in Texas. This direct comparison was intended to show the benefit of unionized teachers in educating our children.

However, those rankings were found to be: 1) obsolete, using 12-year-old data, and 2) used questionable methodology. The ranking was debunked by PolitiFact and the claim has since been removed from the union’s website, in other words, they stretched the facts to fit their agenda.

One point that must be considered when comparing Texas to other states is the racial makeup of the student population. Minority students – regardless of state – tend to score lower than white students on standardized tests, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be. Regardless of the reasons, the gap does exist, and it’s mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) to a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

But let’s even ignore that mismatch and compare them anyway – broken down by racial groups. We’ll compare some 2009 standardized test scores (the latest available) for 4^th and 8^th grade students in the areas of math, reading, and science. A pilot program for 12^thgraders is being tested, but national comparisons are not yet possible for that grade. The data supporting the following rankings are found at the Nation’s Report Card website (link below the rankings). 

2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade.

Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohorts in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8. That bears repeating: Texas fourth and eighth graders outperformed the national average scores in all categories.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin.

In other words, students perform better in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools – especially minority students.

The above statistics and narrative was taken from Iowahawk’s great blog site (but they have been verified against the Nation’s Report Card site which was their original source). Read Iowahawk’s complete analysis HERE.

And here is a link to the Nation’s Report Card site – the original source of the data so you can compare and contrast any other state(s) you’d like to see.  

About the website:” The Nation’s Report Card^TM informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. It communicates the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.

And lastly, this little publicized fact, Texas owns the top two spots (#’s 1 and 2) in the America’s Best High Schools list (Newsweek, June 2011), 5 in the top 25, and has 19 of the top 100 best high schools in the country. How can it be that Texas, with about 8 percent of the country’s population, places 19 schools in the top 100 high schools in the country (that’s 19 %)? Here’s a link to the Newsweek article  [be aware that the site has some display formatting problems, you'll have to scroll down to see the schools, but the data is all there, it's just in need of some TLC].

Is Texas leading the nation is education spending or achievements? No, the state must do better. No one in Texas is satisfied with our current level of achievement. Like any parent, in any state, we want the best for our children.

But Texas isn’t really the educational cesspool that the original accusation would imply – in fact, Texas is doing fairly well when actual achievements are compared to national averages. Is Rick Perry responsible? In some small measure, he is. Just as it would be wrong to credit Perry with all of Texas’s achievements, it would be just as wrong to assume that all of Texas’ problems are his fault. As governor, he certainly did contribute to both good and bad aspects of Texas life.

7. He is squishy on immigration  

There is some truth in that. His stance against Texas adopting an Arizona-style immigration law was initially troubling to many conservatives even though his point was that it would be better to force the federal government to enforce the border since that is one of their primary responsibilities. A true statement, but one easier said than done. 

He did add a bill prohibiting Sanctuary Cities as an emergency item in the regular session and added it to the call during the special session, but there wasn’t enough resolve in either the legislature or the Governor to overcome the business lobby that was adamantly against the bill. It died in the last special session. It was disappointing to conservatives that the Governor didn’t call another special session to continue the fight, but he maintains that It would have been a waste of taxpayer money to call another special session on an issue that lawmakers would not take action to pass – twice. The governor says that he will continue to support the prohibition of  sanctuary cities in the future.

Some have said that when Perry said that the Arizona law “wasn’t the right direction for Texas,” he was taking a position against strict enforcement of immigration laws. Not so – what he actually said was, “I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.” His concern was related to the portion of the Arizona law that required peace officers to inquire about citizenship status. Perry believes that the best solution is to allow officers the discretion to ask if they deem it necessary to carry out their duty. 

“Texas has a rich history with Mexico, our largest trading partner, and we share more than 1,200 miles of border, more than any other state,” Perry said. “As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government’s failure to adequately protect our borders. Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed.” Texas has allocated more than $400 million in state funding to secure the border since 2005. In the last legislative session alone, $152 million was earmarked for border security.

Perry has also adopted the National Governor’s Policy, part of which states: 

• Federal immigration policies should ensure that new immigrants do not become a public charge to federal, state, or local governments.
• The federal government must provide adequate information to and consult with states on issues concerning immigration decisions that affect the states.
• States should not have to incur significant costs in implementing federal laws regarding immigration status as a condition of benefits.

See the full National Governor’s Association policy on immigration here.

In the final analysis, Governor Perry says that the nation cannot have effective immigration policy until the border is secure. Today, the border is not secure and this is where we need to focus our resources.

Here’s a link to On The Issues which has more references to Perry’s statements on immigration-related subjects (too many to include here):

Perry gets a “D-” from NumbersUSA

Many engaged conservatives are considering the pros and cons of the current group of GOP candidates and they’re check-marking mental boxes for each of the issues that they deem important. When immigration comes up, and it often does, a grade from a specialized and credible source like NumbersUSA can help or hurt a candidate. A number of readers have brought up Perry’s grade and are concerned about his “D-“ issued by that group. It is what it is … but wait … it could change. NumbersUSA updates the grades weekly, adjusting grades by the candidates most recent statements and actions so the grades are subject to change.

UPDATE: As of 9/5/2011, none of the grades have changed. Does that mean that none of the candidates have made any statements regarding immigration that NumbersUSA deems “material” and should affect their grades since this was originally written and linked on 8/17/2011? Either that or they don’t actually update weekly.

As of 9/5/2011, NumbersUSA has issued Rick Perry a grade of “D-“. Mitt Romney also gets a “D-“, and for what it’s worth, Ron Paul gets an “F.” President Obama gets an “F-“ – an F-minus? I certainly would agree with the grade given Obama – or maybe it should be a “P-,” for “present”?

Though not (yet) running, Sarah Palin gets a “D” and Herman Cain gets a passing “C-“. The only leading candidate for the GOP nomination to get a good grade was Michelle Bachmann with a “B-“. Those are the headlines.

Time to look a little deeper. How did they arrive at a grade and what are the components?

For one thing, NumbersUSA grades the candidates on what they say, and to a lesser degree for what they’ve done. The following is from their website:

“These are not Report Cards on past actions, which matter but not as much as what these politicians now say in the news media or on official websites. These grades and ratings are about what a Hopeful says a President should do about immigration. We look at contradictions and changes in stances. We generally give the most weight to the most recent statements and actions.”

So NumbersUSA is grading the candidates on their latest rhetoric? Words speak louder than actions? Their grades are based on what the candidate says they would do (or wouldn’t do) as President? That doesn’t seem to set a very high bar. I’m not saying that any grades would be any different – I don’t know, but it seems like a record of votes or bill signings (or vetoes) represents something solid as opposed to a statement made up of a carefully selected, politically beneficial series of words.

If the candidates know that they only have to talk a good game why wouldn’t they just voice some promising rhetoric - calculated to achieve a good grade and leave it at that? Barack Obama has never been held accountable for his campaign promises, has he? I recognize that is a cynical position, but they are all politicians aren’t they?

For his part, Rick Perry is graded poorly on two items: “mandating e-verify,” which is defined as:

“Jobs held by illegal aliens SHOULD be opened up for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants already here by REQUIRING all businesses to use the Federal automated, rapid-response internet E-Verify system to screen out illegal foreign workers.”

And “Limit Unfair Worker Competition,” which means:

“The government should institute SAFEGUARDS that will prevent importation of foreign workers any time they would threaten the jobs or depress the wages of American workers.”

Perry comes across as “middle of the pack” when compared to the others who are also seeking the Presidency. Only Bachmann stands out. While Perry does grade fairly well on four (of the 12 components), he is given an “unhelpful” (“null”) on the remaining six.

I know that readers will want to see for themselves all of the other details of the NumbersUSA ratings, so here is a link to the NumbersUSA website and to the specific page for Presidential ratings. While on the Presidential page, you can click the candidate’s image at the top of the column to get more detail on which the grade is based.

8. Perry is a member of the Bilderberg cabal and therefore believes in a New World Order (NWO). That is reason alone to eliminate him from voting consideration.

Governor Perry did attend a Bilderberg meeting in June, 2007, and now some say (mostly Ron Paul supporters) that he is their hand-picked candidate for the job of POTUS in 2012. Since attending four years ago, his detractors would have us believe that he’s been studying his Bilderberg bible, taking classes in New World Governing, and polishing his Illuminati lapel pin. Does this mean that the Bilderbergers are ready to dump President Obama (who they also supposedly put in office) in favor of Rick Perry?

This is a Texas-sized Conspiracy theory – appropriate for the Governor of Texas. 

Here are some hard facts about the Bilderberg Group. The group (named after the Dutch hotel where they first met) was founded in 1954. Started by Denis Healey, Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, they aim to bring together financiers, industrialists, politicians and opinion formers to discuss problems facing the western world. There are no “members” of the Bilderberg Group, only attendees.

Every year they meet, away from the intrusive eyes of the press. The confidentiality enables people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions. Attendance is only by invitation of the steering committee. They network, eat, drink, play golf and return home. At each meeting, a broad cross-section of leading citizens are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy.

It is a small, flexible international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-nine conferences have been held. After each meeting, the names of the participants as well as the agenda are made public and available to the press.

Invitations to Bilderberg conferences are extended by the Chairman following consultation with the Steering Committee members. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, their standing and their contribution to the selected agenda. There usually are about 120 participants of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labor, education and communications. Participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.

Following are a few of the prominent persons attending one or more Bilderberg meetings over the years; the list is intended to illustrate the varied positions, background, and political views of those who have participated (only USA participants are listed):

Presidents Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, John Bolton, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Timothy Geithner, Paul Volcker, Terry McAuliffe, Ben Bernanke, David Rockefeller, Rupert Murdoch, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfield, ABC anchor Peter Jennings, William F. Buckley, George Stephanopoulos, Mort Zuckerman, Thomas Friedman, George Soros, Senators Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Corzine, and Governors Mark Sanford (SC), Mark Warner (VA), George Pataki (NY), Christine Todd Whitman (NJ) and Kathleen Sebelius (KS).

It’s common for many CEO’s of large corporations to be present at the meetings. For example, the CEO’s of Amazon, Alcoa, Coca Cola, Fannie Mae, Facebook, Ford, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Pepsico, Time Inc. and the Washington Post have all attended Bildergerg meetings. Even Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher (G.B.) attended a Bilderberg conference.

Here is a LINK to conference meeting dates, locations, and agendas, and this LINK will take you to the “Latest Meetings” tab. Simply select the year and click on “Participants” to see who attended.

Some say that they secretly control the world’s governments; they seek the world’s destruction so it can be rebuilt more perfectly. They have long infiltrated nearly all aspects of American society, business and government and they are bent on establishing a New World Order. The appeal of this theory is its utter vagueness and total flexibility based on location and government. Basically, the conspiritists believe that anyone in power is probably doing something super secretive and deadly right now that’s designed to increase the suffering of the masses and bring more wealth and power to the elite. It goes without saying that there’s no proof of any of this, but then, that’s the appeal of conspiracy theories.

And what about Perry’s attendance violating the Logan Act? For those not versed on such matters: “The Logan Act  (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from “negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.” Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

It is ludicrous to accuse Perry of “negotiating” with “other nations” just as it would be to accuse the other participants, like ABC anchor Peter Jennings, William F. Buckley, or George Stephanopoulos of “negotiating with foreign governments.” They attended a conference with other influential people, that’s the extent of it. Find something else to worry about.

No one is saying that the movers and shakers who have attended the conferences don’t have an impact on our world, just look at the people who attend – they are among the most influential and powerful individuals in every category – of course they have an impact. But these people will have influence on our lives because of who they are and the power they hold, not because of any blood oath to the Bilderbergers. Frankly, the United Nations (UN) is probably a bigger threat to our republic than the Bilderberg group.

Only in science fiction (and conspiracy theories) can someone like Rick Perry be turned into a mind-numbed robot following the Bilderberg’s nefarious instructions to take over the world … instructions that they somehow implanted in less than three days … four years ago … right.

And recently, during an interview by Maggie Haberman on 8/15/2011, Perry said that he was invited to the Bilderberg meeting and attended out of curiosity. “I found it to be an interesting group of people. I have yet to find out why they want to keep it a secret,” he said. “I haven’t been invited back and that was 5 years ago, so I guess I didn’t impress them.”

~~~

And finally, a word from our sponsor, Pesky Truth:

Groucho Marx once said, “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

Doesn’t that sound like most of our politicians took lessons from Groucho?

Click here to continue to PART TWO of “Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry.”

Click here to jump to “What you need to know about Rick Perry” 

That is where one can learn of the POSITIVES that are attributed to Governor Perry. 

 

Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 2

Note: there is a link to a separate post detailing the positive things that Rick Perry supporters are saying about him at the end of this piece.

 [Last updated: 9/5/2011]

This is a continuation of part 1 of a collection of critical statements made against Governor Rick Perry of Texas. The rather long post was broken into two parts to imporve download time, which has become excessive. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Perry in each of the three gubernatorial elections since 2002 and I am a conservative and a registered Republican. It was easy for me to vote for Perry since the alternative(s) were either uber-RINOs in the primaries or liberal Democrats in the general elections. Under the circumstances, my choice was always easy. 

In that spirit, I do realize that anyone who reads this summary has a right to be skeptical of my facts. I therefore invite those who might dispute my findings to challenge them by verifying what I’ve presented here. And cross-check via reliable sources rather than relying on a single posting by some anonymous blogger – some spout “facts” which have no basis in the truth. I will identify the source of my data and in many cases, I’ll provide a link to the source so you can see for yourself … the real facts. And one more thing, you’ll note that none of my information comes from any Perry-controlled site. I do have quotes from some of his sources, but only items that are specifically identified as a quote – no campaign rhetoric.

Following is part two of subjects that are claimed by detractors to be Rick Perry’s failings – they are in no particular order. 

9. Perry turned down $555 million in federal stimulus,  yet later asked for federal disaster aid for Texas wildfires 

That’s true. The reason that Perry gave for refusing that particular “stimulus” was that it was a one-time, temporary influx of money to assist in covering extended unemployment benefits, but had strings attached (the most serious was that the funding would only last about two years). After that, the state would have to find a way to continue the higher payments covered by the federal funding. In other words, it was a one-time, kick-the-can-down-the-road temporary funding that didn’t permanently fix anything and would leave Texas liable for replacing the $555 million when the federal money ran out. Instead Perry got a federal loan to cover the state’s unemployment fund shortfall. While a loan still must be repaid, it didn’t come with the extra burden of federal mandates that accompanied the $555 million stimulus funding. Thus, he avoided the federal meddling that was part of the original stimulus while still shoring up the state’s unemployment fund.

It is true that Governor Perry did accept part of the $787 billion Recovery Act money and used those funds to cover the state’s budget shortfall. Perry has never said that he would never accept federal funds, he has just been careful to decline when the funds came with unacceptable federal intrusion in state affairs attached.

Relative to the wildfires: Over 2.2 million acres of Texas land in 252 counties were lost to wildfires in 2011 due to severe dry conditions caused by drought. Across the state, hundreds of homes and countless livestock have been lost. As a result, Texas Governor Rick Perry requested a Major Disaster Declaration (MDD) and federal emergency funds to assist in fighting the ongoing fires. President Obama refused to issue a Major Disaster Declaration, originally requested on April 16, and instead provided lesser federal assistance for fires fought only between April 6 and May 3, 2011, covering just a fraction of the fires fought in Texas so far this season.  A Major Disaster Declaration would have made the state eligible for much more response and recovery assistance from the federal government. Major Disaster aid is an entirely different type of federal aid and is specifically designed to assist states when natural disasters occur. Many in Texas believe that the MDD was withheld for political reasons. 

It is hardly hypocritical to refuse federal funding with unacceptable strings attached while requesting federal disaster aid when a natural disaster occurs. It is the federal government’s responsibility to provide disaster relief, one of the few things they have an obligation to the states to fulfill.

10. Perry says he has not raised taxes, but he has 

When Perry states that “we don’t raise taxes.” That’s such a broad generalization that it can’t possibly be 100% factual. And it is not. Perry has raised about half a dozen taxes during his tenure, including three 2006 changes that helped cover reductions in school property taxes, being essentially revenue neutral. He also signed into law tax increases on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, fireworks, and diesel equipment. He also implemented a change to the business franchise tax law that increased the franchise tax that businesses pay to operate in Texas – that was an actual business tax increase. 

Another tax that has gone up on his watch is the unemployment tax that is paid by Texas businesses. While the tax rate fell steadily from 2004 through 2008, the rate rose in 2009 and 2010 largely due to the national economic downturn. However, the state unemployment rate is set automatically based on the balances in the state’s unemployment fund and is independent of any gubernatorial action, thus Perry is not liable for that one. 

Perry has managed to keep taxes low during his 10-year tenure as governor. Countless opportunities to raise taxes presented themselves during Perry’s ten years as governor, yet he resisted the temptation. Texas was ranked 49th among the states in per-capita taxes, at $1,434 a year in 2005, according to a 2009 Census Bureau report and a Texas Public Policy Foundation analysis  (Feb., 2011) shows Texas with a 7.9% combined state/local tax burden, ranking it 45th among the states – for comparison, New York’s burden is 12.1%.

After 10 years in office, with ample opportunities to raise taxes, Perry has maintained an enviable record as a low-tax governor. 

Currently, Texas imposes no tax on personal income or capital gains. Perry remains opposed to a Texas state income tax and recently vetoed a proposed Internet state sales tax. Perry supports a balanced U.S. budget and a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In his first veto of the year, governor Perry vetoed the Internet sales tax bill (HB 2403). That’s just one more reason for Texas’ low cost of living. Many other states have already enacted new laws to require all Internet sellers to collect a state’s sales tax (regardless of nexus) and others are feverishly getting on the bandwagon – drawn like a moth to a flame – to grab and spend this new source of previously out-of-reach revenue.

11. Perry has presided over the highest number of executions in the nation 

Be aware that I used the term “presided over” because that’s the way that several critical comments characterized Perry’s position. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perry did not “preside” over the trials, nor the jury’s decisions, nor did he act as judge. He did not preside over the multitude of appeals that are common in capital cases and he was not part of court decisions that denied a new trial. He was simply in office when these events occurred. He could issue a one-time thirty-day reprieve otherwise, short of a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, his only option was to grant the reprieve or allow the execution to proceed. That’s it.

231 executions have taken place while Perry was governor. He commuted the death sentence for 31 inmates – mostly those where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the crime.

Governor Perry followed Texas law. He has done exactly what a Texas governor is bound by law to do. Barring a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Parole, he cannot unilaterally grant anything other than a single 30-day reprieve, at the end of which (barring a court order) the execution proceeds.

It’s one thing to be against the death penalty on moral grounds, in that case, work to change the laws. But in a nation built on laws, we are bound to abide by the law – even those we may find objectionable. When an individual has been tried in court, found guilty and exhausted all of the appeals available to them, there comes a time when the sentence must be carried out – that’s the law.

12. Perry refused to consider commuting the execution of Mexican national Humberto Leal Garcia even though it had been requested by the U.N. and the White House 

Humberto Leal Garcia was sentenced to death for the 1994 rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Leal, a mechanic, was born in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, in 1973 and moved to the USA when he was two years old, but never became a United States citizen. He was an illegal immigrant. 

On May 21, 1994, Leal kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered 16-year-old Adria Sauceda. Police discovered the girl’s nude body on a dirt road in San Antonio in May 1994. Evidence showed she had been gang-raped, bitten, strangled and bludgeoned to death. 

She and Leal had been attending a party not far from where she was found. She became intoxicated at the party and Leal is said to have offered to drive her home. Leal carried an intoxicated semi-conscious Sauceda into his car. When Leal placed Sauceda in his car she was clothed. When Sauceda’s body was later discovered she was nude.

Leal was the last known individual to see Sauceda alive.  

Official court documents state “There was a 30- to 40-pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim’s skull lying partially on the victim’s left arm; Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim’s right thigh.” There was also a 15 inch long stick extending out of her vagina, with a screw at the end. Leal claimed that she fell and hit her head. No one was charged in the gang rape. 

Among other evidence, the bite mark was matched to Leal. Her bloody blouse was found at Leal’s home, and Leal confessed to police and his brother that he had killed Sauceda. 

The complaint is that even though the 38-year-old Mexican national had lived in the United States since he was 2 years old, he was not granted access to the Mexican consul prior to making incriminating statements (his confession). 

In a letter to Texas Governor Rick Perry, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights asked that he commute the sentence to life in prison. “If the scheduled execution of Mr. Leal Garcia goes ahead, the United States government will have implemented a death penalty after a trial that did not comply with due process rights,” said Christof  Heyns, the U.N.  Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. “This will be tantamount to an arbitrary deprivation of life.” 

In its 30-page brief, the Obama administration said that complying with its obligations to notify consuls in such cases would serve U.S.interests as well as those of the condemned man. “It would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international-law obligation to provide consular notification and assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” wrote Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., in a friend-of-the-court brief. 

Leal had the benefit of 45 separate hearings and appeals before his execution and his guilt was beyond question. 

Update: On July 7, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the execution on a 5-4 vote and Leal was executed via lethal injection. In his last minutes, Humberto Leal repeatedly said he was sorry and accepted responsibility – admitting his actions for the first time since his original confession, “I have hurt a lot of people. … I take full blame for everything. I am sorry for what I did,” he said in the death chamber before shouting twice, “Viva Mexico!”. 

13. Cameron Todd Willingham – was he an innocent man? 

This is a troubling case. Willingham was executed by lethal injection in 2004 after being convicted of setting a fire that killed his three daughters before Christmas 1991. But his case and the ensuing controversy frame the death penalty in a new way: whether Perry used his power as governor to try to dodge responsibility for presiding over the execution of a potentially innocent man. Again, that term “presiding” – a term specifically designed to make it appear that he had more responsibility in the execution than is true.

At Willingham’s trial, Texas fire investigators said they found clear indicators that the fire at the Willingham home in the small town of Corsicana had been intentionally set. By the time of  Willingham’s execution in February, 2004, the science of fire investigation had dramatically advanced and what investigators had for decades considered telltale signs of arson were no longer considered reliable. 

In the final days before Willingham was put to death, his lawyer filed with the courts a report from Gerald Hurst, one of the nation’s most renowned fire scientists. Hurst’s four-page report asserted for the first time in the case that the indicators of arson the investigators cited had been debunked by scientific advances. The fire, Hurst concluded, might well have been an accident – he did not state categorically that it was an accident. Perry reviewed the report and determined it did not present new information, only new opinion. He also decided it did not merit a stay of execution. 

Under Texas law, the Governor can only issue a one-time temporary 30-day stay of execution. Any other clemency or commutation of sentence must be recommended to the Governor by the state’s Pardons and Paroles board. None was forthcoming in the Willingham case. 

Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman said, “Willingham’s conviction was reviewed and upheld by multiple levels of state and federal courts, including nine federal courts – four times by the U.S. Supreme Court alone – over the course of more than a decade.” 

Here is some detail of Willingham’s various legal manuevers relating to appeals, etc.

State post-conviction litigation: Following a mandatory direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Willingham’s conviction and sentence. A motion for rehearing was denied on April 26, 1995. The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari. Willingham v.Texas, 516U.S.946 (1995). Willingham filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition for relief. Ex parte Willingham, No. 35,162 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari. Willingham v.Texas, 524U.S.917 (1998). Six years later, Willingham filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court, attaching a statement challenging the fire investigation.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition, finding that it did not meet the legal requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Ex parte Willingham, No. 35,162-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Federal post-conviction litigation: Willingham filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. A federal magistrate judge denied the petition, and the federal district court judge agreed with the magistrate’s denial. Willingham v. Johnson, No. 3:98-CV-0409-L, 2001 WL 1677023, at *1 (N.D.Tex.Dec. 31, 2001). A federal court of appeals agreed with the district court. Willingham v. Cockrell, No. 02-10133, 2003 WL 1107011 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 2003). The United States Supreme Court also denied a petition for writ of certiorari. Willingham v. Dretke, 540U.S.986 (2003).

Pardon application: On January 26, 2004, Willingham filed an application for commutation with the Board of Pardons and Paroles (petition for commutation and stay of execution). The Board voted 15-0 to deny the request.

When the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reviewed the latest evidence, they refused to recommend that Governor Perry act in this case. Governor Perry independently decided that the evidence did not warrant a stay and he allowed Willingham’s execution to proceed in accordance with his responsibility as Governor. 

Did Texas execute an innocent man? In a case that could not have been overturned based on something as definitive as DNA evidence and seven years after the 2004 execution, there’s no way to be 100% sure, but under Texas law, the most that Perry could have done was issue a single 30-day stay. When someone takes the position that Willingham was “innocent,” that person is intentionally ignoring all of the legal maneuvers that occurred and is basing that determination on “feelings.” He was never deemed “innocent” by any legal authority.

If one Googles ”Cameron Todd Willingham” the majority of the hits will be different shadings of the same story line, that of those against the death penalty (Innocence Project, etc.). Every attempt is made to cast doubt on the evidence that Willingham was guilty, especially using quotes from “experts” in the field of fire science. The problem is that many of the quotes are massaged to remove any doubt and make them appear as unquestioned facts, when most stated that the fire could have been accidental. For someone really interested in the truth of the case, one must also have access to the other side of the issue. Here is a link to an interview with the Dallas Morning News by Dudley Sharp who was investigating the “innocence” of Willingham. Willingham’s “innocence” was never established, and none of his appeals gave the appellate courts reason to call for a new trial.

The charge that Perry was knowingly complicit in executing an innocent man is without merit. He rejected the last evidence (the Hurst report) as a reason to stay Willingham’s execution, just as the US Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had. His case was tried, appealed, and adjudicated according to the law. 

But Perry’s critics don’t give up so easily. As another point of attack, they accuse him of replacing the members of the Forensics Science Commission (FSC) two days before the formal hearing because, they maintain, the commission was going to submit a finding that did not support the governor’s position on Willingham’ s guilt. 

Not only is that position based on an incorrect supposition, it is also obviously biased.

The FSC was not established as a commission for establishing innocence or guilt, nor was it established as a forum for debating the merits of capital punishment. It was established to advance the reliability and integrity of forensic science in Texas courts. The Texas Forensic Science Commission is composed of nine members, each selected by appointment through either the Lieutenant Governor (3), Governor (4), or Attorney General’s office (2).

Each member of the Texas Forensic Science Commission serves a staggered two-year term subject to re-appointment. The Governor designates a Presiding Officer or Chair.

Perry did replace the members because: 1) their terms had expired and appointing new members was standard policy, and 2) pushing back the date of the FSC hearing would allow more time for the Corsicana Fire Department (CFDR) and Texas Fire Marshall’s office (TFMR) to respond to the Beyler report (BR). Both were expected to be critical of the Beyler Report. Pushing back the date of the formal hearing also gave the new FSC members time to get up to speed on the details of the case. 

The preliminary CFDR blasted the BR on some obvious and important points, making over a hundred comments and corrections to Beyler’s 19 page review of the Willingham case. It made the case that the Beyler report was both inaccurate and biased. The final determination awaits completed CFDR and TFMR reports.

For those interested in more factual detail, here is a link to the FSC Willingham report. Be aware that it’s 47 pages discussing the committee’s recommendations regarding improvements that could be made in fire investigation techniques, it was not within their jurisdiction to discuss Willingham’s guilt or innocence.

And here is a link to the actual hand-written police reports of wittness statements.

14. Perry supports giving in-state tuition to illegals 

This is true. Perry signed the bill six years ago. Under the law, any student who has lived in Texas at least three years and graduated from a Texas high school qualifies for in-state tuition. The law also requires noncitizens to apply for citizenship. “I’m for leaving the law like it is because I think it serves a good purpose,” Perry said. Texas was one of the first states to pass an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants. Ten states currently have such laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. About 12,138 children of immigrants got in-state tuition in 2009, about 1 percent of students in Texas trade schools, colleges, and universities. Of that number, 8,406 were in community and technical schools, only 3,725 at universities, and 7 at health-related institutes. Read a good summary of the current status of this issue here at a Dallas Morning News  article.

Critics have said it gives a financial advantage to illegal immigrants while U.S. citizens who are not Texas residents still must pay out-of-state tuition rates, which are higher. Personally, I don’t like giving illegals a favorable tuition rate over other state’s legal residents. I understand his reasoning, but I don’t have to like it. I do think that there was some pandering to the Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) behind the overwhelming votes for this bill.

As a measure of  Texas’ version of the “Dream Act,” popularity, it should be noted that it passed the Texas Senate with NO “no” votes – Perry was not out on a limb on this one, it was overwhelmingly supported. It should also be noted that the Texas “Dream” act should not be confused with the federal version. The Texas version relates to higher education only whereas the federal act alsso facilitates giving legal status to children who entered the U.S. illegally with their parents.

15. Rick Perry is gay 

A story by Politico predicts that if Texas governor Rick Perry runs for president, he will again have to deal with unproven rumors that he’s gay. Meanwhile, the story itself is helping spread the rumors once more. 

As example of the “evidence” that Perry is gay, some have noted that he was a “cheerleader” (and thus, likely to be gay). In fact, he was a Yell Leader, one of five supporting Texas A & M sports teams. Since the school was founded in 1876 and didn’t even admit female students until 1963, no female has been elected to Yell Leader, only men – it’s a tradition thing, not a gay thing. 

While running for Governor in 2004,Texas state Democrats asked Perry to address the rumors. In a press conference Perry denied the rumors that he was gay, yet for some his denial raised more questions than it answered. 

For his part, Perry continues to be staunchly antigay. He plans to host a prayer-apalooza in August, 2011 at a Houston football stadium, and organizers have confirmed that praying to end homosexuality’s effect on society is on the agenda. The big event is being run in partnership with the American Family Association, which is categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group” for its spreading misinformation that the SPLC says is dangerous to gay people. 

In the past, Perry has been described as “homophobic.” His conservative Christian posturing has offended many liberals and others concerned with equal treatment under the law for the gay and lesbian community.  

Here a statement from Instinct Magazine, a gay publication: “Sheeple worried about Rick Perry’s ambiguous statements in support of a state’s right to pass marriage equality last week can unclench their booties; the Texas Governor and possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate wants to remind you that he is still a raging anti-equality homophobe.”

How does one disprove unsubstantiated accusations except by denying them and by pointing out the absence of any evidence to the contrary? Those critics who maintain that Perry is homophobic and those who believe him to be gay should get together and work it out.

16. Perry is a “weak” Governor (the Governor of a state that limits the Governor’s powers) 

This is true – but doesn’t tell the full story. Texas does limit the governor’s powers as compared to many other states, but to conclude that the governor is merely a figurehead, with little power or influence, is simply wrong. Once again, critics are trying to diminish Perry’s achievements by denigrating his part in Texas’ successes, as if his participation as governor was inconsequential.

The formal powers of a governor are measured by using four factors: tenure of office, appointive/administrative powers, budgetary powers, and legislative powers. 

The Texas governor has the strongest tenure of office in that he is elected to four-year terms and there are no term limits. 

The Texas governor’s appointive powers are limited by the state’s plural executive structure, meaning that he or she cannot count on the loyalty, support, or cooperation of other members of the executive branch. Some of them may even belong to the opposition party. In Texas, the lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller of public accounts, state land commissioner, agricultural commissioner, Railroad Commission, and Texas State Board of Education are all elected by voters, not appointed by the governor. 

Unlike most other state governors, the Texas governor has very restricted budgetary powers. In Texas, it is the Legislative Budget Board, dominated by the speaker and lieutenant governor that presents a budget to the legislature for approval. A Texas governor’s most significant budgetary power is the line-item veto power over the state budget bill. Because the legislature has often adjourned within days of the budget bill reaching the governor’s desk, they often have no opportunity to override the governor’s line-item veto. 

In terms of legislative power, the Texas governor’s veto power is very strong because gubernatorial vetoes or item vetoes are rarely overridden because the legislature has already adjourned by the time that the governor exercises the veto. In Rick Perry’s case, he has vetoed 273 bills since his first term in 2001. He’s not timid about his veto power. The governor also has the power to call additional special sessions of the legislature and is not limited to the number of special sessions he/she calls. 

In comparison to other states: thirty other state’s governors were ranked as having more power than Texas’ chief executive, seventeen are ranked about equal, and three had even less power. In summary, Texas limits the governor’s power primarily in two areas, appointive and budgetary. The weakness in the appointive aspect is because in Texas, most of the other executives are elected, not appointed. And as noted above, the legislature has primary responsibility for drafting a budget. HERE  is a link to a University of North Carolina chart which ranks the power of each state’s chief executive – using 2007 conditions.

The low comparative ranking of the Texas governor is consistent with the traditionalistic and individualistic political culture of the state. In other words, it is intentional, not accidental. Judging by Texas’ success, perhaps some other states might want to consider reducing the power of their governors too?

 17. Texas’ abysmal rankings on various lists

These rankings were selected by critics for one purpose, and that is to smear Texas and by association, Rick Perry.

No sources have been cited for the rankings, thereby preventing a reader from verifying that: 1) the numbers were accurately reported, 2) they are from a reliable source, and 3) the original context is known.

Nevertheless, we’ll treat them as if they are true and offer a reason to explain such a dismal performance. The rankings themselves (assuming that they’re true) are not anything that the state or Rick Perry should take pride in achieving.

But, the biggest single factor that affects the state’s ranking in almost anything that uses population as a factor, is an estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants currently residing in Texas.  Source: Pew Hispanic Center. (Ten states have populations that are less than 1.6 million).

After all, if the federal government was doing what is clearly their responsibility (controlling the border), Texas wouldn’t have 1,600,000 illegal residents. Think for a moment, how would your state cope with 1.6 million more illegal immigrants? What would that influx do to your state’s rankings?

For example, here is one of the rankings relating to high school graduations, Texas is said to be ranked: 

• 1st in the percentage of people over 25 without a high school diploma

This position suffers from the impact that 1.6 million illegals have on the Texas rankings. Most illegal immigrants don’t come to Texas bringing a high school diploma with them and they don’t come to the U.S. to finish high school, they come to work. Though they are counted in the census, few will have graduated, resulting in a disproportionate number of Texas residents without high school diplomas. 

And here is another group of awful Texas rankings: 

• 1st in percentage of uninsured children
• 1st in percentage of non-elderl­y uninsured
• 1st in percentage of population uninsure

When one considers that fully 38% of Hispanics in Texas do not have health insurance (that’s almost 3.5 million people, more than the population of 17 states), it’s not surprising that the state would show up poorly on national rankings of residents insured. Over 17.5% of the Hispanic population in Texas is illegal. Those factors, along with the high cost of health insurance and the income level of the illegal residents explain why the state would rank high in uninsured residents.

Here’s another one, Texas is 

• 3rd in percentage of people living below the poverty level

Once again, the ranking will be badly skewed by illegal immigrants. The Pew Center estimates that 21% of Hispanics living in Texas are below the poverty level and since 17.5% of the Hispanic population are illegal, that amounts to approximately 336,299 illegal residents below the poverty level. Once again, more than enough to skew the rankings.

There are only two ways to improve these rankings, 1) reduce the number of illegals, or 2) increase tazes to pay for the additional help they will need. It may not be compassionate, but Texans generally will not vote to increase taxes to pay for illegal immigrant support.

All of the Hispanic-related information referenced above can be found at: Pew Hispanic Center.  

18. Rick Perry is way too chummy with Muslims

“Perry has had a surprisingly warm relationship with Muslims as governor,” says Mohamed Elbiary, founder of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, a Muslim public policy organization in Texas.

His record indicates that Perry has had a “respectful” relationship with at least one particular group of Muslims, the Ismailis. Perry’s relatively good relations with the group has already sparked distrust among some conservative bloggers. It is sometimes wise to remember that the governor is the governor of all Texans, without exclusion.

“We’ve seen him for 20 years at state level, as lieutenant governor and state governor,” Mr. Elbiary says. “Throughout that whole history, he’s never taken an anti-Muslim or anti-Islam position. He’s a live-and-let-live type of Texan, and relations have been good.” It should be noted that while Perry has remained “respectful” to Muslims, he has been a staunch, unwavering supporter of Israel.

The governor – like other American politicians (from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to President John F. Kennedy) – has built a relationship with the Aga Khan (head of the Ismailis) based on respect and mutual interest, one that could be carried into the White House if Perry gets elected. Here is another source for an analysis of Perry’s ties to Aga Khan. It also includes the complete lesson plan for what critics have called “Perry’s Pro-Sharia School Curriculum.”

In fact, Perry’s relations with the Ismailis, a Shia sect of Islam whose adherents number between 30,000 and 40,000 in Texas and 15 to 20 million worldwide, have been particularly positive, says Mahmoud Eboo, President of the Ismaili Council for the USA. “I believe that Governor Perry’s leadership philosophy has been to serve Texans of all races and religions and his relationship with the Muslim community generally and the Ismaili community in particular has been cordial and respectful,” Mr. Eboo says in an email.

I’ve seen many accusations that reference CAIR’s support of Perry for President, but they all emanate from the same single source –  (I won’t give her any publicity), I’ve not found any other independent source for CAIR support of Perry.

CAIR supposedly was upset that Perry didn’t invite them to the “Response” prayer event in Houston. They even teamed up with the ACLU to protest the exclusion. Why on earth would they have wanted to be at a Christian event anyway?

He also took a stand to stop the Gaza flotilla boat, “The Audacity of Hope” with his June 28 letter asking Eric Holder to bring the flotilla participants to justice for violating US law and he has never appointed a Muslim to any significant government position (including Judgeships) in Texas.

I’ve not found any evidence of Perry being supportive of any Muslim group other than the previously mentioned Ismaili group. And since the Islamailis are a persecuted Shia minority in Saudia Arabia, that probably means that the Saudis may not like Perry’s association with them either.

Rather than reaching out – as both presidents Bush and Obama mistakenly did – to problematic organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood’s expressly political agenda, Perry’s choice to engage with a more “progressive” group should be a good sign.

And on the New York mosque issue: When Perry was questioned about a mosque near ground-zero in New York, he said, “To build a mosque near Ground Zero would be insensitive to the victims and families of 9/11 and would make the healing process much more difficult for everyone that was touched by this tragedy.”

He continued, “I’m a big believer in freedom of religion but believe it would be best for all involved to put the facility elsewhere.” “However, zoning is a local responsibility and as a staunch supporter of the 10th Amendment, I do not think the federal government should take steps to intercede or overrule the wishes of local residents. The citizens of New York City will decide the fate of this building.” There’s that 10th Amendment again.

In a nominating race where every candidate is vying for the Christian conservative vote, a critical part of the GOP’s base, Perry will likely be criticized for his relationship with the Muslim community in Texas, says one professor of political science. 

Another thing that should be considered when vetting Perry on the Muslim/Islam issue is his support of Israel. Governor Perry has been a staunch supporter of Israel. After a trip to the area in 2007, the governor supported Texas’ divestment from companies that do business with Iran, a main opponent of Israeli freedom. Additionally, the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce was created to help launch future commercial interests and solidify the strong business and cultural connections between the two states.

In 2009, Gov. RickPerry received the Defender of Jerusalem Award, given to public figures who have demonstrated support and commitment to the state of Israel and its capitol, Jerusalem. The governor accepted the award while on his trip to Israel, where he also met with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and business and academic leaders.

During that trip, Perry gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post in which he affirmed his support for Israel, “I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.”

Here’s another article about Perry’s ties with Muslims at Newsmax. 

~~~

And finally, a word from our sponsor, Pesky Truth:

Groucho Marx once said, “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

Doesn’t that sound like most of our politicians took lessons from Groucho?

Click here to go to “What you need to know aboutRick Perry” (that’s the collection of positive information).

 Click here to go back to part 1 of the “Seventeen (17) things” post.

 

The Whole Pesky Truth about Rick Perry and Gardasil/HPV

Rick Perry’s detractors are doing their best to keep this issue alive, even though most of the related accusations have been proven false.

While it is certainly appropriate that some will downgrade Perry because of his Executive Order (EO) mandating that the HPV vaccine be administered to Texas school girls, Perry’s EO was overridden by the Texas legislature and never went into effect. Although he has admitted his lapse of judgment, he did it, it was wrong, and now, as a presidential candidate, he’s taking the heat for it.

But, some media portrayals of the particulars surrounding Perry’s actions have been either misleading or completely false. That is the reason for this document. Voters need to know the truth about the influence by his former chief of staff (later a lobbyist for Merck), about Perry getting a $30,000 contribution from Merck (to “buy” his endorsement), and the dangers of the vaccine itself.

Please read on and when you feel the need, click on any of the numerous links to access supporting sources.

1. About Gardasil

The Gardasil vaccine is produced by Merck & Co., Inc. It is called a quadrivalent vaccine because it protects against four HPV types: 6, 11, 16, and 18, and is thought to prevent cervical cancer caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). Gardasil is given through a series of three intra-muscular (IM) injections over a 6-month period.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Gardasil for use in females for the prevention of cervical cancer, and some vulvar and vaginal cancers caused by HPV types 16 and 18. Gardasil is also approved for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11. Merck announced FDA approval of the drug on June 6, 2006.

There is a second HPV vaccine, Cervarix, produced by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) which competes with Gardasil when considering options in the prevention of cervical cancer. To be fully informed, you must be aware that Merck had a competitor (in GlaxoSmithKline) fighting for a similar stake: inoculating school girls against cervical cancer.

The Cervarix vaccine is called a bivalent vaccine because it targets two HPV types: 16 and 18. This vaccine is also given in three doses over a 6-month period. The FDA has approved Cervarix for use in females ages 10 to 25 for the prevention of cervical cancer caused by HPV types 16 and 18. Cervarix is not approved for the HPV types 6 and 11 that are covered by Gardasil.

It is important to note that the technology was not developed by Merck or GSK, both Gardasil and Cervarix are based on technology developed by National Cancer Institute (NCI) scientists. NCI licensed the technology to the two pharmaceutical companies (Merck and GSK) to develop HPV vaccines for widespread distribution.

Back to Gardasil.

Gardasil went under evaluation in four placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical studies. The studies reviewed and documented the results from 20,464 women ages 16 to 26 exposed to the drug. Study information source: from the ACIP meeting minutes. A link is provided later in this document.

Study participants were then followed for up to five years. In one extensive clinical study performed prior to FDA licensing, the vaccine was 100 percent effective, a virtually unprecedented result. Another study appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was again nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the strain that Gardasil protects against.

Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer (types 16 and 18) and genital warts (types 6 and 11). Cervical cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women worldwide.  In the United States, nearly 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 3,700 women die. 

Gardasil is administered in three 0.5 milliliter intra-muscular injections over six months. The second injection is two months after the first, and the third injection is four months after the second shot. Each injection costs $120, bringing the total cost for immunization to $360 per person.

In June 2006, The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended administering the vaccine to girls between 11 and 12 years of age. 

Who/what is ACIP? The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) consists of 15 experts in fields associated with immunization. These experts have been selected by the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the control of vaccine-preventable diseases. 

2. Perry’s Executive Order

As a result of the ACIP recommendation on HPV vaccination, numerous state legislatures began introducing legislation focusing on this emerging public health issue. On November 14, 2006 Representative Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) filed HB 215 in the Texas House mandating the HPV vaccine be administered to girls “at an appropriate age” as a requirement to enroll in school. Bill HB 215 was first read on January 30, 2007 and sent to the Public Health Committee that same day.

Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) who sat on the Senate Committees on Education, State Affairs, and Business and Commerce also filed identical companion legislation, SB 110, the same day in the Senate.

But the legislation ran into trouble in the House. After working for months to build support for the bill, Representative Farrar and Governor Perry were informed that the bill would not be read in committee. That meant that it was not likely to pass the Texas House.

Three days later, on February 2nd, Governor Perry issued an Executive Order (EO) mandating the vaccine. The EO came as a surprise to the legislators and the public alike.

And there is where the plot thickens.

Governor Perry’s Executive Order (RP#65, February 2, 2007) followed the wording of the original House bill and mandated that all Texas girls be vaccinated prior to their admission to the sixth grade. Here’s the press release issued by the governor’s office announcing his action. With his EO, Texas became the first state to mandate the vaccination.

The decision was not well received by the Governor’s conservative base as it dealt with the issue of sexual health. Since the vaccination protects against sexually transmitted infection (STI), religious conservatives argued that mandating it could promote pre-marital sexual relations among young girls. Parents’ groups were concerned that the decision interfered with parental discretion.

This is one of the three major concerns that critics have relating to Perry’s Gardasil issue: mandating the vaccination by EO, bypassing the legislature. Even though parents were allowed to opt out of the mandate by filling out an affidavit, both the legislature and conservatives were up in arms.

Two days after signing the executive order, and in response to the wave of opposition, Governor Perry issued this statement, “Providing the HPV vaccine doesn’t promote sexual promiscuity anymore than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use. If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?”

Perry was rebuked by both houses of the Texas legislature (for example: House Bill 1098, summary here) which nullified his EO by removing the requirement for a student to be vaccinated for HPV in order to enroll.

Sensing the wave of torches and pitchforks to come, Perry did not sign the law nor did he veto the overriding legislation. He subsequently rescinded RP#65 with another EO (RP#74) and the mandate issue is now dead in Texas.

Perry maintains that the justification for his executive order making the shot mandatory was twofold: 1) that the vaccine offered a chance to save lives that might have otherwise been taken away by cervical cancer and, 2) that insurance companies wouldn’t cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen) when it was simply an optional recommended vaccine. That put it out of the reach for most low-income Texans. Both justifications are, taken alone, valid reasons for Texas to promote Gardasil vaccinations for young women.

When Perry mandated Gardasil, it was expected to become part of a school-related vaccine package which would be covered by insurance for simply the cost of a co-pay.

Perry has since confessed that his EO was an error in judgment and has admitted his mistake. During a speech in August 2011, when a voter in New Hampshire confronted Perry on the Gardasil issue, here’s what he said: “I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

Perry said he’d invested government resources in cancer cures, adding, “I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade, they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did.”

While some may disagree with Perry’s methods, many in the medical field still support a mandate and believe that with education on the issue, more people will see the three-shot vaccine’s benefits.

In effect, Perry was reprimanded by the overriding legislation and by the reaction of the public. He says that he recognizes his mistake and has learned from it. You be the judge.

3. Merck’s lobbyist (Perry’s former top aide)

Another of the concerns that critics raise is related to Perry’s former chief of staff, Mike Toomey, being a lobbyist for Merck at the time of the EO.

For three decades, Toomey was an Austin, Texas fixture, having been a three-term state representative, he was also chief of staff to Governor Bill Clements (1989-1990) and later to Perry (Nov 2002 – Sept 2004); he was a deeply connected Republican lobbyist. He continued to have a personal relationship with Governor Perry after resigning as chief of staff.

When Perry signed the Gardasil executive order, Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck, the vaccine’s manufacturer, and he was suspected of having undue influence on Perry on behalf of Merck’s drug. Opponents cried foul; in response, the governor’s office maintained that Toomey’s input played no part in the decision. 

Did Toomey lobby the governor on the Gardasil issue? No doubt, that’s what a lobbyist does. Would he have had the governor’s ear? Again, no doubt. They had a close working relationship for several years. Would Perry simply do a “favor” for his friend? That is doubtful unless Perry was already convinced that the vaccine was the right thing to do.

Regardless of Toomey’s level of persuasion, it is more likely that another person did influence his decision (and carried a lot more clout), Perry’s own in-house consultant, his wife Anita.

The First Lady was very aware of the Gardasil issue and we can assume that Perry would have relied on her education (Masters of Science in Nursing from the University of Texas), and her experience, having worked in the nursing profession for more than 17 years. She worked in surgery, pediatrics, intensive care, administration, teaching and as a consultant.

That Anita was intimately involved in the issue is evidenced by the fact that she was the keynote speaker at a Women in Government (WIG) conference on cervical cancer prevention and elimination. Here are her conference remarks which clearly reflect her activism relating to cervical cancer and HPV. WIG is a bi-partisan, non-profit, educational association founded in 1988 for elected women in state government.

Following are some excerpts from her presentation: “More than 1,100 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer last year in Texas.  Today, I am confident that through our efforts like we’ve seen in Texas and the work at this conference, we will see that number decrease.” “Governor Perry has continued to focus attention on women’s health and has made building a healthy Texas a priority.”

She continued, “A bill, championed by Rep. Delisi, requires Texas’ Department of State Health Services in collaboration with the Texas Cancer Council and others to develop a strategic plan (.pdf) for eliminating cervical cancer mortality by the year 2015.”

“Another bill addresses pap tests and similar diagnostic testing for HPV making sure that these screenings are covered under health insurance plans.”

Governor Perry took a political risk when he issued the Executive Order mandating an HPV vaccine, but it’s easy to speculate that Anita’s influence may have played a major part in his decision. It is likely that she influenced the governor far more than Toomey did.

4. Merck’s campaign contributions

This is the third of the accusations made by Perry’s critics relating to the Gardasil/HPV issue. During the September presidential debate in Tampa, Rick Perry acknowledged receiving $5,000 from Merck & Co. (Gardasil’s manufacturer) in 2006. That was shortly before his executive order which was issued in February, 2007. We can see the $5,000 contribution in this propublica list of the donations made to Rick Perry, along with another $1,000 as well (that’s seldom mentioned). Regardless of whether the total for 2006 is $5,000 or $6,000, it is still a relatively small contribution.

To put the Merck contribution into context, it amounted to .025 percent (a quarter of one percent) of the $24,000,000 campaign funds that Perry collected in 2006 – hardly a significant enough reason to influence the governor to take a major political risk.

But here is a troubling issue: In the past week, reports have become rampant that Perry actually received $30,000 from Merck – with no mention of the timeframe, thus giving the impression that Perry got a $30,000 contribution from Merck. An apparent quid pro quo? This is an intentionally misleading statement and one where the obvious intent is to persuade the reader that Perry’s mandate was “bought” for $30,000.

Perry never received a single $30,000 contribution from Merck – period – it never happened.

Here are the facts: Merck contributed 6 times to Rick Perry in the period from 1998 through 2010 for a total of $28,500 (not $30,000). They contributed $5,000 in 2002, $10,000 in 2004, $6,000 in 2006, $2,500 in 2008, and $5,000 in 2010. Merck contributed a total of $28,500 to Perry in 13 years (as far back as the ProPublica records go).

To imply a quid pro quo between a contribution made in 2002 or 2004 (before Gardasil was even available) and Perry’s 2007 EO is more than a stretch, it is ludicrous. And the same can be said for $5,000 contributed by Merck in 2010 (three years after the EO mandate was overturned) is just as ridiculous. Merck made a contribution to Perry (and many others) periodically – in this case, every two years.

Consider what that says about those making that accusation – they are intentionally lying to create an incorrect perception that Perry took a $30,000 payoff in exchange for his 2007 EO.

Was Merck’s contribution to Perry unusual? Not at all. Here’s a news flash: Merck gave $2,460,000 to politicians in 40 states during the seven years from 2000-2006. Any objective analysis of Merck contributions to political figures will confirm that Perry’s 2006 contribution was not at all unusual, for example: Merck donated $4,750 to Tom McClintock, candidate for Lt. Governor of California and $5,000 to Mitch Daniels, candidate for Governor of Indiana – it’s not known what the quid pro quo was in those cases … [sarcasm].

Feel free to look up contributions made by any company (your choice) to state legislators and governors. You can use one of these followthemoney.org, OpenSecrets.org, or propublicalinks to look for yourself.

There’s also another little known fact that should make one wonder why Perry is supposed to have sold out for $6,000 in 2006.

If Perry was “for sale,” it begs the question: why did he ignore the $10,000 contributed to him in 2006 by GlaxoSmithKline (the producer of Cervarix, a competitor to Gardasil). Yes, GSK gave $10,000 to Perry’s campaign in 2006 – $4,000 more than Merck – they were the “high bidder.”

5. Is Gardasil really dangerous?

Some critics have claimed that Gardasil has a record of “very serious safety issues.” This is another obvious attempt to tarnish Perry’s image by suggesting that Perry not only did the bidding of Merck in ordering the vaccinations, he did so without considering the possible serious side effects on Texas school girls. 

The CDC has been following Gardasil since its licensing and some current facts follow. The following excerpts are taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website:

“Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. “As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil^® have been distributed in the U.S. and the safety monitoring system (VAERS) received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil^® vaccination. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.”

“Of the total  number of VAERS reports following Gardasil^®, 92%  were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious. Out of 35,000,000 doses distributed, there were 1,498 occasions of serious complications; that equates to a .0000428 chance that a dose will cause a serious adverse reaction.” Hardly enough to consider the vaccine “a very serious safety issue” as claimed by some critics. 

As of June, 2011, the CDC says: “Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines.”

Check out the CDC’s statements about Gardasil  for yourself. And specifically check out the Summary at the end for the CDC’s conclusion about Gardasil’s effectiveness.

Nevertheless, even in the face of no lesser authority than the CDC, some of Perry’s detractors can’t accept the truth and continue to characterize Gardasil as dangerous.

Here is a link to a .pdf of the minutes for the ACIP June 2006 meeting where efficacy studies and safety surveillance are analyzed and discussed. This is a large file (79 pages), but only the first quarter (about 21 pages) relate to Gardasil and HPV. Check out all of the facts about Gardasil if you’re so inclined. See pages 3 through 9 for the safety discussion.

Michelle Bachmann said on NBC’s “Today” show recently, it “could potentially be a very dangerous drug,” and “It can have very dangerous side effects.” All said to expand the negative aura of Gardasil and by implication, Perry. She also said a woman came up to her after the Tampa Republican presidential debate to report that her daughter had suffered from “mental retardation” after receiving the HPV vaccine.

Following is a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics in response to Bachmann’s accusations. See a .pdf of the American Academy of Pediatrics news release here.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics would like to correct false statements made in the Republican presidential campaign that HPV vaccine is dangerous and can cause mental retardation. There is absolutely no scientific validity to this statement. Since the vaccine has been introduced, more than 35 million doses have been administered, and it has an excellent safety record.”

“The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians all recommend that girls receive HPV vaccine around age 11 or 12. That’s because this is the age at which the vaccine produces the best immune response in the body, and because it’s important to protect girls well before the onset of sexual activity. In the U.S., about 6 million people, including teens, become infected with HPV each year, and 4,000 women die from cervical cancer. This is a life-saving vaccine that can protect girls from cervical cancer.”

Mainstream medical organizations, including the academy and the American Cancer Society, recommend routine vaccinations for girls, “particularly those age 9 to 11,” said Debbie Saslow, director of breast and gynecologic cancer for the American Cancer Society.

And here’s another reliable source on the “dangers” of (Gardasil) from The Mayo Clinic’s cervical cancer vaccine report:

Does the cervical cancer vaccine carry any health risks or side effects?

Overall, the effects are usually mild. The most common side effects of both HPV vaccines include soreness at the injection site (the upper arm), headaches, low-grade fever or flu-like symptoms. Sometimes dizziness or fainting occurs after the injection, especially in adolescents. Remaining seated for 15 minutes after the injection can reduce the risk of fainting. In addition, Cervarix may also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or abdominal pain.

Serious side effects — including a severe allergic response (anaphylaxis), and neurological conditions, such as paralysis, weakness and brain swelling — have been reported in a small number of women. The FDA continues to monitor all such reports. To date, however, almost all reports of such adverse side effects appear to have occurred by chance around the time of immunization. They don’t appear to have been caused by the vaccine itself.

In conclusion, widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds if all women were to get the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures.

Any reasonable observer must conclude that the evidence shows that Gardasil is not dangerous and is, in fact, recommended by the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Cancer Society. That should put the “dangerous” meme to rest.

 

To Pesky Truth new subscribers

First, a special thanks to all of you new subscribers, I genuinely appreciate your interest in Pesky Truth.

I know that you signed up for a subscription to PT with the expectation that there would be periodic new posts – and under ordinary circumstances, there would be. The problem I face today is that in order to continue to research topics like Mitt Romney and new accusations against Rick Perry, it takes so much time that I have precious little left over to write shorter, currently-in-the-news pieces.

I have updated all three of the currently published Rick Perry pieces, with the bulk of the changes being to the “17 things” one. Surprising to me, the “17 things” part one post (first eight items) has had about three times as many readers than the “positive” piece or the part two critical piece. I guess that I expected that to be a one-for-one ratio (or close to it) between the positives piece and the part one of the critical piece (17 things). It may be that most readers are more interested in finding new criticisms of Perry than are really interested in learning about the man. Why else would so many skip reading the positive post? I know that all three posts are longer than anyone (including me) would prefer, but I’m not a good enough writer/editor to be successful in paring them down while still covering the issue in a depth that I think necessary.

So, while I’m trying to finish up the Romney post, I did want to let you folks know that you are not going unappreciated and I wanted to send out an “appetizer” of a satirical bit that I wrote a couple of years ago – it has been updated slightly. It is intended to make public some of the clandestine activities of the Obama administration. It is an issue of The Pesky Truth Gazette. The Gazette is a tabloid-style vehicle for exposing some of Obama’s hitherto unknown activities.

Since I’m leaving the Perry posts as “sticky” for the time being, the Gazette won’t appear first on the blog.

To read the Gazette, just click “Categories” and select “Satire” from the drop-down, then you can select the PT Gazette.

I have to have a dose of satire from time to time to clear my mind of the dark clouds of gloom and seriousness inherent in political writings.

Thanks again,

G92

 

Pesky Truth Gazette, Vol. 2, Num. F

The Pesky Truth Gazette 

“Today’s news, just a splat or two after it hits the fan®.”

In the spirit of transparency (made so popular by the Obama administration), we at Pesky Truth feel compelled to expose ourselves. We will fling open the figurative raincoat of concealment to reveal that we have moles.

Our moles are the human covert-operator kind, not the furry kind related to shrews (shrew meaning Suncus murinus, not to be confused with Nancy Pelosi). They occupy trusted positions in Congress and the White House and are able to feed PT insider information not available to the usual news sources. Our moles stay underground, out of the public eye. You won’t recognize a name; they are nameless. You wouldn’t recognize a face; they are faceless. In fact, we have a tough time finding them ourselves. But rest assured, they are there, scratching, digging, probing deep for the true stories.

You won’t see the following articles in any other blog or news source, they are exclusive to Pesky Truth.

Obama slightly ill, reportedly has a global-warming induced fever

This real story is being kept under wraps by Obama’s Czar of Spin.

A group of clinical psychologists, consulting with prominent psychiatrists, is treating the President for what is called a “minor disorder.” Rather than a mild fever (as was released to the press), insiders tell PT that he has developed a facial tic on the left side of his Holy Countenance and a pronounced lean to the left when standing or walking. The result of the lean causes Obama to walk in counter clockwise ovals if not otherwise redirected.

A source tells us that he is also experiencing occasions of extreme anger. Recently, he kicked his teleprompter (TOTUS), which promptly retaliated by falling on the President’s left knee, bruising the kneecap. Of course, Obama blamed George Boosh for turning TOTUS against him and angrily directed the IRS to investigate TOTUS for tax irregularities.

A preliminary diagnosis attributes the President’s erratic actions to a form of Waking Up to Fact syndrome (or, WTF). It is thought that the President’s record of failures during his two ½ years as POTUS, has brutally awakened him (hit him upside his head, as it were) and caused him to question his Messiahness.

He really thought that his transcendent powers of Himness would allow him to convince North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions. He should have been able to win the Olympic games for Chicago, and being snubbed by Congress when they didn’t want his “help” during the debt-limit battle was too much and pushed him over the edge.

Circumstances have forced him to doubt himself – to confront reality. Why couldn’t he pass a Cap and Trade bill, why is ObamaCare so hated, why wouldn’t those rascally Republicans raise his debt limit, why didn’t he win an Academy Award, and what happened to his ascension to be Grand Poobah of the world? Why are his poll numbers down? Why can’t he sink a stinkin’ ten inch putt?

He’s been heard to say, “What’s wrong with these people? Don’t they know who I am? I yam who I yam. I am he who AM. He who IS is me. I am who we has been waiting for, is I not? ”

Bystanders said he continued to mumble and “speak in tongues,” continuing an incoherent tirade for hours, all the while limping around in ovals.

As Yoda would say, “Blew a gasket, he did.”

Bawney Frank and Rosie O’Donnell DNA altered at birth?

“There’s still much work to do.” “We’ve made a great deal of progress, but we aren’t there yet,” was the primary theme of a seminar given by Yale Professor Ahmso Befuddled. Dr. Befuddled revealed that DNA specimens from Rosie O’Donnell and Barney Frank were remarkably similar. In fact, they could hardly be distinguished from one another except for a single specific combination. Absent this one combination, Rep. Frank and Ms. O’Donnell would be the same person.

The most common form of chromosomal crossover is homologous recombination, where the two chromosomes involved share very similar sequences. The Frank/O’Donnell situation appears to be a case of recombination whereby the male/female combinations crossed over, or as the Doctor described them, “got all befuddled up.”

The crossover would account for the few differences between the two. For example, Rep. Frank’s delightfully effeminate lispth and larger breasts, and O’Donnell’s tendency to cuss, spit, and grab her groin. Another differential was Frank’s ability to silently “squeeze out” flatulence while Ms. O’Donnell proudly announced that she was the source of a particularly loud, foul-smelling release.

Yet another Obama redistribution plan?

The Obama administration, in conjunction with Democrat leaders in Congress, unveiled plans to submit H.R.1922, the “Pass the Ammunition” bill. The bill would confiscate all ammunition from the wealthy (annual income of more than $50,000) and re-distribute it to the poor. “Our disadvantaged inner city citizens can’t afford to buy ammunition.” “It is class and race discrimination at its worst when the rich can stock up on hollow-points, +P and frangible loads and the poor can barely afford cheap and environmentally damaging lead bullets.”

“How can you shoot nobody, when you ain’t got no bullets,” said Ifeelya Johnson, a block captain for the neighborhood crime-watch group, “Whitey Watch.”

Obama Apologizes to the New Black Panther Party

Following the dismissal of a lawsuit by the Department of Justice, an apology was issued to the NBPP by President B. Hussein Obama. “Even though the NBPP defendants were in default and had legally lost the case, I directed the DOJ to drop the suit in the interest of justice.” He continued, “Americans were outraged that the Boosh administration intervened in a purely African-American matter and displayed obvious racism in filing suit against the NBPP Voting-right Monitors.”

With encouragement from President Obama, the NBPP has secured a $22 million grant from TARP funds (for community outreach). The NBPP immediately let contracts to refurbish a number of FEMA-surplus trailers to serve as recruitment centers for the NBPP’s People’s Militia. In addition, Chairman Weezie Shamwowz said, “The funds will allow the NBPP to purchase other military-surplus equipment to assist in our mandate to make sure that black folks have every opportunity to vote the right way.”

He continued, “Making sure that our black brothers and sisters get to the polls is our responsibility and understanding HOW to vote is important. We intend to make sure that they vote the right way. We have been so successful that during the last three elections, not a single vote was cast for a Republican candidate in any of our monitored precincts.”

Sources tell Pesky Truth that the NBPP has also purchased sixteen Vietnam-era APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers), reputed to be M113s, to tow the information centers to wherever they’re needed. The M113s will also be used to transport voters to polling places in safety, and to act as intimidating symbols of black power. For cold-weather voting, ten M2-2 military flamethrowers were also purchased and will be used to warm the entry to polling places to welcome white voters.

“No longer will our Freedom Fighters have to accost voters while standing outside of polling places armed only with police batons. Now, they can intimidate white voters from the comfort and safety of our up-armored M113s.”

Obama Reinterprets Judge’s Comments

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That statement made during a 2001 speech contributed to a debate over her judgment.

The President dismissed any concerns about her Latina heritage influencing her decisions. He said, “Part of her job is to see the arguments from someone else’s shoes and Judge Sotomayor has promised to do that. She will wear my Desert Tan Berluti loafers when the court is in session and view the arguments as if she were me – since she will, in fact, be in my shoes.”

The President continued, “Previous court decisions were not always gender blind and that was because most of the justices were seeing things from the shoes of old, white men.” “In view of that, I have asked the Attorney General to file a brief with the court “in meus pes vestis,” requiring the male justices to wear women’s shoes (with sensible heels) throughout their next session.”

President Obama also cautioned the male justices that if wearing women’s shoes didn’t properly refocus their perspective on gender, he’d propose a change to court rules to force them to undergo “Enhanced Empthy Training” (EET) in the form of chemically-induced menstrual cramps and crankiness. He noted that these procedures would be administered by the CIA. The procedures have been cleared by his legal team and are not specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

The President Draws a Line in the Sand

President B. Hussein Obama took a firm stand today against a new round of nuclear testing by North Korea. “I strongly disapprove of Kim Jong-il’s actions and will hold my breath until he relents and says he’s sorry,” were the harsh words used by the President to describe his disapproval.

White House insiders, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the President was livid (a trendy shade of mocha) when told of North Korea’s successful test. “Darn that Kimmie-Jong … he broke his promise … he’s making me look like an weak, inexperienced, incompetent egotist.”

The President’s advisors were hurriedly assembled to define his formal response. They reportedly went through a multitude of possible diplomatic actions, ranging from feigned indignation to severe tongue-lashing, and even considered the imposition of a time-out.

After an all-night session, the consensus was that an embargo was in order. While it would be an escalation of the United State’s position vis-à-vis the recalcitrant little dude, it would send a strong and necessary message.

The decision was made to embargo the shoe lifts that enable the altitudinally-challenged Kim to soar to a height of five feet. “Send him a DVD of my speeches in the wrong format, that’ll show him,” chuckled a self-satisfied Obama. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll send him an 8 X 10 glossy of Michelle in hot pants and a tank top.“

An unconfirmed rumor had the President calling Kim a “mini-me-sized turd in the international punchbowl” during the discussions.

Showing Gitmo immigrants some love

Pesky Truth has learned of a new project undertaken by conservative tea party groups. They’re proposing that taxpayers fund tours of Obama’s Chicago home by groups of Gitmo “transferees.”

The proposed tour would begin with a period of unescorted contemplation time reserved for the transferee’s religious reflection. It would allow time for the Gitmoians to improvise empathy rather than harbor explosive anger if left to their own devices. An environment of trust would be nurtured by allowing the transferees to run free inside the Obama homestead. That could help to convince them that we like them, we really, really like them and mean them no harm. This would further gain their respect.

The tea party groups also recommended that the tours be scheduled when Obama is present in the mansion to allow those misguided Gitmoians an opportunity to bask in the aura of Himness that permeates the mansion when His Holy Presence is present. Perhaps they’d even stumble across the Dear Leader himself and have an opportunity to bond with him while showing him appreciation for their newfound freedom.

When asked for an opinion, transferee Abdul Mohammed Swartz stated that he’d ask President Obanma to autograph his newly written books “I Cut You Throat With a Boxcutter” and “Jihad for fun and profit.”

Obama’s New Czar of Adjustments

In a surprise move, President Obama named Bernard Madoff to be his new Czar of Adjustments. The infamous entrepreneur, reputed to be a genius with numbers, was tasked with developing adjustments to correct administration score numbers for various biases. Madoff earned his M.A. (Master of Adjustments) from the University of East Anglia in the UK. He is well versed in “adjusting” raw data as evidenced by his Madoff Investment Securities success.

With his conviction now expunged by an Obama Executive Order, he is free to apply his talents to helping the administration correct some erroneous information previously reported by the media. He’ll be working alongside Andy Fastow, former CFO of Enron to develop adjustments to correct various financial inaccuracies.

For example, the administration had been touting the creation of 640,000 jobs. After applying a Madoff/Fastow adjustment factor to the jobs figure, the administration now has corrected that number to be 4,440,017 jobs created. And it comes as no surprise that the unemployment rate previously misreported as 9.2 percent, has now been “corrected” to 2.7 percent.

In other corrections, President Obama was giddy to inform citizens that our national debt was only $110.1 billion dollars, rather than exceeding $14 trillion as had been estimated, and his new health plan would actually make a tidy $97 billion profit, rather than cost over a trillion dollars. As a result, when adjustments were applied to the President’s approval rating, it soared to 99.2%, up from a dismal 41%.

What GREAT news. The recession is gone, jobs are plentiful, the President is popular, and the economy is booming. The country is finally on the right track after shaking off the shackles imposed by that pesky Boosh administration. And we have Obama and Madoff and Fastow (oh my) to thank for it.

Finally, Obama lives up to his promise of truth and transparency and gives us numbers we can count on. I forget – how is czarchasm spelled?

New DC Restaurant Serves Up Politics

Just a short walk from the White House on W. 15^th St. is a trendy new restaurant fast becoming the talk of DC. Noted for its unusual fare, it is one of the places to see and be seen inside the Beltway.

GOP’s (pronounced “Jops”) is an upscale bistro serving rather expensive sandwiches and fancy desserts. The flagship sandwich is called the Philly-buster and is only served to patrons supporting the out-of-power political party – but you can lie, if necessary, to order one. The principal aftereffect of a Philly-buster is the prevention any manner of normal activity. It induces a state similar to paralysis and inhibits any sensible actions – it is said to be a favorite of members of Congress.

Another popular choice is the Demo-cramp Deluxe, with secret ingredients reputed to cause severe gastric distress. Rumor suggests that refried beans and habanero peppers contribute to the gassy bloating and flatulence known to accompany the Demo-cramp. The cook verified that the thought was that anyone who chose a Demo-cramp deserved whatever resulted from that unfortunate choice. It is served with a side order of Rolaids and an admonition to avoid enclosed spaces, especially crowded elevators.

My companion tried a Barney Frank sandwich. A pair of warm toasty buns flanked the centerpiece frankfurter which was reportedly made from salami ground into rump steak. It was tastefully garnished with a pair of fruit twinkies. In keeping with the theme, the waiter even confirmed our order back with a stylish lisph (sic).

I had a PITA Pelosi (our waiter confided that PITA stands for Pain in the Arse). It was a very unsatisfying pork-filled flat bread sandwich. The Pelosi’s exterior was too crusty and wrinkled for my taste and there was far more pork than was necessary. Three kinds in fact: pulled pork, pushed pork, and yanked pork. How I longed for an old fashioned Reagan hero.

Our visit was topped off with an Obamnificent soufflé. The golden tan outer crust held a promise of gastronomic delights. But unfortunately, as soon as we penetrated the crust, all of the hot gasses escaped with a “poof.” Once deflated, it was found to be empty inside except for a pound or so of thick sliced unidentifiable sandwich “meat.” So, our verdict on the Obamnificent soufflé concluded that it was all hot air and baloney, and didn’t deliver on its promise. 

Rated ♥, save your money – and your stomach lining, go elsewhere.

 

Sarah Palin IS Mighty Mom

I wrote the Mighty Mom bit in August and September of 2008 so you’ll have to read it with that timeframe in mind. Obviously, this was before the Vice Presidential debates and the 2008 elections. And obviously, it is satire so I can take all sorts of liberties.

Sarah is the heroine in the story and does all superheroes proud as she dispatches evil while wearing a “snappy red, white, and blue frock,” (her superhero costume) and her “see into the soul” glasses.

The posts are still hosted at Townhall (haven’t moved them over to WordPress yet) so that’s where the links take you. You’ll see the chapters at the Pesky Truth Outlet Store. Just wanted readers to be aware of the apparent mismatch between this September, 2011 post on WordPress and where the actual data resides. Also be aware that some of the links within Townhall are broken, so you’ll be better off just clicking “back” when you finish a chapter to come back here and select the next chapter from this index of links.

01 – Sarah Palin is Mighty Mom [of course, it's satire]

02 – Chapter Two, The moose returns

03 – Chapter Three, Sarah and the spies

04 – Chapter Four, Mighty Mom and the Code Pinkers

05 – Chapter Five, our hero, Mighty Mom

06 – Chapter Six, the rally

07 – Chapter Seven, four rounds with Keith Olbermann

08 – Chapter Eight, a “conversation” with Joe Biden

09 – Chapter Nine, the DNC vs. Mighty Mom

10 – Chapter Ten, gather up the torches and pitchforks, Nellie – we’re gonna have a party.

11 – Chapter Eleven, Sarah Palin exposed (interesting visual, eh?)

12 – Chapter Twelve, Obama’s smooth, well-oiled machine throws a shoe

13 – Chapter Thirteen, Mojo does the right thing

14 – Chapter Fourteen, Two debates with astonishing results

15 – Chapter Fifteen, Obama and Britney consult with one another

16 – Chapter Sixteen, the other shoe, the election, and the moose returns