US Politics...the Reckoning

[KazigluBey]

Did he really not do any of these things? How many of them were in his power to do, anyway?

Considering that Perry went out of his way to make the incandescent light bulb legal in Texas despite new federal regulations, done solely because he thinks Texans have a right to use energy as inefficiently as they want, I somehow doubt water conservation regulations have been a part of his drought plan.

[TrackerNeil]

Social conservatives base their positions on religion, but they're far from being all conservatives or all Republicans. On the other hand, black churches have been politically active for a long time, and their members are a core Democratic constituency.

And yet one does not see very many Democrats running on pro-life, anti-gay platforms, despite the fact that many of those churches would support such.

[Ormond]

People have compared Obama to Jimmy Carter. They've compared him to FDR. I think he's going to be Truman. I'll keep going back to Chait's quote along the lines of "The models say the sitting president should lose, but the models haven't seen this before."

Personally I hope Obama turns out to be the next Truman.

But I wouldn't count on Perry or even Bachmann being unable to beat Obama, depending on how things go the next year. I remember very well hearing a lot of people saying Reagan was too extreme to beat Carter in spite of the economy and the Iran hostages. I know, it can certainly be argued that Reagan actually looks like a moderate today compared to some of the positions taken by the right wing of the Republicans in 2011. But the point is that many people on the liberal side of the political spectrum saw Reagan as being too extreme to be elected back in 1980, and they were wrong. So I wouldn't bet on the idea that Perry is too extreme to be elected being correct in 2012.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

You're from an area that has abundant rain so I'll give you a pass here. When you live in a water stressed region like the southwest, you have to conserve water. I work in the conservation department of a water utility. He could be building water treatment plants to recycle the water for irrigation, desalination plants for potable water, injecting recycled water into the aquifers to replenish them, and hum drum conservation policies like ripping out lawns and requiring water efficient toilets and washing machines be installed in every house. I don't know if Texas is doing any of that, but if they aren't, and instead are praying for rain, then they're absolute idiots.

Let me state that I agree unequivocally that Perry is dangerously and probably criminally insane. That said, the state and various organizations have done or are in the process of doing all of these things, including building a massive water recycling plant in West Texas that will not only meet much of their water needs but apparently is supposed to help replenish the local aquifers. I'll try to find a link to that story, just read it the other day.

OK, so I'm from Texas. I have lived through a decade of Good-Hair Perry. The man is corrupt and a liar.

1. The Texas Teacher's Retirement Fund was, as of 2000, funded for 30 years of expenditures. Perry put in new oversight, who promptly invested the Fund in various funds owned by members of the Board of Trustees, most of whom were big Perry contributors. The fund is now dangerously low, due to the overall poor quality of the investments and likely embezzlement of state funds that went on.

2. The aforementioned lack of a stay of execution for a man who was almost certainly innocent and the subsequent stonewalling of all related inquiries.

3. Perry has been breaching Texas state law for months now by charging campaign-related expenses to the state Treasury.

4. Perry refuses to itemize his expenses and has charged nearly $1 million of "Mansion Expenses" to the state for undisclosed expenditures. Some of these were no doubt legitimate, but he has never bothered to account for the money.

5. Perry and the Texas legislature took nearly $30 billion in federal education stimulus money and used it to patch a yawning gulf in the state's budget. Although a critic of federal spending, Perry has never been shy about suckling on Washington's teats.

6. This is well-known among those who pay attention; although on paper Texas' job and wage numbers are very good, they really aren't particularly good. Texas is the nation's leader (sometimes trading with MS) in minimum-wage jobs, the nation's leader in % of pop without health insurance, and ranks extremely low in terms of health professionals per capita, Medicaid expenditures per capita, % of pop with employer-based health plans, and of course in terms of % of pop below the poverty line. Also, Texas ranks 49th in overall education and very low in both % of pop who graduate by 25 and % of pop who hold a high school diploma. Perry routinely lies about these numbers, sometimes claiming that drop-out rates are as low as 10%; in reality, the figure is closer to 30%, and in some urban districts is as high as 50%.

Perry: bad for Texas, worse for the US.

BTW, he only got like 3 million votes in the last election, even in Texas. Although he has a great PR machine which will spin his minimum-wage job creation for all it's worth, I doubt that he has the power to win more than a few die-hard Red states. The shade of GWB will haunt his campaign.

[Lord O' Bones]

Incumbency will still play a huge role as it did in 2004.

Yes, yes, Jimmy Carter again. But there was only CBS, NBC, ABC at the time and no internet.

Our people are as a whole cowardly and stupid on a macro/global scale, for all the courage and community we would show if say, Mexico tries to invade Tombstone Arizona. Hell, China could invade Guam and the US people would collectively think "who? lol @ third world country!"

[Shryke]

Interesting polling here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149000/Washington-Extends-Lead-Economic-Confidence.aspx

Top 2 states/whatever in economic confidence:

District of Columbia => +11

North Dakota => -13

And then only downhill from there.

Might explain current thinking in DC.

[ThinkerX]

What is this about Obama loosing? Nope...ain't gunna happen, unless he takes a literal bullet or some such.

What is much more likely is the republican candidate will disgrace himself (herself?) so badly and so publically that even many the Tea Party sorts will conclude that Obama is the better option.

[jurble]

In tonight's daily show Jon Stewart was wondering why the media ignores Ron Paul. It's funny as shit. I remember it from the last election too. The internet went insane for Ron Paul but the media completely ignored him. I mean shit, if Rand Paul was running, they'd probably give him more press.

[mormont]

The lack of "traction" that the issue has with you I would say has less to do with your own political viewpoints and probably much more to do with isolation from the full effect of the evangelical alliance within US politics.

No, I wouldn't say so. I do have some appreciation of that issue. The problem is that the 'pray-for-rain' criticism looks, on the surface, like criticising an avowedly religious man for publicly appealing to his god. To the extent that it's more than that, you have to get into a big explanation of why, and any time you have to explain a criticism in order for people to get it, it's going to lack traction.

Perry is one of those "act of God" type guys.

As in "the BP oil spill was an Act of God".

Or, in the case of others "The earthquake in Haiti was an act of God".

Or, "Katrina was because of gays" or the like.

Considering that Perry went out of his way to make the incandescent light bulb legal in Texas despite new federal regulations, done solely because he thinks Texans have a right to use energy as inefficiently as they want, I somehow doubt water conservation regulations have been a part of his drought plan.

What I see here is people criticising Perry for things he might have said or might not have done. That suggests to me a desire to find him wanting as a candidate, not a sober assessment of his strengths. From what I know of Perry, he seems like the kind of candidate I would really fear: I'd love to think he wasn't viable. But so far you guys have not convinced me. Wrath's allegations about corruption or financial irregularities look like they could be a bigger issue, as could a closer examination of his economic record, though.

[Shryke]

What I see here is people criticising Perry for things he might have said or might not have done. That suggests to me a desire to find him wanting as a candidate, not a sober assessment of his strengths. From what I know of Perry, he seems like the kind of candidate I would really fear: I'd love to think he wasn't viable. But so far you guys have not convinced me. Wrath's allegations about corruption or financial irregularities look like they could be a bigger issue, as could a closer examination of his economic record, though.

Not "might", did. Perry said the BP oil spill was "an act of God".

This is the same kind of rhetoric you see about every natural disaster from the fundies, with others tending to add something about how "Group X" caused it by angering God.

[mormont]

Not "might", did. Perry said the BP oil spill was "an act of God".

This is the same kind of rhetoric you see about every natural disaster from the fundies, with others tending to add something about how "Group X" caused it by angering God.

For one thing, what Perry actually said was:

"From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented."

He later clarified that he meant 'act of God' in the legal sense. So he was in fact suggesting that the spill might have been an act of God in the sense that it was not preventable: he was not saying that God visited the spill on Florida because it was sinful, or anything.

Speaking of rhetoric, you then also follow that up with two examples of things he did not say, claiming that they are similar and the sort of thing he might have said. That looks like a pretty cheap rhetorical trick.

I've got no brief for Rick Perry, but come on.

[Shryke]

For one thing, what Perry actually said was:

He later clarified that he meant 'act of God' in the legal sense. So he was in fact suggesting that the spill might have been an act of God in the sense that it was not preventable: he was not saying that God visited the spill on Florida because it was sinful, or anything.

Speaking of rhetoric, you then also follow that up with two examples of things he did not say, claiming that they are similar and the sort of thing he might have said. That looks like a pretty cheap rhetorical trick.

I've got no brief for Rick Perry, but come on.

No, I said calling something an "Act of God" or some such is not exactly unknown in US politics and usually comes from sources trying to make a Sodom and Gomorrah lesson out of it. Which is not at all what you suggest I said in the post above.

And finally, even if you take him at his word on it, it just raised another terrible point about him trying to stop any sort of reaction to or responsibility for an industrial accident by claiming it wasn't capable of being stopped or anticipated.

[mormont]

No, I said calling something an "Act of God" or some such is not exactly unknown in US politics and usually comes from sources trying to make a Sodom and Gomorrah lesson out of it. Which is not at all what you suggest I said in the post above.

They seem very close, to me: but in any case, neither is remotely close to what Mr Perry actually said.

Secondly, "later clarified" means "clarified" as often as it means "walked back", which you should know.

In this case, the initial statement seems to me to be reasonably clearly indicating 'Act of God' in that sense anyway.

And finally, even if you take him at his word on it, it just raised another terrible point about him trying to stop any sort of reaction to or responsibility for an industrial accident by claiming it wasn't capable of being stopped or anticipated.

He raised that possibility, yes.

I'm going to make this point again: so far the net effect of the criticisms you, Ser Greguh and KazigluBey have raised has been to make two people who are well to the left of Mr Perry and who would be appalled if he won the nomination, let alone the election, rise to his defence because those criticisms are so manifestly unfair. I've no interest in defending the guy further, so I won't: but seriously, some reflection on the validity of these criticisms might be a good idea.

[Shryke]

I never criticized him for his "pray for rain" schtick. It's fucking dumb, but it's expected from idiots like this. Plus, there's so many more valid things to criticize him on.

But the thing here is mostly that you've gotten a bee in your bonnet about the issue for whatever reason.

[Horza]

annales del caudillismo en la política estadounidense contemporánea n. LXIV: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-rick-perry-vsmilton-friedman/2011/08/16/gIQATx8tIJ_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

[TrackerNeil]

So I wouldn't bet on the idea that Perry is too extreme to be elected being correct in 2012.

Agreed, and I'll go one step further. If the economy is perceived to be bad enough, and if Americans decide Obama's to blame, pretty much anyone can be elected. It's a scary thought.

It's sad, really; we can't do what we need to do to get the economy going without the consent of the minority party - it's the way our government is structured - and yet that selfsame party has a structural incentive not to cooperate. I'm not sure how we find our way out of that catch-22.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And yet one does not see very many Democrats running on pro-life, anti-gay platforms, despite the fact that many of those churches would support such.

Why has every Democratic presidential nominee been opposed to gay marriage? And why do you still have plenty of Democrats who run on the marriage being between "one man and one woman" issue, if not to avoid alienating those voters?

Again, I agree it's more prevalant in the GOP. But both sides end up pandering on that issue. That's why judging what a candidate actually thinks based on literal statements he makes regarding religion isn't really valid. I am not a fan of Perry at all. But on the religious stuff, I strongly suspect that while he holds some of those beliefs, he also exaggerates that rhetoric to some extent precisely because it is popular with voters. As politicians routinely do on both sides of the aisle.

Mormont has a point. While the intelligentsia on the left finds those kind of prayer statements to be abhorrent, a great many Americans, both independents and partisans, do not. And I'll be just a tiny bit of searching could find quotes from all sorts of American heroes, political and otherwise, making similar appeals to God. If the intelligentsia on the left goes after Perry for that, you'll end up with a backlash.

Perry strikes me as a slimy used car guy without any depth of thought. My wife and I both sort of cringed watching him make a speech last night. But you're tilting at windmills that will come crashing down on your heads if you go after him for prayer-relate statements.

His biggest selling point is that he comes from a state with a phenomenal record on job creation. Whether he deserves any significant credit for that is a completely different issue, but it's a great selling point to an electorate begging for jobs.

Personally, of the folks left, I'm supporting Romney. Newt is a complete douchebag, but I actually think he might be a very good President precisely because he does understand the legislative process and can work with Democrats. But I don't think he has a chance at the nomination. Oddly, I actually think he might have a decent chance in the general election. As big a douche as he is, he is still a great debator, has a very solid economic record as Speaker during the Clinton Administration, and could likely sell that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's sad, really; we can't do what we need to do to get the economy going without the consent of the minority party - it's the way our government is structured - and yet that selfsame party has a structural incentive not to cooperate. I'm not sure how we find our way out of that catch-22.

The real issue is that there are fundamentally different beliefs as to what needs to be done to get the economy moving. Republicans think the Democrat plans will make things worse, and Democrats think GOP policies will hurt the country as well. Both parties view a compromise acceptable to the other party as substantively (not just politically) worse than the status quo. We've had partisanship before and reached compromises. The problem is that the problems are now so acute that the solutions needs to be big, and neither party is willing to compromise enough on bedrock principles/beliefs to reach a solution. Nor should they.

[TrackerNeil]

The real issue is that there are fundamentally different beliefs as to what needs to be done to get the economy moving. Republicans think the Democrat plans will make things worse, and Democrats think GOP policies will hurt the country as well. Both parties view a compromise acceptable to the other party as substantively (not just politically) worse than the status quo. We've had partisanship before and reached compromises. The problem is that the problems are now so acute that the solutions needs to be big, and neither party is willing to compromise enough on bedrock principles/beliefs to reach a solution. Nor should they.

So, you're arguing that it's better for our elected officials to let the economy sputter than to accept a compromise to help it? OK.

Besides, let's not get into a false equivalency here. During the debt ceiling fight, Democrats were perfectly willing to compromise; it was the GOP that took a stand on revenue increases and would not budge. The same went for health insurance reform. Recent polls have shown that Democrats and independents value compromise from elected officials more than Republicans, so I suppose it's no wonder that Republican politicians take such hard-line stances.

But the real point of my post is that it's a dysfunctional system that gives one party the responsibility for governing and the other the power to gum up the works.

[Shryke]

Texas isn't in as good shape as some of the reports try to make it out to be and their unemployment rate isn't even the best in the US.

Beyond that, Perry himself is not even popular within Texas.

He may just be the next Fred Thompson.