-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/29480/quote-of-the-day-texas-gov-perry-secesssion-and-the-de-mainstreaming-of-the-gop/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I don't know why anyone is surprised at this... Palin after all stongly supported (even though she was not technically a member of) a pro-Alaska party which wants to secede from the US.
But the very Republicans who are quick to denounce ANY comment or action that they PERCEIVE as unpatriotic when it comes to a Dem.
Michelle Obama was soundly criticized FOR MONTHS as being unpatriotic for saying that this was the first time she felt REALLY proud to be an American... Obama (as the post pointed out) was criticized for not wearing a flag pin....
Yet when Republicans do something which as far more egregious, such as the strong support of a political party which believe Alaska can secede or Texas might if things keep going the way they are in DC, they stay silent in their criticism.
Also let's not forget that many right wing people LOVED Palin because she was a woman. So Perry has to fight Kay for those women voters....
As to the point that Perry is catering to Texas right wingers and those are the people whose votes he wants..... That may be true and he may win in the primary (and the general election).
But it is also important to realize that EVERYONE hears Perry's remarks, which only further reinforces that belief that the leaders of the GOP are off their rockers. It's not some fringe group that says TX might secede, but a sitting governor.
So it may be good short term politics to get him re-elected, but to the rest of the country, and long term, it's nuts. Unless the country were heading to the right...
No, of course he doesn't actually think Texas will secede. But pandering at that level is pretty danged ridiculous.
The fact that only 1/3 of Texans think they have the "right" to leave also means he's only guaranteeing a minority at the poll. Maybe Perry should concentrate on Mathematics.
just to be clear,
By the way, this happens on both sides. We just had a president elected by being a “political whore servicing the ignorant or crazy electorate”
What particular servicing do you have in mind?
If Perry wants to further turn himself into more of a laughingstock by appealing to the hardcore, frothing-at-the-mouth, reactionary extreme edge of the PartyOfNo, and distance himself from the majority of conservatives in Texas, so be it; continuing to edge towards the farthest right-wing reaches is not going to win him reelection in 2010, may even cost him the primary. Among conservatives I know, his name is usually met with a snort of derision rather than respect.
Heh, who would have thought that Kinky Friedman may end up being the 'sane' candidate in 2010? (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/jai...)
I’m just as confused with you as Polman’s readers are with him.
What is it that you don’t understand about Perry’s comments? Let’s see if I get this straight:
“And then Polman puts into words what many non-liberal Democrats, independent voters and non-talk-radio political culture Republicans (which includes RINOS and non-RINOS) have begun to feel:”
In your and Polman’s opinion, Perry, whose only obstacle to reelection is a Republican primary in Texas, should concentrate on non-liberal Democrats, independents and RINOS. Correct?
Just for you and Joe, let’s go through this one more time.
Slowly.
Regardless of what Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman or anyone at the New York Times thinks, Rick Perry knows that Texas can’t secede from the union.
Perry has a tough primary election coming up next year. He knows (along with everyone else in the world) that a democrat can’t win the governorship of Texas, so the election will be decided by the winner of the primary.
The primary is decided by Republicans. Not just any republicans, but the hard core base of the republican party. There aren’t any liberal republicans, any independents and only a very few gay republicans voting in the primary.
So, the best way for Perry to get reelected is to be a “political whore servicing the ignorant or crazy electorate”. Intimating that Texas may secede was a way of pumping up his base to that end.
By the way, this happens on both sides. We just had a president elected by being a “political whore servicing the ignorant or crazy electorate”
Did that work to turn off the bold font?
Apparently not. One more attempt.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Why in the world does Polman believe that Perry's mild suggestion that continued erosion of the separation of powers between states and the federal government could eventually lead to secession would be 'unthinkable' to Goldwater? It sounds exactly like something he'd say.
"Why in the world does Polman believe that Perry's mild suggestion that continued erosion of the separation of powers between states and the federal government could eventually lead to secession would be 'unthinkable' to Goldwater? It sounds exactly like something he'd say."
Are you channeling Barry Goldwater now? BG was an American by every fiber of his being.
Try this quote from his acceptance speech:
"Why the beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution."
Of course, you may have a different interpretation, but I think this quote means Barry was for the Constitution and not for implying secession.
I frankly don't care what you do in Texas politics. If your politicians wish to allude to seceding, fine. But clearly understand, your parochial little fantasies make you look like a backwater of political thought.
Your logic then should advocate racism, anti-gay, or any other political fantasy if it gets you elected. At least in this case, 75% of Texans think this isn't such a good idea, but they're not real Texans either I suppose.
What! Look no one with any sense thinks succession is a good idea or even possible. So? The idea of it is ingrained in Texas history and culture and some people enjoy the "idea" without taking it serious. So? And your logic of associating racism, homophobia, and god knows why you didn't keep adding to the list, is nonsensical and asinine. One thing has nothing to do with the other and where did I indicate I would be other than against succession? Here's an idea base comments on what is actually said by people and not the voices in your head.
Also the thought of being in the forefront of political thought makes me want to vomit. What does "backwater of political thought" mean? Oh I get it, it's about insulting and putting down anyone who disagrees or has a different viewpoint. Pseudointellectual garbage.
"We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution."
That part, 'so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution' is another way to say exactly what Perry said.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there was an element of pandering to extremists in the way Perry framed the statement, and I think that it was tone deaf of him to do this if he has national aspirations. So I'm not trying to say he won't have a problem with this, but I do think that Goldwater was every bit as concerned with the turf battles between federal and state governance as Perry is saying he is.
"Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that."
So, where exactly is the call to secede in that?
"Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that."
"Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that."
So, where exactly is the call to secede in that?"
He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. -
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStori...
However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.
So AR, as I said above, If Perry does believe that Texas can secede, he does not have the intellectual credentials to be governor; and if he does not believe Texas can rebel, then he is merely a political whore servicing the ignorant or crazy electorate. The crowd did chant secede repeatedly, so it wasn't like my analysis comes from thin air.
Oh, and to be clear, it is to divide in to 4 additional states, plus a remaining Texas, so a total of 5 states.
I am sorry you over simplify my position.
When McCain ran into the women at the town hall that said she didn't trust Obama because he was an Arab, I applauded the man for correcting her ignorance. I believe leaders need to lead with the truth, not go along with the mob mentality that insults the facts. I believe that is an ethical way to live.
I thought you believed that politicians regularly sell their position to the biggest constituency. Maybe I misunderstood your loathing of Pelosi et al. Are you honestly telling me that you wouldn't have jumped on with both feet if Obama had implied that Illinois could secede during the past 8 years?
Perry's 'mis-statement' about the Texas agreement with the US when it became a state is fairly egregious. You would hope that Texan school kids are taught history as it happened, not as a politician only trying anything to swing his base would like to mis-remember it.
As to my tone, I've not changed. I believe my above analysis is rational; if not, let me know which points you disagree with. Just like always.
Additionally, my first entry on this subject was in reply to jwest.
“And then Polman puts into words what many non-liberal Democrats, independent voters and non-talk-radio political culture Republicans (which includes RINOS and non-RINOS) have begun to feel:”
My response was that I " believe Perry should concentrate on legal reality and less on moral hypocrisy."
Yes, it was a stupid error, but frankly, a surprising number of Texans think that it does say that. They also think it was 8 states Texas could reform into. As it being taught in school, um, no. Covering the lack of a right to secede and the actual right to break into multiple states is not covered in Texas history at the high school level (actually, Texas history is a middle school class, if I remember correctly)
And yep, you are right, I would have jumped all over Obama, so I am being a little unfair on that point. It was pandering, but I still say those who claimed he suggested that Texas would secede are overstating what he said.
In the past few days, the hot topics have been this one, handshakes, and bows over kisses. They're great 'hot button' issues that assure that everybody gets pissed off, but that useless discourse is exactly the things we need to ignore. It's as if politicians on both sides would rather have us have these rock fights among ourselves than rationally discuss problems. Wall Street regulations, what to do about our torture problem, and
Where are solutions we can agree upon, are all subjects taking short shrift to these chest-beating rants.
Actually, my Adorable Child studied this this very year (7th grade) -- and yes, they did talk about the ability to break up into separate states. It might even have been in the textbook itself (I'll have to look). Secession only came up in the context of the Civil War.
Well a lot of people say that but in the end they're just screwed. Stuff happens. :)
I suspect that's correct, even though the governor who served just prior to George Bush was Ann Richards, a Democrat.
However, while this post (and much of the commentary, including mine above) circles around Perry's role in (de)maintreamed national Republican circles, there's something to be said for the problem I think this creates for him here in Texas as well.
Because you can bet your last dollar that Kay Bailey Hutchinson is going to use Perry's pandering as a bludgeon -- and that's likely to serve her very well.
jwest also said: "The primary is decided by Republicans. Not just any republicans, but the hard core base of the republican party. There aren’t any liberal republicans, any independents and only a very few gay republicans voting in the primary."
Nothing's keeping people from voting as Republicans in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, and Hutchinson's an astute politician. She'll no doubt make sure the rest of the state views Perry's remarks in the same light as the rest of the country.
But really... I don't know how TX would be divided up, but part of TX is on the US/Mexico border.... I thought that was pretty blue..... Would all the new states from the old TX be red?
No matter how they broke it up, probably 2 of the 5 resulting states would likely be Blue from the beginning.
So how is that not pandering as well? Instead of showing how she'd govern differently, she'd be trying to garner support among moderates based on an impression of Perry's rhetoric.
I'm so fed up with the acceptance of pandering to moderates (you can't possibly vote for him, he said nasty things about a Democrat! He called people traitors!) while the very same moderates are saying that they're fed up with pandering to the bases of the parties. Pandering is pandering- all of it is a political game that keeps voters from focusing on issues and policy.
CStanley -- I was actually thinking that Hutchinson would merely highlight the statement(s) themselves, and give them a bit more air locally. It really wouldn't take much more than that, because contrary to how Texas is often portrayed (a caricature somewhat bolstered by at least one set of comments in this thread), most people here are not about to take up arms in pursuit of that Lone Star. It's also true that, just like everywhere else, people are more concerned with the daily grind than political posturing at Tea Parties. Thus, Perry's statements had far less local impact than one might think.
Dunno that that's necessarily pandering, so much as it is using the spotlight that will inevitably shine when the primary approaches.
(added: Yup! And every durned illegal I have meet, too. Or sumthin' like that.)
Texas does indeed have the right to secede. So does every other polity in the world. There is the same right to secede that the Colonies had from England. If your government treats you badly enough, you can leave. They might try to stop you, but if they don't (or if you can beat them in war) then you're free. Independence cannot be codified.
When Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution, they expressly reserved the right to resign from the Union if they believed their interests were not being served. No one saw that as a problem. Of course they could peaceably leave, because nothing in the Constitution permits the federal government to stop them.
The only case on point is Texas v. White, and that was decided primarily by Justices that Lincoln appointed during and after the war, so it should be no surprise what they decided.
I am a Texan, and I do not support secession (yet), but how can a people descendant from Revolutionaries colonial, Texan, and Southern, seriously question whether a State has the RIGHT to secede. By all means question its wisdom, its effectiveness to solve any or all problems, or even its sanity, but there is absolutely no way you convince me that George Washington was right, Stephen F. Austin was right, but Rick Perry is wrong. Independence transcends statutory or even Constitutional regulation.