Texas Governor Won't Rule Out 2012 Run

With conservatives aching for more choices in the approaching 2012 Republican primary, Perry declined Tuesday to rule out a White House bid during a press conference about a new anti-abortion measure. Also Tuesday, his top strategist told the Tribune that the governor is, naturally, “thinking about it” given the flattering comments made recently by some in the GOP, although he "doesn't see any change in his direction."

Click to expand...

So, a guy who preaches that Texas should secede from the United States of America is going to be our next president? Yea, right.

Article is here.

He never "preached about seccession". He made an offhand remark, more in reference to states' rights than to actually seceding, in a poor attempt to express how much power states like Texas have to push the fed into doing what's right. But people jumped on it and beat the damned horse way beyond death. It wasn't a wise choice of words, but he isn't calling Obama saying, "We're gonna secede!!! Nyah, nyah!"

The partial quote, editted, and the one most often referred to:

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

Click to expand...

And an article here, here. Second clink contains the complete quote in context.

tessaesque said:

He never "preached about seccession". He made an offhand remark, more in reference to states' rights than to actually seceding, in a poor attempt to express how much power states like Texas have to push the fed into doing what's right. But people jumped on it and beat the damned horse way beyond death. It wasn't a wise choice of words, but he isn't calling Obama saying, "We're gonna secede!!! Nyah, nyah!"

The partial quote, editted, and the one most often referred to:

And an article here, here. Second clink contains the complete quote in context.

Click to expand...

Yes, those are in context regarding whether or not Perry WANTS secession, but not in context to the remarks Perry made that says that Texas legally has the right to secede, which it does NOT.

danarhea said:

Yes, those are in context regarding whether or not Perry WANTS secession, but not in context to the remarks Perry made that says that Texas legally has the right to secede, which it does NOT.

Click to expand...

Actually, the four articles I read state that it is questionable.

Also, that wasn't even your point. Your original post stated that Perry is treatening to secede, not that he said Texas could.

Please run!... we need more baffons on the right to make Obama or any idiot on the left look like a brilliant choice.

What I found interesting was this little snippet from the article in the OP:

It’s worth noting that Perry has in the past repeatedly said he would not, under any circumstances, run for president in 2012.

Of course, that was before Rush Limbaugh recently extolled Perry’s virtues for 20 minutes, and before Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said they wouldn’t get in the race.

Click to expand...

Now, I ask you why would Rush Limbaugh suddenly come virtually out of the blue to place Perry on the national scene like this? The answer is very obvious: The Right is searching desperately to find a Conservative they think is electable to run for the presidency. They know they really don't have anyone among the front-runners who truly supports their hardline positions - not Romney, not Gingrich, not Pawlenty - and even those who do aren't rating high enough in the polls to be serious contenders. Mitch Daniels won't run, and they can't convince Chris Christi to get in the presidential race. And why would he when there are some hardline Conservatives who are now turning against him because he's starting to be unmasked as more of a Moderate?

The Conservative-Right is desperate right now to find somebody who they believe is credible and electable, and who shares their values and beliefs. And right now nobody fits that bill...except Herman Cain who as I've said time and time again that no matter how convincing this man is, the Conservative-Right will never give him the nomination for one very apparent reason. (If you've followed my commentary on this issue you'll know exactly what that reason is.)

Sidenote: For those who doubt what I'm saying, go to Gallup.com and click on the video link for "High-Intensity Support for Cain, Low for Gingrich" in the lower right-hand corner and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about when I say Conservatives are desparately searching for a GOP candidate but are reluctant to throw their support behind Cain. Once you see his favorable ratings, folks who claim to be Republicans should really be asking themselves why Cain isn't getting more support from the Republican base when he's doing so well among those who know him.

Yeah, another small government Republican that just signed a bill that requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion.

Here's the device that is used for that sonogram...



(I didn't know what I could post here, but if you Google images for vaginal ultrasound you'll see how invasive this procedure is. It's not the normal ultrasound most people think of, where they run the device on the outside of your stomach.)


I guess the idea of getting between you and your doctor is OK as long as I get to deem which procedure is required.




Oh and Texas just passed the highly important 'noodling' bill. It's now legal to catch fish by hand. Glad those Republicans have their priorities in order rather than figuring out how their going to fund education.

BWG said:

Yeah, another small government Republican that just signed a bill that requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion.

Here's the device that is used for that sonogram...

(I didn't know what I could post here, but if you Google images for vaginal ultrasound you'll see how invasive this procedure is. It's not the normal ultrasound most people think of, where they run the device on the outside of your stomach.)


I guess the idea of getting between you and your doctor is OK as long as I get to deem which procedure is required.




Oh and Texas just passed the highly important 'noodling' bill. It's now legal to catch fish by hand. Glad those Republicans have their priorities in order rather than figuring out how their going to fund education.

Click to expand...

for the record, having had both a vaginal sonogram and a yearly woman's exam, the sonogram is far, far less invasive.

BWG said:

Yeah, another small government Republican...

Click to expand...

Strawman

You do, however, get points for defeating the strawman with such a device.

Being that I'm a guy, I can't speak to which procedure is more or less invasive. However, I have to agree with BWG on this one. For a political party that was screaming that Democrat reforms were "getting between you and your doctor" or "government takeover of health care" or "government taking away your rights and telling you what to do", I find it very interesting that people (in TX) (women in general) aren't screaming about this measure.

What benefit could there be in "mandating" that a woman have a sonogram of this particular type prior to having an abortion?

Edite: Ah! Now I see what the deal is with this bill...

The law requires doctors to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to provide the woman with the opportunity to see the results and hear the fetal heartbeat. The doctor is also required to describe what the sonogram shows, to include the existence of legs, arms and internal organs.

An exception to the waiting period was made for medical emergencies or for women who live more than 100 miles from the nearest abortion provider.

In cases of incest, rape or fetal abnormality, the woman does not have to hear a description of the fetus.

Proponents said the law is necessary to make sure women understand what an abortion entails.

Click to expand...

Interesting...but isn't educating women of their choices where birth control, parenting and abortion/adoption options part of what Planned Parenthood does? I ask this question because of all the debate to defund Planned Parenthood because of the misconception that abortions is all they (apparently) do, here's an agency that performs sonograms, as well as a provide a host of other health education and health-related services to women (and men!), but Texas felt the need to enact a law to force women to do what most women do anyway as a routine process in pregnancy testing/screening?

As the article herein illustrates, this bill is nothing more than a scare tactic and a chance for the State of Texas to control and/or manipulate the choices for (young) women.

Objective Voice said:

Being that I'm a guy, I can't speak to which procedure is more or less invasive. However, I have to agree with BWG on this one. For a political party that was screaming that Democrat reforms were "getting between you and your doctor" or "government takeover of health care" or "government taking away your rights and telling you what to do", I find it very interesting that people (in TX) (women in general) aren't screaming about this measure.

What benefit could there be in "mandating" that a woman have a sonogram of this particular type prior to having an abortion?

Click to expand...

To be clear, I am against mandating that a woman view and listen to the sonogram procedure prior to the abortion, as I feel it is nothing more than punishment for performing an action that the legislature overwhelmingly opposes on the basis of their personal morality. The state legislates within the healthcare field in many ways that people don't clamor about. I think the issue here is the intent.

That said, I don't know of an abortion provider who doesn't require that a sonogram be performed prior to the procedure to determine how far along the pregnancy is, where the fetus is located, and how large the fetus is (necessary to ensure that the proper tools are utilized during the procedure). Early in the pregnancy a vaginal sonogram is the best way to get this information.

Tessaesque,

So, if sonograms are part of routine medical exams for women who are pregnant, why impose such a mandate on women? If you really sit back and think about it, this is nothing more than an attempt to scare young women from having abortions. Moreover, wouldn't mandating this procedure in this way increase health care costs for women who seak abortions? You said it yourself:

I don't know of an abortion provider who doesn't require that a sonogram be performed prior to the procedure to determine how far along the pregnancy is, where the fetus is located, and how large the fetus is (necessary to ensure that the proper tools are utilized during the procedure). Early in the pregnancy a vaginal sonogram is the best way to get this information.

Click to expand...

So, if a sonogram is done as a matter of routine why mandate one be done by law?

Objective Voice said:

Tessaesque,

So, if sonograms are part of routine medical exams for women who are pregnant, why impose such a mandate on women? If you really sit back and think about it, this is nothing more than an attempt to scare young women from having abortions. Moreover, wouldn't mandating this procedure in this way increase health care costs for women who seak abortions? You said it yourself:



So, if a sonogram is done as a matter of routine why mandate one be done by law?

Click to expand...

I'm agreeing that the law should be overridden. I'm not arguing that at all. All I'm saying is that it's more the intent of the law that's the problem.

tessaesque said:

for the record, having had both a vaginal sonogram and a yearly woman's exam, the sonogram is far, far less invasive.

Click to expand...

What makes you think BWG doesn't understand this as well as you do?

American said:

What makes you think BWG doesn't understand this as well as you do?

Click to expand...

Because he's never had a vaginal sonogram or a pap smear?