Why Rick Perry Is Unfit To Be President

By now you know what we think of Texas Governor Rick Perry. If you need a reminder, see Is Texas Governor Rick Perry Insane?, and also Rick Perry = Bachmann with Male Genitalia, and most recently Rick Perry — Cunning Creationist Candidate.

Fine, but you were already aware that Perry is whacked. Even so, why should we care if a President is a true believer in the literal truth of Genesis, Noah’s Ark, and all the rest of it? Presidents aren’t involved in those issues, so what difference would it make?

We’ve previously tried to explain why such madness is important. Just prior to the 2010 elections we wrote Creationism and Politics: Aaaargh!!, followed by our most contentious post, Creationism or Socialism: Which is Dumber? Early this year we wrote Open Letter to Republican Presidential Hopefuls. Those posts pretty much summarized our thinking about the situation — up to then.

But now we have something more concrete for you. In the Austin American-Statesman we found an article titled Perry’s social agenda is sometimes at odds with Texas business. A few excerpts (with bold font added by us) will be sufficient to make our point. Here we go:

Clayton Williams Jr., the 1990 GOP gubernatorial nominee who hosted a presidential campaign fundraiser for Perry on Thursday, wrote the governor in 2008 with concerns about the State Board of Education’s coming debate over science curriculum standards.

The Midland oilman warned Perry that a big public fight over the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in Texas classrooms would be detrimental to the state’s business reputation, according to a letter obtained by the American-Statesman under the state’s open records law.

That’s very interesting, because it shows us how Perry makes decisions. A Texas oilman who was also a big Perry fundraiser advised Perry to back off the creationism issue because it was bad for business. A sane candidate would heed such advice — especially if he were concerned about the state’s economy. The article quotes from a letter Williams wrote to Perry, part of which says:

Governor, this is a very important issue for Texas. I urge you to quell this issue quietly, firmly and permanently.

We know that Perry ignored Williams’ advice. Yet his big issue in the presidential race is how great he’s been for the Texas economy. Despite being specifically advised about the deleterious effect of his actions (appointing a succession of rabid creationists to be chairmen of the Texas State Board of Education) the advice was ignored. Perry’s creationist ideology prevailed and the result was an unsound economic decision. That, dear reader, tells us that Perry is a maniac.

What about the other political party? We already know about Obama’s ideology. In case you don’t, take a look at this. It’s only a minute long:

So now we know that Perry is every bit as crazy as Obama. Their ideologies are different, but they’re both insane, and they’re both dangerous. A presidential election between the two of them would present us with a choice between two nightmares.

There is only one truly American ideology — that of the Founders, based on the Enlightenment. The only purpose of government is to secure the individual rights of the people — their inalienable life, liberty, and property rights. All else is tyranny, and the specific flavor of that tyranny — whether it’s socialism or theocracy — doesn’t really matter.

So who’s the Curmudgeon’s candidate? We don’t know yet, but we already wrote about how we’ll make the decision. See 2012 Election: Who Would Ben Franklin Support? We’re still undecided.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Why Rick Perry Is Unfit To Be President

  1. Tomato Addict

    So who’s the Curmudgeon’s candidate?

    Sensuous Curmudgeon / Tomato Addict / 2012

  2. Curmudgeon, what have you been smoking? That video clip is as mindless as anything from The Way of the Master and far less well produced. My brain hurts after watching it.

  3. Do you believe that video?

    I know Obama made the comment about “spread the wealth around”, but it’s seriously quote-mined. Here’s the full exchange: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/spread-the-weal/ . You might disagree with his point of view – especially if you make more than $250/yr and want to avoid the extra 3% tax on income above that amount. However, to link his comment to some sort of Marxist communal philosophy is very misleading.

    The “Marxist professors” quote comes from his book – here is the full context http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/ … scroll to the end of the page, it’s the final quote addressed. To imply that what he did in his college days for the reasons he did them somehow makes him a Marxist today is completely bogus.

    We complain about creationists quote-mining and misrepresenting evolution in their propaganda. Let’s be equally skeptical of the sort of crap spewed out in the political arena too.

  4. Ed asks: “Do you believe that video?”

    It’s consistent with his policies. If there is anything that contradicts the video, I’m open minded. Whatcha got?

  5. And yet, high tech business continues to flock to Texas.

    We’ve been interviewing candidates for a research lab position here (hey, LRA, you ought to apply, Longhorns are preferred) and not one of them has said, “I can’t really consider coming to Texas, your Governor is a Creationist.” And I can assure you that when I was offered interesting scientific research work in Austin, I packed up and moved here post-haste. Other than the heat, I haven’t regretted it for a minute.

  6. SY says: “And yet, high tech business continues to flock to Texas.”

    Yes, because Texas has numerous advantages. But Perry’s educational policies aren’t among them. No high tech business moved to Texas because of Don McLeroy, but in spite of him.

  7. There is only one truly American ideology — that of the Founders, based on the Enlightenment. The only purpose of government is to secure the individual rights of the people — their inalienable life, liberty, and property rights. All else is tyranny, and the specific flavor of that tyranny — whether it’s socialism or theocracy — doesn’t really matter.

    Nice sound bite.

    Let’s hope the next election does not come down to choice between a socialist or a theocrat, or a choice between two socialists, one slightly less virulent than the other.

    In the absence of a Rick Santelli-like candidate, I reserve the right to write-in “Calvin Coolidge” as a principled vote in opposition to the madness of all Big Government Parties and candidates.

  8. TSC, not even “in spite of him.” He’s not on anyone’s radar screen. Present company excepted, of course.

  9. Longie says:

    I reserve the right to write-in “Calvin Coolidge” as a principled vote in opposition to the madness of all Big Government Parties and candidates.

    I’ll probably vote for the lesser of the two evils — if it’s possible to figure out who that is. I’m waiting to see who gets the nomination. If it’s a creationist, I’ll definitely change my party registration to “independent.” I ain’t no political kin to no creationist.

  10. Tomato Addict says: “Sensuous Curmudgeon / Tomato Addict / 2012″

    Oh no! I want Palin as my running mate — if you know what I mean.

  11. Tomato Addict

    If you mean running in the sense of “running to escape an angry mob”, and you think you can beat Palin in a quarter mile sprint? Then yes, I know what you mean, and I’m all for it.
    Never the less, I humbly offer my full support should you decide to throw your hat in the ring.

  12. Tomato Addict says: “I humbly offer my full support should you decide to throw your hat in the ring.”

    That is much appreciated. But even with all my manly virtues, I doubt that I could win my own zip code, much less anything else. So I’ll sit this one out.

  13. SC: “Even so, why should we care if a President is a true believer in the literal truth of Genesis, Noah’s Ark, and all the rest of it?”

    Mark my words. We will continue to get more Perrys and Bachmanns as long as we keep framing it about belief instead of strategy. As long as the “swing vote” says “what’s the harm?” the scam artists and their trained parrots have a huge unearned advantage.

    Perry probably does not believe the Earth is only 1000s of years old, but if he does, it’s almost certainly in spite of the evidence (i.e. the Bible overrules it), not because of it. He might even realize that common descent is so overwhelmigly supported by evidence that it’s absurd to deny it. Certainly he knows that DI folk mostly concede it or “play dumb” about it. Plus he hand-picked Don McLeroy, who even used the phrase “big tent,” taking Phillip Johnson’s advice not to take a position on claims that are easily falsifiable (e.g age of earth and life). The scam artists know that if there were evidence for any of the mutually contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis no court could prevent the teaching of it.

    Never assume what they might believe about what happened instead of evolution. To use a Michael Medved phrase, “focus like a laser beam” on what they do, which is to demand that students be misled about evolution at taxapyer’s expense. A true conservative will make sure that only that which has earned the right to be taught is taught.

  14. Another example why framing it in terms of belief is counterproductive: Michael Behe is occasionally referred to as a “theistic evolutionist,” because what he admits, namely ~4 billion years of common descent, and that biological origin and changes are ultimately caused by a Creator/designer, is essentially what TEs believe. But in terms of strategy Behe’s ID is as far from TE as one can get (even YEC, with its occasional testable hypotheses is closer to real science that “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID). Behe has made a career out of misrepresenting evolution specifically to promote unreasonable doubt to gullible and vulnerable people, whereas real TEs like Ken Miller are staunch critics of the ID movement. They are even stronger critics than “atheistic evolutionists” are, because they consider ID (& other forms of creationism) not only bad science, but bad theology as well.