After Other Excuses Fail Trump Throws Perry Under The Bus

The story of Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian president seems to have Trump running scared. I think he knows that he committed an impeachable offense, and he has tried a variety of excuses to try and get himself out of trouble.

The first thing he did was to use his favorite weapon -- he lied. He denied asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden and his son. That didn't last long. A White House transcript of the call showed clearly that he did ask for that investigation.

He then tried to claim there was no quid pro quo, but his refusal to release military aid provided by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia made that unlikely. Then we have messages sent between government officials that clearly show there was a quid pro quo -- an investigation would get Ukraine those military funds and also a White House visit.

The third excuse from Trump was that he was just trying to fight corruption in general. That one was just pathetic, considering that Trump himself is the most corrupt president in U.S. history -- and the ONLY person he wanted investigated was his likely 2020 opponent. The truth is that Trump has no problem with corruption (as long as it helps him). He just wanted Ukrainian help to smear his possible Democratic opponent.

Now he has come up with a fourth excuse, and this may be the silliest one of all. He says he didn't want to make the call at all, but was talked into doing it by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. I have never been a fan of Rick Perry, but I find this excuse ridiculous.

Perry's aides say he did ask Trump to call the Ukrainian president to discuss making a deal about oil and liquified natural gas. He did NOT ask him to call to get him to investigate Biden. That was Trump's own idea to help his electoral chances in 2020.

Perry had already said he would be leaving his cabinet post around the end of this year. It looks like Trump decided that since Perry was leaving, he might as well throw him under the bus. Trump may demand loyalty from those serving in his administration, but he doesn't return that loyalty. He'll knife any employee in the back if he thinks he can benefit from it.

Perry (& Other Republicans) Have Economic Theory Wrong

(These caricatures of the Republican elephant and Rick Perry are by DonkeyHotey.)

“Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow.”

That quote is from Energy Secretary Rick Perry as he toured a coal plant recently. He is wrong, of course -- both about the coal industry, and about economic theory.

He seems to be saying that the way to save the coal industry is just to open more coal mines and to produce more coal for the marketplace. But he is ignoring the fact that coal production is a dying industry, and just producing more coal will not save it.

Coal is dying because it is the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels -- dirtier than oil and far dirtier than natural gas. It produces more greenhouse gases when burned, and more other pollutants also.

I know that the coal industry is now trying to say we could have "clean coal" (a process of burning coal without dirtying our atmosphere). That is just a myth. "Clean coal" procedures do not exist. A "clean coal" plant was being constructed in Mississippi that was supposed to be the model for future "clean coal" plants -- but after years of trying and over $7 billion in expenses, they have given up and the plant will now burn natural gas instead.

The American public wants adequate energy to be produced for the country, but a growing majority wants that energy to come from clean and renewable sources (wind, solar, tides, etc.), and a larger share of energy produced in the U.S. every year is from those sources (and that will continue in the future). That is why the coal industry is dying.

But Perry's statement is wrong on a deeper level. It is a reflection of the Republican Party's belief in "supply-side" economic theory (also called "trickle-down"). It basically says that if corporations (and other businesses) are given more money, they will use that money to produce more goods/services and create more jobs -- and the public will flock to buy those goods and services. More succinctly, if you build it, they will buy it.

This is backwards to rational economic theory. It ignores two things:
1. People will only buy what they need or want (regardless of what is produced).
2. People will only buy what they can afford to buy.

Would people flock to buy buggy whips if a massive amount was produced? Of course not. They don't need or want that product. Would people flock to buy a Rolls-Royce auto if a massive amount was produced? Of course not. Most people couldn't afford to buy one (and enough are already being produced for those that can afford them).

In a free enterprise economy such as ours, supply-side economics is wrong. It is demand-side economics that works. When the masses want or need a product and have the money to buy that product, businesses will meet that demand by producing and selling the product (and hiring more workers to produce if they they need to). No sane business man/woman would produce a product or provide a service that there was no demand for.

So, why do the Republicans continue to champion an economic theory that is backwards to reality? They do it because it is an excuse to give their true constituency (the rich and the corporations) more and more tax cuts. And they preach a failed economic theory so they can fool the American people into letting them do that.

And sadly, they have fooled a substantial portion of the public into believing their "supply-side, trickle-down" lies. And sadder still that these economic lies will only produce short-term good for the corporations, while going to a rational demand-side economic theory would work for the benefit of both workers and businesses.

It is imperative to vote the GOP out of power in 2018. That is the only way to put a sensible economic policy back in place -- a policy that would grow the economy and be good for all Americans far into the future.

Rick Perry Avoids Justice For His Criminal Behavior

(Caricature of Rick Perry is by DonkeyHotey.)

This comes as no surprise to those of us living in Texas. Former Governor Rick Perry, who was charged with two felonies (abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant) will not have to stand trial for his criminal behavior.

The Republican-dominated Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has chosen to protect one of it's own -- and in a 6 to 2 decision, decided the charges violated the Texas Constitution. Perry can now ride off into the sunset -- assured he will not have to face a jury on those charges.

Here is how texaslawyer.com describes the ridiculous decision:

A divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has dismissed the criminal case against former Gov. Rick Perry.

The 6-2 majority opinion—accompanied by two concurrences and two dissents—dismissed Perry's charge of abuse of official capacity, and upheld the Third Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his coercion of a public servant charge.

The high court found that Perry's case arose from a governor's threat to exercise a veto and his ultimate exercise of the veto.

The court ruled that it violated the Texas Constitution's separation of powers provision to prosecute the exercise of a veto under the abuse of official capacity statute. It determined there was a facial violation of the First Amendment to prosecute the threat of a veto under the coercion of a public servant statute. The court also decided—in an expansion of Texas habeas law—that Perry could raise his separation-of-powers argument as an as-applied challenge in a pretrial habeas application, followed by an interlocutory appeal.

"The nature of the constitutional right at issue entitles him to raise these claims by pretrial habeas corpus," said the majority opinion by Presiding Judge Sharon Keller.

Previously, courts would only grant a defendant pretrial habeas relief if he successfully argued that a law was unconstitutional on its face, not as applied to his situation.

Rick Perry Recognizes The Obvious And Drops Out

Rick Perry finally admitted to himself that he has no chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee in 2016 -- and on Friday he officially suspended his campaign (dropped out of the race). This is no surprise. Anyone with any knowledge of politics has seen this coming for at least a month now.

The cartoon above (by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle) illustrates what happened. Party donors, especially the big-money donors, have noticed Perry's inability to get beyond low single-digits in voter support -- and they stopped giving money to his campaign. And a campaign without money is no campaign at all.

Perry had already officially closed his campaign in South Carolina, and effectively done so in Iowa and other states. It was just a matter of time before he dropped out. Now he has become the first of many to give up and drop out of the 2016 presidential race.

Perry liked to brag about all the good he did while governor of Texas, and did so again during his drop-out speech. It's not true. He was a disaster as governor, and the people of this nation should be happy he won't have the opportunity to be an equally-bad disaster as president.

Some might wonder which candidate will get Perry's supporters, but in reality, there weren't enough of those supporters to matter (even for those other candidates at the bottom). Perry had based his political career on appealing to the teabaggers and evangelicals, and in the end, those two groups abandoned him in droves.

A Few Things You Need To Know About Rick Perry

It's official now -- Rick Perry is once again running for president on the Republican ticket. I'm sure Perry will be running on what Republicans call the Texas "economic miracle". They like to claim that Texas is a state where Republicans (i.e., Rick Perry) have created a booming economy that benefits everyone. That might be true if you are rich or a corporation, but it is not true for most Texans. Here are just a few truths about the Texas "miracle":

* Texas has one of the most regressive tax systems in the nation -- a system where the poor and working classes spend a large percentage of their income in taxes, while the rich and corporations pay a negligible percentage.

* Texas has more people working for minimum wage (or less) than any other state in the nation -- both in actual numbers and as a percentage of its population.

* Only one state had a lower per student school funding than Texas -- and that was before Texas Republicans cut $5 billion from the education budget.

* Texas has the most people without any kind of health insurance -- both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the state's population. More than a quarter of the people in Texas have no health insurance.

* Texas has the highest dropout percentage and the lowest high school graduation percentage of any state.

* Texas is among the states with the highest percentage of teen pregnancies, and leads the nation in teens with a second pregnancy.

* Texas produces more industrial pollution than any other state. In fact, if Texas was a country, it would be the seventh largest polluter in the entire world.

Do you want the whole country to look like this? If Rick Perry is elected president, that's the path he would put the nation on -- a path that would pull the country down to the level of Texas. And that's not all. Think Progress has listed 9 Rick Perry beliefs -- beliefs that could destroy this country. They are:

1) Social Security And Medicare Are Unconstitutional

The Constitution permits the federal government to “lay and collect taxes” and to use the funds raised by these taxes to “pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This provision lays out the constitutional basis for federal spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and numerous other such programs that seek to advance the general welfare.

Perry, however, believes these programs are unconstitutional. “I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term ‘general welfare’ in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care,” Perry told the Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano in 2011. 

He offered similar views in a 2010 address to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) National Policy Summit. Proclaiming that “the nearly unlimited scope of the federal government contradicts the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us,” Perry claimed that an assault on this principles “continued into the Roosevelt New Deal.” He then named “a bankrupt Social Security system” as an example of a New Deal program he opposed.

Later, in the same speech, he claimed that President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society “further eroded our founding fathers’ boundaries that they had put upon the federal government.” He also specifically named Medicare as an example of Johnson’s supposed sins against the Constitution.

2) All Other Federal Health Programs Are Also Unconstitutional

Perry also listed Medicaid in his ALEC speech as an example of a Great Society program that, he believes, violates the Constitution. Similarly, his statement that Congress’s constitutional authority to spend money does not permit “a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care” sweeps broadly, implicating all federal health care programs. So that means that programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program or much of the Affordable Care Act would also cease to exist under Perry’s vision.

3) Federal Clean Air Laws Are Unconstitutional “Nonsense”

Perry also claimed that the notion that the federal government is “telling us how to . . . clean our air is really nonsense.” It’s likely, moreover, that Perry’s objections to environmental regulations extend far beyond the Clean Air Act. A section of Fed Up!argues that the Supreme Court has read Congress’s power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states” too broadly. Although Perry does not explain in detail how he would interpret this provision of the Constitution, he does suggest that Congress has overreached its constitutional authority in a long list of policy areas, including “the environment,” “guns,” and “civil rights.”

4) Federal Education Programs Are Unconstitutional

In his Beck interview, Perry denounced federal laws which “tell[] us how to educate our children.” Similarly, in Fed Up!, Perry criticized members of his own party for supporting federal education legislation. Their decision to do so, Perry claims, is a “perfect example of Republicans losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level.”

5) Nearly All Federal Laws Protecting Workers Are Unconstitutional

Fed Up! labels the the New Deal “the second big step in the march of socialism,” and blames the Supreme Court for allowing New Deal laws to take effect “by abdicating its role as the protector of constitutional federalism.” One decision that Perry singles out for criticism is NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., a 1937 decision upholding the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 — a federal law that still provides much of the backbone of the nation’s law governing unions. It should be noted that Jones & Laughlin‘s reasoning also provides the basis for other federal regulation of the employment relationship, such as minimum wage laws or the ban on child labor. So it is likely that those laws would cease to exist under Perry’s reading of the Constitution as well.

6) Federal Financial Reform Is Unconstitutional

Citing an announcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking public comment on regulations being considered to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, Perry’s book claims that “there is a better way to ensure that local communities are represented in government. If the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn’t have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn’t have control over them in the first place.” It’s unclear just how far Perry would go in rolling back Wall Street regulation, although this passage suggests that he would go quite far.

7) Voters Should Not Be Able To Choose Their Own Senators

Perry also claims that “[t]he American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment).“ The Seventeenth Amendment provides for direct election of senators, rather than having senators be selected by state legislatures — a process that was abandoned, at least in part, because it led to considerable corruption.

8) Taxing Investment Income Should Be Unconstitutional

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It was ratified to overrule an 1895 Supreme Court decision which effectively declared taxation of income from capital unconstitutional, though it permitted taxation of income from wages or salaries. The upshot of this decision is that a wealthy heir who lives entirely off of inherited investments would pay no taxes, while the heir’s pool cleaner would be taxed on their wage.

Perry’s claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was a mistake suggests that he would go back to this regime.

9) But Activist Judges Are A Serious Problem

Having laid out a long list of laws he thinks should be declared unconstitutional, Fed Up!pivots to a rant against Supreme Court justices who act as “‘Grand Ayatollahs’ of the Constitution.” He objects to Supreme Court decisions supposedly dictating “where we may and may not pray to God, when life begins, whether contraception must be allowed to be sold, whether and how we can celebrate religious holidays, what level of pornography and vulgarity must be allowed, whether those other than man and woman must be allowed to marry, what level of discrimination may or even must be carried out . . . whether a state must allow women to attend an all-male military academy, who may be executed and whether we may execute criminals at all.”

Perry, in other words, believes there should be strict limits on the Supreme Court’s power to hand down decisions he disagrees with, even as he insists upon using the Constitution as a weapon to erase whole swaths of American law.

And lest you forget, Rick Perry has also been indicted for using his government office to get back at the District Attorney's office that was investigating Republican misconduct. He cut the funding for that office when they wouldn't kneel to his threats.

Rick Perry Will Get In Republican Clown Car On June 4th

(This caricature of Rick Perry is by DonkeyHotey.)

Evidently Rick Perry saw that seats in the Republican Clown car are going fast, because he has made a reservation for June 4th. According to the Dallas Morning News, that's the day he will officially announce his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

I think he finally realized that he is being left behind. Even though he has made numerous visits to the early primary and caucus states, he trails badly in all the polls -- getting only 2% to 6% regardless of who is doing the polling. He has also watched big money flowing into the campaign coffers of the declared candidates and Jeb Bush (who everybody knows is running).

Personally, I think most voters still think Perry is not very bright -- remembering his epic flub in the 2012 debate (when he said he would name three things and then could only remember two of them). I also think he's a little too closely tied to George W. Bush, and the GOP is still trying to distance themselves from the memory of his presidency.

Frankly, I don't see a path for Perry to get the nomination. Other candidates have already staked out the territory -- with the libertarians backing Rand Paul, the evangelicals behind Mike Huckabee, the teabaggers loving Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, and the business establishment trying to decide between Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio.

To get himself back into the race, Perry is going to have to do something bold and innovative. And that's just not his style. He doesn't have the intelligence to be innovative, or the political courage to be bold. Throughout his career, Perry has just followed in the footsteps of other right-wing politicians -- and that's not going to be good enough this time.

But I don't have a problem with Perry entering the clown car. It just increases the size of the GOP field, and will help to make their "debates" look more like a mob scene than a real debate -- and that can only help Hillary Clinton.

Rick Perry Is Right About Unemployment Numbers (& Wrong)

Rick Perry, who embarrassed himself and all Texans in his last run for president, is now trying to rehabilitate his image and make a second try for the Republican nomination. That's why he wound up at the Iowa Freedom Summit (a gathering of right-wing Republicans) in Iowa last weekend.

While he was there, he made a statement about the official unemployment numbers published each month by the Labor Department -- a statement that has been castigated by both Democrats and by political pundits.

Here is what Perry actually said at a breakfast meeting of the right-wingers:

"We've got the lowest participation rate since the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president. I'm talking about participation in the work force. That's of really great concern for me. I mean, who is it standing up for these people that I call the uncounted? They've lost hope that they can even get a job, so they're not even counted. When you look at the unemployment rate today, that's not the true unemployment rate, it's been massaged, it's been doctored."

I don't like Rick Perry very much. I am convinced that he was probably the worst governor the state of Texas has ever had -- much worse than George W. Bush. Perry was (and is) a right-wing opportunist, who did what he thought was good for his own career -- totally disregarding what was best for the citizens of Texas. And I think he would make a terrible president. That's why it pains me to say the following.

Rick Perry was right. The official unemployment rate is not the true unemployment rate, and the numbers have been "massaged" or "doctored" to make the unemployment rate look better to the public. The Labor Department leaves out millions of unemployed people from the official count each month because they have not looked for work in the last four weeks. They evidently assume these people no longer want a job, but the truth is that most of them would love to have a job if they just knew where to find one. They have just been turned down so often that they have given up hope.

The Labor Department calls these people "marginally attached" to the labor force, and no longer counts them as being unemployed. Last month the Labor Department estimated that there are around 2,260,000 of these "marginally attached" workers -- and that is undoubtably an undercount. And refusing to count these people as unemployed is definitely a "doctoring" of the unemployment statistics to make the government look better.

But Perry is also wrong. He inferred that this "doctoring" of the statistics is something done only by the Obama administration -- and something that no Republican president would do. And that inference is nothing less than an outrageous lie!

At least our last six presidential administrations have figured the unemployment statistics in exactly the same way (including the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush). They have all figured the official unemployment rate by excluding the "marginally attached" from those counted as unemployed, and they have all done it for the same reason -- to make their administration look better on unemployment than it actually was. 

President Obama is doing nothing that other presidents didn't also do, and Perry's inference that Obama is doing something different is just not true -- and it makes Perry look like a lying opportunistic creep (which he is).

(NOTE -- The caricature of Rick Perry above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Republicans Still Like Romney - But The Public Doesn't

Recently, there has been a fair amount of talk about the possibility of Mitt Romney running for president again on the Republican ticket. This is probably because of the failure of any of the other candidates to separate themselves from the rather large pack of possible candidates (or show they would stand a chance of competing with Hillary Clinton if nominated). I have already posted about one poll which showed that right now Romney would have a small lead among all the candidate (but even though he had a lead, he only got about 21% support).

Now there is a new poll showing Romney still has support among the Republican base. It is the YouGov Poll, taken between October 18th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults with a margin of error of about 4 points. They didn't ask who the base Republican voters would vote for, but instead asked them their opinion of Romney (and the other leading candidates). It turns out that Romney has a significantly higher favorable rating among Republicans than any of the other candidates do (an 8-9 point margin, slightly exceeding the survey's margin of error).

This would seem to say a Romney candidacy is a possibility. But should the Republicans nominate him again? The answer is probably NO. While Romney is viewed very favorably by Republicans, that does not extend to the general public. Look at the charts below, and you will see that Romney has an upside-down rating among the general public (36% favorable and 47% unfavorable). And almost every demographic group has that unfavorable opinion of Romney. Only one group (those 65 & older) give him a significant favorable rating. Two other groups, whites and rich people, are split in their opinion of him (with the difference being within the survey's margin of error).

The news for Romney goes downhill from there. Every single demographic group (even the elderly, the whites, and the rich) say they do NOT want Romney to run for president again. And by large margins, every single demographic group, by large margins, thinks Hillary Clinton would easily beat Romney if he was the Republican candidate.

I personally don't think Romney will run, and after the 2012 fiasco, I seriously doubt the teabaggers (who control the GOP) will let him get the nomination again. Even though no clear favorite has emerged yet, I just don't think a Romney candidacy is viable (at least not in 2016).

Who Is Playing Politics With Texas Law ?

The picture at left is the "mug shot" of Texas Governor Rick Perry, taken after he was indicted for two criminal felonies -- Abuse of Power and Coercion of a Public Servant (both felonies under Texas law). Perry and his cohorts in the Republican Party are now loudly proclaiming that the indictment was just a political ploy -- engineered by Democrats to smear the governor (and possibility prevent his run for president in 2016). Democrats deny this, and say Perry created his own problems when he broke the law.

Who is right? Is someone using the laws of the state of Texas to play political games? Let us look at the facts of this case.

This whole mess started with the arrest of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). This was a stupid thing for her to do, and no one has defended her actions (not even Democrats). She was convicted of the offense, and served 45 days in jail (and entered a treatment program) -- and the voters will have the final say on her future.

But that wasn't good enough for the governor. He demanded that she resign her office because he said she had "lost the public's confidence by acting inappropriately and unethically". Lehmberg ignored the governor's demand and did not resign. Perry then threatened to cut off funding for the Travis County's Public Integrity Unit (TCPIU) if she did not resign. The TCPIU has the responsibility to investigate wrongdoing by state officials (being located in the state capitol). Lehmberg still refused to resign, so Perry followed through on his threat and vetoed funding for the TCPIU. The governor's threats and veto are what got him indicted by a Travis County Grand Jury.

Unfortunately for the governor, that is not quite the complete story. The Dallas Morning News, one of the state's most conservative newspapers, is now reporting that Rick Perry seems to be playing favorites when it comes to inappropriate behavior by District Attorneys. During Perry's term as governor, two other District Attorneys were arrested for DWI -- in Swisher County (2002) and in Kaufman County (2009). Perry neither asked for nor demanded the resignation of either of those two District Attorneys.

What is the difference between those two District Attorneys and Lehmberg? There are two differences. First, the Swisher County and Kaufman County District Attorneys are Republicans. Second, the TCPIU was investigating corruption in the governor's office, and if Lehmberg had resigned, Perry could have appointed her replacement (and stopped that investigation).

Rick Perry is right about one thing -- someone is playing politics with Texas law. But it is not the special prosecutor or the grand jury. It is Rick Perry -- and now his Republican cohorts who are trying to defend his criminal actions.

NOTE -- I am under no illusion that Rick Perry will have to pay for his criminal conduct. Even if he is convicted by a jury, I fully expect the Republican-dominated Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to come to his aid. It's just the way politics is played these days in the Lone Star State.

Rick Perry Indicted On Criminal Charges

(This photo of Governor Rick Perry is from The Huffington Post.)

Rick Perry, the Texas politician who went from humble origins to being a millionaire in spite of the fact he has never held a job other than elective office, has been indicted by a Travis County Grand Jury on two criminal charges. Finally someone is trying to rein in his abuse of power.

Will he be convicted? Will the case even make it to court (or be thrown out by a right-wing Republican judge)? Will this affect his chances to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016? Only the future can answer those questions.

Here is how KXAN-TV (the NBC affiliate in Austin) reported the story:

A grand jury has handed up an indictment against Gov. Rick Perry in connection with the investigation into an effort to force Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign.

At the center of the issue is a complaint about intimidation stemming from Perry’s threat to veto of $3.7 million in state funding to the Public Integrity Unit run by Lehmberg’s office. The threat came after she pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence; Perry called on her to step down but she refused to resign her position. Perry then vetoed the funding for the PIU.

A grand jury was called to determine whether or not Perry broke the law when he threatened to veto the funding. As a result they issued indictments on two felony charges: abuse of official capacity and coercion of public servant.

An indictment indicates the grand jury believes the state has a strong enough case to send to trial and is not a finding of guilt.

Perry Plays Politics With The Lives Of Refugee Children

In the last few months, a few thousand children from Central America have turned themselves in to Border Patrol agents on our southern border. These refugee children, trying to escape the violence and poverty in their own countries, pose no danger to Texas or the nation, and don't represent a significant influx of immigrants without documentation.

But that doesn't matter to Rick Perry. Perry has presidential ambitions, and he knows he can't get the GOP nomination unless he pleases the anti-immigrant racist teabaggers in his party's base. So, instead of taking a rational and humanitarian approach to these young refugees, he has decided to play politics -- and show the teabaggers that he can be as hard-hearted and ridiculous as they are.

As a Texan, I'm disgusted with Perry's recent actions -- and so is one of Texas' leading progressives, Jim Hightower (pictured here in a photo from tankriot.com). Here is what Hightower wrote on his own website:

Great news for you lovers of Wild West, shoot-'em-up, pulp-fiction tales: Rick "Rootie-Toot-Toot" Perry is making a one-man stand on the Texas-Mexico border!

A political stand, that is. He's been tongue-lashing Obama for not doing enough to seal the border by dispatching a human line of armed National Guard troops to protect America from… well, from what? Children, that's what. Nearly 60,000 terrorized, impoverished, and traumatized little ones have fled their hellish existences in Central America – where rape, murder, conscription into drug cartels, and hopeless poverty is their future –trekking all the way to the USA for a chance at something better.

No way, shouts Sheriff Perry. This guy routinely flaunts his Christianity for political purposes, but he seems to have forgotten that Jesus said: "Let the little children, come to me, and do not hinder them." Instead, the presidential wannabe bellows for their immediate deportation, claiming they'll commit crimes, bring diseases, and burden taxpayers with welfare costs.

Burden taxpayers? Perry's "Grand Stand on the Border" will cost taxpayers about $20 million a month to cover the state police and 1,000 National Guard troops he has deployed to the border. It's a political stunt cynically exploiting children trying to escape unspeakable violence and poverty. But it's not his money, so what the hell?

It is, however, his morality. He's so morally stunted that he's willing to militarize a humanitarian crisis and summarily send children back to their death. But it's not their future that concerns Perry. Rather, this whole show is about his own political future, for he's playing to the fear and loathing of tea party extremists who'll dominate the upcoming Republican presidential primaries.

Perry is not just callously ambitious, he's disgusting.

Rick Perry To Spend Millions Playing Border Politics

Rick Perry is again showcasing his ignorance and naked political ambition. On Monday, he declared that he will be sending 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. To excuse this action, he is seizing on recent reports of more than 50,000 children that have been captured trying to enter the United States on our Southern border.

This is a very bad idea for several reasons:

* We already have more patrol officers at the border than ever before -- about 5.4 Border Patrol officers for every mile of the border.

* Those officers are doing a very good job. After all, the children Perry is using as an excuse for his action did not get in the country. They were caught by the Border Patrol.

* The undocumented immigrant population is no longer growing (both because of the increased number of officers and because of the poor economy). There are currently as many (if not more) immigrants leaving the United States as there are entering it.

* Keeping 1,000 National Guardsmen at the border will cost the state of Texas about $12 million a month -- a silly expenditure after his own party has slashed state spending because they whine we don't have enough revenue to pay our bills (and want to cut more from the budget). That money could be put to a much better use by increasing the education budget (which is the lowest per capita of any state in the nation).

* The National Guard is trained to fight a war (and proved in Iraq and Afghanistan that they can do that well). They are not trained as border patrol officers (not should they be). Putting them on the border to do a job they have not been trained to do is just asking for trouble.

It would not surprise me if this crazy decision by Perry resulted in tragedy -- with innocent people, who just want to escape violence or provide for their families, being killed. And when that happens, I won't blame the National Guard. I'll blame Rick Perry -- because this action is nothing more than political. He wants to run for president in 2016 -- and to do that he needs to keep his name before the national public, and keep the anti-immigrant teabaggers happy (because they'll be the ones to pick the 2016 GOP nominee).

(The caricature of Rick Perry above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Clinton Numbers Look Better Than Other 2016 Hopefuls

It is just an electoral fact that voters most likely will vote for a candidate they know (familiarity) and like (favorability). Considering this, the Gallup Poll questioned 1,013 randomly chosen national adults between July 7th and 10th on their familiarity with and favorability for the top 16 presidential candidate (5 Democrats and 11 Republicans). The poll has a margin of error of 4 points.

The numbers should make Hillary Clinton feel good about her chances of being elected president (assuming she decides to run). Here numbers are far better than those of anyone else. About 91% of the population is familiar with Clinton (26 points better than her closest possible GOP opponent), and 55% view her favorably (about 22 points better than the most popular Republican). In fact, Clinton was the only candidate to score above the 50% mark in favorability.

The pleasant surprise for Democrats is that Joe Biden, while he didn't come close to Clinton's numbers, was able to outpace all the Republicans in both familiarity and favorability. He scored 15 points better than the closest Republican in familiarity, and 5 points better than the closest Republican in favorability. Both of those numbers exceed the margin of error of the survey.

The Perry Legacy

Rick Perry Gets No Respect

When Texas Governor Rick perry announced that he would not seek another term as governor, most people (including myself) assumed that he did that because he want ed the time to lay the groundwork for another presidential campaign. He failed miserably in 2012, but still thinks he can turn that around and become the Republican nominee.

But he's having a hard time getting anyone else to think he might make a good GOP nominee -- including among Republicans in his home state. A Texas Tribune / Univ. of Texas Poll taken this year shows he would only have the support of 10% of Texas Republicans if he chose to run (trailing Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio). And that extends to the media. While much is reported about the possible candidacies of other possible candidates, it is rare to even hear Perry's name mentioned.

And it looks like the national polls have as little regard for a possible Perry candidacy as the media and his home state Republicans. Most of them don't even include his name when they poll respondents about who they would prefer in 2016. The folks over at Smart Politics (the blog of the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota) looked at the 17 polls that have been conducted this year on a 2016 GOP presidential preference -- and Perry's name only appeared in 5 of those polls. The other 12 polls didn't even bother to list his name. In fact, he was listed less than such long-shots as Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal.

This is a good thing. During Perry's term as governor, the state of Texas sank to the bottom in far too many important categories. He would be a disaster as president -- maybe even worse than the last Texan to occupy the White House.

Another Very Early Party Presidential Poll

Another presidential preference poll has been done. This one is the CNN/Opinion Research Poll. It was taken between September 6th and 8th of 452 Republicans and 448 Democrats (with a 4.5 point margin of error for both parties).

As you can see from the chart above, there is still no real favorite in the Republican race. Chris Christie has a tiny lead, but both Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are within the margin of error -- with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not far behind. Since polls this early usually rest on name recognition, the two candidates that should worry are Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. Both of them should be familiar with almost all Republican voters, but they still trail badly.

It's a different story among Democrats, where Hillary Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite (with more support than everyone else put together). With Clinton being such a shoo-in for the nomination (if she decides she wants it), it speaks well of Biden, Warren, and Cuomo that they have any support at all -- and just shows how much respect they each have among Democrats in general.

In a magazine interview last Sunday, Clinton was asked whether she wrestles with whether to run for the presidency or not. She replied:

"I do, but I'm both pragmatic and realistic. I think I have a pretty good idea of the political and governmental challenges that are facing our leaders, and I'll do whatever I can from whatever position I find myself in to advocate for the values and the policies I think are right for the country. I will just continue to weigh what the factors are that would influence me making a decision one way or the other. I'm not in any hurry. I think it's a serious decision, not to be made lightly but it's also not one that has to be made soon."

And when Bill Clinton was asked Fareed Zakaria of CNN about whether Hillary would run, he said:

"I think she would be the first to tell you that there is no such thing as a done deal, ever, by anybody. But I don't know what she's going to do."

Personally, I would be shocked if she didn't run -- and even more shocked if she didn't win (both the nomination and the general election).

Rick Perry's Latest "Oops" Moment

Rick Perry's career has been full of blunders, and those "oops" moments go much farther than just in some Republican debates. It extends to the policies he proposes and enforces -- policies that have made Texas the laughing-stock of the nation.

The latest comes with his absolute refusal to go along with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and extend Medicaid to cover millions of poor Texans. While he has told Texans that he is protecting them from higher insurance prices with this refusal, now evidence is coming out that his ridiculous actions have had exactly the opposite effect.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation review of insurance premiums of states that have accepted Obamacare (and expanded Medicaid) shows that insurance premiums are dropping in those states. But a RandCorporation report says the rates will Texas will be rising -- by about 9.3%. And they blame this rising of insurance premiums on Texas' refusal to expand Medicaid.

A Dallas Morning News article says this is because some of the poor uninsured will purchase insurance through the federal exchange (set up because the state refused to create an insurance exchange), and since the poor generally have poorer health, that will drive up premiums for everyone. That may be true, but I suspect an even bigger reason is that while those millions will not be covered by Medicaid, many of them will still need health care and they will get it in the hospital emergency rooms -- and since the hospitals cannot afford to give free care and can't legally deny care, they will pass this cost on to other patients and their insurance companies (thus driving up the premiums charged to Texans).

But either way, the primary cause for the rate increase is Perry's absolute refusal to expand Medicaid (even though the cost would be born by the federal government for ten years, and Texas would only pay 10% of the cost after that). So when you get your insurance bill and see it has gone up (whether an employer or an individual), thank Governor Perry for the increased cost. It's his latest "oops" moment, and Texans will have to foot the bill for it.

(The image above of Rick Perry is from mariopiperni.com.)

Perry Has The Ability To Just Not Care

Texas has more uninsured people than any other state in this nation -- both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the state population. A governor that cared about the people of his state would be anxious to see as many of those people as possible covered by health insurance, so they wouldn't have to go without medical care until it was too late (as currently happens to thousands each year).

But Rick Perry (and the governors of several other red states) think politics is more important than the lives of Texas (and American) citizens. His rich donors don't need Medicaid, Medicare, or Obamacare, so he (along with many other Republicans) have lied repeatedly to scare citizens into believing that these programs are bad for them -- just to save those rich donors from having to pay a little more in taxes. It's too bad he doesn't have a conscience. If he did, he would be deeply ashamed of his actions. Unfortunately, having a conscience doesn't seem to be a requirement for Republicans these days.

Perry Says No To A Re-Election Campaign

"I remain excited about the future and the challenges ahead, but the time has come to pass on the mantle of leadership. Today I am announcing I will not seek re-election as governor of Texas. I will spend the next 18 months working to create more jobs, opportunity and innovation. I will actively lead this great state." 

Those are the words of Texas Governor Rick Perry on Monday. I must admit that I am surprised by his decision. I had expected him to run again, if for no other reason, just to keep his name before the American people. Rick Perry wants more than anything else to be president, and I expected him to use a gubernatorial campaign and new term as a springboard to the Republican nomination in 2016.

But maybe Perry is smarter than I gave him credit for. The latest polls show that most Texans did not want him to run for re-election -- even a significant majority of Republicans opposed it. And he hasn't been winning any new friends with his effort to close 37 out of 42 women's clinics in the state that perform abortions (or his recent embarrassing remarks about State Senator Wendy Davis). Maybe he is just trying to avoid the humiliation of a defeat in the Republican primary for governor -- which would put the final nail in his coffin regarding any future run for president.

I don't think Perry is currently a viable candidate for president among Republicans. Most polls show him in single digits -- far behind several other candidates. But reputations have been rehabilitated before (remember Richard Nixon, who surprised most people by grabbing the GOP nomination in 1968), and Perry will have a couple of years to try. And without the duties of being governor, he will have the time to travel across the nation in that effort.

In my opinion, that's what his decision not to run for re-election is all  about. He wants to run for president in 2016.

Could Wendy Davis Beat Rick Perry ?

(State Senator Wendy Davis addresses a crowd of supporters in Austin on July 1st.)

With her filibuster to kill the Republican anti-choice bill in the first legislative special session, she became a household name among Texas Democrats. She energized them, and immediately vaulted herself into contention for statewide office. Many Democrats, including state party chairman Hinajosa, have begun to call for her to run for governor. She hasn't yet said that she would do that, but she is the first candidate for Democrats in many years that has them excited, and willing to work their butts off.

The question, of course, is -- does Wendy Davis have a chance to actually beat Governor Perry, or is the idea of her candidacy for governor just a pipe dream, destined to fail (as Democratic statewide candidates have been doing for the last 20 years). The folks at Public Policy Polling decided to find out, and they took a survey of 500 Texas voters between June 28th and July 1st. The poll has a margin of error of 4.4 points. At first glance, the survey doesn't look real good for Senator Davis. Here are the numbers right now for a race against Perry:

Rick Perry...............53%
Wendy Davis..........39%
Unsure..........8%

That's a 14 point gap -- not good! But the race is not being held today, and there are some other questions in the survey that show Davis could possibly narrow that gap significantly. Take for instance, the favorability ratings of the candidates. The people of Texas know who Rick Perry is, and a majority of them don't like him very much. His approval rating is upside-down, with 45% approving of him and 50 disapproving (and 5% unsure). On the other hand, Wendy Davis has a 39% approval rating and only 29% disapproval rating, while 32% of respondents said they didn't know her well enough to say either way.

Since it is still quite a while until the next gubernatorial election, there is plenty of time for Davis to reach out to that 32%, and win them over. Why do I think she could win them over? For one thing, she is on the side of the public in the issues currently being discussed. Here are some interesting numbers:

DO YOU SUPPORT WENDY DAVIS' USE OF THE FILIBUSTER?
Support...............45%
Oppose...............40%
Unsure...............15%

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE PERRY'S CALL FOR A SECOND SPECIAL SESSION?
Support...............43%
Oppose...............44%
Unsure...............13%

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE SB 5 (THE BILL DAVID FILIBUSTERED)?
Support...............20%
Oppose...............28%
Unsure...............52%

SHOULD RICK PERRY RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM AS GOVERNOR?
Yes...............30%
No...............60%
Unsure...............10%

The fact is the public is very split over the current special selection, and many of them don't really understand what the issues being debated in it are about (because many of them haven't been paying attention to it). But another recent poll by the Texas Tribune has shown that a significant majority of Texans don't want more anti-choice laws -- but would like to see Roe v. Wade left just as it is.

Add to that the fact that Rick Perry is not a real popular governor, and most (even Republicans) don't want to see him run again. Then you have the energizing of the state's Democrats. They are more energized and willing to work than they have been since the governorship of Ann Richards. And then you have one final factor -- the continued growth of minority voters in Texas (especially Hispanics), and the fact that Democrats are currently making a concerted effort to register many more Hispanic voters (and that effort is for the first time in quite a while, a well-funded effort).

None of this means that Wendy Davis would have an easy time in unseating Rick Perry. It would be very difficult, and she very well could lose. But it wouldn't be by any 14 points, and there is a small chance that she could actually win -- a better chance than any Democrat has had in more than 20 years. She would need the help of an army of energized Democrats, and enough funding to run a credible campaign. She has the first, and I believe she could get the second.

I have to admit, for the first time in many years, I'm excited about the prospect of having a good candidate with a chance to win -- in spite of these early poll numbers.