Two weeks ago we ran the story on Texas Governor Rick Perry’s cover up, that he may have executed an innocent man when he refused even to grant a stay of execution for Cameron Todd Willingham.
At issue with the execution was the fact that Mr. Willingham’s conviction was based on forensic techniques, determining that the fire was arson-related, that are now considered scientifically invalid and inconsistent with current accepted scientific standards of the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA).
Without arson, there was no murder in his case, and thus the possibility is raised that an innocent man was convicted and executed.
In the time since that story, several other stories have come out on Governor Perry’s large number of executions, a number of which have been questionable.
One group that does not care about the prospect that Governor Perry may have executed innocent individuals would be the primary audience in the Republican Party, where Governor Perry has emerged as the frontrunner.
NBC’s Anchor Brian Williams asked Mr. Perry the question about the death penalty and pointed to the 234 executions, the most executions by any governor in the history of this nation.
Before he could even answer the question, the Republican audience erupted in applause at the very idea that he had executed so many. The Governor, for his part, suggested that the audience response was an indication that the vast majority of Americans support capital punishment.
Certainly even a casual observer would raise their eyebrows at the notion that a partisan group of people, comprised of the most conservative segment of the more conservative portion of the nation, would be reflective of anything.
Polling, indeed, suggests strong support for capital punishment until the idea of life without parole is posed to respondents of polls, at which point pluralities, if not small majorities, switch to supporting the alternative to capital punishment.
The Governor himself was apparently not ashamed of his record here.
“I’ve never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place,” Perry said. “When someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States if that’s required.”
Governor Perry said he supports the decision of Texas to uphold the death penalty, calling it the “ultimate justice,” but felt overall the issue should be left to the states rather than the federal government.
“In the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you’re involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is you will be executed.”
The question that many raise is whether people in Texas do get fair hearings, and whether the state has executed innocent people, such as possibly Cameron Todd Willingham.
Brandi Grissom, in “Scrutinizing Perry’s Extensive Execution Record,” appearing in the New York Times, argues that Mr. Willingham’s execution is far from the only controversial one during the governor’s nearly 11 years in office.
Ms. Grissom cites spokesperson Lucy Nashed, who “said the governor could grant clemency only when the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles – whose members Mr. Perry appoints – recommended that action. He has disagreed with the board only three times when it recommended clemency in death penalty cases, she said.”
“The governor takes his clemency authority very seriously and considers the total facts of every case before making a decision,” she said. Independent of the board, the governor may grant a one-time 30-day reprieve delaying an execution; Mr. Perry has issued one such reprieve.
Writes Ms. Grissom, “To his critics, his parsimonious use of clemency is notable because of continuing concerns about the ability of prisoners facing capital charges in Texas to retain quality legal representation, the execution of those who were minors when they committed their crimes, the ability of some prisoners to understand their punishment intellectually and the international ramifications of executing foreign nationals.”
Jordan Smith, a columnist for the Austin Chronicle, appeared in the liberal Nation magazine. In an article entitled, “Is Rick Perry Ready to Execute an Innocent Man?” they chronicled the case of Larry Swearingen.
Writes Mr. Smith, “Indeed, if Swearingen is executed on Perry’s watch, there’s no reason to think it would even hurt him politically. Most people who believe the state has already executed an innocent person still support the death penalty. Perry can say he trusts the prosecutor and jury to get it right, and especially in the GOP primary that’s enough to give him a free pass.”
Politico reported that “Multiple former [Kay Bailey] Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man – Cameron Todd Willingham – and got this response from a primary voter: ‘It takes balls to execute an innocent man.’ “
On September 2, The New Republic in an article entitled, “Don’t Blame Perry for Texas’s Execution Addiction. He Doesn’t Have Much to Do With It,” wrote, “The sheer number of executions in Texas over the past decade reveals little about Perry the Governor, because the governor plays only a limited role in the state’s death penalty machinery. That said, Perry has injected himself into the issue of capital punishment in Texas on a number of key occasions – with regard to the appropriateness of capital punishment for offenders with mental retardation, as well as the procedures for investigating a possible wrongful conviction and execution – interventions that cast doubt on the transparency and judiciousness of his political leadership.”
“So what do Perry’s death penalty positions mean?” they ask rhetorically.
They respond to their own question, “His veto of a ban on executing the mentally retarded has had little effect, given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that ‘evolving standards of decency’ require such a ban as a matter of constitutional law. But it does show Perry’s willingness to take an extreme position – and his unwillingness or inability to offer a thoughtful defense of that position.”
They add, “In addition, Perry’s abdication of executive review of executions in the nation’s death penalty epicenter is regrettable and frightening, given the very real possibility of the wrongful execution of the innocent. Cameron Todd Willingham’s case is emblematic of that possibility – and here, Perry’s lack of transparency, coupled with his willingness to use his political muscle to deep-six a reasonable investigation, speak the most loudly about what his death penalty politics say about his political leadership.”
As before, this remains our biggest concern, as a stay of execution in itself is a judgment call. Whether we can fault Governor Perry is probably more a matter of subjective opinion. However, the crime is never what gets people in politics, it is the cover-up, and that is where we should be more concerned.
Given the public’s apparent acceptance of executions of mentally challenged people, as well as potentially innocent people, one has to wonder why Governor Perry apparently went to so much effort to prevent the findings of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to come forward and announce for sure that an innocent man had been executed.
Two days before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was scheduled to meet to discuss the report, in October 2009, the Governor replaced the chair and two other members of the commission.
The meeting was canceled and accusations flew that Governor Perry was attempting to interfere with the investigation and use it for his own political advantage.
Governor Perry, in a report from CNN, denied these allegations, telling reporters in Austin, “I think people are making a lot of this issue.”
He said the replacement of commission Chairman Sam Bassett and commissioners Alan Levy and Aliece Watts, whose terms had expired, was “pretty normal protocol.”
“If you’ve got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process, rather than bring people in there for a short period of time and then replace them,” he said. “I think it makes a whole lot more sense to make a change now than to make a change later.”
Now, nearly two years later, the issue continues.
The State’s Attorney General has stepped in to limit the power of the commission to investigate evidence in cases prior to September 2005, in specific cases. The commission had wanted to review the fire marshal’s office to see if there were other people who may have been wrongly convicted, based on the now-discredited arson science.
“This is yet another stunning example of politics preventing the commission from carrying out the responsibilities that led the Legislature to create the commission in the first place,” Barry Scheck, the co-founder of the Innocence Project said in a Houston Chronicle op-ed two weeks ago.
He said that his goal, and the goal of the Texas commission, is to make sure that the forensic science used in court rooms is based on actual science.
Mr. Scheck called for an investigation of Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado’s actions during the investigation.
“On at least two instances over the past year – once through a letter submitted to the commission and again through the testimony of his attorney – Maldonado has defended the original investigation of the Willingham case, claiming that the investigation was based on sound science even though this has been disputed by many of the nation’s most respected arson scientists and is in clear violation of accepted standards of the NFPA, the nation’s foremost authority on fire investigation science,” Mr. Scheck said.
Mr. Scheck sees this as political, and is not surprised.
“The attorney general and Maldonado are protecting themselves and shielding Gov. Rick Perry from potential criticism and political backlash stemming from the fact that a man was allowed to be executed even though his conviction was based on flawed and outdated science and that this fact had been explained to them at the time by one of the nation’s leading experts in fire science,” he said.
Two weeks ago we argued that this was more about the issue of the death penalty than Mr. Perry’s aspirations for President. Nevertheless, there are clear areas for concern about the judgment of a man who could become the Republican nominee for president on an important and emerging issue.
On the other hand, the reaction by the Republican partisans on Wednesday night lead us to question whether this issue will matter.
As Politico argued a few days ago, “In a measure of how much the electorate’s passions have shifted, Perry’s death penalty record isn’t looking like it will have much of an effect on his White House ambitions – as a positive or a negative.”
That marks a change from 1998, they argue, when “Bernard Shaw pressed Michael Dukakis at a 1988 debate about whether he’d still oppose the death penalty for someone who’d raped and murdered his wife, or when Bill Clinton took time off the trail in 1992 to attend the execution of a brain-damaged cop killer.”
“The public is a lot more ambivalent than they had been, say 15 years ago,” said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment. “They see it as a grayer issue now.”
“The death penalty is not, at least so far, a public policy issue that people are animated about in terms of this election cycle,” said Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Politico argues that this issue will not play a significant role during the primary campaign, and the response from the partisan crowd watching the Republican debates tells us exactly why that is the case.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, it’s good to see you attacking Perry. It just shows how afraid you and your liberal buddies are of his political skills and the good possibility that he will be your next president.
Actually your post shows how little you actually know and understand me. I care about the issue of Capital Punishment and I care that Mr. Perry has been egregious on that issue, I think his attempt to cover up the Texas Forensic Commission’s finding is appalling. I don’t really care that much who is the next president.
“I don’t really care that much who is the next president.”
Ahem, right David, we believe you. And of all the cases out there you just happen to choose to concentrate on this one.
I don’t really care if you believe me. How many articles have I had on the presidential election in the past six months? Not many. How many on capital punishment? Maybe 20 – at least!
Why do I focus on this one? Governor Perry has executed more than any other governor in history, he’s high profile, and he has executed a person where there is pretty strong evidence of innocence. I can’t find another example this glaring.
[quote]Our chief concern was not just that he may have executed an innocent person, but that for political purposes he may have tampered with the membership of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to avoid scrutiny and a judgment.[/quote]
“May” is the operative word here. We don’t know how much other evidence there was to link the defendant to this crime…
[quote]As before, this remains our biggest concern, as a stay of execution in itself is a judgment call. Whether we can fault Governor Perry is probably more a matter of subjective opinion. [/quote]
Exactly – VERY SUBJECTIVE opinion.
[quote]Mr. Scheck sees this as political, and is not surprised.[/quote]
Neither am I surprised that this entire issue has very much become a political football. Seems to me the same scenario played out in Obama’s state of Illinois not so long ago.
[quote]Two weeks ago we argued that this was more about the issue of the death penalty than Mr. Perry’s aspirations for President. Nevertheless, there are clear areas for concern about the judgment of a man who could become the Republican nominee for president on an important and emerging issue.[/quote]
[quote] I don’t really care that much who is the next president. [/quote]
You can’t have it both ways…
David: The absurdity of the title of this post is off the charts.
I know the left template is that those conservatives cling to their guns and religion, but to insinuate that Texans might welcome the execution of innocent people is tactless and rude. I get blasted by Don and wdf1 for using the term “looter” and “moocher”, but then I am supposed to accept this backhanded way of saying that Perry and Texans like to kill innocent people.
Perry is not going to be affected by this issue politically. I understand your interest, but if you really want to see improvements that reduce the chance of innocent executions, you should focus on advocating for increasing the strength of defense in these cases.
I also think you should get introspective about the situation. Politics enflamed by unprincipled ideologues and the crappy media makes politicians risk-averse. Bush took profound political risks to do what he thought was the right thing, and look what lefties and the left media did with it. They did the same over the prescription drug benefit and Bush’s stand on immigration even though Bush’s policies on these things were way left of center. What would the left and left media be doing to Perry if he stayed the execution, and it ended up another Willie Horton issue? For example, what if Willingham went on to kill a prison guard? You know perfectly well that the left does not stand on principle when there is political gain to be made. So, if you really want to see improvements that help prevent the execution of innocent prisoners, I would expect some discussion on these things. Otherwise it looks like you are just writing political hit pieces. In this case an irrelevant political hit piece because Perry is not going to be harmed by his tough on crime record.
Regardless of whether or not David is making a partisan attack on Perry, there are some serious considerations about Governor Perry’s views on the role of the executive and the role of government in general.
1) He seems deeply conflicted about the role of state and federal government. I have a lot of difficulty believing in his interest in the overall wellbeing of the United States when he previously spoke, apparently seriously about the possibility of secession for Texas.
2) I have a great deal of concern about a chief executive who is essentially willing to abdicate a major function of his position, the serious review of death penalty cases, with the statement that ” he trusts the prosecutor and jury to have gotten it right”. I find this particularly appalling in view of the number of cases in which scientific evidence has subsequently demonstrated that the prosecutor and jury did not “get it right” in death penalty cases..
3) Which brings me to an even greater concern that I have about Gov. Perry. His seeming preference for his interpretation of his religious convictions over objective evidence. Why would one need to consider any other opinion, or even the facts, if you truly believed that your own opinion was informed by God. And let’s suppose for the moment that he doesn’t really believe this and is just using it as a means to consolidate his religious base, almost as bad for scoring near the top of the hypocrisy scale. Either way, not good in my book.
[i]1) He seems deeply conflicted about the role of state and federal government.[/i] = Obama
[i]2) I have a great deal of concern about a chief executive who is essentially willing to abdicate a major function of his position[/i] = Obama
[i]His seeming preference for his interpretation of his religious convictions over objective evidence.[/i] = Obama
“Constituents Not Interested in Executions of Innocent People”
That’s a rather inflammatory headline. I would guess they don’t believe the accusations, probably because they think they are partisan. It is possible that some of his constituents can rationalize the execution of a criminal who might have been innocent of the particular crime. But I seriously doubt that the majority of Texans, who have elected and re-elected Gov. Perry, are as blasé about this as you think. Politics in Texas is a contact sport. The governor’s supporters very likely believe the accusations are politically motivated.
I have lots of reasons I would never support Gov. Perry for president. But every major national political figure supports the death penalty. That is just not going to be an issue with any traction.
JB
Your post is far below your usual. Even if you truly believe that all of things are true of Obama ( I notice you site no examples), it is a meaningless post since it adds nothing to the discussion of either the death penalty, or the feasibility of Gov. Perry as a candidate for president which are the topics of this thread.
Don Shor
I agree with both you and JB that this issue is not likely to have any traction nationally. And, I believe that is a very sad commentary on the priorities of our society.
Whether you are an adamant opponent of the death penalty on moral grounds as I am, or whether you are an ardent supporter because you believe that this represents a form of justice, I think we can all agree that it is undesirable to execute the innocent.
The problem I see, is that for many, the issue of execution of the innocent is less important than the issue of who gets to hold power. And, I do not believe that either the right or the left deviate from this misplaced priority. I believe that this is what got us many of the injustices which have accompanied the whole “tough on crime” race. To say nothing of the financial costs incurred by our “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality which both ends of the political spectrum have at times embraced in order to win elections.
For JB I will include an example of what happens when an individual on the left holds to their principles.
Remember Rose Bird ? There are people all along the political spectrum who will do what they believe is right regardless of the risk to their own careers. Although I know you disagree, I do not believe that “moral right” is owned by any particular faith or political philosophy.
medwoman:
1) He seems deeply conflicted about the role of state and federal government. = Obama
Obama consistently oversteps his power (e.g., Obamacare, Judicial/ATF raid on Gibson Guitars), or understeps his responsibility (protecting the borders) as it related to states rights.
2) I have a great deal of concern about a chief executive who is essentially willing to abdicate a major function of his position = Obama
Obamacare was one of many examples were Obama just left it to Congress to come up with the “solution”. He is a populist president with a track record of playing the middle on most critical decisions.
3) His seeming preference for his interpretation of his religious convictions over objective evidence. = Obama
Like most liberals, Obama is connected with his ideological worldview as a substitute for his religious convictions. A good example is his administrations idea to reduce or eliminate Federal income tax deductions for charitable giving… even given the impact to charities… many of them run by churches. Another bill, H.R. 1681,cosponsors by the core members of the congressional liberal brass: former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA), former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (D–CA), and former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D–MA)… would cause all Catholic adoption serves in the nation to close shop. Obama has indicated that he would sign the bill.
I have been wathing the debate and many of the interviews. Perry comes across as a very shallow person – in line with his seeming lack of interest is really focusing on the merits of this execution. Too much interest is looking good and speaking well rather than really getting into the details. The more thoughtful GOP candidates appear to be Romney and Hunstman.
I wish this execution would have come up during the last debate.
Don: There was actually supposed to be a question mark at the end of the headline, somehow it disappeared by the time I hit publish this morning. I think you can make the case that a lot of his constituents in Texas are willing to risk the execution of an innocent person in the name of expediency. Certainly the quote from the focus group is the fringe element even in Texas.
‘”May” is the operative word here. We don’t know how much other evidence there was to link the defendant to this crime… “
Elaine, your comment makes no sense. The question is whether a crime actually occurred. Five forensic experts on fire say it was electrical not intentionally set. If there is no arson, there is no crime, and therefore it is irrelevant what other evidence there is because there is no predicate crime.
JB
I appreciate your posting the reasons that you think the points I made about Gov. Perry apply to Pres. Obama. Predictably enough, I disagree with all of them, but again, do not feel that this thread is the appropriate place for a full discussion. I have great faith that David will at some point provide us with reason to pursue these points.
JB
Also I would be interested in your thoughts with regard to feelings about political expediency as it applies to others in politics than those you choose to define as liberals, and your thoughts about liberals who hold to their convictions despite political risk. Rose Bird was one example. Nancy Pelosi another. Barabara Boxer, another. Jimmy Carter another. All have faced career challenges without backing down from their liberal beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not is not the point. They clearly did.
The relevancy to this thread would be based on your disclaimer that you did not know if Gov. Perry had political expediency as a motive for his actions, while you claim to know the reasons for liberal political actions. It seems a little surprising to me that you are privy to the innermost motivations of liberals, but not of Gov. Perry.
Rose Bird = Not a politician. As an activist judge who admitted and defended it, I give her credit for being honest about her convictions. However, judges that use the bench for promoting their views are a big danger to our democratic process.
Nanci Pelosi and Barbara Boxer = Dyed in the wool liberals with a solid track record of liberal decisions and actions. I give them credit for their consistency. However, both of them have also put on the principle hypocrit hat over policy issues that they should have supported or not supported but did the oposite for political reasons. The strength of the Democrats these last three election cycles had to do with them all performing like party sheep.
Jimmy Carter = I can’t remember enough specifics about Carter. He was/is an odd duck. I would give him higher marks that Obama for sticking to his lefty guns.
Obama is in a class all by itself as a top politician lacking demonstratable convictions in his rhetoric… however, he is clearly following the policy path of a liberal when he does make decisions. That is his trick and my reason for seeing him as a weak leader.
Carter was not considered liberal at the time. He was, in fact, challenged for renomination from the left by Edward Kennedy.
I don’t believe Gov. Perry is being expedient in his approach to the death penalty. I believe he strongly believes in it.
JB
Good distinction about Rose Bird being a judge, not a politician. And I also agree with you that judges who use the bench to promote their personal views are a big danger. I am sure that I see this from the left just as strongly as you do from the right. I see tremendous danger in the decisions of Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. I am sorry, but regardless of what Romney and these gentlemen contend, corporations are not persons in any but the most tortured use of these words.
As for Obama, I would agree with you that he has been a weaker leader than I wanted. But as for your point about him following a liberal policy path, I could not disagree more. Had he truly been following a liberal path he would have led the drive for single party payer,
ended the Iraq war as soon as was safe for the personnel involved, pushed for passage of the Dream Act, immediately ended Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell, come out forcefully in favor of same sex marriage…….now those are liberal positions…. and the change that I was hoping for. I am an
Ideologic liberal ( or liberal by principle, if you prefer) Obama has proven that he is not.
Don Shor
Good point about Carter and the relativism of that term “liberal”. I should have either not included him, or stressed that he was there onlyas an example of an individual of integrity.
As for Governor Perry, I agree with you that he strongly believes in it. So much so, that he allows himself to be blinded to evidence that might argue against it’s implementation. His blindness in his belief that his position is correct, regardless of any evidence to the contrary frightens me far more than does “weakness” on the part of Obama.
Liberals: the intellectuals, the activists, the influencers… what drives them is egalitarianism. Something in them sees great travesty in human situational difference. It does not matter if 90% of the poor in the US have a standard of living in the top 10% of the world, the fact that someone else has a lot more drives liberals nuts. Something in their wiring and/or background makes them recoil at thought of competition for economic prosperity and social influence… other than competition for intellectual superiority and political power that they must wield to implement their dreams of equal outcomes for all. An aversion to competition combined with tendency to see human existence as being class-stratified are such strong emotives in a liberal mind, it causes them to ignore and/or be in denial of the truth about human systems and behavior. It is this ignorance and/or denial that make them dangerous if left alone to pursue their dreams unchecked.
Carter displayed and displays all those liberal tendencies toward egalitarianism and then some. He cements his historical marker as a strong liberal by embracing Castro and Chavez: two leaders demonstrating the dangerous next steps from liberal ideology… those more extreme forms of collectivism that more profoundly destroy human freedoms.
Obama, however, speaks with forked-tongue. His rhetoric sways back and forth between a moderate and someone who holds the egalitarian viewpoint. Clinton did this too. Both seek to convince you that they “feel your pain” regardless if you are a business owner or a food stamp recipient. Both men, I think, are expert and gifted rhetorical orators… they attract the larger center of voters by conveying a larger agenda and sense of support. Obama’s actions combined with sound bits of his speeches are where you start to see his real ideological color shining through. He is ALL liberal and maybe more of a socialist. It makes sense given his background… his mother, his father and his mentors. Obama is dangerous because his worldview directs him to “change” and “transform” the country into something he better supports. However, that design has been proven not to work unless your goal is to make more people equally as miserable.
We have tried “liberal” for six years now. The evidence of massive fail are clearly visible. At this point any of the GOP candidates would be much better than Obama. I would even welcome back liberal Carter at this point.
Obama has been an almost complete failure, it’s time for new blood.
JB and Rusty49
Exactly why do you dislike Obama so much? –
Of course Fox News has been slamming Obama from before the time he took office, but from your personal perspective what annoys you? I would like to read specifics.
This is what I see-
We have the same tax cuts Bush put in place, although payroll taxes are lower under Obama
We have fought in two wars under both Bush and Obama. We “won” a pointless war in Iraq and we are still exchanging fire in Afganistan. Obama killed Bin Laden which was the real purpose of starting both of those wars
We are in a housing depression – stated under Bush and it is still going under Obama.
Almost went into a depression under Bush and we may go into a recession under Obama the way things are going.
We have a huge deficit under Obama but it would have been just as high if McCain had been elected – wars, tax breaks, stimulus plans, medicare drug plans and lousy economy. Most of the prolonged deficit programs started under Bush.
High gas prices – actually they were higher during part of the Bush years and the price overall has averaged about the same under both administrations.
Bush reacted poorly to Katrina and the Tsunami and I guess Obama might have done more when the BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf.
Of course Obama drove through the new healthcare reforms which is unique to him – is that why you dislike him?
We were promised more jobs by both Presidents and that has not happned – both used fiscal policy (tax cuts and more spending) to encourage the economy. Nothing has really worked because housing prices keep falling and new jobs are going to Asia.
We were safe under Bush after 9/11 and we have been safe under Obama.
[i]Why do I hate Obama so much?[/i]
First, let’s get this straight. I don’t “hate” Obama. I just think he has been a terrible President for this country at this time.
This is what I see-
[i]We have the same tax cuts Bush put in place, although payroll taxes are lower under Obama[/i]
Regulatory costs – a form of business tax – has exploded under Obama. The threat of tax increase – including Obamacare – looms large and causes businesses to forego expansion plans in the US.
[i]We have fought in two wars under both Bush and Obama. We “won” a pointless war in Iraq and we are still exchanging fire in Afganistan. Obama killed Bin Laden which was the real purpose of starting both of those wars[/i]
Bush won the war in Iraq – his war as libs have made sure we all understand. However, the UN-sanctioned war… Obama’s war, is still a question mark and it is likely that we will pull out before achieving anything close to stability.
[i]We are in a housing depression – stated under Bush and it is still going under Obama. [/i]
It started under Carter with CRA and crashed in Bush’s last year. Three years later under Obama and nothing has been fixed.
[i]Almost went into a depression under Bush and we may go into a recession under Obama the way things are going. [/i]
Went into a recession the last year of Bush, and Obama’s policy failures are taking us back only three years later.
[i]We have a huge deficit under Obama but it would have been just as high if McCain had been elected – wars, tax breaks, stimulus plans, Medicare drug plans and lousy economy. Most of the prolonged deficit programs started under Bush. [/i]
Conservative would have demanded a GOP president cut the spending without tax increases. It is unlikely that a McCain would have spent as much as Obama… especially the first two years when the Obama, Reid, Pelosi spending trio were performing.
[i]High gas prices – actually they were higher during part of the Bush years and the price overall has averaged about the same under both administrations. [/i]
Gas prices have stayed in the $3-$4 dollar range throughout Obama’s presidency. We all know he likes it there since it helps promote his liberal dreams of alternative energy development… something decades away so it just hammers American business and consumers having to continue to pay the “new normal” gas prices under Obama.
[i]Bush reacted poorly to Katrina and the Tsunami and I guess Obama might have done more when the BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf. [/i]
Agree. Government is not a loving organization and most public agencies are barely able to function in a normal practiced process… throw in a never-been-experienced natural disaster and it will be a disaster no matter who is President. I assume Obama would have had the same result with Katrina… just nobody saying he “hated black people”.
[i]Of course Obama drove through the new healthcare reforms which is unique to him – is that why you dislike him?
We were promised more jobs by both Presidents and that has not happned – both used fiscal policy (tax cuts and more spending) to encourage the economy. Nothing has really worked because housing prices keep falling and new jobs are going to Asia. [/i]
Obama railroaded Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and an American public still opposed to it. The reason that Obama policies are failing to produce jobs is that he blew his wad on Obamacare and stimulus. His cabinet of Ivy-leaguers lacked enough business sense to understand that root of the problem and their plans came up short. My belief is that Obama and Dems were not worried about the economy because they knew they could blame it on Bush and they benefitted from more moochers being created from the lack of private job opportunities. Obama’s approval rating should be in the 2’s, but it is on the 40s… so he may have been accurate about this.
[i]We were safe under Bush after 9/11 and we have been safe under Obama.[/i]
There have been more near-misses under Obama, but to his credit he has largely followed the policies put in place by the Bush administration… much to his lib constituents’ dismay.
JB
Of course I disagree with the intensity of most of your responses, but there is one that interests me because you might be right. You said –
“Regulatory costs – a form of business tax – has exploded under Obama. The threat of tax increase – including Obamacare – looms large and causes businesses to forego expansion plans in the US. “
I can not think of any significant regulatory costs impacting my industry – semi-conductor quipment. What do you see as an explosion of regulatory costs? I am not arguing the point, I would just like to hear your viewpoint.
Regulation of my industry has not changed at all.
The problem I have with Perry’s response on the death penalty is that it was totally without nuance.
“I’ve never struggled with that at all.”
That is a problem for me. You should struggle with the death penalty, just as you should struggle with sending American troops to war. Certitude on matters of life and death doesn’t seem to me to be a virtue.
[i]”more moochers being created”
[/i]
What will it take to get you to stop using this term?
Don… Sorry, I can be a creature of habit.
In this context, I could have wrote:
“more entitlements-consumers being created.” That would cover my point. How’s that?
JB
Another seeming inconsistency in your remarks regarding Obama. You have stated that he forced Obama care down our throats and you also stated earlier today that he sat back did nothing and let Congress take the lead. I am not at all clear how he could have done these things at the same time with regard to the same issue. Please clarify.