TrueFlog, it comes down to the reality of politics. Exactly how many times has a lesser known, third-party candidate succeeded in winning a major office in the United States when running against a big name for one of the two major parties? Sure, there are probably better candidates out there for governor than Perry. I've never really cared for him much as a person myself, but he's done a relatively good job as a conservative governor. However the alternatives aren't to be played around with.
There are really two scenarios. One, you get someone that can take Perry's place in the republican ticket. In that scenario, you take "Joe Smith" republican candidate for governor and run him against a bigger name from the democrat party, there is a possibility he will loose. The demographics of this state are changing and the democrat party is throwing mountains of cash into it to try and swing the state blue and destroy all hope of a two-party system in the United States. If we are going to replace Perry, we need a strong candidate to do so and to do it in a way that unites the republican base.
The second (and more likely) scenario is that you have a third party candidate that is a really good guy (independent, libertarian, whatever) that runs. This creates a problem because you have a majority of republican voters who are either low information (although still more informed than most dems) or who vote party line that will stick with punching the republican candidates ticket. On the other hand, the third-party candidate draws the support of many of the staunch values-voters away from the republican ticket. This splits the vote and allows the democrats to win the election. Splitting the vote is an old tactic and has been used before to weaken an otherwise strong party. In fact, the opposition will throw money at a third party candidate discretely so that they have a better chance of splitting the republican vote.
I'm all for getting the best candidate for 2nd amendment rights and conservative values in every office. However, it has to be done smartly with recognition of the opposition. If Texas falls to the democrats at some point in the future, this country is in a world of hurt. If blue, the size of Texas' electoral and House influence would guarantee a democratic president and a likely democrat House majority from that point forward. So much for a multi-party, self-limiting government as envisioned by the founders.
Search found 2 matches
Search found 2 matches • Page 1 of 1
- Wed May 29, 2013 3:25 pm
- Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: Letter to Governor Rick Perry
- Replies: 235
- Views: 23872
The irony is that he doesn't even have to sign it. He can let it sit on his desk, and after 10 days of transmittal, it automatically becomes law without his signature. His signature is more a political statement. It can be used to endorse or point out things he was for, but if a bill gets passed that he doesn't necessarily like, but doesn't want to veto, he can just let it sit and it will become law without his signature. If the bill was given to him with less than 10 days in the session, he actually has 20 days to act or not act.Locally a group is calling for parents to hammer the Governor with letters and calls to sign a bill that's already on his desk to be signed and there's no indication he was ever not going to sign it.
More importantly than signing or not signing, if he want to VETO something, it has be carried out within 10 (or 20) days of transmittal.