Rick Perry said something the other day that is worth repeating

FROM PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RICK PERRY:
I am running for President because I want to make life better for all people, even those who don’t vote Republican. I know Republicans have much to do to earn the trust of African-Americans. Blacks know that Republican Barry Goldwater, in 1964, ran against Lyndon Johnson, a champion of civil rights. They know that Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he felt that parts of it were unconstitutional. States supporting segregation in the South cited “states’ rights” as a justification for keeping blacks from the voting booth and the dinner table. As you know, I am an ardent believer in the Tenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” I know that state governments are more accountable to you than the federal government is. But I am also an ardent believer in the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” There has been – and will continue to be – an important and legitimate role for the federal government in enforcing civil rights. Too often, we Republicans – myself included – have emphasized our message on the Tenth Amendment but not our message on the Fourteenth – an Amendment, it bears reminding, that was one of the first great contributions of the Republican Party to American life, second only to the abolition of slavery.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420845/rick-perry-republicans-and-race

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • Spanish Inquisitor  On July 8, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Version with fixed italics. Feel free to delete the first one with this first sentence.

    Two things.Well, actually three:

    1. My eyes glaze over when someone says they “believe in” the Constitution, or any part of it. It’s not a statement of religious dogma. It’s the operating document for our government. I don’t believe in it. I follow it, because it’s the law. There are parts that work really well, and other parts that don’t, hence the Amendment process and all the Amendments. If you want to believe in something, go back to church. But start following the Constitution like you understand it, Rick.

    2. Perry doesn’t seem to understand, or glosses over for the ignorant, that the Republican Party that was responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment is not the Republican Party he belongs to today. Over the last 150 years the ideology of the Republicans and Democrats has reversed, so the the true heirs to the 1865 Republican Party today is actually the Democratic Party, and the Republicans are the heirs to the carpetbaggers of 1865. This was accomplished over a period of time, but most recently after the Civil Rights era when the Republicans followed the so-called “Southern Strategy” and lured the racists from the southern Democrats over to the Republican party. It’s why the south votes solidly Republican as a block today, when it historically voted solidly Democratic. Perry doesn’t seem to know that. Or hopes you don’t. Which is worse, because….

    3. He’s simply pandering for votes. He has never acted as if he believed what he says….

    • elogam  On July 10, 2015 at 12:26 am

      Oh please, S.I. …!

      Democrats are CONSTANTLY trying to re-write history, saying that the “southern strategy” is THE reason the racists are now Republicans instead of Democrats. It’s not quite that simple, never has been and never will be. Perry was correct that Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of ’64. But so was Johnson! He was as redneck as they come, and never for a moment thought blacks were his equal, but he was also an astute politician, and he saw that if he could get the Civil Rights Bill passed-with a greater percentage of support from Republicans than Democrats BTW- that he could get “Those Ni—-s voting Democrat for the next 100 years.” Those are HIS words; not mine. Add to that Republicans shooting themselves in the foot and then putting that foot into their mouths regularly, and it’s pretty easy to see that Democrats won black support just by showing up. Nixon blew it by not calling MLK when he was in the Birmingham Jail. Kennedy picked up the phone and made a powerful friend. Goldwater hated racism but picked States Rights over votes. Malcom X chastized blacks for giving the Democratic Party 75% of their votes when they weren’t even getting a seat at the table politically. Imagine what he would say to 90% today, even with a black president? How have we improved under democratic leadership? How are those big cities like New York, Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles Cleveland, Cincinnati and the likes doing? Baltimore has been run by the Democratic Party for DECADES. How’s it going there?

      And where do you get off trying to take HALF a legacy? You want to cherry pick the passage of the 14th,(and probably the 15th and 16th) Amendments as your Democratic “legacy” and pass on taking responsibility for the carpetbaggers? No, BOTH of those were Republicans. You take the good with the bad. Just like the KKK, not every Democrat was a Klansman, but by golly EVERY Klansman was a Democrat! You can’t run from that, it’s part of your “legacy”.

      I await your presentation on the life and times of Rick Perry, where you substantiate that he “Never acted as if he believed what he says”. I’m sure you’ve done substantial research to support your assertions.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On July 10, 2015 at 3:23 pm

        Oh, Please, e!…;)

        I think you missed my point. No one is re-writing history. History is there for anyone to study it and learn from it. It is immutable. It doesn’t change. It just gets interpreted, and used as an example by people of multiple persuasions, for multiple agendas – much like the Bible.

        And I don’t try to paint Democrats as somehow holier than Republicans. I dislike both parties, for different reasons.

        My point was that Rick Perry was trying to equate the current GOP, the party under whose banner and platform he is running for President, with the GOP of 1865 – “The Party of Lincoln” (who’s spinning in his grave as we speak). Any study of history, regardless of your political persuasion, would have to acknowledge that his equating of the two is disingenuous, and dishonest. That was my point, your digression into the history of the Democrats notwithstanding….

        My other, lesser point was that Rick Perry wouldn’t know the Constitution if he tripped over it. His attempt to paint himself as some “believer” of the Constitution is laughable….

        You’re talking about a guy who signed death warrants without any understanding of what “cruel and unusual punishment” is, or for that matter, innocence.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham#Gerald_Hurst

        You’re talking about a guy who thinks that Social Security, Medicare and the direct election of Senators are unconstitutional.
        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/12/rick-perry-newsweek-interview-transcript.html

        You’re talking about the guy that doesn’t understand the concept of the church/state wall of separation…
        http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/14/texas-passes-merry-christmas-bill-oh-and-freedom-from-religion-isnt-protected-just-so-you-know/

        And he wants us to think he “believes” in the Constitution? Give me a break….The Constitution, for Rick Perry, is just a sound byte….

      • elogam  On July 13, 2015 at 12:00 am

        OK, so your “interpretation” of history is to paint the Republican Party- the ONLY party that believes that making blacks dependent on Big Government is wrong; the ONLY party that wants blacks to control their own Social Security so they can build generational wealth; the ONLY party that believes a parent who’s kids are getting a substandard education should be able to move them to a more successful school, is not the party of Lincoln. BOTH versions of the party want freedom for the black man. The 1865 party wanted physical freedom, the 2015 party wants economic and social freedom. There are some small differences: The 1865 version really didn’t believe in the equality of the races They believed in “equal under the law” but not equal in every other respect. The 2015 version does. Believing in equality means that you are held to the same standard as any other person, and you get the same breaks and penalties that you EARN. The 1865 version of the Democratic Party didn’t believe in either version of equality, and I question whether or not they do today. They seem to feel that blacks can only get ahead if they have certain “set asides” that will result in not equal opportunity, but equal results. You only do that if you feel that someone cannot make it without intervention, and you overlook things you normally wouldn’t if they were some other color. It’s degrading, it’s the “soft bigotry of lower expectations” that GWB talked about.

        As far as Perry, he is a conservative from the Great State of Texas, a place that non-natives only DREAM their states could rival! I ignored your post from the Daily Beast, because it IS the definition of Left Wing Media, and until you can come up with something a bit closer to the middle as far as bias, don’t bother posting further. I’d love to hear more about this “separation of church and state” that the Left insists is Constitutional, specifically if you can cite the exact quotation from the Constitution itself. Any other reference is just-as you said- an “interpretation”….MY interpretation of this “wall” is, it’s to protect the church from being controlled by the state. I don’t see saying “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter” as a violation of that interpretation, so atheists, Muslims, agnostics, and all others should just grow a thicker skin and acknowledge that the majority of people in the US identify with Christianity and not be “offended” when they see a cross, or crucifix, a manger, or any other symbol of a faith they do not share. It’s called “tolerance”.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On July 13, 2015 at 5:08 pm

        OK. Let me see if I understand you, e…

        You think the current iteration of the GOP is the ONLY political party that has the African-American interests at hearty. I guess that’s OK for you to think that. I think differently, but that’s one of the things that makes America great. I just hope you don’t have to stand in too long a line in your state to vote, because they’re taking so long confirming IDs of everyone in front of you, and the polls are only open for their convenience, not yours, so that you can vote for the Republican of your choice – hopefully not one who set up those voting challenges. Don’t give up! Good luck with that…

        All the rest of it (Great state of Texas?) I’ll leave to you, because you’re really deep into those delusions, so I won’t even attempt to dissuade you. Apparently, it’s not the substance of a link I provided that you might find persuasive, but the perceived political leaning of the site that is persuasive, and not knowing which ones you’ll read in advance, I won’t even try to provide research, as I did when you first asked me to. Apparently I’m wasting my time….You’ll have to simply do your own.

        However, I will address your nonsensical reduction of the First Amendment to a one sided protection of the Church. Despite the history of the reasons people fled the Mother Country(ies) in the first place, despite the precise language of the First Amendment, and despite over 200 years of judicial jurisprudence to the contrary, you still think the First Amendment was put in there to protect Christians. Sorry, I’m a lawyer, and that is wrong, so I’ll stick to the 200 + years of jurisprudence, thank you. Unless your credentials are better than everyone who ever wrote about it, from John Marshall, to Louis Brandeis, to Felix Frankfurter to William Douglass. There is no grey area, there is no interpretation. If you want to believe what you believe, feel free. You’re entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts, and the fact of the matter is the First Amendment is a two way street. It was intended to be so, it has always been so, and it still is today. Despite the persecution all the Christians feel when someone says “Happy Holidays”.

%d bloggers like this: