Dear Texas, are you embarrassed by your Gov? (Earth, Clint: bill, design)

[thenewtexan]

Originally Posted by hose111

Are you embarrassed by the Governor and now he wants to run for president? How come you always pick these lousy embarassing governors? You are a big state, you have some smarter surely. Do you feel embarrassed right now?

Well, I wasn't one of the morons that voted for him. So, no.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by TT Dave

That's a good point! My grandfather was a long-time conservative Democrat and most everyone he knew in his generation was a Democrat at one time. I think George Bush senior was the first Republican president he voted for....lol. We also had a conservative Democrat congressman that represented our congresssional district here in the Abilene area for many years (Charles Stenholm). Stenholm was finally defeated by a Republican contender several years ago.

Yes, it is a good point! Texas was, up until at least the early 70's, a "Solid South" democratic state...even to the national level. I remember the first time I voted (at age of 18 in 1976, in the Texas primaries), actually hearing fathers telling sons -- sons doing so for the first time -- to "vote a straight democratic ticket." (This is another reason why I always consider Texas an essentially Southern state...but that is another story and an old one! LOL). My own grandfathers were that way. What was called "Yellow-Dog Southern Democrat".

Texas shifted in tandem with other formerly Solid South states at the national level, for sure, in the 1972 elections (Nixon vs. McGovern). It was former gov. John Connally who headed up "Democrats for Nixon". Such pretty much ended the domination of Texas being counted as part of the said region since Reconstruction. I am not sure what year it was, but John Tower had become the first noteable Texan to be elected as a Republican at the state level.

But like several have said, the strong influence of the democratic party continued -- and still does -- at the local level in many ways and in many areas. That is, the "old" democratic party which was -- as some of y'all say -- more traditionally Southern populist based (or even family tradition! LOL), than anything remotely akin to that in states outside the South.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

So true. One expects states to elect their best and brightest to the top offices. When we have poorly educated, greedy extremists in those offices it reflects very badly on the state.

As compared to what other states, CapR?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Cathy4017

Civil Rights--not a problem. Blacks were disenfranchised and marginalized for far too long.

"The Great Society" and the huge increase in welfare was. LBJ was a crook, a womanizer and so liberal that he stank to high heaven.

Look what has happened since.....approximately 65-70% of all black births are to unwed mothers. They collect more welfare by staying single.

LBJ is largely responsible for this sad outcome so many years later.

I wasn't old enough to vote when he ran, but you can be sure he would NEVER have gotten my vote, ever.

Absolutely agree, Cathy! On all counts!

Whether or not LBJ's heart was in the right place and/or whether or not he had the best of intentions (which is debatable), the road he paved with the "Great Society" lead to the proverbial hell of today...in the areas you mention (and more). A noteable trait about true liberals (and I have many liberal friends) is the willingness to overlook anything (whether it be personal traits or political policies) if the "general intent" is aligned with their vision of the "welfare state"...and all that implies. It makes no difference if the thinking/policies lead to disaster and make the original "problem" even worse. To their way of thinking, the only thing that matters is that they were -- arguably -- "sincere" and "concerned".

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Absolutely agree, Cathy! On all counts!

Whether or not LBJ's heart was in the right place and/or whether or not he had the best of intentions (which is debatable), the road he paved with the "Great Society" lead to the proverbial hell of today...in the areas you mention (and more). A noteable trait about true liberals (and I have many liberal friends) is the willingness to overlook anything (whether it be personal traits or political policies) if the "general intent" is aligned with their vision of the "welfare state"...and all that implies. It makes no difference if the thinking/policies lead to disaster and make the original "problem" even worse. To their way of thinking, the only thing that matters is that they were -- arguably -- "sincere" and "concerned".

Very much agree, TR.......and also....very debatable on LBJ's "good intentions." He was basically just plain self-serving, very calculating and EVIL.

[WestPlanoDude]

Yes.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

A lot of disciplines use the Scientific Method. Even Psychology does.
But would you put Physics and Psychology under the same amount of scrutiny or consider them to be very similar otherwise?

Huh? Are you saying Physics is more important than Psychology?

That's my point. Maybe Perry knows this or maybe he doesn't, but

Like I said, Perry knows that taking a social conservative/right-wing stance on evolution and climate change will help solidify his base.

for anyone to say all of these disciplines fall under the same rules is simple-minded, short-sighted, ignorant or all of the above.

Um science is science regardless of the discipline, even the "soft sciences"; as all science seek "natural" causes. You are just overgeneralizing this Moderator cut: see comment

Originally Posted by sxrckr

Um, or maybe not. I don't think it's appropriate for random new members to get on here, tell lies, then not be able to back them up. You still haven't answered the 6,000 year/dinosaur thing. I want to know when he said that. You still can't tell me. Instead, you resort to name-calling and trying to write me off knowing nothing about me. Normally what people do when they can't defend their assertions. As far as being politically biased, you may want to take a look at yourself before accusing others of this offense.

Perry is certainly not stupid enough to make the 6,000 year/dinosaur claim, but that is certainly the position that some of his base take. Makes you wonder what Perry is telling these social conservative leaders behind closed doors on issues such as education.

[300zxtwinturbo]

yes, a little. Mainly because he doesn't represent what alot of texas really is, or our cities. Any election map will show that. But Texas is such a large state that our urban areas are outnumbered by the rest of the state, even with at least 7 million people between our top 4 cities. The states pop is over 26 million. At least half of it rural

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by 300zxtwinturbo

yes, a little. Mainly because he doesn't represent what alot of texas really is, or our cities. Any election map will show that. But Texas is such a large state that our urban areas are outnumbered by the rest of the state, even with at least 7 million people between our top 4 cities. The states pop is over 26 million. At least half of it rural

There are about 12.5 million people between Houston and DFW alone.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Make an outrageous statement/accusation, attack ad-hominem, then retreat and/or come back to occasionally repeat the same...yet never addressing the hard question.

Please report any and all ad hominem attacks, no matter which forum they appear in, since those are a violation of City-Data's personal attack rule.