Kay Bailey Hutchinson vs Rick Perry – Who’s Best for Texas?
February 8, 2010
by Karen
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
In an earlier post, Hughes explained perfectly well why Kay Bailey Hutchison is the perfect pro-woman candidate who will work for benefit of all women. Kay Bailey Hutchinson understands the importance of bi-partisanship. Women’s rights should never be a partisan issue. Now, I want to explain why Kay Bailey Hutchison is the perfect pro-Texan candidate who will work for the benefit of all Texans and why Rick Perry is anti-Texan.
Few citizens in Texas like Rick Perry’s policies. In 2003, he received $175 billion from the company CINTRA to build the Trans-Texas corridor that would take away over 584,000 acres of the people’s land through eminent domain to create a massive system of tollroads costing 10-20 cents per mile as opposed to the normal four cents per mile.
According to David M. Bresnahan of the Texas Toll Party, once the state legally takes away people’s land using “eminent domain” statutes, land and natural resources will be “turned over to private corporations to make profits.”
Bresnahan reported that over 30 counties have formally opposed the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor.According to Jerome Corsi, as many as one million people will be displaced from their current residences by the corridor construction, and “dozens of small towns in Texas will be virtually obliterated in the path of the advancing TTC behemoth.”
Shortly after the controversy over Perry’s corrosive corridor began, I became of legal age to vote. I cast my voice to decide the 2004 election, but I had to wait for the next Gubernatorial election. In 2006, I joined 60% of Texans in voting against Perry. I voted for Democrat Chris Bell. Unfortunately, that 60% was split between three other candidates, one who treated politics as a joke and another who was full of bombastic gimmicky language.
the “Top 10″ TxDOT maintanence and construction contractors gave $1.1 million in political contributions between 2001 and 2004, the period when Trans-Texas Corridor plans were first being solidified by TxDOT officials. In apparent exchange for this financial support, TxDOT officials (appointed by elected representatives) awarded these 10 companies over $6,000 million dollars in contracts to build and maintain roads
For years, Rick Perry has shown complete disregard for the well-being of the citizens of Texas. The corrosive corridor has been labeled dead but then revived twice during Perry’s time.
Kay Bailey Hutchison’s policies are the anti-thesis of Perry’s. As a Texan woman, I am honored to see another Texan woman defend the rights of our people and our way of life. Kay Bailey has the support of the Texas Farm Bureau and TFB’s Friends of Agriculture Fund Inc. (AGFUND), which acts as the organization’s PAC. Legislation to protect property rights has been consistently vetoed by Perry, AGFUND believes Kay Bailey will enable such legislation to pass:
“AGFUND’s support of Kay Bailey Hutchison as the next governor of Texas is a matter of trust,” Dierschke said. “We’ve always been able to take Sen. Hutchison at her word, and she will do more of the same as governor of Texas at a time that is of critical importance to farmers, ranchers and property owners in our state.”
Property rights have been among her most important concerns. She voted against a border fence because “it would have allowed: government disregard for the opinion of private property owners and cities on the Rio Grande who would be affected by the fence.”
Perry killed the corridor soon after the Farm Bureau’s endorsement of Kay Bailey – a purely political move for appeasement that I am certain will revive again. Rick Perry’s corrosive corridor would bankrupt Texas, but Kay Bailey Hutchison has always strived to maintain a balanced budget. When she entered Congress for its 104th session, she immediately joined fellow members of Congress in striving to balance the budget and cut taxes. She wanted to amend the Constitution with S.J.RES.1 to mandate a balanced budget. In S.J.RES.49, she tried to make raising taxes more difficult by requiring a two-thirds majority for future tax increase bills. She was only one of four who sponsored S.202 that would decrease federal spending by $41,000,000,000 until the budget was balanced.
In the 111th session, she sponsored S.35 “to provide a permanent deduction for State and local general sales taxes” and S.47 “to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communication services.”
There are plenty of people who doubt women and who consider women selfish and petty. However, the history has shown Rick Perry to be the selfish and petty politician with Kay Bailey Hutchison the champion of the people. Cast your doubts aside! Kay Bailey knows the importance of business in creating jobs, and she knows her position is to work for the people. I am proud of Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and I always will be proud of her.
AGFUND may be able to take Mrs. Hutchison at her word, but the voters of Texas cannot. She told us the DAY BEFORE she voted YES on the banker stimulus buy out sham that she WOULD NOT vote for it, and 20 hours later she cast her YEA vote as our representative.
Mr. Perry may not be my first choice, but I will vote for him as the lesser of two evils. Kay spent with Washington 93% of the time and voted with Mr. Obama on the stimulus sham….
Jennifer, how is Kay Bailey voting for the stimulus worse than Perry’s corridor scheme – a scheme that would bankrupt Texas, destroy their right to own property, render many homeless, and display cronyism toward big business? You say Kay Bailey has been in Washington 93% of the time. How does Perry’s presence in Texas compensate for his corridor scheme?
Perry also refused to accept stimulus money for unemployment benefits. The state unemployment fund is bankrupt and borrowing. As of mid-January it has borrowed $1,558.2 thousand.
I wish my state had refused unemployment benefits from the Feds. Our rates have shot up so high, we had to lay two people off and I don’t know when we’ll ever be able to hire anybody else. That’s the problem with unemployment,it isn’t free money, it comes from employers. When employers are burdened with too many costs, they have to lay people off. It’s a vicious cycle.
If I recall correctly, Perry ended the tax that generated the money for unemployment benefits.
http://www.burntorangereport.c.....aryId=8083
Karen, thanks for that link. He also plays fast and loose with his job creation stats.
http://www.star-telegram.com/b.....27958.html
Karen,
Kay told us, Texans, to our face that she would NOT vote for the banker stimulus sham, and the DAY AFTER that meeting she voted FOR it. SHOCKING. I don’t understand why she did it. It would have been much more advantageous for her to tell us she was going to vote for it and explain why, because at least if I did not–and I do not–agree I would not have to call her a liar (and she is one).
And what I meant by the she voted with Washington 93% of the time is that on bills to spend money she voted YES 93% of the time–and we are talking PORK people. I was actually shocked that she did this because she slams Perry for being a big spender and she matches him dollar for dollar.
I guess my bottom line here is a hard one. They are both not good, but I just can’t get over that lie to my face by Kay. Why would I vote for someone who would do that? I just can’t do it.
And I know Janis is cursing me, and Amy disagrees, but I can’t. Maybe I will just sit it out. Like I said before, I would vote for any woman who was honest and had the good of the state at heart, but she isn’t running damn it.
Jennifer, you never can. EVer. There will always be a reason why you “just can’t, not this time.” Just admit it and keep voting for the men.
Janis,
Not true. I vote for women ALL THE TIME…I can. For school boards, locals, regionals, state and national. I also have worked for many campaigns and other than Bill Clinton and Kerry they have all been women. It just seems to be getting harder and harder to find good people–men or women–to cast my vote for.
Question for you, would you vote for Nancy Pelosi or Donna Brazille?
Another question, wouldn’t women have a stronger voice if we voted for the best candidate and then held their feet to the fire? Sort of like AARP before it went obot….
Jeniffer it seems to me that you also find your male Robin Hood to vote for. you will always look the other way whatever was negative about Brown, whatever negative comes about about Perry, you manage to look the other way.
Now with women, you find one vote or potential vote you may not agree and they are gone, accused of being establishment, liars. all you seem to disagree with senator Hutchinson is that she voted for the stimulus bill. can you imagine some senator plans to vote no and suddenly the situation changes. may be not the bill better but the consequences of a no vote made very clear. and we know these type of threats bullying happen. I very well remember your outcry against Martha Coakley who told you before she would have voted why she would have supported the senate bill. you still accused her as liar. anything seems to be good enough to crash female candidates. now somebody else had asked you, for which female candidate you worked and you keep repeating generalizations. does not smell good to me.
I agree with Marille on this one.
Jennifer, you keep ranting that you have voted for women, but you have never named any of them. We can’t look into your voting record for you.
Marille and Karen,
Coakley did not keep her word. There have been MAJOR bloggers and editorials in papers about this, so don’t blame me for agreeing with them. Furthermore, the midnight show with the dancing and hugging with Mr. Obama turned me off so completely I would NEVER have voted for her. As I stated before, had she distanced herself from an administration whose ratings slip daily and from a sham bill that the MAJORITY of this country–Democrats, Republicans, and Independents–DO NOT WANT I would have voted for her and she would have won. Don’t blame me for a calling a spade a spade and PLEASE don’t blame lil’ ole me for her loss as I was one girl in a state far far away agreeing with many who said she ran a really bad campaign.
As far as women I have voted for, let’s just talk the last couple of years. Worked for Hillary Clinton BIG TIME, and then Sarah Palin. Won’t go into details put let’s just say I did my share plus a couple hundred other people’s share.
I am not going to comment anymore on the Kay vs. Rick fight to the finish, but I think she sealed her own fate with the vote and the No and then Yes thing she did on the banker stimulus deal-a-roony. We will just have to wait and see. If she loses, please don’t blame me because my advice would have been to tell the truth and never vote with Mr. Obama because his agenda is hurting this country and we–the people–don’t like it. Who knows, she may come clean and apologize and explain and I may even be able to support her….stranger things have happened.
oh, and Karen, “ranting” is a very very sexist term. very very.
There is another choice and she is a woman:
http://www.medinafortexas.com/
Debra Medina is within a few points of Kay and seems to be a pretty good candidate. I can’t say I’m an expert, since I don’t live in TX, but the women voters should take a look at her before they make up their minds to vote for one of the others.
Wow,
How funny it is to listen to all of you bashing “JenniferinTexas” because she takes a stand to not like a candidate for their political stand / instead of what gender they are. You all are the doing the exact same thing you accuse men or racists of doing in society. The fact as to whether either candidate is a man or awomen should have absolutely nothing to do with the stand you take politically or how you should vote. Apparently this is an issue for most of you since you focus on what gender the candidates are rather than their stand on issues.
This is how racists, chauvinist, and feminists work (not to mention religious bios). They put you on the defensive as to how you did or didn’t vote based on race/gender/religion and cast it in a light where YOU are the bad person for independent personal choice! Be damned how you really believe on an issue.
Let me clarify with an example, two candidates are running for office, one minority, one non-minority with differing opinions, but equal in validity.
Scenario 1: You are a non minority and vote for the non minority candidate because you agree with their stand.
result – You must be a racist because you voted for the non minority candidate, their political stand and/or ideas are beside the point.
Scenario 2: You are a minority and vote for the non minority candidate because you agree with their stand.
result – You are a traitor to the minority populous and with be shunned and discredited by them.
Scenario 3: You are a non minority and vote for the minority candidate even though you may disagree with their stand point. Why? Because portions of society force your voting (independent thinking, freedom of choice) into a box with blinders based on undeserved guilt.
Scenario 4: You are a minority and vote for the minority candidate because you want to vote for a minority. This helps you fit into the politically correct, unrealistic, idealistic arena. Their ideas by default should be in line with yours based solely on the fact that they are a minority, no need evaluate their political stand.
I realize there is another side to these scenarios in regards to the correct way of voting which I shouldn’t need to illustrate as you all should know them. If you think my opinion here is because I support Rick Perry you are wrong. I have read about both of these candidates and I do not like either of them, but I will make a decision who I am going to vote for based off of independence, free thinking, and political stance, not based off of political correctness and I urge “JenniferinTexas” to do the same. Don’t listen to the political correctness status quo…
Burton
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...