Letter to Governor Rick Perry

[K.Mooneyham]

Would you like the next governer to be shila Jackson or her ilk? We don't want total left of left, total left or total right. We need to stay in the middle of left and right.
I don't care if the Gov. is Dem, Rep, Indep, Tea Partier, or Green, as long as they govern for the people, not govern the people.
There is a lot more to consider than just the 2nd Amendment.
I look at the Governer of a State in the light as the President of the U.S.. The job titles are interchangeable. The Governer does the same thing for the State as the President does for the combined States. They both are there to Govern for the people.
If you want to do something look at YOUR Representatives (Senate and House)to the State. Hold those individuals responsible.

I did look at MY Representatives (Senate and House) to the State... This happened during the regular session. The regular session has ended and now it is up to our Governor to add bills to the call during a special session and that is why I posted in a "Rick Perry" thread . Would Sheila Jackson add pro gun bills to a special session, no way.... but neither would Rick Perry :)

If you can draw equivalence between Governor Perry and Sheila Jackson Lee, especially when it comes to firearms related matters, then I really have no way to have any sort of conversation with you on the subject.

If you cannot read the first line from Mel's quote and the last line from my quote (smiley face included) then I agree.... you really don't have a way to have a conversation with me on the subject...

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. And maybe I should point out where I'm coming from on this. While I don't believe Rick Perry to be the best governor ever, I have had to live with much worse. I spent 10 years of my USAF career in the State of California. Gray Davis was governor when I first got there in 1998, then came Arnold Schwarzenegger (completely RINO) and finally Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, by the time my service ended and I got my family and myself back home to Texas. Each one of those three happily signed anti-firearms legislation. I'll take Rick Perry over any of those three (or anyone in their mold) in a heartbeat.

[srothstein]

I don't understand the GOP obsession with throwing the base under the bus to appease the opposition. The Republican national "leadership" has very nearly made it a tradition in their primaries.

This is an indication that you may not understand politics, especially at the national level. Politics is the art of compromise and to be successful you must understand how politics works. In any normal situation, you ask for much more than you want, then give up things until you get down to what you really want. You may even end up with a little less than you want, and give even more than you want on some other issue. Then, you start all over again with this great wish list.

At the national level, the Republican party has a very unusual situation right now. They have a majority in one house and a minority in the other. They also need to win people's votes in other elections. The state elections coming up in 2014 will be as important as the presidential elections. When any party caters exclusively towards their base, they lose the independents in the middle ground. Gun control issues, which are our primary concern, are one of the issues right now where there is a great fight going on between the two extremes. The public is being convinced that our position is an extreme one (and my personal position is pretty extreme). If the republican party were to push gun rights now, they would lose a lot of the middle ground independents who are not as extreme as me. As long as they do not give up any ground right now, I will be okay with their not pushing too hard for expanding our rights. This is taking the strategic long term look on things.

At the state level, I think Perry has done an excellent job of expanding our gun rights. He has a slightly different situation than the national situation since the Republicans do control both houses. I know he has a conflict during the special election with his base. The Republicans know what the special session costs per day. They do not want to waste money on a legislative special session. They also know they needed to do something with redistricting. So we have a special session called. I think the party miscalculated slightly on how that would go. They probably thought they would be able to just ratify the court ordered maps and get out of town, thus a single issue on the call. The Republicans did not expect this much fight against the maps from the Democrats but they got it. As part of the fight, the House decided on hearings around the state. This gets them out of meeting in Austin. With them out of town, nothing else could be done. A lot of people put pressure on Perry to add a lot of subjects, including us. Perry gave in to the base and added some subjects, notably abortion. One of the additions was also a crime bill to cover a potential loophole in our laws caused by the SCOTUS decision.

I do not blame Perry for not adding guns. I think he has done as much as he could to help us. I don't blame Dewhurst either. I am confident that both have good records on guns. I do blame Strauss for not having our bills passed. I remember Charles saying that if a bill is not passed during the regular session, look at the Speaker as the most powerful person for this.Strauss has killed our bills in the past two sessions. I would guess that Perry knew Strauss would also kill any gun bills during the special session and this is why there was nothing on the call.

So, I hold Strauss responsible for problems with gun freedoms in Texas. I could be wrong, either too harshly on Strauss or too lightly on others, but this is my call on things.

On a side note, remember that the party knows it rarely has to cater to its base. After all, they vote for the party anyway, which is why they are called the base. They need to be careful about alienating the base by going too far towards the center, but they need to move more towards center if they want to win elections. Obviously, this is all the public stuff and doesn't mean much about private back room meetings.

[JKTex]

That being said, if there is a suitably conservative challenger who will move some of these gun bills, he or she would have my support. No politician should feel too comfortable in office. Just think Edward Kennedy.

There are enough 2A advocates and activists in this state that we could turn an election. Unlike some of the more progressive demographic, we vote.

I agree. We can make a difference. With his inaction, he chose to lose my vote. It sounds like I'm not alone.

If he thinks he picked up some Brady or Bloomberg voters by throwing us under the bus, I hope it was worth it to him.

Is this a serious comment? Do you even understand what power the Governor has or does not have and what he has to make decisions like that? He does not have a magic wand and he's not going to waste tax payer money or time and resources the legislative process requires to please a few uninformed Texan's whether they're voters or not. If it had or has a chance he would be on it.

[apostate]

On a side note, remember that the party knows it rarely has to cater to its base. After all, they vote for the party anyway, which is why they are called the base. They need to be careful about alienating the base by going too far towards the center, but they need to move more towards center if they want to win elections. Obviously, this is all the public stuff and doesn't mean much about private back room meetings.

They play a dangerous game. I can't speak for anyone else, but absent a legislative miracle, they have guaranteed I will not vote for any Republican incumbent, for any office, in 2014.

If people think that unreasonable, I will take it as a compliment in the spirit of George Bernard Shaw's unreasonable man.

[K.Mooneyham]

On a side note, remember that the party knows it rarely has to cater to its base. After all, they vote for the party anyway, which is why they are called the base. They need to be careful about alienating the base by going too far towards the center, but they need to move more towards center if they want to win elections. Obviously, this is all the public stuff and doesn't mean much about private back room meetings.

They play a dangerous game. I can't speak for anyone else, but absent a legislative miracle, they have guaranteed I will not vote for any Republican incumbent, for any office, in 2014.

If people think that unreasonable, I will take it as a compliment in the spirit of George Bernard Shaw's unreasonable man.

So you wouldn't vote for ANY Republican incumbent? Does that include those who drafted the latest firearm bills or those who did, or would have, voted for these bills (operating with an assumption that some of those folks run in the district you live in)? Does that mean you will only vote for Republican NON-incumbents? Or Democrats? Or third-party, perhaps? I am curious because for some offices there aren't a lot of choices, and unfortunately, due to how "the game" works, I sometimes hold my nose and vote for the lesser-of-the-evils. So, I'm wondering on just who you WILL vote for...

[apostate]

My statement was clear so I will ignore your bait, adding only that in my professional life I'm judged on results, not effort or excuses.

If some think that unreasonable, I refer them to my prior message.

[K.Mooneyham]

My statement was clear so I will ignore your bait, adding only that in my professional life I'm judged on results, not effort or excuses.

If some think that unreasonable, I refer them to my prior message.

I live in north Fort Worth. A pretty well populated area. And yet, for some offices, there was only one person, a Republican, on the ballot. They ran unopposed. I'm pretty sure the person was incumbent, as well. For some other offices, there was a Republican and a Democrat, no Libertarian or other third-party candidate. And I'm pretty sure the Republican was incumbent. And yes, I did vote in the primaries, and I voted for some challengers, such as now Senator Ted Cruz (and I'm glad I did). So, I think my question was valid, and not "bait".

[JJVP]

Perry is a seasoned politician, pure and simple, with obvious, admitted, and demonstrated aspirations towards bigger and better things than the "mere" governorship of this great state of ours, but who also has a very, very, very (did I mention very?) good team of advisors (many of whom are better at what they do than he is at what he does). As such, were he to add the Second-Amendment-friendly bills to this special session, he has been advised that he could be, and likely would be, very well providing additional ammunition to the 51% or so of the "more-gun-control" crowd among the U.S. general populace (and, more particularly, the 99.9% libtard media) to use at some point against him and, thus, hurting his attraction and electability on the National front.

Let's face it, even without calling any 2A bills during the special session, he, his pollsters, and his advisors know fully well that his reelection as Texas governor is virtually assured, so given the above, why chance it?

He is on the record for being a 2A supporter, for saying that we should be able to carry everywhere, for signing or not vetoing any pro-gun bill that had crossed his desk. So now you are implying that by not adding the pro-gun bills to the special session, the antis will see how a good guy he is and will fill up busses on the next election to go vote for him. The fact is, he will never get their vote, whether he adds these bills to the special session or not. He however, will lose votes from those who have supported and voted for him in the past. I know he will lose my vote.

I will support a politician that stands on principal. That is one of the reasons I voted for and support Ted Cruz. Now, if all you want as a politician is to continually be voted into office and will compromise your principals for a vote, I for one will not support you.

IMHO, Perry needs to put up or shut up. I don't want him giving speeches about how pro 2A he is, if he can't even support what he says he believes in. No one is proposing that he unilaterally declares abolishes 46.03 and 46.035 an allow CHL'ers to carry everywhere, even if he could. All we want is a chance for a vote of the full legislature on these bills. They have been held hostage the last few sessions by a few minority, even when the majority supports and would vote for them. "Maybe next session" is getting old.

[J.R.@A&M]

On a side note, remember that the party knows it rarely has to cater to its base. After all, they vote for the party anyway, which is why they are called the base. They need to be careful about alienating the base by going too far towards the center, but they need to move more towards center if they want to win elections. Obviously, this is all the public stuff and doesn't mean much about private back room meetings.

They play a dangerous game. I can't speak for anyone else, but absent a legislative miracle, they have guaranteed I will not vote for any Republican incumbent, for any office, in 2014.

If people think that unreasonable, I will take it as a compliment in the spirit of George Bernard Shaw's unreasonable man.

Whether it is reasonable or not is subjective and irrelevant (to me). Such views will have predictable outcomes in elections, which is what Mr. Rothstein was talking about.

[Purplehood]

I always vote for the lesser of two evils.

In my mind, not voting is a horrible alternative.

[ALCSTUDIOS]

Would you like the next governer to be shila Jackson or her ilk? We don't want total left of left, total left or total right. We need to stay in the middle of left and right.
I don't care if the Gov. is Dem, Rep, Indep, Tea Partier, or Green, as long as they govern for the people, not govern the people.
There is a lot more to consider than just the 2nd Amendment.
I look at the Governer of a State in the light as the President of the U.S.. The job titles are interchangeable. The Governer does the same thing for the State as the President does for the combined States. They both are there to Govern for the people.
If you want to do something look at YOUR Representatives (Senate and House)to the State. Hold those individuals responsible.

I did look at MY Representatives (Senate and House) to the State... This happened during the regular session. The regular session has ended and now it is up to our Governor to add bills to the call during a special session and that is why I posted in a "Rick Perry" thread . Would Sheila Jackson add pro gun bills to a special session, no way.... but neither would Rick Perry :)

If you can draw equivalence between Governor Perry and Sheila Jackson Lee, especially when it comes to firearms related matters, then I really have no way to have any sort of conversation with you on the subject.

I understand sir, I was being very rude and ask you to accept my apology, anyone that survived kommifornia and left for Texas deserves my respect
If you cannot read the first line from Mel's quote and the last line from my quote (smiley face included) then I agree.... you really don't have a way to have a conversation with me on the subject...

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. And maybe I should point out where I'm coming from on this. While I don't believe Rick Perry to be the best governor ever, I have had to live with much worse. I spent 10 years of my USAF career in the State of California. Gray Davis was governor when I first got there in 1998, then came Arnold Schwarzenegger (completely RINO) and finally Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, by the time my service ended and I got my family and myself back home to Texas. Each one of those three happily signed anti-firearms legislation. I'll take Rick Perry over any of those three (or anyone in their mold) in a heartbeat.

[ALCSTUDIOS]

Would you like the next governer to be shila Jackson or her ilk? We don't want total left of left, total left or total right. We need to stay in the middle of left and right.
I don't care if the Gov. is Dem, Rep, Indep, Tea Partier, or Green, as long as they govern for the people, not govern the people.
There is a lot more to consider than just the 2nd Amendment.
I look at the Governer of a State in the light as the President of the U.S.. The job titles are interchangeable. The Governer does the same thing for the State as the President does for the combined States. They both are there to Govern for the people.
If you want to do something look at YOUR Representatives (Senate and House)to the State. Hold those individuals responsible.

I did look at MY Representatives (Senate and House) to the State... This happened during the regular session. The regular session has ended and now it is up to our Governor to add bills to the call during a special session and that is why I posted in a "Rick Perry" thread . Would Sheila Jackson add pro gun bills to a special session, no way.... but neither would Rick Perry :)

If you can draw equivalence between Governor Perry and Sheila Jackson Lee, especially when it comes to firearms related matters, then I really have no way to have any sort of conversation with you on the subject.

I understand sir, I was being very rude and ask you to accept my apology, anyone that survived kommifornia and left for Texas deserves my respect
If you cannot read the first line from Mel's quote and the last line from my quote (smiley face included) then I agree.... you really don't have a way to have a conversation with me on the subject...

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. And maybe I should point out where I'm coming from on this. While I don't believe Rick Perry to be the best governor ever, I have had to live with much worse. I spent 10 years of my USAF career in the State of California. Gray Davis was governor when I first got there in 1998, then came Arnold Schwarzenegger (completely RINO) and finally Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, by the time my service ended and I got my family and myself back home to Texas. Each one of those three happily signed anti-firearms legislation. I'll take Rick Perry over any of those three (or anyone in their mold) in a heartbeat.

I understand sir, I was being very rude and ask you to accept my apology, anyone that survived kommifornia and left for Texas deserves my respect

[Tic Tac]

Whether it is reasonable or not is subjective and irrelevant (to me). Such views will have predictable outcomes in elections, which is what Mr. Rothstein was talking about.

Maybe I missed something, but affecting the outcome of elections seems to be the point.

[JKTex]

IMHO, Perry needs to put up or shut up. I don't want him giving speeches about how pro 2A he is, if he can't even support what he says he believes in. No one is proposing that he unilaterally declares abolishes 46.03 and 46.035 an allow CHL'ers to carry everywhere, even if he could. All we want is a chance for a vote of the full legislature on these bills. They have been held hostage the last few sessions by a few minority, even when the majority supports and would vote for them. "Maybe next session" is getting old.

Think about this. 100 people want to go through a gate, but 1 holds the key to the lock and won't unlock it, those 100 can't go through. You have to overcome that 1. It seems like we have the wrong people holding keys keeping the majority from progressing.

[paperchunker]

Runoff elections for city council and school boards were held last week.

Fort Worth ISD District 9, Paz 944 votes - Rangel 921 votes

Fort Worth City Council District 5, Bivens 1240 votes- Moss 936 votes

As long as the voters do not care enough to vote