Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead

---

"Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

Chevy Chase
Saturday Night Live (c. 1976)

---

It's fashionable these days — and justifiably so — for people to complain that Washington is broken.

But that really isn't new. I mean, folks have been complaining about the damn guv'ment for as long as I can remember.

That's a truism of politics.

And the party that is out of power always wants to take power from the other party. Always.

That's another truism of politics.

So, in spite of the racial angle that is introduced into the 2012 presidential campaign because of Barack Obama's pigmentation, I don't see anything special about the desire of the Republican Party to defeat him.

Others may see racists lurking in the shadows, but I see politics as usual. Didn't the Republicans openly seek to defeat Bill Clinton in 1996? And didn't they desire — and achieve — victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980?

For that matter, didn't Democrats wring their hands at the thought of re–electing George W. Bush in 2004? Didn't they unite behind Clinton in 1992 in large part because they desperately wanted the elder Bush and Dan Quayle to leave and 12 years of Republican rule to end?

Politics is a competitive business, folks. The party that is out of power always wants to be the party that is in power. And the worse things are, the louder the opposition seems to be. It's always been that way.

The only thing that has really changed is the absence of civility. Politics was always rough and tumble when I was growing up, but neither side accused the other of being socialist or fascist.

All right, sometimes the discourse got out of line, like whenever someone accused someone else of being a communist. The red scares of the 1950s were hardly this country's finest hours.

Mostly, though, political campaigns were civil, and the discussions were serious. The politicians didn't focus on irrelevant issues — like flag burning or gay marriage or prayer in school — and try to smear each other or accuse each other of being unpatriotic or racist. Go back and look at the advertising and the speeches from the campaigns that were conducted just 25 years ago if you don't believe me.

Smearing opponents and playing on people's fears happened to work pretty well, politicians discovered, and now no one seems to know how to campaign for office without resorting to negative tactics.

I've read and heard from several Democrats — named and unnamed — who say Obama will have no choice but to "do what they do" and resort to negative campaigning to win re–election. That's probably true, but, to me, that seems a rather odd about–face for a president who won election running on a "hope and change" platform.

There's not much hope when there is no change.

But what really works is what voters can see and hear and feel. Maybe the reason so many people make their voting decisions based on what they can see in their lives — and not on what the politicians tell them they should see and hear and feel — is because they trust their own eyes a lot more than they trust any politician.

The people are smarter than the politicians give them credit for being. They're smart enough, anyway, to see through the smokescreens and self–serving rhetoric.

It was tough for the Republicans to get much traction against Clinton in 1996 because things were clearly improving. It was easier for the Democrats to make their case against the Republicans in 1992 than it had been four years earlier because the economy had deteriorated.

Likewise it was easier for Ronald Reagan and the Republicans to make their case in 1980 than it was for Bob Dole in 1996 because of the differences in the economies of those years.

I've said many times that I believe next year's election will be decided by the prevailing conditions and that the who part simply won't matter very much.

And I'll admit that it is possible that things will turn around before Election Day 2012 — but not too probable. Obama has apparently given up on his own call for civility in political discourse, and the Republicans have shown little, if any, interest in working with him. So nothing seems likely to get done until after the next election with this do–nothing government.

It feels like I'm watching a rerun of an episode that I have seen before — and didn't like the first time. I understand that many Democrats are anxious — as they should be. In terms of sheer numbers, there are more Americans who are unemployed or underemployed today than at any other time in U.S. history. Those who haven't run out of patience are in the process of doing so.

If Obama is defeated in 2012 — and I believe he will be — there will be, without a doubt, a segment of the population that will vote against him because of his race — just as there is a segment of the population that will vote for him for the same reason. But it is wrong for anyone to suggest that racism will be the sole reason for his defeat.

Many white Americans voted for Obama in 2008. He could not have been elected if they had not — but poll after poll after poll has shown that he has fallen well short of their expectations and he has been losing them.

Politicians don't have the luxury of choosing what the voters will use to evaluate them or their performances in office, but they do have the option of telling the voters what they think the voters should consider. (Whether the voters actually do consider what the politicians think they should is an entirely different matter — and a subject for another post.)

And one thing that seems to be constant in the GOP, from the candidates to the rank–and–file, is a desire for a Ronald Reagan for this era. I hear the candidates speaking of it, and it is clear they would like nothing better than to be mentioned in the same breath with Reagan, to be compared favorably to the "Great Communicator."

And I hear the rank–and–file speak longingly of Reagan — as if there had never been a time when he was dismissed by many, Republicans as well as Democrats, as reckless, simplistic, a cowboy actor out of his element whose shoot–first–and–ask–questions–later style would plunge the country into a nuclear war.

I guess there has always been a nostalgic element at work during presidential elections, but it seems to be stronger now than in any other election that I can remember. You can see it in the intense yearning on the Republican side for a figure like Reagan to emerge.

It reminds me of the old Weekend Update segments on Saturday Night Live in the 1970s, when Chevy Chase would announce that "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead." There have been times in recent months when I have wanted to remind Republicans that Reagan has been dead for seven years — but I suspect that would not change the longing that exists for a strong leader.

Now, I rarely agreed with Reagan on policy, and I recoiled then (as I do now) at the blatant mixing of religion and politics, but Reagan really was a unique leader. I did not give him enough credit for that when he was president. Ideology was important, as it always is, but there was a quality in Reagan that exists in all great leaders. They are able to connect on some level with most Americans in spite of political differences.

I think this accounts for the somewhat "flavor of the month" approach the Republicans have been taking to the selection of their presidential nominee. They've been searching for the next Reagan.

Initially, of course, it was Mitt Romney who was seen as the front runner among the announced candidates, largely because voters knew who he was. Then attention shifted for awhile to Sarah Palin, even though she hadn't said she would run (and still hasn't). Next in the spotlight was Michele Bachmann, followed by Rick Perry, who — a la Ross Perot — catapulted into the lead without having really said anything.

But Perry's rising star seems to be crashing to earth now that he has said something — and ran into trouble as a result — so the search has gone on.

Then a straw poll in Florida prompted many to anoint Herman Cain as the front runner. (Where, I wonder, would the race–card players be if Cain won the GOP nomination?)

Tim Pawlenty got out of the race when his showing in the Iowa straw poll was short of his own expectations. He had too much ground to make up, critics said. I found that astonishing, given that no one has secured so much as a single delegate to the Republicans' 2012 convention.

Recently, there have been efforts to persuade Chris Christie of New Jersey to enter the race although the deadlines for getting a candidate's name on primary ballots are rapidly approaching. (The Washington Post says he is reconsidering his decision not to run, but that doesn't change the filing deadlines.)

Consequently, sensing that the field that exists today is the field that will compete in the primaries, that there will be no more new entries, Republicans seem to be returning to Romney as the one who is most likely to attract disgruntled independents and Democrats to their cause.

Frankly, I am encouraged by the fact that Republicans are showing at least a little maturity and deliberation in their decision. There have been many opportunities for them to jump on any old bandwagon, regardless of any reservations they may have about the candidate, in their eagerness to defeat Obama, and I am sure there are Republicans who have been tempted to do precisely that — to unite behind a candidate early.

Fortunately, most Republicans seem to have been resisting that temptation.

I'm glad Republicans are carefully examining each candidate, listening to what each has to say and taking their time — because I really do believe that the economy will decide the election, and nine out of 10 Americans currently say it is poor.

(The next president absolutely must make jobs his #1 priority — if not his only priority.)

That makes me think that 2012 will be a strongly anti–incumbent year. That doesn't mean that every incumbent will be defeated — unfortunately, many Americans are pleased with their own representatives but would happily vote against the ones from other districts and states if they could — but I think many incumbents will be defeated, and the presidency is the only race in which everyone, from the bluest of the blue states to the reddest of the red, can vote.

If that anti–incumbent mood is as great as I think it will be, the Republican presidential nominee, whoever that is, stands to benefit from it because the only way that people can express their displeasure is at the ballot box, and the Republican nominee will be the only real alternative — unless a viable third party emerges.

Since the 2012 Republican nominee will probably be the next president — and since I am an independent — I can only hope that they will be reasonable in reaching their decision, that they will choose someone who can reach across the aisle, as Reagan often did.

He won't be Reagan, though. Ronald Reagan is still dead.

PDQ Bachmann

The last presidential election demonstrated rather vividly that growing portions of both political parties are embracing the idea of electing a woman to the executive branch of the federal government, as either president or vice president.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was narrowly beaten for the presidential nomination by Barack Obama in a race that came to be seen by many as a battle between historical guilt trips, misogyny and racism. And, on the Republican side, of course, Sarah Palin became the first woman nominated by the GOP for vice president.

But each party wants different things from its female candidates — and will tolerate nothing less from the other side. And both continue to hold female politicians to expectations they would never impose on men. In that regard, I suppose, women continue to be subjected to a political double standard if not a societal one.

As far as they have come in my lifetime — and that includes occupying seats on the Supreme Court, traveling in space, acting as diplomats on behalf of the United States and serving as speaker of the House — women are still expected to do things that no man is expected to do — like remain young and attractive long after it is natural for anyone to be young and attractive.

In our highly visual age, appearances have taken on more influence than ever before, but men are not subjected to anything like the scrutiny that women are. Gray hair on a man is seen as distinguished; it is a sign of advanced age in a woman. A few extra pounds have seldom stood between a man and electoral victory; on a woman, they can be politically fatal.

I suppose that accounts for the reaction to Newsweek's unflattering photo of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann on its cover.

Such negative stereotypes are offset, to a degree, by positive ones — such as the image of nurturer and healer — that make the idea of electing a woman president an appealing one for so many in these troubling times. They see a dysfunctional political system that needs a "woman's touch" after being taken to the brink of catastrophe too many times in recent years.

In Republican circles, Palin had that market cornered for a long time because she was really the only female whose name was being bandied about. But things have changed. While Palin has been motoring around the country, Bachmann jumped into the 2012 race and won yesterday's straw poll in her home state of Iowa — and some are wondering if Palin's moment in the spotlight has ended. She is supposed to reveal her 2012 plans next month.

(Personally, I would think that Palin — if she really does intend to run for president, and I am inclined to think she will not — would not mind relinquishing the spotlight for awhile.)

It's made me think about expectations, cliches and modern "firsts" in the American presidency in ways I never did before.

There is a desperation in people's expectations these days, I believe, born in part from a certain amount of disappointment in the policies of the current administration. Many of the president's supporters seem content to give him the benefit of the doubt — and additional time for these saplings to bear fruit. But not everyone, particularly the unemployed, is so generous — and patient.

This president was symbolic, of course, because of his race. He was the first black president. Whatever history may ultimately say about his tenure in the Oval Office, he will always be the first black to be nominated for — and elected to — the presidency.

When a female becomes president, she will be the first of her gender — and therefore will be symbolic as well.

Such distinctions may have made Barack Obama — and may someday make the first female president — sensitive (and vulnerable) to allegations of favoritism or preferential treatment. The religious issue presented similar challenges for John F. Kennedy half a century ago.

My experience is that, after a certain point, most historic "firsts" in the American presidency became isolated, no matter how successful the groundbreaking president may have been, and that the second of whatever it is hasn't come along rapidly.

Kennedy, of course, was the first Catholic to be elected president. He wasn't the first Catholic to be nominated, but he was the first in more than three decades. As president, his job approval ratings never fell below 56%.

Well, it's been more than 50 years since Kennedy was elected and nearly 50 since he was assassinated, but America still has not elected its second Catholic president. Catholics have sought the nomination, including JFK's younger brothers, but only one has been nominated for the presidency.

That's three Catholic presidential nominees in 83 years.

This applies to the vice presidency, too. Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman on a Democratic ticket. There have been half a dozen Democratic tickets since then, and none of the nominees was a woman.

I strongly doubt that Bachmann will be nominated in 2012, but if Republicans really are strongly considering nominating a woman for president, it may be largely because they and the voters who support her believe the kind of healing and nurturing the nation and its economy need can only be provided by a woman.

To meet the unrealistic expectations of the voters, that woman would need to revive this economy P.D.Q. — in an era long before texting, that was a well–known abbreviation for "pretty damned quick." Given the dire forecasts from economists, that doesn't seem likely.

With unemployment stuck in the 9% range and the stock market bouncing back and forth like a tennis ball, the experiment with a black president (whether it is acknowledged as such or not) may come to be widely regarded as a failure, and it may be as long before America elects its second black president as it has been between Catholic presidents.

Even if Barack Obama turns things around and manages to win re–election, my gut feeling is that it will be decades until another black candidate is nominated for the presidency. If he is replaced with a woman — Bachmann, Palin or someone else — this economy may prove too stubborn for her, and the next female presidency will be a long time coming as well.

I don't know what to expect in 2012. There are times when I think Obama is on the verge of righting the ship and really living up to the standards he set for himself and the nation — but then he does something that tells me that my original conclusion, that he is in over his head, was the correct one.

Sometimes, though, presidents rise to the occasion.

And if there is anything of which I am certain, it is that the next president, whoever he or she turns out to be, must rise to the occasion.

Or he/she seems likely to be the last American president.

Texas Heat

It gets hot here in Texas in the summer.

I grew up in Arkansas, but my parents were born and raised in Texas so we always came here for holidays and summer vacations when I was growing up. And, for as long as I can remember, I've liked Phil Sheridan's observation — "If I owned hell and Texas, I would rent out Texas and live in hell."

The man clearly knew what he was talking about. (Of course, he also said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Not exactly politically correct, but you have to remember that he lived in the 19th century.)

Fast forward to the 21st century, where it is still hot in Texas.

We've been enjoying a bit of a break from the typically oppressive Texas temperatures in recent days, but the forecasts call for the return of daytime highs in triple digits in the next few days. And even the most optimistic of us has to concede that we aren't likely to see hot weather disappear until sometime in October — if then.

Once the hot weather goes away, it probably won't return until late April or May. But the political climate in Texas seems likely to get progressively warmer between now and March, which is when the Republicans will hold their gubernatorial primary.

I assume the Democrats will have a primary as well, but there are no big names in the Texas Democratic Party anymore. So all the attention will be on the GOP.

The Republican primary apparently will match incumbent Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush when he left to take the oath of office as president in 2001, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who recently announced her intention to leave the office she has held since 1993 in a few months so she can devote all her time and attention to the governor's race.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't expect a senator to relinquish his/her seat to run for another office unless it was up for election during the same election cycle. But Texas is so big that I guess Hutchison feels she has no choice. Maybe she has grown tired of Washington and wants to return to Texas, win or lose.

Leslie Eaton anticipates the "Texas–Size Brawl" in the Wall Street Journal, noting that the Hutchison–Perry contest is expected to "pit moderates against social conservatives."

If the heat in Texas is an appropriate analogy, I think the image of the rattlesnake, which is often the object of a "roundup" in rural Texas communities, could be fitting as well.

It should be interesting albeit bewildering.

The two Republicans have appeared to be allies in the past, but Eaton's article observes that they already are "sniping" at each other.

Hutchison didn't vote for the stimulus package back in February, but she has, nonetheless, criticized Perry for refusing the stimulus money that was intended to help Texas' unemployed, as Eaton points out. I criticized Perry for that myself.

And Perry has been making transparent bids for the support of conservatives. As Eaton writes, these conservatives "are most likely to vote in the primary," according to the director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas.

The general assumption is that the winner of the primary will be the next governor of the state. It's been relatively quiet up until now, but that should change.

A Lamebrained Decision

Gov. Rick Perry is apt to face a primary challenge when he seeks another four–year term in office next year. And, when he does, he's going to have to answer some tough questions.

One of the toughest has to do with his decision earlier this year to reject part of the stimulus funds that were earmarked to help the unemployed.

As the Houston Chronicle points out in an editorial, the decision was "a thinly veiled gesture to woo his conservative base." In fact, I wrote about this three months ago, but Perry may not be able to count on that base when Republicans hold their gubernatorial primary next spring.

Perry's likely opponent is Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is probably the most popular politician in Texas these days. And, even though Hutchison didn't support the stimulus package, she wasn't the one who chose to reject any of the funds that were intended to help people in the state. Perry did that.

And, by the time the primary is held, a lot of people — whether employed or unemployed — will have paid the price for Perry's bravado. As the Chronicle observes,

---

"[S]oaring claims by laid–off employees are projected to empty the state unemployment compensation trust fund by next month. The number of claims paid out last month was over $350 million, nearly $260 million more than in May 2008. As a result of the added claims, state officials have been forced to borrow $160 million from the federal government and will need another $360 million to pay benefits through next October."

---

The chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission says unemployment taxes charged to employers in this state will nearly double.

"Instead of getting our fair share of stimulus dollars, Texas will instead be a borrower and issuer of new bonded indebtedness," writes the Chronicle. "Quite a price to pay for a political gesture."

Hopefully, Perry will pay an even higher price at the polls.

The Governor's Race in Texas

Today is Election Day in Dallas and North Texas. As I write this, voters in these parts are still going to the polls to cast their votes in local races and on various ballot initiatives. Some places — such as Arlington and Fort Worth — will be choosing mayors today. Dallas voters won't be choosing a mayor, although several city council positions will be decided.

Typically, local elections around here don't draw large turnouts. But my guess is that next spring's Republican gubernatorial primary will attract a high turnout, assuming that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison decides to run for governor. And most folks seem to expect that she will.

Earlier polls showed Hutchison holding a commanding lead over incumbent Gov. Rick Perry. I don't know if his highly publicized remarks had any effect on polls of Texas Republicans, but Rasmussen's latest survey suggests that Perry may have benefited from what I saw as a blatant appeal to his conservative base on that occasion.

Rasmussen says Perry is preferred by 42% of Republicans and Hutchison is the choice of 38%. I don't know what the margin of error is, but, clearly, neither candidate has 50% at this point, and a majority is needed to avoid a runoff. Seven percent of Republicans indicated they would prefer someone else, and 13% were undecided.

Obviously, it is early in the electoral process — too early to be saying, as Rasmussen does, that the candidates are "essentially tied," although it is probably hard to avoid reaching that conclusion based on the numbers from the latest poll.

The primary will be held in about 10 months — plenty of time for things to change. Stay tuned.

On Rick Perry, Texas and Secession

Sometimes, there are "issues" that are discussed at length that I, frankly, cannot believe are being taken seriously.

One is the suggestion that Texas could secede from the Union.

Now, supposedly, this is something that was suggested by Gov. Rick Perry during a "tea party" rally in Austin on Wednesday.

Austin is about a three–hour drive from my apartment. I was here in Dallas that day, and I confess I did not watch the news that night. I've only heard accounts of what Perry allegedly said.

I don't know who first began reporting that Perry made that suggestion. The Huffington Post apparently wrote about it Wednesday evening, a few hours after the rally.

---

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti–tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag–waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.

Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package.

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

---

That seems to tell you everything you need to know.

Whether Perry was the one who brought up the subject of secession, the fact is that it was not part of Texas' negotiation for statehood.

And, even if it had been, didn't the experience with secession during the Civil War sort of invalidate it?

It seems to me that Perry said things that he hoped would keep his supporters on his side, but he doesn't appear to have endorsed the idea of secession. Nevertheless, that's how it has been interpreted, and the Austin American–Statesman's Jason Embry reported on late–night jokes that were spawned by the misunderstanding.

Perry, it seems to me, is feeling some pressure these days. He only received 39% of the vote when he won a four–way race for re–election in 2006, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is likely to be Perry's chief rival for the Republican gubernatorial nomination next year in a race that currently looks like it could draw several candidates, has been leading by a wide margin in recent polls.

In fact, if those polls are correct, she would win the nomination without being forced into a runoff.

Perry appears to be backpedaling away from any suggestion that he recommends secession, which is probably a good approach since a Rasmussen poll reports that 75% of Texans don't like the idea.

I mentioned this matter to my father when we had dinner together last night. And he dismissed it as rhetoric designed to appeal to Perry's political base — which my father described as "pretty base."

Actually, if I happened to be a member of Perry's campaign staff, I'd be a lot more concerned about his use of the phrase "states' rights" — which has a fairly recent history as a racial code word.

True, there might not be much concern about the black vote here, since only about 11% of Texas' residents are black — and I would expect relatively few blacks in Texas to participate in a Republican primary. Nor, for that matter, would I expect many blacks to support a Republican nominee here. Some probably will, but not many.

But, when you combine that phrase with the hysteria over immigration, I could see it being a problem in the Hispanic community. About one–third of Texans are Hispanic, and many Hispanics have been known to vote in Republican primaries in Texas.

Perry (Gasp!) Plays Politics with Jobless

I've never had much regard for the governor of my state, Rick Perry, but his latest grandstanding is appalling — even for him.

For those who don't live in Texas, let me briefly familiarize you with Perry's political background. He was lieutenant governor when George W. Bush became president — and thus succeeded Bush as governor in December 2000, after Bush resigned. He ran for full terms on his own in 2002 and 2006, winning both times — although he received less than 40% of the vote when he ran against four other opponents in 2006.

He has now held the office longer than anyone in state history, and he has announced his intention to run for an unprecedented third full term in 2010. He is expected to be challenged in the Republican primary by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Hutchison filed the necessary papers to establish an exploratory committee for the race in December. If she runs for governor, as anticipated, it seems likely to produce one of the most expensive campaigns in state history.

Hutchison will be a formidable foe for Perry, who has never been perceived as overly popular. He happened to be the next in line when Bush became president, and other Republicans have been hesitant to run against him since he took office.

But Hutchison is popular here. In 2000, she was the first Senate candidate in state history to receive 4 million votes. Even Bush didn't receive that many votes in Texas that year, in his first campaign for president. (Bush became the first presidential candidate to receive 4 million votes in Texas when he sought re-election in 2004.)

And no gubernatorial candidate has received 4 million votes — not even Bush, when he was re-elected governor in 1998 with more than two-thirds of the vote.

Last month, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that a poll of Texas Republicans indicates that Hutchison holds a commanding lead over Perry. And the Dallas Morning News reported a couple of weeks ago that Perry's campaign has been trying to dig up information on Hutchison and her husband, a prominent bond attorney.

Since he appears likely to face a popular opponent in his bid to be nominated for a third term, Perry is trying to strengthen his support with his conservative "base" — such as it is.

Perry has always been opportunistic. Back in 2007, when it appeared that Rudy Giuliani might be the Republican presidential nominee, Perry announced that he was endorsing Giuliani. Then, when Giuliani withdrew in early 2008, Perry endorsed the new apparent front-runner, John McCain.

Supporting McCain was safe in Republican Texas. While Barack Obama was winning most states, McCain was carrying Texas with more than 55% of the vote.

So, it seems, is the position Perry has taken against expanding gambling in Texas, which appears to have some appeal with the fundamentalist church groups that thrive in rural Texas, even though Perry at one time favored video slot machines at race tracks.

But, now, with unemployment rising in Texas, as it is everywhere, Perry may have picked on the wrong demographic group. He has announced that he will reject more than $500 million of the state's stimulus funds that are intended for unemployment insurance.

"Perry's rationale: He doesn't want to increase the burden on businesses to fill the hole once federal funds dry up," writes Christopher Beam in the Washington Post.

If you're inclined to dismiss the Post as being a liberal publication, read this from The Lariat, the student newspaper at the Southern Baptist-affiliated Baylor University.

"There is a difference between standing by one's principles and playing politics," writes Baylor journalism major Jade Ortego. "Perry is only hurting his state by rejecting any of the stimulus money."

Perry has no problem with accepting most of the $17 billion in stimulus funds that were set aside for Texas. "It has to be 100% political," remarked the Democratic leader in the state House of Representatives.

Other state legislators have urged Perry to accept all the funds, but he seems determined to take this stand — even though it undoubtedly will cause more pain for people who are already hurting.

It's possible that the legislature could override the decision to reject some of the stimulus funds. But, even though Democrats have made some spotty gains in the state recently, there are far too many Republicans in the legislature to make that a realistic possibility.

So I suppose the most that can be done — right now — is to say to Perry — shame on you for playing politics with the vulnerable.

And here's hoping the unemployed show up at the polls in record numbers next year to toss you out of office.