Rick Perry and the Aggie Complex

Is Rick Perry just another mediocre Aggie?

Stay with me here.

Rick Perry succeeded George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. Bush ended up serving two terms as President of the United States, while Perry is in the middle of his third term as Governor. Part of me wonders whether the Aggie complex, a constant jealousy of Texas, is the primary driver of Perry's Presidential hopes.

You probably want to stop me there. By some miracle, President Bush went to Yale. Yes, but his brother, Jed, went to Texas and so did his daughter, Jenna. The family has strong ties to the University.

So what's this Aggie complex about? Well, the University of Texas at Austin is the flagship university of the state of Texas. They were the big player in the Big XII and they've always watched out for Texas A&M. They've been more of a little brother to Texas than Michigan State has to Michigan, although the jealousy is very similar.

Recently, Texas announced that they're going to start their own television network.

This has further sparked A&M's envy so much so that they are trying to join the SEC:

In the eyes of most Aggies, moving to the SEC means they'll no longer have to operate in Texas' vast shadow.

Aggies fans overcome with excitement over a move to the SEC. There's also a pretty good explanation for the Aggie Complex in there:

"It’s really hard to watch a bigger school kind of bully their way around the conference and make the money they want to," Turner said. "So you have to do something, but I think a lot of fans are kind of uneasy about, 'Is this what we really want?'"

And more:

"We want to carve our own niche, and we don’t want to be the little brother, but you almost don’t want to leave big brother," Turner said.

They want out of Texas's shadow just as Perry seems to want to get out of Bush's shadow. What's more is the Aggies are trying to move to the SEC to be in a conference of schools in constituencies that Perry will appeal to in his own campaign.

However, the SEC appears to have rejected A&M's bid to join them, at least for the moment:

Southeastern Conference presidents and chancellors committee didn't reject Texas A&M in their meeting Sunday, they simply “reaffirmed (their) satisfaction with the present 12 institutional alignment.”

If Texas A&M joined the SEC, they would be amongst company that has attracted suspicion over the last few years. The SEC has been under scrutiny for a number of reasons, but amongst these is their lowered standards:

The SEC will push for the rest of the nation to adopt its oversigning rules. Thankfully, the SEC will not push its ban on the grad-student exception to the rest of the country. Hopefully, the SEC will remain the only league dumb enough to wipe from the books the only rule in the NCAA that actually provides a positive incentive for athletes.

The fact of the matter is that A&M is trading one problem for another. They have to prove to the rest of the country that they are hellbent on having rules that both preserve academic and NCAA integrity. If Perry is successful in his bid for Republican nomination, he too will be trading one problem for another. He will go from living in Bush's shadow in Texas to being plagued by his shadow on the national stage. Although the conservative southeast helped President Bush get in both 2004 and 2000:

There were cracks in that foundation for McCain because of Bush in 2008:

The question is whether Rick Perry can continue his strong start and consolidate the conservative base while appealing to skeptical northerners who might not take to another brash cowboy from Texas. At the end of Bush's term, he did not have a high approval rating:
The similarities will clearly be highlighted in the media and don't think 2.5 years of Obama has made people forget:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Perry will have to shake Bush's shadow in order to win the presidency. The problem is that he might not be able to do it. He has similar beliefs and ideologies, and he might not be able to get away from that. If he does, he might lose the bases that he needs to win. In the end though, I see him as being another failed Aggie with an Aggie Complex.

Don't Ask, Just Tell?

Mullen on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

McCain reconsiders:

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to," McCain told an audience of college students during the "Hardball" college tour on MSNBC.

I guess Obama might accomplish something. Meanwhile, our economy is in the tank, our deficit is ballooning every day, and we have multiple wars with more seemingly on the horizon.

Review: State of the Union

As I previewed earlier, today was Obama's State of the Union speech. In the speech, which lasted well over an hour, Obama discussed a wide range of topics, from healthcare, the economy, gay rights, a high speed rail, the supreme court and national security. What I want to do is see reactions over the different issues.

First off, Here's the Republican response:

Health Care
Obama called for the senate to resolve the healthcare bill:

“This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” he said. “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.”

It doesn't appear like he's getting a favorable response.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said that, after watching the speech, health reform appeared unlikely to pass as one comprehensive package.

"I think right now it's less than 50-50," she said of a consolidated bill passing. "It's very hard to see a path forward in the current arrangement."

The healthcare bill has been much maligned. I personally felt that the senate was pushing it when there were other issues that were more prevalent such as the economy. I've heard criticisms from both sides and statistics and what not, but I have absolutely no idea what the bill entails. If the senate wants public support, it's important that the public know clearly how they will be affected by it. John McCain criticized the Obama administration for promising transparency, but not delivering. The healthcare issue is exhibit A.

Economy
Obama has called for a new jobs bill:


Gay Rights

John McCain's response:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

High Speed Rail
Here is the plan that will arise from the speech:

President Obama will kick off his post-State of the Union tour with what aides describe as a major economic announcement -- $8 billion to begin building a high-speed rail infrastructure in multiple states.

The money is a "downpayment" on the rail system, officials said, and will go to local governments for distribution. A total of 13 major areas will benefit from the project, whose reach will be felt in 31 states, the administration said.

Supreme Court
President Obama criticized the Supreme Court:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

Justice Alito was not very pleased:

"Not true, not true," he appeared to say, as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.

Conservative legal groups aren't happy either:

"The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics -- scapegoating 'special interest' bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy," said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC member and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.

Citizens United had this to say:

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court ruling will be challenged in the future.

National Security
Here's a taste of the reaction for National Security:

David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and foreign policy expert, said Wednesday night that he “can’t recall a state of the union that devoted less time or attention to foreign policy issues than this one.”

Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance

An explanation:

I'll add some brief thoughts later when I can actually watch the video. Here are some thoughts of various people. Barack Obama:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

Chief Justice John Roberts:

"The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union."

Justice John Paul Stevens:

"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Theodore Olsen, who argued the case for Citizens United:

"Speech about our government and candidates for elective office lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and the court's decision vindicates the right of individuals to engage in core political speech by banding together to make their voices heard."

Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin:

"Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns."

Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona:

"I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions."