Posted on 08/31/2011 7:32:11 AM PDT by el_texicano
It’s been just more than 24 hours since I defended Rick Perry against the smear by Jonathan Martin about his intelligence, but today, a bit of information arrives to more strongly suggest that Mr. Perry has other problems. In addition to the other instances in which his conservative credentials have come into question, now arises the question of his tacit support for Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan of 1993. In a letter to Mrs. Clinton, then Agriculture Commissioner expressed support for the ill-fated overhaul plan. Many are inclined to ignore this because in addition to being an eighteen year old letter, everybody knows Rick Perry had been a Democrat before becoming a Republican, so the thinking is that this should present no problem. Unfortunately, Rick Perry had already changed parties in order to run for the post as Agriculture Commissioner, the post in which he served at the time of the letter. Rather than questioning Rick Perry’s intelligence as does the leftist media, I believe we conservatives must ask a much more serious question about the sincerity of his most deeply held philosophical underpinnings. Does he mean it? Is it just an act? Is he really a conservative?
Changing political parties is not unusual. Politicians do it frequently, and in several watershed election years, waves of elected officials have done so. Still, for the electorate, a change of parties generally also signifies a change in underlying philosophy. I was raised in a household and extended family consisting entirely of liberal Democrats, such that virtually nothing I said about politics prior to 1983 would be in agreement with my positions some three decades later. My conversion was different from Rick Perry’s, in that before I changed parties, I had changed my outlook. Philosophy drove my political affiliations, but not the reverse. This is how most people come to make a change: Their knowledge, experience, and ultimately, their philosophy changes, and this leads to a change of parties.
This is not necessarily the case among professional politicians. All too frequently, their change in political party is instantaneous and without apparent philosophical reflection or study. Instead, they are frequently motivated solely by the desire to win. The letter from Rick Perry to Hillary Clinton is indicative of this same trend. Perry had been a Republican for four years before writing this letter, leading one to wonder if his party conversion hadn’t been a matter of political convenience rather than a deeply held philosophical awakening.
Once you realize this, the rest of his record begins to make sense. Over the period defined by his electoral career, the general political atmosphere in Texas has been steadily creeping from left to right, with only a few aberrations. Rick Perry’s apparent political position has closely mirrored this shift, from Democrat to Republican moderate to GOP establishment to conservative, and finally to Tea Party. This is an odd sort of conversion, particularly measured against the sort of conversion most ordinary Americans may at some point undergo. Instead, it looks like a conversion of political convenience, born not of deeply stirring study and thorough argumentation, but of calculations in the back rooms of Texas political expediency.
This sort of conversion of convenience speaks to the character and leadership of the politician in question. What it implies is a calculated attempt to position himself in accordance with his election prospects rather than with his philosophy. This isn’t leadership, and what it illustrates is just another politician scrambling to the head of the parade, pretending to have led it. At this point, you’d be right to wonder if his espoused beliefs are simply a different skin uploaded on the Rick Perry App. Considering his progression, it actually demands an answer to the question: “When did you become a conservative?”
What was the moment of conversion? What was that issue that cinched it for Mr. Perry? The elections of 1994 caused similar spontaneous conversions for elected officials all across Texas, but Mr. Perry’s party conversion five years earlier simply suggests he was out ahead of the curve. Writing a letter such as this, we know he was not a conservative in 1993. Did the elections eighteen months later convince him?
With this in mind, the other issues that arise with respect to Perry’s more recent acts that seem in opposition to conservative principles begin to make more sense. A reflexive action to mandate Gardasil? His remarks on his belief in an open border? His chameleon-like sliding in and out of La Raza and ACORN events? The TransTexas Corridor? Now, knowing this, and having seen this letter begins to put in context what a few seeming aberrations couldn’t quite nail down. Perry may be a conservative today, a Tea Party member tomorrow, or a member of the John Birch Society yesterday. Next week, he’s likely to be a globalist, a corporatist, or frankly, anything under the sun. He’s shifting, but his reflexes indicate he still suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of what is conservatism, because he doesn’t really mean it. His re-election campaign of 2010 along with his election campaign this year seem to bleed the standard stereotypes of a southern, Christian conservative. In truth, he’s becoming a caricature that hardly resembles most Texas conservatives due in part to its gross overstatement. One almost expects him to show up at a rally with a six-shooter, wearing spurs and a Stetson. Actually, he’s already done that.
Mr. Perry isn’t a conservative. He’s playing a role. He’s doing what he believes it will take to get elected. His record is thick with instances in which he did not behave as a conservative, or even a Republican, and all well after his conversion to the GOP. This is the real problem with Rick Perry. He’s not “dumb,” he’s insincere. He’s a political opportunist who has great instincts for getting out ahead of his electorate in form, but in function, he remains what he has always been: A political actor. If he goes on to win the nomination, he’ll have deserved an Oscar.
OK fine.
He supported the 10th amendment then changed his mind and supported a federal amendment which would override the 10th amendment.
zero moral courage.
Who is “Mark America” and why do I care what he thinks?
I don’t find his analysis compelling.
That’s about the size of it.
I think the article reads waaaaay too much into the letter. It does not say that Perry supports what the task force ultimately decided to propose. It merely says that the idea of reforming health care is laudable. A lot of people agree with that (although admittedly I’m not one of them).
IMO the real point of the letter starts in the second paragraph: a request that special attention be paid to farmers and rural areas.
I have my doubts Perry initiated this by himself. That said, he is responsible for what goes out under his signature. But this does not convince me that he is insincere. Every politician has written letters like this one.
He did not voice support of gay marriage. He voiced support for the 10th amendment.
Perry signs anti-gay marriage pledge
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/perry-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge/sGqX6Ir6FL4HZwyOQSzvKN/index.html
Texas Governor Rick Perry is the latest Republican presidential candidate to sign a pledge against gay marriage. The pledge confirms Perry’s reversal of an earlier statement he made that he would leave the definition of marriage up to the states.
The pledge, put out by the National Organization for Marriage, has become a standard commitment among this year’s GOP contenders. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum have also signed the pledge. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is not signing any pledges.
The pledge commits a candidate to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, appoint judicial nominees and an attorney general who would reject a constitutional right to gay marriage, establish a commission to investigate harassment of anti-gay marriage donors or organizers, and let the people of Washington, D.C., vote on gay marriage.
Perry has long opposed gay marriage. But he said in July, after New York legalized gay marriage, that he supports states’ rights and would not object if individual states implemented gay marriage. He told an audience in Colorado, “That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.”
- - - - -
What he supports is the constitution. And he would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. But today, the constitution does not reference that subject so he supports the 10th amendment that leaves that up to the individual states.
What a bunch of BS. Reagan was once a Democrat. Perry was AG Commissioner when he wrote Hillary and had no idea what was in her Health Care plans. He just asked her to consider needs of Farmers and Ranchers. Perry must have a lot of people worried, because they are coming out of the woodwork attacking him.
Yeah I get it, St Rick supports states rights except for when he doesn’t.
It took him 5 paragraphs to get to this, which is the fatal flaw in his argument. The letter does NOT indicate a lack of conservative thought. The letter is a boilerplate letter from a state government official to a federal official, with the prefunctory well-wishes followed by a stern statement of what that panel needs to do to get support from the state.
"We are so happy to see you tackle the difficult problem of XXX. When you are doing so, we hope you will remember not to screw over our constituents, to take our needs into account, and not make a mess of things. Again, thank you for what we are sure will be your thoughtful consideration to reach an outcome that is good for us all".
I write these letters to my democrat senators and representatives all the time. It is what gets your letters read past the 1st sentence.
Perry's letter NEVER says a good word about "Hillarycare"; it was written before her health panel started writing the plan, and was an attempt to shape the plan.
That is the job of a public official, writing official letters in support of the people of Texas.
Perry’s main problem is the haters who have to cut him down for made-up reasons and ulterior motives. I think he has some flaws, too wedded to government and international power brokers (e.g. Khan). But no real show stoppers IMO.
All you have to do is watch him. He oozes insincerity. He gives me the creeps. Exactly like Romney.
There are more than a few conservatives who only respect the constitution to the point where it interferes with their world-view. I had a drag-out argument a couple of nights ago with someone who believed the 1st amendment shouldn’t stop the federal government from banning the worship of islam and closing all the mosques, because the government should be able to define Islam as “not a religion”. Worse, for my defense of the 1st amendment I was called a muslim sympathiser, and told I was defending Sharia law.
Someone else gave you the supporting link, so why should he have to?
He and Romney are working together.
Pat Sullivan is Perry’s former chief of staff and current communications director. Pat Sullivan’s wife Leslie is Mitt Romney’s chief fundraiser in Texas.
Perry needs a little vetting. We don’t need another Republican for party’s sake. The only thing that is going to rescue this country from the abyss is conservatism and smaller government.
Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan of 1993. In a letter to Mrs. Clinton, then Agriculture Commissioner expressed support for the ill-fated overhaul plan. Many are inclined to ignore this because in addition to being an eighteen year old letter, everybody knows Rick Perry had been a Democrat before becoming a Republican, so the thinking is that this should present no problem. Unfortunately, Rick Perry had already changed parties in order to run for the post as Agriculture Commissioner, the post in which he served at the time of the letter.
There is a strong, very left element in Texas politics. You can see that in recent history by the Richards governorship. Moreover, the R legislators in Austin have on the whole, been less conservative than Perry. You can see that in the Bush governorship.
Overall, Perry has been steering the state in a generally conservative direction despite some powerful elements in the legislature. He isn’t nearly as weak as you seem to think, nor as perfect as some cheerleaders pretend.
Taken on balance, Perry would be a strong candidate (no one here doubts his campaigning skills), and at worst a pretty good President (e.g. he would probably make very good SCOTUS nominations).
I still prefer Bachmann, but I’m not going help Mittens by sliming Perry, Palin, or any other reasonably conservative candidate.
He wants to follow the constitution. If we want a federal gay marriage ban, an amendment is the way to do it.
There is a strong, very left element in Texas politics. You can see that in recent history by the Richards governorship. Moreover, the R legislators in Austin have on the whole, been less conservative than Perry. You can see that in the Bush governorship.
Overall, Perry has been steering the state in a generally conservative direction despite some powerful elements in the legislature. He isn’t nearly as weak as you seem to think, nor as perfect as some cheerleaders pretend.
Taken on balance, Perry would be a strong candidate (no one here doubts his campaigning skills), and at worst a pretty good President (e.g. he would probably make very good SCOTUS nominations).
I still prefer Bachmann, but I’m not going help Mittens by sliming Perry, Palin, or any other reasonably conservative candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.