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.
Rickstians can convince themselves of anything.
Perry is the one working with Romney.
Even more recent than that. We still had a democratic-controlled state House in 2000.
Rick Perry certainly has his flaws. Just being a long-term politician is a big one for me. I just don't see the need to make up false claims about him, like supporting gay marriage.
*ping*
If he’s willing to foist windmills on Texas, he’s willing to foist them on the rest of us. The fact that he bragged up windmill manufacturing tells me he has every intent to see them sold to the rest of us.
People need to learn to do their own research and stop reading one sided campaign blather.
Supporting the 10th amendment and supporting a new amendment against gay marriage are not positions in opposition to each other.
He supports the constitution as it currently stands. As it stands now, marriage is not a constitutional issue. As per the 10th amendment, it remains in the area of powers reserved to the states and the people. Hence, if NY passes a gay marriage law, it is nobody’s business but their own, and certainly not a federal issue.
If people could get a new amendment passed which defined marriage as a federal matter with a standardized definition, it would no longer be a 10th amendment issue as the new amendment would now take precedence.
You can’t cherry pick when you like the 10th amendment and use it, and then when you don’t like it and ignore it.
Perry apparently understands the constitution and how it works well enough to get that distinction.
If you want to make a case that Perry is in favor of gay marriage, find a cite where he advocates it in Texas. If you can’t, you have no argument.
Would you show me what Texas Policy/Regulation/Subsidy Rick Perry used to get more windmills?
We do have a lot of windmills. We have had them built, in my opnion, due to the combination of federal subsidies and a business friendly environment in Texas.
I am certainly open to anything I missed. Will you point it out?
LOL now you’re supporting windmills too.
You clowns crack me up.
Would you like to talk about the million dollars in TEF funds that went to HelioSol Corp? BTW HelioSol has put off their job creation plans.
BULL.
As Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Perry wrote on April 6, 1993, to ask Hillary to keep the challenges to rural communities, farmers and ranchers in mind as the task force developed ideas on healthcare reform.
That was just two months after Clinton took office, 6 months before Hillary's congressional testimony and 8 months before a bill was introduced.
Anyone can read the letter.
He was doing the duty of the office to which he was elected. It was not advocacy or praise for what came out of the task force or the legislation in congress.
So what you’re saying is W took credit for Lt. Gov Perry’s success? /s
Please read the alleged "smoking gun" letter if you haven't.
He is not "in favor of HillaryCare," he's writing as Ag Comm to Hillary at the start of her healthcare task force telling her to consider the needs and problems of farmers, rangers and rural communities as she proceeds.
???!?!?!?
I didn't write any support about windmills. You seem to be willing to put words in my mouth as well as Rick Perry.
Windmills are fine, if they are not subsidized with Tax Payer dollars. The Federal Government is doing the subsidizing, Rick Perry didn't. But I welcome you to show me where I am wrong.
The other reason is Texas has a huge wind resource. Only North Dakota has more. That doesn't justify the federal subsidy, but it does help explain why the Federal subsidy is spent where there is both wind and significant load.
Would you like to talk about...
Would you like to finish the first claim you made, falsely in my opinion, before you switch subjects? Then we can move to the next. As I said, Rick Perry has plenty of real flaws, no doubt. But we don't need to make up false ones.
It has always been my experience that a leopard cannot change its spots.
The thing is Reagan was a Democrat until 1962. Eighteen years later he was the GOP nominee for POTUS.
Perry's been GOP for over 21 years and that isn't good enough for some.
I observed earlier there's a near pavlovian response to "Hillary," "Democrat" or "Al Gore" where facts, context and history go out the window.
Being an ex Democrat from my days at a major university and supporting Stevenson, I share a conversion experience. Mine wasn’t because some politician excited me but rather because I became aware of what the different political groups were promoting. It was easy for me to reject ideas and people who believed that they had some extraordinary insight to decide how much of my labor should be for me and how much should be for ‘the general welfare’. The comments on Perry should be given serious analysis as to validity. Right now I see/hear Perry really talking my talk, but I also wonder how long will the walk be for the talk considering his past political baggage. I guess I would feel much better if in his talking he would openly and candidly note his current positions on some issues as opposed to previously held positions where there are questions as to which he would still favor.
Much like Obama, its not so much what he says as what he doesn’t say.
Just look through the thread and you’ll see defenders defending liberal policies of Perry but I guarantee you won’t see them posting threads praising those things.
When Reagan changed from democrat party to republican, did you think the same?
How about Strom Thurmond? Elizabeth Dole? Condoleezza Rice? Phil Gramm?
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.
