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.
As usual you want to trot out that very pitifully poor comparison. Reagan was a right of center (arch) conservative before and after his party change. On the other hand Perry was and still is a left of center liberal.
Your RINOs are still the same old RINOs they ever were when we needed to use them in the South to break the hold the Democrats had on the entire region.
If your boy Perry supported Hillary-KKKare, we not only don't want him, we can't afford him.
Those other politicians are not in the running for the top slot under the Republican label ~ nor will they be if it’s found out they supported Hillary-KKKare.
Currently you are hearing the nuttier of the Imams telling folks that once they take over they will impose Sharia, and eliminate democracy. That right there ought to justify putting a bullet right between their eyes of course. At the same time it should justify a clause in the requirements for immigration concerning SUPPORTING THE AMERICAN FORM OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT and RENOUNCING ALL OTHER FORMS OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT.
Just modify the McCarren Act again.
We could use something similar when it comes to admitting Mexican government officials as "refugees". Remember, they have to take oaths that require antagonism against the Catholic Church. Not that I particularly care if anyone is antagonistic or not, but it's the oath part. The Mexican government agents trying to flee to the US should be required to RENOUNCE any such oaths ~ implied or actual.
BTW, Condo was pro-abortion. I’d never voted for her appointment.
The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations.
Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry.
"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."
Perry's first sentence is:
I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation's health care system are most commendable.
His next to last sentence is:
Again, your efforts are worthy, and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses.
It's true that he is talking about the problems of rural communities, but I also see where he calls her plan "commendable" and "worthy". I see no sign of opposition to the plan.
Good point. Add to that a wave of Ds taking local offices in 2008.
Let me point this out to you one MORE TIME VERY CLEARLY! Ronald Reagan was a democrat HEAVILY into supporting FDR’s New Deal...he admitted it and he stated it, whether YOU like it or not he was a DEMOCRAT! He was a spokesperson for freaking GE! He was the director of the Screen Actors Guild for 20 years as a DEMOCRAT. His first wife, Jane Wyman divorced him because of his political positions.
Rick Perry was a CONSERVATIVE democrat from the day he entered politics. He was a member of the budget committee pushing austerity policies, even then. He never stopped being a CONSERVATIVE democrat until the Texas Trial Lawyers drummed him out of the party for supporting Tort Reform BECAUSE of his conservative stances. He switched parties, just like Ronald Reagan did BECAUSE he is in fact a conservative and always has been.
He did NOT support HillaryCare, he said it was a ‘commendable’ effort, but his focus was on access to health care by rural communities, which is a huge concern to Texas since it’s 100 miles between major hospitals and clinics.
So you can STUFF your RINO BS krap democratic bucket of horse manure and suck it.
He was NEVER elected to public office as a Democrat.
His only foray into electoral politics was as a Republican.
I find it peculiar that so many Texans have such difficulty figuring out the difference between elected officials and voters, and between Republicans and Democrats.
Were you aware that Ronaldus Magnus had been a member of the Christian Church, just like Lyndon Baines Johnson?
Back in the days when Democrats were assassinating or lynching everybody in the South who tried to run for office as a Republican (30,000 dead eh) the only way we could keep the Republican party going was to find younger Democrats who wanted to advance faster than the party bosses wanted.
They'd have to have already been elected to office because that pretty much made them immune from being murdered, but the deal was they had to caucus with the Republican party in the state legislature.
Eventually we broke the Democrat hold on the "Solid South".
It wasn't about Conservative policies ~ it was about Republican Party!
Now we don't need RINOs ~ galvanized Democrats if you wish.
That was pretty well known right from the get-go.
The business about putting Vets at the end of the line after welfare people has never been particularly popular. That a veteran like Perry would "commend" such an effort raises some serious questions about all sorts of things.
I've noticed that on the threads I've seen, they have made more excuses for his non-conservative actions than Obama has for his failed policies.
That’s what I’m saying.
If they’re so proud of things like Texas windmills, why aren’t they bragging them up in new threads?
Hell obviously they should be proud that Perry’s communications director is married to Romney’s chief fundraiser in Texas.
Whatever shall we do?
First, you are wrong if you think that Federal subsidizing is not coming from tax payer dollars. Perhaps you think that only Texans aren't paying for this?
Mr. Perry has also strongly backed a $5 billion project to build transmission lines to ferry power from remote West Texas to big cities. “He has been a stalwart in defense of wind energy in this state — no question about it,” said Paul Sadler, executive director of the Wind Coalition. An extra charge of up to $5 per month on Texans’ electric bills will pay for construction of the lines.
I have been a strong opponent of America's dependence on foreign oil. I've worked for the Cool Water Coal Gasification project in CA during the 80's under Reagan. I know people in CA who worked with the solar projects in CA
But Mr. Perry’s backing for renewables has limits. Solar power advocates have been frustrated by his failure to support a requirement for nonwind renewables, which both the Legislature and the Public Utility Commission (whose commissioners Mr. Perry appoints) have considered but not acted on. Asked why Mr. Perry supported one requirement but not another, Mr. Miner said that the earlier policy “created a system to incent the development of the most economic renewable generation, which for our state was wind.” He added, “If you mandate a specific technology, you run the risk of getting stuck with high costs, and such mandates have failed to pass the Legislature in the past.”
kgalbraith@texastribune.org >/i>p<>
When I do a search of the most states with the most sunshine, I get AZ, CA, NV, NM and TX in that order. Why did Perry exclude solar from his alternative energy position? a previous policy? Is he the current Governor or not? Did he not get enough "incentive" from donors to pursue it?
Oh get LOST muawiya, your RINO krap is pathetic and just most lies!
Your problem is an absurd level of ignorance of the outside world. We had this problem with LBJ's people too. Like they'd been living in caves for 20 years.
Well, cavedwellers like you would lose this election and then we’d be stuck with Obama and possibly nuked by freaking Iran....so I say to you...get lost.
DEFEND YOUR POSITION.
So where’s this precious letter?
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.