Posted on 08/19/2011 12:25:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Earlier this week, Michelle Malkin went after Rick Perry over the human papillomavirus vaccine mandates he authorized as governor. Two days later, she followed up with a second scorching post, this time saying Perry was “soft on illegal immigration,” “prone to crony capitalism” — and that he “demonstrated Nanny State tendencies that are anathema to Tea Party core principles.”
(By the way, two months ago, I predicted Perry would face many of the questions that are now being raised by Malkin).
Some conservatives, of course, weren’t happy with Malkin’s criticism. When it comes to covering conservative primary candidates, some people think conservative writers should just turn a blind eye — or solely focus on attacking Obama. (A common criticism is: “You’re doing the left’s work for them!”).
On this, I side with Malkin. It is healthy for center-right journalists and conservative bloggers (there is a major distinction between the two — but time doesn’t allow one to address every nuance) to vet candidates. Skepticism is good. As The Jim Antle Doctrine advises conservatives: “A political alliance isn’t a marriage. You don’t have to take a presidential candidate for better or worse. Only when they’re right.”
Others, however, like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, seem to believe center-right media should function simply as “team players” or cheerleaders for conservative politicians. (Note: They get to decide who is “conservative” at the given moment).
For this reason, my well-documented column about Rep. Michele Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks (and farm subsidies, etc.), led Limbaugh and Levin to attack me. Limbaugh actually accused me of being too concerned about purity. He then defended Bachmann’s earmarks, saying: “I have never been one to base my entire view of a politician on whether or not they supported earmarks — ’cause it’s not that much money.”
Levin also had some choice words for me.
(No word yet on whether or not Limbaugh or Levin will attack Michelle Malkin for her criticism of Rick Perry…)
Conservative activists are understandably annoyed when journalists and bloggers (again, I’m conflating the two) begin to remove the facade of perfection carefully crafted by Republican politicians and their handlers. This is understandable, but the truth is that, in the long run, center-right journalists and bloggers don’t do the conservative movement any favors when they give Republican politicians a pass. Nor is it Malkin’s job (nor mine) to help Republican politicians get elected. Conservative activists must sooner or later understand that.
While I am 100 percent in agreement with Malkin that it is appropriate (and indeed necessary) for conservative writers to raise questions about GOP presidential candidates — I am still curious about the intensity for which she has gone after Perry. After all, the lingering questions about Perry are no more concerning than the questions about Bachmann’s record — and they are certainly no more concerning than questions about Mitt Romney’s. Until or unless more information comes forward about Perry, my take is that his past peccadilloes shouldn’t be a deal breaker for conservatives.
dunno why.
Why? Because Perry is a big-government crony RINO posing as a conservative. And because the major problems about which she has written about happen to be true.
Perry is incredibly soft on illegal immigration.
And read some of Pamela Geller’s recent articles on problems with Perry and radical Islam.
I don’t know much and haven’t made decisions myself, but more information and questioning is a good thing when we’re deciding who should be president.
These are two of Michelle Malkin’s key issues, so it shouldn’t be surprising she would pursue these issues as she always has.
To me, listening to MM is like hearing fingernails scratching a blackboard. That’s not to say that her messages are without merit.
She will likely go after Palin too if and when she gets in. I don’t read Malkin except when her articles are posted here, but I get the impression she is much more comfortable writing attack articles than ones of support and praise.
Seems Matty here is channeling his inner David Frum.
Isn’t it Obvious? Malkin is owned by Soros.[/sarc]
I don’t know why so many fellow conservatives are so ga-ga over Perry... None of this screams conservative to me:
Rick Perry defended the Texas “Dream ACT,”
Bank of America to Rick Perry: ‘We Will Help You Out’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fRhb0awjAg
New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition warnings about Perry
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2011/06/23/rick-perry/
Michelle Malkin: Plumbing the Rest of the Perry Record
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/18/plumbing-the-rest-of-the-perry-record/
Texas RLC Sends Out Warning on Rick Perry | Republican Liberty Caucus
http://www.rlc.org/2011/08/12/texas-rlc-sends-out-warning-on-rick-perry/
First Read - Perry calls idea of U.S.-Mexico border wall ‘ridiculous’
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/17/7397978-perry-calls-idea-of-us-mexico-border-wall-ridiculous
Rick Perry’s dangerous Muslim compromise
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=333701
Gov. Rick Perry’s Billionaire Backers - Forbes.com
www.forbes.com
Half of Perry ‘mega-donors’ allegedly received political kickbacks
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/16/half-of-perry-mega-donors-allegedly-received-political-kickbacks/
Gov. Rick Perry at La Raza Convention
http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Gov-Rick-Perry-at-La-Raza-Convention/blog/2408628/46976.html
Rick Perry Shady Donor Deals Exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wRRoyaOn50
Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21: Selling Texas to foreigners, jabs Obama for same
http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/rick-perry-tied-to-agenda-21-globalist-policies
Rick Perry Invested in Pornography.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/rick-perry-investment-porn
Rick Perry Tries to Get Out of Ticket - Texas State Trooper Dashcam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8CvXIY6mgk
Because she has Perry Derangement Syndrome?
So-called conservatives like Malkin and Coulter support candidates like Christie and Romney.
What’s interesting to me is that Perry’s tone and his stances are at times on the hard right (a good thing IMO) - like his “treason” comments - and that irritates and confuses the beltway types and leftists.
And then there’s the issues brought up by Malkin - which irritate those of us on the right. Perry has sort of been prone to being all over the place - or he’s talking so tough that he hopes our love of his attacks on Obama (and Bernanke) will make us forget our misgivings.
He’s an enigma.
As to what Malkin raises in the article, both Perry and others have addressed the points. The idea that Perry engaged in crony capitalism for Merk for a $6,000 campaign contribution is laughable. And Perry used to be soft on border control but has changed his tune over the past couple years and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his change. He is not a Mitt Romney type flip flopper. So while Malkin's criticism is good to consider, it doesn't change my opinion that at this point, Perry is the most electable conservative we are going to get.
Malkin is right to be suspicious of any politician who seems to be guilty of crony capitalism, albeit this form of corruption can be found as early as the first Washington Administration, and some great men such as Clay and Webster were guilty of it. Perry obviously likes the perks of office, and owes a lot to another (no-kin) Perry who is a very rich Houston businessman.
On the other hand, I think she is over the line on this vaccination thing. Apart from the smell of a connection with Big Pharm, the fact remains that that drug works. The question is, of course, why not inject boys as well? If there is any causual relationship between the disease and sex, thgen boys should have to take the drug. It is not a disease to be caught by casual contact, as smallpox is. So my objection is pragmatic rather than moral. Vaccinations required for school are a public health matter. It would help, of course, if schools were better at sending kids home whom refused to take baths. ;-) Most do not have the nerve to do this, or even demand that the kids been hosed down in the gym showersrooms.
This ain't Texas, pilgrim.
Most Americans are put off by the way Perry swaggered into Iowa. All of the candidates---except Perry---respected Iowa's role in the presidential race. All the candidates--except Perry---put a lot of time, money and hard work in the state---and debated the issues---so that Iowa and Americans could gauge their viability.
Perry's calculated strategy was to manipulate the process from afar, and on the day of the Iowa caucuses, he announced he was a candidate.
That move was supposed to put him over the top---but it didn't. He finished a distant fifth or sixth (depending on whether you count Romney who was also a no-show). Perry got some 700 votes (the Iowa winners got over 4000 votes). How much each vote cost Perry is still unknown.
However, Perry's strategy included "declaring himself the winner" no matter what his showing. Thus we saw pictures of Perry swaggering in front of Iowa signs, congratulating himself on "winning."
That may fly in Texas---but it's no way to run for the presidency.
In the litmus test of conservatives, Perry does not equal Bachmann, Palin, Cain, Ron Paul, Marco Rubio, and a few others.
On the other hand, he’s light years ahead of Pawlenty, Christie, Romney, Julie-Annie, and Huntsman.
As usual, on FR some people are going to attack anyone who tries to even have a conversation about their favorite candidate. Primaries are the time to vet candidates. I say look at his record and decide what you think. There’s plenty of info out there, he’s been in public offices for a long time. I’m not sure why people get so angry (as they have on a number of threads) just because someone doesn’t jump on the bandwagon yet. There’s time to make a decision yet. And yes, I’m from TX.
There are two entirely different people: The Rick Perry who runs for office and the Rick Perry after the election.
The former says things that ticks off the establishment and is, taken at his word, a rock-ribbed conservative. Unfortunately, after the oath of office, the other Rick Perry shows up. The self serving cronyist who gets along just fine with the establishment types.
All of this supposed discord amongst the establishment about Rick Perry is just a ruse IMHO. They would have preferred someone else, but at this point, he’s EXACTLY who they want. They’re just feigning a protest to get gullible conservatives to get behind him.
You claim to be conservative (LOL) and Catholic (LOLOL)?
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.