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.
I agree with you on the immigration issue. NUSA gives him an awful rating.
Regarding Islam, you can check out this one: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/17/5-myths-about-rick-perry/
“Christie has pledged up, down and sideways he’s not running, and is horribly anti-gun “
He’s also pro-Muslim. Christie has such a defective personality I wouldn’t want him anywhere near the Oval Office or Washington. He’s too arrogant, nasty and pigheaded. He is best where he is - as governor New Jersey dealing with individuals of a similar personality and character in the public employee unions.
Bachmann is credible. So is Palin. The leftist media have just gone all out to tar them. Of the two, Bachmann would make the better candidate. My first choice is Bachmann, my second is Perry. I think a Perry/Bachmann Bachmann/Perry ticket is the way to go.
Otherwise I concur with your assessment. I was rating their philosophy, not their electability.
Perry isn’t a conservative. That’s reason enough.
In light of her own published battles with doctors over not getting vaccinations for her own children, I think Malkin's logic is skewed on comparing ObamaCare, where to opt out you have to die, to the Gardasil vaccine order, because of the easy opt out clause that Perry included protecting parental rights.
I look at CA's "solution" (AB499) of granting 12yo children the right to consent to STD-preventing vaccines, cutting parents out of medical decisions or even notice, as far different from Perry's action.
In San Diego we've seen a boom in foolish Oprah-worshipping, white, affluent "soccer mom" parents opting out of childhood vaccines leading to outbreaks of measles, whooping cough and other easily preventable diseases and it's costing lives.
One new age "holistic" elementary is at 83% unvaccinated children. Far, far below herd immunity thresholds it's a catastrophic epidemic waiting to happen and those idiots put even vaccinated kids at risk.
Some argue whether cancer-causing HPV strains are worth vaccinating against because they think it's a comment on their parenting skill or child's moral character. I think that's a mistake. You cannot know what your child will be exposed to in the real world. It could be a spouse exposed at his birth, a vile rapist or through an unfaithful relationship.
Michelle supports RINO candidates for president right?
No, it will be Bachmann (at least if Conservatives have something to say about that)..
Live links at the link
From http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/why-rick-perry-should-be-our-next-president/
Perry has said that federal immigration enforcement has failed and that Texas must protect its own borders. The following statement on border security was made at Perry’s State of the State Address in February, 2007. “I am proposing a $100 million investment in a more secure border. There is no such thing as homeland security without border security. It is not hyperbole to say terrorists view our international border with Mexico as a prime point of entry – that is the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community.”
“While the vast majority of people who come here illegally are economic migrants simply seeking a better life, the small percentage seeking to cause us harm doesn’t dress differently. Nor do they put out press advisories in advance of their arrival. They don’t want us to know they are here until they have done mortal damage to our people.”
“I support strategic fencing in urban areas along the border. But I also believe, like border sheriffs, that the best solution involves added manpower, not unmanned walls.”
From a statement on Governor Perry’s website, “Securing our southern border is a federal responsibility, but the effects of the federal government’s failure to live up to that responsibility are big problems in Texas. As a result, our state has spent more than $230 million over the past several years to protect our communities and fill in the sizable gaps left by insufficient federal efforts.”
“Texas is paying border officers overtime to stretch their training and abilities further. We’ve added state-of-the-art aviation assets, including helicopters, and advanced communications and tactical equipment.”
“The state also has established Joint Operation and Intelligence Centers in each Border Patrol Sector and created quick-response units – like Trooper Strike Teams and Texas Ranger Recon Teams – that can effectively counter criminal activity in even the most remote areas of the border region.”
And in another statement the governor said, “The Obama administration must dedicate more Border Patrol agents to Texas. In fact, I have asked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to assign an additional 3,000 agents to the Texas-Mexico border. The current Texas Border Patrol staffing level of 7,700 is entirely inadequate considering that our state shares more than 1,200 miles of border with Mexico – roughly 64 percent of the entire American southern boundary.”
“In January 2009, I requested that until those staffing levels are increased, 1,000 Title 32 National Guard troops be deployed along the Texas-Mexico border in direct support of current state border-security operations.”
“After nearly two years, I have yet to receive a substantial response to my requests for help. Instead, under its own plan, the Obama administration sent just 286 National Guardsmen to the Texas border - a scant 20 percent of the 1,200 Guardsmen the White House deployed along the entire border.” When the Texas/Mexico border extends for some 1,200 miles (out of a 1,954 mile total U.S. border), Texas had every right to expect a pro-rated share of the 1,200 Guardsmen, or 768 guardsmen. Instead, Texas got 286 – a grossly insufficient number.
So, Perry wrote yet another letter to the President respectfully requesting an additional 1,000 federal agents to help secure the Texas/Mexico border. Since previous letters to President Obama got no response, Perry attempted to hand deliver this one directly to the President. The two met briefly on the tarmac as the President de-planed in Austin, Texas in August of 2010. With the whole incident caught on video, Obama refused to personally accept the letter and Perry was forced to hand it to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett. There was already no love lost between Perry and Obama, but to publically rebuff the governor of Texas (or any governor) by refusing to accept a hand delivered letter? What other President would show so little class as to do that? None, except Obama.
After six years of fierce partisan battling, Gov. Perry signed SB 14, the 2011 Immigration bill on May 27, 2011. Known as the “Voter ID bill,” the law requires that voters in Texas will be required to produce a simple photo ID to verify their identity before casting their vote.
Additionally, an amendment was added to a finance bill that requires that every person who applies for a Texas driver’s license be verified in the federal immigration databases through a program called Secure Communities. The change gives the Texas Department of Public Safety the authority to make sure someone is in the country legally before issuing a Texas driver’s license.
On the issue of amnesty, Governor Perry addressed a 2008 Governor’s Conference in Miami and made this statement: “I hope that there are 43 Republican Senators, and some thoughtful Democrats who realize that if you want to be an American citizen here’s the way you do it … you need to get in line just like everyone else. Go get in that immigration line like everyone who came before you. Now do we want to have sensible immigration policies that allow people who want to come into our state and work. Absolutely. Secure that border, have a sensible immigration policy, and if you want to be a citizen of the United States, there’s the line. But to go give 13 million people a citizenship because you came here illegally is … is … Asinine!”
An estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants are currently residing in Texas, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington and exert an enormous strain on the state’s ability to provide the services that legal residents have a right to expect. To see more of Texas’ Hispanic (legal and illegal) population, here is a Pew Hispanic Center site with that data.
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/why-rick-perry-should-be-our-next-president/
Precisely. And you're right, the American people, and especially conservatives, are going to allow themselves to be played again. This time, however, may truly be the last time, because the globalists are making their move to finally transform everything and secure it in their iron grasp à la "Orwell's boot".
“because the globalists are making their move to finally transform everything and secure it in their iron grasp à la “Orwell’s boot”
And after that happens, then what?
Universal opt out is the opposite of universal requirements with waivers for friends of the Administration.
But an unconstitutional power-grab is always an unconstitutional power-grab.
States do mandate vaccines. I am opposed to such, but I don’t know that they are unconstitutional. It depends entirely upon the state. I’m not even sure the Amish here in PA get out of vaccines.
Any mandate that allows anyone to opt out for any reason, isn’t much of a mandate. Frankly, I think Perry made a mistake. I hope he realizes it and learns from it.
Bulls-eye!
Necessary list. Thanks, AAABEST.
Screw these people who seek to control every personal aspect of our lives....screw them and prayers that God stops them. It is not up to the schools to police our hygiene or sexual protection. Screw them and the horse they rode in on.
More hope and change.
Just what we need.
Really? That would be grand! Got proof?
Malkin supports the TEA PARTY.
She goes after Governor Palin, too.
I define “WINNING” as getting rid of the single most anti-American President in our history, a Fabian who is set on destroying this country. I don’t like the idea of electing a RINO at all, and I will fight that type in the primaries to the best of my ability. However, if the choice is (for example) Obama vs. Romney, then what would you do? Take your ball and stay home? Vote for some 3rd party candidate who simply CANNOT win - thinking that you’re “sending a message” when you’re simply voting for the status quo? Because, after all, you are surely opposed to Obama - is the way to beat him next year by staying home or voting 3rd party, or is it to vote for the single person (however imperfect, though lots less so than Obama) who is most likely to unseat him? I think the latter, and that any other choice is, essentially, a vote for Obama because you choose to split the only opposition capable of beating him.
If you understand one thing, let it be this: the perfect is the enemy of the good. “Good” being defined here as getting rid of Obama. “Perfect” is in the eye of the beholder, but might be electing Thomas Jefferson or George Washington - things that are clearly impossible. The most basic fact of politics is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. If you wait around for one, you’ll not only be sorely disappointed for the rest of your life, but you’ll throw out or never install into office those who can make marginal improvements and allow this country to be stuck in the muck and mire of poverty and weakness. None of us can get everything we want - but if we can get 60% or 70% while the other side gets 40% or 30%, then that’s progress. Note that this is how the “progressives” have eroded our rights and grown government over the last 100 years - one salami slice at a time. That’s the only way to get it back, and the bad news is that it’ll be a long, hard fight that likely won’t be won in the lifetimes of anyone reading this.
I too see absolutely nothing in Perry’s record to place him higher on the conservative rating card than Bachman, Cain, or Santorum. If these genuinely conservative individuals are truly “not electable” by some amorphous standard, then let’s just have the Civil War and be done with it now.
Really? Just have a civil war, right now?
I understand your frustration at the state of politics in this country, but that is exactly the kind of statement that allows the other side - the progressives, the socialists, the one-worlders, the Fabians - to paint us as extremists with the group that decides EVERY election, the independents. What you’re really saying is, “Everything turns out my way, or I crash the system.” Sorry, people with that attitude are never taken seriously. You want to accomplish your goal of a restoration of the Constutional Republic that the Founders established? Fine, so to I. Get it back the same way it was stolen, gradually and by educating the populace to your point of view. Even the Founders said that our government could only survive so long as the people stayed educated and vigilent. Clearly the other side saw to it that the opposite happened - so it is our generation’s task to reverse that course. It won’t, it CANNOT happen overnight. To think it could, or to wish a civil war to make it so, is the height of immaturity and selfishness. Sorry to be so blunt, but I have to let you know that your means of trying to accomplish very worthy goals will not only not be acceptable, it will push the attainment of those goals further away, and perhaps destroy any possibility of attaining them at all.
Think! Understand that the other side lives to find statements like that “gem” above, and to send it viral to discredit conservatives. Don’t give them more ammo on a silver platter.
I hope he realizes it and learns from it.More hope and change.
Just what we need.
Yea, Reagan had change. I hope Perry follows suit.
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.