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.
Gore endorser and supporter
The great multi billion doaller eminent domain TTC debacle
Gardasil executive mandate with ties to Merk
Open borders and illegal immigrant enabler- Texas DREAM Act
Signed the Hate Crime Bill into law
Guiliani endorser
Fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer funds with Texas ETF and TEF programs he initiated
Played shell game with state tax laws- tax laws now works against small business
The list keeps growing. Perry a conservative? Well, he talks a big story and writes a book in conjunction with the emergence of the Tea Party movement as a rising political force. His political talent lies in timing and shifting as an opportunist. Rick's been reading the tea leaves all last year- that's the extent of his conservatism, aside from his gift of rhetoric.
All I can offer is my opinion.
A LOT of us aren’t sold on Perry, yet, and frankly, I think he has baggage that could harm him after a nomination.
Why stop at just girls and boys? Why not mandate that every man woman and child be vaccinated? I mean, the drug works, right? That’s reason enough to try and force it on everyone, right? Oh, wait, my bad, it’s not really being forced because you could go before a judge and ask permission to not have to take it. Riiiiight.
Spot on. The Tea Party is being manipulated.
Michelle Malkin supports Sarah Palin.
I’ll give Malkin this: She’s consistent.(*) You don’t see Malkin joining Mark Levin (among other usually-reliable conservatives) in endorsing Orrin “Porkulus” Hatch for re-election, She REMEMBERS.
(*— That being said, I still might go for Perry if he’s still looking like the most conservative electable guy. What bugs me about him more than his Gardasil “big government conservative” stuff is his being all wet on illegal immigration. And what about foreign policy stances? Maybe Perry/Bolton?)
You're mistaken if you think the rest of the country wants to see politicians kowtow to Iowa. Not to say that this is what he's doing, but if Perry can win and ignore Iowa in the process, it would be a huge plus for me. And I like his swagger. A Hell of a lot better than how the meterosexual pansy who currently inhabits the office acts.
No enigma. He is more conservative than Obama and more conservative than Bush, but I doubt more conservative than John Connally (a candidate in 1980). In general he is pretty much in the mold of Allan Shivers a powerful Tory Democrat governor of the 40s and ‘50s. Shivers made the office of Lt. Governor a great center of power after he won the office. Succeeding to governor after the death of Buford Jester, he used that office effectively, and won national recognition is his battle with the Truman Administration over control of the “Tidelands” oil wells. In ‘52 he supported Ike. Was governor for 7.5 years in an era when the governor served a two year term. Left under an ethical cloud. Very bright, very personable, with a deep bass voice and accent like that cowboy actor whose name escapes me at the moment.
I would disagree, but only to a point. I understand your points about Perry being a good “establishment” candidate in some ways - and I think you’re right.
However, there is part of the establishment, the Rove Bush wing especially, that do NOT want him. (Hence, the sudden interest in Paul Ryan among beltway types and this prissy hissy fits thrown by Fox News).
Interesting times.
LOL, looks like she has already gone after Palin. Meow!
Chill out Michelle, and take a Norman Vincent Peale course.
I have no problem with probing Perry’s, or anyone’s, record.
No candidate is perfect. They all have blemishes in the past or in their future. Politics and ideology make strange bedfellows.
But we have to be realistic and honest with ourselves.
The most conservative candidate would not be able to change this nation back to its founding principles in two terms.
This nation abhors radical change (this is one reason why Obama is losing).
Perry is what he is. If there was a better governor in the race, I would support him/her.
I’m in NJ, where most Repubs awkwardly embrace the islamic invasion, where the State government regulates and spends ad nauseum.
I’m not looking for a candidate who tells me what I want to hear, says they’re Republican or looks and sounds the part of a conservative.
I’m looking for “old-school”, crazy, elmininate whole departments, turn the nation back to God. This nation, IMHO, needs a complete turnaround. Federal courts are way off track. Individual rights have been usurped. Government run amok.
If the candidate’s entire campaign, the whole reason they are running for office in the first place, is not based on this stuff, but it’s simply the next move in their political career, they are not part of the solution.
IMHO...
Good.
OTOH, the conservative Jews seem to like him because of his outspoken support for Israel.
Right now, I'm leaning Perry with Bachmann coming in second. I have no problem seeing them vetted though.
But it was the same idea, and he would do the same things as President, only then they would be writ large.
Like a lot of us, although he talks a good game about being Conservative, we are afraid he could end up to be another George W. Bush, signing onto light bulb bans and big drug entitlement programs once elected. And he has done some things as Governor of Texas which reinforce that fear.
I like Michelle, but some of the allegations she's made are not at all true.
For example, she claimed the executive order on Gardasil was "forcing" 6th graders to receive the vaccine.
There was always on opt-out and in fact, the order had language making it easier for parents to opt their children out of ALL vaccines.
Malkin is coming off as somewhat shrill and disproportionate regarding Perry.
>> Most Americans are put off by the way Perry swaggered into Iowa.
Do you have any proof for that statement?
If not, do you have any evidence for it?
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.