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 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.”
Otherwise, you have to elect a President first, to find out what he’s about.
RE: . I really am tired of “good enough”.
Well in this case, even Ronald Reagan might not be good enough. If you think Perry is soft on illegal immigration consider what Reagan did — HE SIGNED INTO LAW ONE OF THE ALRGEST AMNESTY BILL IN THE 20th CENTURY!
Bill Buckley used to say he wasn’t for the most conservative candidate but the most conservative candidate ELECTABLE.
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.
Everyone knows or should know you aren’t a Perry supporter but at least try to get your facts straight...
The Islam stuff that's been going around is mostly hyperbole and mostly overblown IMO.
Lots of guys have been nominated because they could win. Lincoln was one of them. Illinois was the California of the 1850s. and Douglas was also from that State. Turned out that probably any Republican could have won: Seward, the original front-runner, Chase, or several others. But Lincoln’s electabilty was a big factor.
“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.***[Emphasis added]
That emphasized portion of your statement is factually incorrect. Like Perry or not, agree with his Gardasil decision or not, I don’t care, but at least be accurate. The following link is from an organization that doesn’t much care for Perry or his Exec Order on Gardasil - and they have both a link to a site on the Internet where you can opt out (no judge required) and an address you can send your opt-out notice to (again, no judge required).
FYI, I live in Texas and didn’t/don’t like Perry’s Gardasil order, and I plan to opt out when my 10 y.o. daughter gets near 12 years of age. I don’t like what this decision says about Perry as a public servant, but it truly isn’t mandatory, nor is it so difficult as you say to opt out.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd247.htm
Immigration is my guess...the Dream Act.
Love Malkin...
If we don’t vet our candidates, the left certainly will.
Lots of that going around recently.
The move DID put Perry over the top! over the top (double digits ahead of Romney) in national polls.
Mission Accomplished.
Your post reflects the exact attitude of Tea Party Patriots
You get it.
I am all in for Perry. You may not care, but here’s why. I get him.
http://www.sanangelolive.com/news/opinion/my-take-rick-perry
This following is an excellent, and I believe very balanced, discussion of all of these issues people are raising about my brother Rick Perry:
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/
Your post reflects the exact attitude of Tea Party Patriots everywhere.
You get it.
Because Rick Perry is GOP establishment insurance against Cuda. Ef that.
bttt
It helped Obama greatly for the lib press to ignore his faults...so why wouldn’t it work for conservatives?
On the other hand, he’s light years ahead of Pawlenty, Christie, Romney, Julie-Annie, and Huntsman.
I happen to agree with the above. HOWEVER, let's look more closely at those more conservative than Perry:
Palin: not running, and with every day that passes this is less likely. Further, I have spoken with many, many Republicans who will not vote for her under any circumstances. This perplexes me, as her actions have been consistent with her words (like Reagan), and she would make a very fine President. I, personally, would be enthusiastic about voting for her like no one since Reagan. But I don't think she is running.
Cain: Regrettably, unelectable. He will not even come close to getting the nomination. Too bad, I really like him a LOT, and not a small part of that is his great business experience and his outspoken and unapologetic conservatism.
Ron Paul: Absolutely, completely, totally unelectable for even the nomination. Also, only slightly less likely than Mickey Mouse to win the General Election, and slightly less sane than Mickey. Sorry, Paulites, but I subscribe to the view that...
..."you're all familiar with the broken clock that is right twice a day. ron paul is like a strange broken clock that is right 23 hours a day. then you get to some foreign policy midnight, and instead of chiming, it barks and smears itself with poo." http://www.attackcartoons.com/index.php?page=13
Marco Rubio: Not running this time, no how, no way. Has a great future, and I could easily see myself being enthusistic about voting for him...in 2020, after whoever beats Satan Claus finishes their 2nd term.
So, what are who are we left with to run against Satan Claus? Romney? No f'ing way I'll vote for him. T-paw is out. Christie has pledged up, down and sideways he's not running, and is horribly anti-gun to boot. I won't vote for him, though I wouldn't mind seeing him as head of OMB or Treasury Secretary. Huntsman - puhleeze, he was the only declared Mormon candidate in the race, and came in 2nd among MORMONS! I personally don't care about his religion, but this illustrates that he has no drawing power. Julie Annie ain't running, and never will again.
What we're left with is Perry, unless Palin runs. Bachmann I like, a lot - but I think she comes off as a little bit strange and ditzy (kind of a female GWB) - and that's a damned shame, because I know from personal experience that there's no way you can be good at giving tax advice and be ditzy. I think that she can get the nomination, but may get beaten by Satan Claus.
Perry is, right now, the only candidate who (IMHO) can both win the nomination and beat Satan Claus AND be at least reasonably conservative. The objective is NOT perfection in a candidate (there's no such person who has ever lived, not even Ronaldus Maximus or George Washington), but in WINNING THE 2012 GENERAL ELECTION to turn this country around. NOTHING else matters right now.
Don’t take my hostility to Perry on Gardasil as me being anti-Perry. I don’t like his actions on this issue, his pushing of the TTC and on immigration - but (as mentioned in the 2nd article you posted), he has learned from his mistakes and his mistakes weren’t quite so bad as represented by opponents.
While the Perry is not my first choice among declared candidates (or even undeclared ones like Palin and Rubio), I like him quite a lot and also think that he is the only one who has declared who can win next November - and I will be proud to vote for him in both the primary and general. Not so much as I was with Ronaldus Maximus, but much more so than GHWB and GWB. He will be a better President than GWB by a mile, and probably better than GHWB - IOW, a very fine President.
“While the Perry....”
Uh, “While Perry.”
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.