Rick Perry: Not a Principled Conservative (Rush Limbaugh Gets It Wrong, Again)

Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for some 10 years--my governor. I know whereof I speak. Rick Perry is NOT a principled conservative. No, he is not a leftist ideologue opportunist like President Obama, but Perry reminds me very much of Obama. Perry LEADS FROM BEHIND. On everything from illegal immigration to social issues to limited government, Perry has been a opporunist who tests where the wind is blowing before he takes a position.


Yes, I have known for years that Perry would like to be Prfesident of the United States. But he has approached it in his usual cautious way--unlike Obama on this, who very quickly moved toward a national reputation when he decided he had high ambitions, to the point that Obama gave the keynote speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. You can search your memory, and you will find NO such moment for Rick Perry. Perry has made headlines by talking about Texas having a "right" to secede from the Union (supposedly setttled in the Civl War), but Perry has NOT uput himself forward as an eloquent advocate of conservative causes (as Obama put himself forward as an eloquent advocate of liberal causes and "change"). Ask yourself. In the 2008 campaign, did you see Perry making an eloquent speech at the convention, or really distinguuishing himself as an advocate of conservative causes? Nope. You did not. Yes, you have seen Perry (as recently on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News prime time show) put himself forward as an advocate of border security. That is one way you know that Perry wants to be President. But Perry, before his recent reelection for governor, did NOT put himself forward as an Arizonaa-type crusader against illegl immigration. Perry believes that there are too many Hispanic votes in Texas for that (cautious man that he is, with few real principles that I can discern). Perry did NOT crusade against the McCain-Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill in 1006. In fact, Perry does not really crusade for anything--again, because I perceive he does not rally believe in much--until he feels he has jumped on a bandwagon. That is why I was a little surprised that Perry talked about Texas "seceding" from the United States. I surmie that Perry had determined that kind of dramatic gesture would help him meet the threat of Kay Bailey Hutchinson in Texas, but it made him look faintly ridiculous on a national level. No, Perry was not that strong against bailouts and TARP when bailouts were being DEBATED in Congress in 2008 (ture of way too many Repubicans, as is evident from the fact that House Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout bill, only to have the Repubican Party in general fail to give them enough support).


That 2010 race for governor of Teas between Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Perry was a marvel. BOTH ran a NEGATIVE campaign aginst the othre accusng each other of not being a "real', principled conservative. The funny thing is that BOTH were right. Yes, we are talking abut the Repubilcan primary here, as it was obviouis the winner of that primary was going to be governor of Texas. Now Hutchinson (former Senator from Texas) was part of the Washignton establishment, even if you can regard Perry as part of the Texas establishment. Therefore, Hutchinson rightly had no chance of convincing people of Texas she was a committed conservative. Even more than Perry, she was not. That is probably the best thing about Perry. The fact that Hutchinson was willing to take him on indicates that there are elements of the Repubican establishment who regard Perry with disfavor. Therefore, if Perry allies himself with conservatives, he MIGHT "stay bught". It is not like he owes the national Republican establishment anything.


Although I have always had the impression that Perry is an intellectual lightweight, with few real principles, he has been a decent governor of Texas. That is partly because the governor of Texas has little real power and influence, and the Texas legislature is not going to do anything real stupid (like impose unions or an income tax--not to say that many fees and taxes have not been raised unde Perry, but Texas still remains a low tax state without an intrusive government). Texas has done well in the recession. While I would not give Perry that much credit for that, he has not rocked the bboat. As I say, Perry has been a decent governor, if not an eloquent advocate of conservative causes.


Problem: George W. Bush was also a decent governor of Texas--pretty much in the Perry mold, or rather the other way around. Perry was lieutenant governor under Bush, and has pretty much folowed in Bush's footsteps. Yes, I said that Bush was NOT a conservative when he ran for President (although I voted for him twic--back before I decided that voting for the "lesser evil" can be a fool's game). Bush, himself, did not claim to be a conservative, although Perry may. From observation of them both, however, I hink Bush was MORE of a social conservative than Perry, although hardly willing to fight very hard for those issues. We know how weak Bush was on illegal immigration, and you delude yourself if you believe Perry is not similarly weak. Yes, if you want to be kind, you can saay that Perry has been awakened to the problem of our Mexican border by the CARNAGE along the Mexican border (mainly in Mexico, but bullets have flown in El Paso from funfights in Mexico). However, as John McCain has shown, taking about "border security" does NOT make you an advocate of enforcing our immigration laws. The best I can say about Perry is that he has to appreciate the Mexican border problem, and the problem of Mexico, better than President Obama.


No, as usual (foresight being my specialty) this is NOT a new topic for me (the topic of Rick Perry not being a princiipled conservative). I have written previous articles about it. In fact, before the Obama Presidency, I wrote an article (I think of Newsvie) about the Perry EXECUTIVE ORDER (exceeding his authority) that schools require all young (junior high and above) girls in Teax to be vaccinated for the HPV virus (a sexaully trasmiitted disease where a particular form of the virus is known to create a risk of cancer). I mentioned the other ways in which Perry was not a conservative. I maintained then, and maintain now, that a governor who would REQUIRE parents to bget young girls vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease cannot be a conservative. My pharmacist brother (pharmacist in Texas) agrees with me that Perry's order was ridiculous. As far as I know, it did not stand. The point here is that I got a COMMENT to that previous article telling me that I was wrong to expect Perry to be a committed conservative, instead of a "pragmatist" interested in "solving problems" without being bound by right wing ideology. I believed then, and believe now, that Perry IS a "pragmatist"--interested mainly in Perry and leading from behind. Incidents like that vaccination order indicate to me that Perry is tone deaf to real conservative principles, which can get him in trouble when you least expect it. In other words, I believe that Perry is perfectly willing to throw conservatives under the bus, just like Gingrich, if he feels it will advance him.


This brings us to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh gave a boost, a week or so ago, to the Perry "boomlet" by essentially referring to Perry as the knight on a white horse about to come in and "save" both the conservative cause and the country from Barack Obama AND the Republican establishment. I have been unhappy before with Limbaugh's failure to use his obvious influence in a positive way in the Reppublican Party (of which I do NOT regard myself as a member)). In December of 2008, I TOLD Limbaugh (in this blog, with a copy to him--no, I did not expect him to pay any attentioin) that it was NECESSARY for consrevatives to get behind Mitt Romney as the only 2008 real contender to be willing to carry the conservative banner. No, I don't trust Romney either, but he was the man talking like a conservative, despite his own record of opportunish, and conservatives needed to get behind him (may still happen this time again, although I see no reason to support Romney so early). I still BLAME RUSH--correctly--for McCain's nomination in 2008. After Rush gave his Oscare winning performance of Hamlet--"I have no intention of trying to pick a nominee, or tell you how to vote"--for month after month. And after Rush's lead was followed by Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts. We got McCain, because Rush came out for Romeny TOO LATE--as I had TOLD you, and him, in foresight. Rush has an obligation , if he truly regards himself as more than an entertainer, to see things as they are, and not as he might like them to be. Yes, and I think he has an obligation to ACT in a timely manner. He FAILED in 2008 as badly as a conservative can fail. He may be making the same mistake--or maybe you can regard it as the opposite mistake--here in the 2012 race. You can trust me on this. Rick Perry is NOT the Second Coming of Reagan, or any kind of savior for conservatives. He is NOT going to really be able to take it to Obama verbally.


Well. Does that mean I would never vote for Perry? I don't expect to vote for him for the Republican nomination (assuming he runs). I would probably vote for Perry against Obama because I believe Perry is going to position himself as a conservative. And Texas shows that Perry will not rock the boat. That means he is unlikely to LEAD, but wil likely follow the conservative lead with a Republican Congress. Dangerous, but Perry may end up being the most reasonable candiate against Obama. Yes, I am leaving open thee option of even supporting Perry for the nomination, although I wll be extrememly reluctant to do so. As of now, Romney would still be my choic over Perry. And that is not to mention people who I really LIKE, such as Michelle Bockmn, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, but who I thik are longshots to develop public support. And yes, I do like Sarah Palin, and would support her, although I believe she should not run THIS TIME. You can see Perry is WAY down the list, but the situation is fluid. Perry is enough out of the Repubican establishment that I do not reject the idea of supporting him, even though I know he is not a principled conservative. At heart, Perry is an establishment Repubican, but they may well reject him (and partially have). If establishment Repubicans were to embrace Perry, then I would get real worried. Yes, Perry also has a better RECORD to run on than Obama, because Perry has been fortunate enough to be Texas governor and not rock the boat.


Yes, this article is being written because the despicable AP, and rest of the mainstream media, are finally getting around to saying that Perry is a potential candidate for President (helped by Perry's sudden encouragement of this possibility). The AP story this weekend said something like: "After months of resisting calls for him to get in the race, Perry seems to be considering it.". The AP, of course, is INCOMPETNET. Perry has always "considered it". And perry--I assure you--has NOT been "resisting" "calls" for him to get in the race. Until Limbaugh's comment, I would have said there were not such "calls". Limbaugh opened my eyes to a movement out there to get Perry into the race, but I assure you that the ONLY reason Perry might have been "resisting" is doubt over whehter it is really the right move for him. Perry has been positioning himself for a Presidential race for years, but has never been able to gnerate much enthusiasm. He may misread Limbaugh as showing that people will be enthusiastic about him. If so, I believe both Perrry and Limbaugh are deluding themselves. Yes, Perry might be Preisdent. But he is going to have to show me a very different Pery if he expects to generate real enthusiasm, and be a real leader.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And yes, my 89 year old mother (who ATTACKED me for saying she was 89, when she will not be that age until July 13)--the one who realizes Obama and the Democrats are ut to kill her, as stated in a previous article this week--isdubious about Perry. My mother has been in Texas just as long as I have, and has sseen Perry's failure of leadership on things like illegal immigration. Again, I did not have to prompt here. She knew. Limbaugh should worry some when my 89 year old mother, who is developing memory prlbems and is on 24 hour oxygen, is more clear thingking than he is. Perry may be a wrothy addition tothe Repubican field, if ony to contrast Texas to liberal states, but he is hardly an Obama-like Messiah ready to lead conservatives to the Promised Land (at least, not without a major transformation Perry has not yet shown he can accomplish).