Michelle Malkin has written an article in the last day or two describing her problem with Rick Perry, which is the same as my problem wiith Rick Perry. The articl econcentrated on the 2007 EXECUTIVE ORDER by Rick Perry, as governor of Texas, reqiring young pre-teen, and maybe teen, girls to show that they had been vaccinated against a form of the HPV virus befoe they would be allowed to enver school .
Perry has NOW said this was a mistake, but he refused to back off at the time. Malkin gets it right. The problem with this autocratic action of Perry, which should remind you of Barack Obama, goes belyond the fact that no ture "Christian right" cvonservative would ever have issued the order. That is true, although mainnly irrelevant. This was not the kind of overwhelming health problem that justified REQUIRING that parents have their young girls vaccinated. Perry never took any such actin about the MUCH more serious HIV problem--action requiring scholls to do something aobut it. Maybe he shold not have, but neither should he have done this. NO true conservative would have done such a thing, and that is Malkin's point (and mine).
Look tat the things wrong with this exceuctive order, which have nothing to do wtih "social issues" and teenage sex (tangentially involved iwith this potentially cancer-causing virus ONLY spread by sex). Perry had no authority to issue the order. He made up the authority. He went around the legislature. It wa a MANDATE on parents, with not COMPELLING pubic purpose. It was oversold, as Perry surrounded himself with cancer victims (like Obama on his health care law) to tout this order. The whole thing was ARROGAN as Hell--as arrogant as Obama at his worst. My pharmaict brother--like me, hardly a devout Christian, although I don't know if he is an agnostic like me--thought it ws the most ridiculous orderr he had ever seeen on "health". I don't do links, but if you want to read Michelle Malkin's article you can find her website. She said it better than I have.
But the part of this that most reminds me of me is Michelle Malkin's appearance on the unfair and unbalanced network to tak about here article. Yu will remember that the unfair and unbalanced netowrk is no longer mentioned by name in this blog, and that you should boycott it. I digress. Anyway, Micelle Malkin presneted her view tat Perry's actions represented a leftist typoe overreaching of executive power, without even mentioning that Perry's actions also showed that he is hardly a "social conservative" (as I have mentioned, AND did so i 2007 when it happened). As I have told you, Perry has NOT been really strong on abortion, illegal immigration or any oterh social conservative issue you want to name. But Malkin did not say any of that. She just stuck with the thee of her article.
It was the unfair and unbalanced network (I was not rally sure wo the person was--a man) who said approximately this: "The United States is faciing fiscal Armageddon. Don't you think we should worry more about that right now--about our economy and jobss--than about thesese social conservative issues that can wait. Perry has a record on jobs. Why is it that important if he is not the kind of social consrvative wo some people want." Michelle Malkin, of course, pointed out that she had said NOTHING about Perry not being a social conservative. She said shee was much more troubled by how much LIKE OBAMA Perry had acted.
What amusted me is that this was almost EXACTLY the smae reaction I got on AOL--although I mentioned both the executive overreaching and social conservative issues--when I criticized Perry over this in 2007. I was told that Perrry was a "moderate" (clearly meaning on social consrvative issues), and that social conservatives had to learn that we could ntot expect voters to vote for cnadiates who took extreme views on socialissues. Voters expected candidates to be pragmatic, and worry more about the REAL problems facing the country. As I said, it was eerily similar to the view put forth by the unfair and unbalanced network to Michelle Malking.
Now I don't thnk this stupid executive order "helps" Rick Perry in any way, shape or form. If it did, he would nt hav admitted it was a mistake. But does it "help" Rick Perrry for people like me to "attack' him for not being a "real" social consrvative? Well, it MAY help him in the general election. It will not help him in the Repubican primaries and caucuses. Further, I am not so sure about the general election Perry went to this 'prayer even", which the left asserts exosed hm as part of the religious right. Not ture. If anything, it only exposed Perry as the opportunist he is. If voters get this impression of Perry, it will NOT help hm in the general electin. By the way, it is funny/sad to hear the left say that a governor should not attend a prayer event, when Obama and the democrats attended similar events inthe 2008 campaign. Obama, of course, continues to priodically try to "prove" he is a Christian, even though Bil Maher and I agree he is not. Doesn't mattter. The idea that a President shold not mention God would have amazed the people who adopted the Declarionof Indepependence, and it would have amazed Abraham Lincon (the varior of our country). Liinoln, after the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, issued a PROCALAMTIONI attributng those victories to GOD. This idea that our Presidents shold stay totally away from religion is absrud-made up by dihonet peple who simy refuse to honestly consider the history of this country.
There is nothing wrong with Perry publicly prayig to God. However, Michelle Malkin (does she spell "Michelle" this way, or the way Michele Bachmann does? Beats me.) and I agree that there is someting wrongwith Rick Perry as a "principled" conservative. Now maybe the "unfair and unbalanced" network is right, and maybe that person on AOL was right. Maybe the Amrican peole just want someone to lead the way on jobs. and they don't care about this other stuff (whether you say it is about "social issues' or about consrvative principles having little to do with social issues). I would like to think the American people want peole of principle, rathr than "politics as usual" politicians.
"But, Skip, you have said that Perry is sounding better". So he is. And he may yet convince me that he is the best of our choices--assuing Michele Bachmann is not able to become "mainstram" enough to get the nomination. I supported Mitt Romney in 2008 because he sSEEMED to have finally undersood conservatiism, even if there was a tinge of opportunism in that "conversion". Perry has never been quite as bad a Romney was (Romeny Care anyone?), and he MAY make the conservative case wll enough for me to support him (unless he allows Republican betrayal on this Obama "jobs" program, where RESULTS are what counts andnnot after-the-fact statements of "opposition").
We will see on Rick Perry in the future. As to the past, Michelle Malkin and I agree.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment