Rules For Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again, by Steve Deace with Forward by David Limbaugh. Purchase Your Copy.

Radio shows

Santorum Takes First Swing at Perry

by Jen Green

Rick Santorum is the first current candidate to “welcome” Texas Governor Rick Perry to the GOP nomination race even though Perry’s expected announcement isn’t until Saturday in South Carolina while Santorum and the rest will be busy in Ames.

Immediately after the niceties of the welcome, though, Santorum took not one but two swipes at Perry. He chastized him for skipping our state, saying “it’s too bad he chose to ignore Iowa” and then wondered out loud “what kind of marriage [Perry] will be ‘fine with’ in South Carolina.” Perry infamously quipped a week ago that he was “fine” with New York legalizing homosexual marriage, saying it was a state’s issue. Under some pressure, he later “clarified” his position and said he is for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to one man-one woman (which would take a ‘yes’ vote from 3/4 of the states).

Either news is really slow (it’s not) or Rick Santorum is picking up a little bit of steam on the campaign trail. The Google alerts are picking up–and he’s making all the right people mad. Folks like the San Francisco Chronicle, Think Progress, On Top Magazine, etc, have been finding some extra time to focus on Santorum’s “politically incorrect” socially conservative statements.

Back in his homestate of Pennsylvania, the Pittsburg Post-Gazette has a “Daily Santorum” article. Yesterday’s column was a thorough examination of Santorum’s recent sit-down with the Des Moines Register. He got “passionate” about a couple of issues–namely health care and drilling for oil. It’s a good read–and it’s good coverage for a man who is hoping to beat expectations in less than a week in Ames.

Discussion

12 Responses to Santorum Takes First Swing at Perry

  1. Henry T. says:

    ttp://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/04/texas-gov-rick-perry-to-host-muslim-sects-spiritual-leader-aga-khan/
    Texas Gov. Rick Perry to host Muslim sect’s spiritual leader Aga Khan

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry plans to host a private dinner followed by fireworks near Austin on Saturday to honor the Aga Khan, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad celebrating his 50th year as the spiritual leader of a Muslim sect.

    Earlier in the day, the leaders are expected to be on hand as the University of Texas signs an agreement with Aga Khan University, which has campuses in Pakistan and other countries, fostering student and teacher exchanges between the institutions.

    Khan, a wealthy, Harvard-educated businessman and philanthropist, leads the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims, an offshoot of the Shiite branch of Islam, claiming 12 million to 16 million believers in 25 countries including tens of thousands in Texas.

    Perry, 58, and Khan, 71, struck up an improbable friendship nearly a decade ago, resulting in a UT program exposing schoolteachers to Muslim beliefs and culture.

    The jet-setting Khan grew up in Kenya and lives in France and owns hundreds of race horses. Perry was born and raised in West Texas before earning a degree at Texas A&M University.

    In 2000, Perry, then lieutenant governor, visited the Aga Khan in Paris during a family trip to Europe.

    Two years later, Perry and the Aga Khan visited during the opening of the Ismaili Jamatkhana and Center built in Sugar Land near Houston and at an Austin dinner hosted by Perry.

    The Aga Khan Development Network subsequently funded the UT program, which has introduced 80 Texas schoolteachers to Muslim history and culture; 15 teachers have toured the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

    In 2006, Perry visited a Pakistan relief center financed by the network. And last year, Perry looked at an unfinished Ismaili center in Dubai that a travel mate described as an architectural and cultural wonder that the Aga Khan is expected to replicate, to a degree, in Houston.

    Eric Bearse, an outside adviser to Perry, said Saturday’s “golden jubilee” event at the Texas Disposal Systems Exotic Game Ranch and Pavilion in Buda is “an opportunity for His Highness to be in the presence of a vibrant Ismaili community in Texas as well as to be with his friend, the governor.”

    Perry and his wife, Anita, will dine with the religious leader at a downtown hotel tonight.

    Shahed Amanullah of Austin, editor-in-chief of altmuslim.com, said the Aga Khan has a solid reputation among Muslims because of his good works, partly through the development network. The network spends $350 million a year on economic, social and cultural projects concentrated in South Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

    “There are a lot of non-Ismaili Muslims around the world who wish they had a leader that is as organized and as visionary,” Amanullah said

    Perry, who is a member of a Methodist church, and the Aga Khan emphasize the need for the Western world to understand Eastern values and vice versa. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Aga Khan said differences between Muslim-dominated countries and the Christian-dominant West don’t reflect the clash of civilizations so much as clashes of ignorance.

    Neither Perry’s office nor members of the Ismaili community said who is paying for Saturday’s invitation-only party nor did they divulge who will attend it. Perry spokesman Robert Black said it would not be financed by the state or from economic development funds.

    About 20,000 to 30,000 people are expected to hear the Aga Khan on Sunday in San Antonio.

  2. Henry T. says:

    Gosh, I am sorry to say it but Christians have NO DISCERNMENT these days.

    All Perry has to do is attend one conference and “he’s their man”.

    All along he is backstabbing us with the Muslims.

  3. Henry T. says:

    http://markamerica.com/2011/07/27/why-rick-perry-isnt-suited-to-be-president/

    I’ve lived in Texas throughout the entirety of the Perry
    administration.  He hasn’t been the most awful governor we might have
    had, but in truth, he’s been mediocre.  It is true to say that Perry
    deserves a little credit for the better economic conditions in the
    state, insofar as he’s done no particular harm.  On the other hand, it’s
    fair to say that part of the reason Perry’s done no particular harm,
    and perhaps the sole reason he hasn’t damaged the economy, is because
    the Texas people, through their legislature, won’t let him.  The
    governor’s real shortcomings are not to be seen so much in the matter of
    economics, but in his unceasing drive to tamper with the freedoms and
    lives of Texans for the sake of his corporate cronies.

    One of the issues in which Perry first ran afoul of conservatives was
    in signing an executive order requiring all sixth-grade girls to
    receive the three-shot series of vaccines known as Gardasil.  The
    vaccine is intended to prevent contraction of Human Papilloma Virus, or
    HPV.  In an effort that was pushed by a group funded by Merck, the whole
    situation took on the stink of official corruption in the name of Big Pharma. 
    The problem is that the drug was of questionable efficacy, but more
    importantly, given the fact that the disease is spread through intimate
    contact, many Texans wanted immediately to know why the governor of
    Texas was assuming all their daughters needed this shot, and how the
    Governor dared to try to push this on them.  This began a minor revolt,
    and the relatively conservative Texas legislature acted to set aside his
    executive order by a vote of 119-21 in the House, and 30-1 in the
    Senate.  In Texas politics, that’s as stunning a rebuke of a governor as
    you’re likely ever to see, but it points out the problem with Rick
    Perry: Business-friendly administrations are what we need for the sake
    of economy, but leaping into bed with business to the detriment of
    voters and tax-payers is to take the notion much too far.  It could be
    said that Perry himself needs a form of inoculation, but  rather than
    HPV, instead against his tendency to leap from one corporate bed to the
    next.

    On to the next question of his poor judgment and his tendency to view
    the people of his state as means to his own ends, Perry was the driving
    political force behind the Trans Texas Corridor
    project.  This ridiculous project proposed creating a system of toll
    roads that would have consumed a portion of the Texas land-mass that
    would have effectively killed agriculture in the state.  Worse, the
    primary contractor, Cintra, a Spanish conglomerate, was to have a virtual monopoly
    on the construction and concessions on what promised to be a closed
    system.  Still more infuriating to the people of Texas was that the deal
    would have mandated that there be no free alternative  competing roads,
    meaning such vital arteries as I-35 and I-45 along with I-10, I-20, and
    I-30 would have been required to become toll roads as well.  This,
    combined with the projected $0.26-$0.40 per mile they intended to charge
    made it an unconscionable bit of corporate predation that would have
    crippled the Texas economy.  These things, together with the expanded
    use of eminent domain by the state on behalf of a corporate contract
    made this project much too bitter a pill for Texans to swallow.  It
    actually spawned an independent gubernatorial campaign by former Texas comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. 
    It generated much ill will between Perry and his conservative voters,
    so that at present, while they think he’s better than a Democrat, the
    difference is only slight, and he should bear just as much attentive
    watching.  Perry hasn’t given up his Trans Texas Corridor plans, but
    they’ve been scaled back and re-named.  Once again, the Governor of
    Texas has shown his willingness to climb into bed with corporate
    masters, and more importantly, just as with the Gardasil issue, former
    staff members seem to be part of a constant recycling through a
    revolving door between his corporate cronies and his own office.  This
    is precisely the sort of governance the country does not need,
    Washington already being thoroughly polluted with such schemes.

    Governor Perry’s appeal to conservatives seems to hinge on his
    Christian values, but the problem is that his proclaimed Christian
    values are in distinct and thorough opposition to some of his actions as
    governor.  At the same time he seeks
    to share the stage at TEA Party events, always ready to throw out more
    red meat for the crowd, but seems much less than sincere in his stance
    by the time he arrives back at his office. 
    This sort of schizophrenic, unprincipled and insincere conservatism is
    already thoroughly represented in DC, and while Mr. Perry would
    certainly feel at home there, the politicos in DC being his kind of
    people, I’m strongly convinced that while he might do well in such a role, it’s not clear that the country would fare any better.

    When you examine his record in its totality, what you find is not
    that Governor Perry has been such a capable steward of the Texas
    economy, but that surprisingly, the Texas Legislature has fulfilled that
    role, bouncing egregious Perry initiatives in a number of cases.  The
    Trans Texas Corridor project would have crippled commerce in this state,
    and contrary to the billing, would have achieved little but to make
    Texas just another link in the NAFTA chain, bypassed by most of the
    commerce, its people tasked with the duty to pay for a system of toll
    roads from which they would see little benefit, but would bring
    substantial costs.

    For these reasons, and a lengthy list of similar problems, I cannot
    recommend the governor of my state, Texas, to the people of America. 
    It’s not so much that he’s presided over an economy of his creation, so
    much as the fact that the people of Texas have managed to succeed in
    spite of him.  Given his embellished relation to the relatively good
    performance of the Texas economy in admittedly hard times, and
    acknowledging that the damage he might have done, had he been unopposed
    by a conservative legislature,  it’s clear that while Rick Perry might
    be good for corporatist Washington, he’s not the right choice for America.

  4. Henry T. says:

    In the midst of a number of conservatives believing Governor Rick Perry, Texas Republican, is the GOP’s answer to taking on President Barack Obama, squishy aspects of Mr. Perry’s background are being overlooked. As a border state governor, Mr. Perry signed state immigration law in 2001 known as the Texas DREAM Act. Here is an excerpt from a speech Governor Perry gave during the border summit in August of 2001:

        “As a compassionate state, we know that for our children to succeed, they must not only be healthy, but educated. The future leaders of our two nations are learning their fractions and their ABC’s in classrooms all along this border. Immigrants from around the world are being taught in Texas classrooms, and our history is rich with examples of new citizens who have made great contributions. We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, “we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.” And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate. Those young minds are a part of a new generation of leaders, the doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.”

  5. Henry T. says:

    There’s also a photo of Perry and ACORN on the web page below!

    http://www.redstate.com/bacyclone/2011/06/20/rick-perry-conservative/

    Well,
    an interesting thing happened in my household last week. As we had the
    TV on in the living room around supper time, Fox News had a blurb about
    how more rumors were swirling regarding a potential Rick Perry for
    President campaign. My wife immediately said something to the effect of,
    “Oh Rick Perry, he is a very bad man.” My wife is not exactly a
    political junkie by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, I was
    surprised she even knew who Rick Perry was, so naturally I asked for
    clarification. My wife immediately relayed to me a story I had never
    heard about: how Rick Perry sought to mandate by executive order young women be immunized against human papillomavirus (HPV).

    For
    those who might not know, HPV is a virus that can lead to several
    cancers, particularly in women. The point of contention is this – the
    virus is essentially a sexually transmitted disease. The chief vaccine –
    Gardasil – can prevent against such infections, but obviously is only
    effective before such an infection occurs. Gardasil is a vaccine, not a
    treatment. Thus, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends Gardasil be administered to young women in adolescence, before the likelihood of any sexual activity.

    The Opt-Out Clause myth

    Naturally, the first response to defend Rick Perry is the “opt-out clause” encased within the executive order.

    Without
    using the obvious comparison to Obamacare “waivers,” let me point out
    that the Governor’s sole vision still puts a mandate upon parents to apply for a waiver to not be immunized. My point remains, parents already had that right and privilege before the Governor’s order. Instead, the Governor changed the status quo to mean a child would be immunized unless you petition the government to stop the train and allow your child to disembark.

    Further, this opt-out clause is not quite as simple as you might imagine. From Politifact:

    The
    order included an opt-out “in order to protect the right of parents to
    be the final authority on their children’s health care.” Perry ordered
    the Department of State Health Services to allow parents dissenting for
    philosophical or religious reasons to request a conscientious objection
    affidavit form. That form, which has been available since 2003, enables
    parents to enroll their children in public school even if they lack
    state-required immunizations. It’s automatically granted as long as
    parents provide all required information.
    According
    to the Department of State Health Service’s 2008-09 immunization
    report, which uses data from kindergarten and seventh-grade students at
    1,300 independent school districts and 800 private schools, 0.28 percent
    of the students filed conscientious objection forms.
    Parents must renew exemption affidavits every two years to maintain their validity, according to Allison Lowery, assistant press officer at the Texas Department of State Health Services.
    We thought the opt-out form for public-school students proved Perry correct until we learned that not all private schools accept the affidavit. That means some private schools may not allow their students to exempt themselves from any state-required vaccinations. Some 15 percent of more than 1 million Texas girls in fifth through 12th grade in 2008 were enrolled in private schools, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
    According
    to a 2006 Texas Attorney General’s opinion: “A private school that does
    not accept state tax funds is not required to accept for enrollment a
    child who has received an exemption from the immunizations required by
    the Texas Health and Safety Code.”
    In its policy for Catholic schools, the Catholic
    Diocese of Austin states: “Immunizations are not in conflict with the
    Catholic faith. Conscientious objections or waivers, which may be
    permissible for enrollment in public schools, do not qualify as an
    exception to this policy.” Catholic schools in the diocese do
    accept medical exemptions, meaning if the immunization could somehow
    harm the child, it’s not required to enroll. [emphasis added]

    To repeat, by the stroke of a pen Governor Perry changed the status quo, that parents must appeal to the government to not have their child immunized against a sexually transmitted disease. In practice, an opt-out provision is much more difficult than it sounds, particularly when scores of service providers (not just in Texas) require compliance with government mandates.

    This is not liberty, this is tyranny.

    The appearance of impropriety

    While I
    was earning an advanced degree in business several years ago, you can
    imagine that “business ethics” was a hot topic in nearly every class
    within my curriculum. The news of the day was Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley.
    One definitional standard that stuck with me when seeking to determine
    ethical versus unethical behavior was the appearance of impropriety.
    In other words, maybe a particular action you are considering is wholly
    above board and completely honest. However, a valid test question could
    be: what will this action look like from the viewpoint of a
    disinterested third-party observer? What would it look like if the
    details were published in a newspaper report? If you can see that an
    action might appear unethical, then at the very least it is best to seek an even higher standard of scrutiny before proceeding. The mere appearance of a lack of ethics can make an honest and upright decision look untoward.

    This standard brings us to the Merck Corporation, manufacturer of the only vaccine on the market at the time (Gardasil) that would satisfy Governor Perry’s executive order.

    As
    part of its lobbying campaign, Merck has been funding Women in
    Government, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group made up of female
    state lawmakers. An executive from Merck’s vaccine division, Deborah
    Alfano, sat on Women in Government’s business council last year, and
    many of the bills across the country have been introduced by members of
    the group.
    Merck
    declined to say how much money it has funneled into its lobbying
    campaign, or contributed to Women in Government. A spokeswoman for Women
    in Government, Tracy Morris, declined to say how much it had received
    from Merck. In Texas, one of Merck’s lobbyists is Gov. Perry’s
    former chief of staff, and Merck’s political action committee
    contributed $6,000 to the governor’s re-election campaign.– The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2007 [emphasis added]

    By
    authoring the mandate via executive order, rather than seeking a full
    public debate and allowing the light of the legislative process to shine
    upon such a government-mandated action – Governor Perry’s objectivity
    comes into question.

    We
    all know that it takes cash to run successful campaigns. We know that
    businesses large and small donate money to candidates in that regard,
    just as do individuals. The mere nature of a political process will
    create associations between politicians and interested parties.  We do
    not need to assume the worst: that this was a quid pro quo,
    a “thanks for the donation” by Perry to Merck. However when presented
    with the sequence of events, it is not exactly a giant leap of faith to
    conclude that Governor Perry’s choice of action in this case was less
    than ethical. At the very minimum, it appears unethical due to the associations between the parties, casual and actual. I submit the Governor should have sought a higher scrutiny
    of his desired outcome, if only to maintain the appearance that his
    actions were not biased by his political donations and associations.

    Liberty versus Tyranny

    What gives me serious pause is Rick Perry’s clear, unforced
    choice that he apparently believes the government knows best regarding a
    child’s vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease. For me, it
    speaks to a troubling vision of government’s relationship with its
    people. While I know there is certainly evidence in Governor Perry’s
    background to counterpoint this example, it does not allay the concern.
    As I have said, the candidate I seek to support would restore the
    Constitutional vision of the relationship of the government to its
    people. Barack Obama, liberals, and statists in both major political parties
    have been shooting holes in the protections of people from their
    government within the Constitution for decades. It will take a spirited
    leader with enormous courage of convictions to do this in today’s
    Washington, D.C. With actions like these and others, I have serious reservations that Rick Perry would be such a person. In fact, I fear that in terms of leading a conservative movement, Rick Perry could be another George W. Bush. That is not a good thing in this case.

    For
    my wife, she plainly states “I will never vote for that man.”  I
    suspect her viewpoint (and conclusion) as a mother and a conservative
    woman is not unique.

    Further, I think the larger point is that for a potential
    candidate like Rick Perry, we cannot casually dismiss the fact that he
    has not been vetted by a national audience. While he may have run
    several successful campaigns for Governor in a very large state, that is
    still not equivalent to the microscope of national politics and
    national voters. If we effort to draft another candidate to the field,
    we do still run the risk (however significant) of drafting a candidate
    we may not “know everything” about. What might have been acceptable at
    one time to voters in Texas might play very differently on a national scene.

    On my scorecard, I have serious reservations about the statist tendencies of several candidates:

    Pawlenty – supported a state cap-trade energy initiative; decidedly not conservative. Apologized, for what that is worth.

    Romney – his behavior regarding state control of medical care is well documented, and seriously troubling.

    Perry
    – I have serious issues distinguishing Rick Perry from the above two
    candidates at face value. Perry’s obvious counterpoint is the relative
    success of the economy in Texas during his leadership. Pawlenty and
    Romney largely lose relative to Perry on this point. Make no mistake;
    this is a terrific trump card for Governor Perry to hold when the
    economy figures to be the chief issue of this Presidential campaign.
    However, does it matter if we restore economic prosperity in America,
    when a President cannot dependably lead from the front on conservative, Constitutional principles?

    The Choice

    Having
    other options, I will not caucus for a candidate who apparently sees no
    issue with government mandating my child be vaccinated against a
    sexually transmitted disease.  In a free republic, this should be a
    decision left to the parents of children, not the government.

  6. Henry T. says:

    I don’t know but Reagan Failed when it came to social issues.

    Now a significant part of that was because we had a Democrat Congress, I understand, but I am so tired of seeing social issues put on the back burner.

    Yeah, the economy is important but I don’t believe we can have a good economy if these social issues aren’t addressed.

    Also we are far further down the road on these Social issues than we were with Reagan.  Our backs are against the cliff. We have no room left to retreat as we did back then.

  7. Danedon1 says:

    Boy, Henry T is really “waxing an elephant” on Perry!  My guess is that he’s being paid to derail him at any cost!  In the interest of full disclosure, Henry T. should say who he is backing!

    Seems if Texas did something good…it was the Legislature that did it.
    If Texas did something bad….it was Perry!

  8. Henry T. says:

    That’s basically it.  It has been the relatively conservative Texas legislature that has been a check on Perry,  That’s why he had to go with an executive order on Gardasil rather then letting it go through the State legislature.

    Now you are going to have to ask yourself do you think the US House of Representative will be the same sort of check on Perry?  Or would it move him to the Left if elected?

  9. Henry T. says:

    Pervez Musharraf called himself a “President” but he really was a dictator who got into office through a military coup.

  10. Henry T. says:

    Rick Perry supported the TARP bailout in 2008.

  11. ash meer says:

    who is getting ‘backstabbed’? the Muslims are as conservative as any Christians, and if anyone wants the government out of their affairs it is the Muslims.

  12. ash meer says:

    I think it has less to do with globalism, than with the large number of Ismaili Muslims in Texas.  They are a well-to-do and educated group, who don’t share the extremist or intolerant views of Jihadi Muslims.