Michelle Malkin – Plumbing Perry’s Objective Record

Couple of things before I start citing the article to which the title refers:

1) I have no problem with taking a candidate’s religious views and practices into account. In fact, I always do try to discern the veracity of the stated views that their actual practices expose. But I tend to do that privately, as my personal religious views and/or biases will always win out in reaching conclusions about a candidate over what others’ takes mean to them based on their own views/biases. So this post is not going to be about Perry’s religious or morality views, but rather his objective record of governance as Governor of Texas for the last decade or so.

2) I have one problem with Malkin’s repeated use of the words “Tea Party” in this article. As I read it, every time it was used it should have been substituted with the word “conservative” or some synonymous derivative thereof. She is describing what any conservative should expect/demand from someone running on a conservative platform, and I personally see the Tea Party as nothing more than the collective memory of what the Republican Party’s platform always was up until GHW Bush, on through to W Bush and many, if not most, of today’s Republican candidates/office-holders. Perry, as well as all the rest, should be evaluated on their adherence (or lack thereof) to traditional, constitutional conservative values, not just on what the Tea Party espouses.

So, with those caveats, here we go:

Yesterday, the Washington Post asked me to comment on conservative concerns about Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry’s records.

Here is what I told them in full:

“The Gardasil debacle is just one of many concerns a wide range of grass-roots conservative activists have about Perry’s record as governor. He’s soft on illegal immigration despite a few recent nods to border enforcement. He’s prone to crony capitalism. And as the vaccine mandate scandal shows, he demonstrated Nanny State tendencies that are anathema to Tea Party core principles.

A clearer, more forthright apology about the Gardasil executive order would have helped. But in the end, I don’t think there’s anything he can do to ‘fix’ his political/ideological instincts. They are what they are.

The reaction to my criticism of Perry’s Gardasil mandate is mixed. Yeah, I’ve gotten heat for not falling in line with the latest GOP bandwagon. Many Perry backers will accuse detractors of being single-issue purists making mountains out of molehills. Some Texan readers will defend him to the death out of parochial loyalty. The majority of responses have been positive, though. If we demand that Obama answer for the glaring discrepancies between his rhetoric and his record, we must do the same for our candidates.

The important thing is that we’re having the debate. It’s healthy. It’s necessary. It’s why we have primary battles for the GOP nomination and not coronations.”

Michelle and I are simpatico here. I am not a registered Republican, so I guess it stands to reason that I would refuse to get on board with any GOP “bandwagon,” but Michelle Malkin is indeed a Republican, and I appreciate the standard to which she is attempting to hold all voters who will likely vote Republican in primaries and the General, regardless of party affiliation. As previously mentioned, “Tea Party” should have been substituted with “conservative,” but the message should be the same for anyone trying to scrutinize Perry’s record, even if they don’t consider themselves part of the Tea Party.

Here is the article in the Post, which concludes:

“Perry’s campaign is brushing off the criticism, saying there’s nothing in his record that a conservative wouldn’t love.

“The governor has a conservative track record on fiscal issues, on social issues and on the border,” said spokesman Mark Miner. On the HPV vaccine, Miner, said, “this is a life issue and he erred on the side of life.”

But on this issue — and others — Perry is only likely to get more scrutiny, not less.”

Once again, the Perry campaign proves my point about the non-walkback-walkback. If Perry “erred on the side of life,” what his campaign continues to suggest is that those who opposed his Gardasil mandate from the beginning chose death. Instead of renouncing the human shield demagoguery he engaged it after the repeal, the Perry campaign has doubled-down.

There is nothing — nothing — Tea Party about this.

Nothing conservative about it either, and that’s the point. If you don’t know about the Gardasil controversy, please follow the link above or Google it and read up on it. Forced vaccinations by the state, whether federal or state-level, should scare the crap out of all of us. I realize Perry isn’t the first to implement such things, nor will he likely be the last, but I can’t see any argument that supports the contention that forcing a given medical treatment on kids against what their parents believe is in their best interest is in any way an “error” that any “conservative wouldn’t love.”

It is no surprise — given the Merck ties — that Perry is a consummate practitioner of corporate welfare “public-private partnerships.” Tim Carney, who wrote the book on Obama’s crony capitalism, dissects Perry’s big government-big business collusion in the Examiner today. As with the Gardasil mandate, Perry exercised his habit of overriding the deliberative process, exercising unilateral executive authority, and benefiting donors and cronies.

She cites quotes in the article supporting the above contention, which you can check those or follow the links above to, and which I will leave out here for brevity’s sake, but which, again, Michelle and I are simpatico on.

The Wall Street Journal earlier scrutinized Perry’s crony capitalism here.

Then there’s Perry’s troubling erosion of private property rights via the Trans Texas Corridor.

Michelle goes on from there to link to articles of hers decrying “big government public-private partnerships” by Obama and GW Bush, claiming what I agree is the consistency high-ground in her cross-party government analysis over the years.

Jennifer Rubin explains to knee-jerk Perry supporters why all of this matters — and why the vetting of Perry and every other announced candidate is imperative:

“The downfall of the Republican majority in Congress in 2006 was the perception that conservatives had gone to Washington and become ensnared by lobbyists, donors and special interests who used the federal government and taxpayers’ money as a piggy bank. Republicans should examine candidates’ records and see not only if they have successfully created jobs but how they have done so, what the appropriate model is for the relationship between government and the private sector and whether that model is one we should adopt in Washington.”

Has anyone noticed that, in the journalistic realm anyway, most of the steely-spined conservatives are women these days? I mean, yeah, there are exceptions, but many of the Tea Party notables are women and many of the most committed and deeply-convicted conservative bloggers are women. I’m not sure whether it’s refreshing or embarrassing considering I’m a man, but it sure does seem rather undeniable in any case.

Anyway, back to Malkin:

How are Perry defenders responding to criticism?

This is typical:

Richard Rekieta
Richard.Rekieta@cityofhouston.net to malkinblog

10:54 AM

Michelle,

I am a fan of yours, but your hack job on Governor Perry was not necessary. Why are we dumping on our own? If you cannot say anything good about a Republican, shut the hell up. There are plenty of Dems around to trash our side. Overall, Governor Perry is the best we got.

Thanks,
RAR

Ugh. Maybe those reports on the death of the Tea Party movement aren’t so premature after all.

Someone give me hope out there, please.

And no, I will not shut the hell up.

I wish she would have couched it as the “death of the conservative movement” rather than the Tea Party, but other than that I say, you go girl.

She concludes with:

More on Perry and our favorite Latino supremacists at La Raza.

From the American Thinker, Perry’s problematic jihadi-friendly pals.

On the plus side, he’s saying the right things about global warming junk science. That’s an improvement over the climate change Republicans and GOP enviro-nitwits from the last presidential campaign season.

For my own self, I am not posting this to pick on Rick Perry. I have major problems with all of the so-called conservative candidates. I do have a particular problem with Perry filing to run one day after avoiding a major debate, and the next day being the front-runner by double-digit poll points though. That fact alone seems to expose a rather disturbing dearth of thoughtful analysis of the candidates by voters. Of course, that dearth may or may not be manipulated by the polling agency in the way they conduct or weight their polls, but even if that is so, are “our” voters so easily manipulated, and if so, does that say anything more positive about them than what an almost complete lack of investigation of Perry’s record would say if the polls are accurate?

Always question them, always scrutinize their records. Anything less makes us, as voters, the problem, not them as the entitled power-hungry overlords that they all see themselves as in the deepest, darkest recesses of their psyche.

CC

Comments are closed.

  1. Mook

    Speaking as a Texan, Michelle Malkin’s criticisms are pretty much dead on. I’d add that Perry has not been the fiscal hawk that he’s pretending to be. Texas has been in a budgetary crisis for the last few legislatures using lots of smoke and mirror budgeting to get by. He has not, to my knowledge, done anything to address the out-of-control state employee pension benefits which enable state employees to retire in their early 50’s, as my neighbor did last year, with 80% of their highest-earning years starting payment the day they retire. Unsustainable.. yet Perry hasn’t tackled this problem

    To his credit, Perry did recently take on the Education bureaucracy by cutting Education budget over strong opposition and that move was encouraging. Here in Houston, you’d be hard pressed to find a HISD principal making under $100k/year, not including lavish pension benefits.. But they cut books and teachers before touching pensions or bloated salaries.

    Perry also has had in the past an Obama-like penchant for public-private partnerships and govt. “investment” that is disturbing – See Emerging Technology fund and the Texas Enterprise fund as examples.

    On immigration, Perry has been a poseur, talking tough doing shit like sending National Guard to the border for show while they sit around doing squat, while opposing or watering down legislation which would limit the influx of illegal aliens. Perry used to brag about using taxpayer funded subsidies to give in-state university tuition to illegal aliens, and as I recall he called Tancredo a “bigot” for his stand against open borders. I’d want to hear Perry spell out exactly what he plans as President regarding amnesty and crackdowns on illegals, because as Gov. he hasn’t done much.

    Having said that, Perry has his finger in the wind and he appears to bought to the conservative side for now. He’s no core conservative, but he will take balls-y action, as he did in TX with tort reform. I guess you could say that Perry is, like most of the other candidates, a mixed bag. I would support Sarah over Perry in a heartbeat, but I think Perry would make a semi-decent conservative President.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Hal_10000

    As a former Texan, I agree with much of what Mook said. Perry’s record is mixed and I’m not sold on him. But his footsie with the religious right is unnerving.

    I’d glad to see us vetting these guys before the election though. Might have saved us a lot of hearteache if we’d done it in 2000.

    Thumb up 0

  3. CzarChasm *

    Thanks for the reply Mook. I wasn’t sure if we had any Texans amongst us or not.

    I’d be interested to hear your impressions of the “Trans Texas Corridor” referred to in Malkin’s piece, though I have always heard that it’s more like a Trans North American Corridor type of proposal. Isn’t its basic goal to open up major trade arteries between Mexico, the US and Canada? Maybe I’m confusing it with something else, but the concerns I’ve heard expressed obviously revolve around opening the southern border even wider than it already is. I could imagine that Texas could be positively economically affected by such a trade agreement, but is that enough for Texans to support it generally speaking?

    I guess you could say that Perry is, like most of the other candidates, a mixed bag.

    I used the word “most” in my OP too. Upon reflection, I realized that was a mistake. All of the other candidates are a mixed bag for me.

    I would support Sarah over Perry in a heartbeat, but I think Perry would make a semi-decent conservative President.

    I could see myself supporting Palin with very little compromising with myself, going just by what we know of her now. It wouldn’t surprise me if either the campaign or the opposition research revealed more reasons to have to compromise to continue that support, but we don’t even know if she’s getting in at this point yet. I’ll keep as much compromising with myself as possible in reserve for only those that I actually know I’ll have a chance to vote for or against.

    Other than that, in the last quote, I probably would have placed the hyphen a little differently than you did Mook. I would be more inclined to say, “I would support Sarah over Perry in a heartbeat, but I think Perry would make a decent semi-conservative President.” Not a big difference I don’t guess, just something I thought of when I read it.

    Interesting reply though. Thanks for it.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  4. drunkkus

    I’d glad to see us vetting these guys before the election though. Might have saved us a lot of hearteache if we’d done it in 2000.

    Uhhhh, shouldn’t that be 2008? Around here during that election, I remember a lot of talk of McCain being beholden to the “fundies” (which is beyond ridiculous), an overly dramatic amount of PDS, and even some Obama cock-sucking.

    This isn’t meant necessarily as support for Rick Perry, but Ronald Reagan isn’t running this time. He hasn’t ran for president since 1984. It’s a shame that we haven’t had anyone even close to it, but you may not get the perfect candidate every time. Of course, that’s not to say that Rick Perry is anywhere even close to perfect.

    I remember asking here around the last PE why, if some of you were at Wal-Mart to buy a pair of red boxer shorts and they were out of them, would you go home with the purple thong as opposed to the blue boxer shorts. It’s like a fucking broken record around here. “OH SHIT! GO HIDE! IT’S THE FUNDIES (or religious right or whatever else they’re called around here)! THEY’RE GONNA GET US IF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ASKS FOR THEIR VOTE TOO! ANY PRESIDENT WHO GETS THE FUNDIE VOTE WILL TURN US INTO A CHRISTIAN VERSION OF THE TALIBAN! JEEEESUUUSSS CHRISSSS!”

    Was Obama’s only (God willing) term as president not enough for all of us to learn? I say, let’s get the gun-grabbing, wealth confiscating, redistributing, Keynesian socialist out of office. Then worry about the fundies for Christ’s sakes. George Bush was bad, but Obama’s presidency is probably the worst mistake Americans have collectively made. EVER.

    ANYBODY BUT OBAMA should be EVERYONE’S goal for the outcome in 2012.

    Thumb up 1

  5. Mook

    I’d be interested to hear your impressions of the “Trans Texas Corridor” referred to in Malkin’s piece

    It was a proposed tollway to link major cities in TX. Perry and some of his political supporters got some big political contributions from potential contractors which was a bit unseemly at the time.. but the project never went forward because voters rebelled in a big way. Perry wanted to use emanent domain to seize a bunch of land which was unpopular. There was a big controversy over landowner water rights involved with this project as I recall.

    Once Perry saw that the people’s opposition to the TTC project had galvanized, he had the sense to back away from it.. unlike Obama/Pelosi ramming an unpopular Obamacare bill down our throats.

    Thumb up 1

  6. CzarChasm *

    Couple of things drunkkus:

    There is a current thread that is specifically about Perry’s religious views and/or stances on moral issues. I specifically avoided that subject in the OP, even though I feel much the same way you do, that all the Christian bashing by so-called conservatives gets old to me too. It was my frustration with that circumstance that led me to try to keep it out of this post and simply discuss his record as a governor. It’s not a huge deal, just thought I’d explain why I made a point of it.

    Now, as to your view that the upcoming election be all about anyone but Obama, I can’t honestly see why it matters all that much at this point. The Republicrats ran in ’10 promising to never surrender on ObamaCare and to keep hammering the repeal effort until they got it done. When was the last time you heard one of them even mention a repeal effort? And if you did hear someone mention it, is there a bill on the House Floor awaiting a vote? Would Boehner even allow one to go to a vote knowing the Senate will shoot it down? What if Republicrats don’t retake the Senate? Will there never be another serious repeal effort until they hold all of Congress and the White House? If the answer to that last question is the resounding “No!” that I suspect it is, then how on Earth can it matter whether Republicans hold the reins of power or not? It certainly doesn’t speak to their commitment or tenacity, now does it?

    Point is, the only difference between most of the Republicrats and Democracans is their rhetoric, and the only reason there’s a difference there is for public consumption, to keep the facade of there even being a difference alive. There is no difference. They’re all globalists, collectivists and anything but constitutionalists, and a “win” for one party is a “win” for all of them, while a win for any of them is a loss for the Constitution and/or a loss for individual freedom. Would John McCain have furthered the causes of liberty? Will Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Romney? Bachmann with her vote to extend the Patriot Act? Ron Paul does pretty good in a lot of areas, but has recently fallen in line with the open-borders crowd. Does that sound like a good conservative move that will serve to protect citizens’ rights and American sovereignty?

    See, I honestly believe that it will turn out just as you say, that no matter who the nominee is, Republicrats will vote for them. Hell, I might even do it too, though I’m leaning more and more towards just checking out of the system to whatever extent I can altogether. The system doesn’t serve me, and hasn’t for decades. Not sure what I accomplish by continuing to pretend that I “have a say” in how this country is run.

    I say, let’s get the gun-grabbing,

    From my cold, dead hands….

    wealth confiscating,

    You mean repeal the 16th Amendment? All for it over here, but Obama had nothing to do with getting it passed, nor with making the IRS the Gestapo it has become. Can’t get rid of the wealth confiscators without getting rid of the system which allows them to operate with impunity. Let’s at least be realistic, even we do hate Obama and everything he stands for. He’s just one among many of the operators of the system that has you so worked up.

    redistributing, Keynesian socialist out of office.

    See above.

    Then worry about the fundies for Christ’s sakes.

    While I am not one, I have no reason on Earth to worry about “fundies” at any time. I believe so strongly in the Constitution and the prudence of following it to the letter, that I leave other people’s religious views and practices to them to worship (or not) just as they please. They neither scare me nor influence my thinking on any subject simply by virtue of citing their religious views as the rationale for their political stances. They are free to base those stances on whatever criteria they choose, just as all the rest of us are. I have no idea why the ones here who bash them regularly feel the need to do so. No Christian has ever hurt me, so no matter who’s in office I won’t be “worrying” about the “fundies” for even a second.

    George Bush was bad, but Obama’s presidency is probably the worst mistake Americans have collectively made. EVER.

    Obama was a big mistake, no doubt, but I personally think the Constitution took its biggest hit during Woodrow Wilson’s term in office, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, and the 16th and 17th Amendments. After those things happened, it was predetermined destiny that someone like Obama would come along and finish the job that Wilson started; the total transformation of a once-great nation, stifling freedom in his wake and instituting a one-world government bent on enslaving the planet’s population. We forgot to pay attention to whoever said that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, and we’re just doing what Rome and every other free society in the annals of history have done; repeating it.

    None of the “anybodys” you pine for will matter a wit drunkkus. The die is cast. This country is already brain dead. We’re just arguing over which globalist is going to pull the plug.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  7. drunkkus

    CzarChasm,

    I mentioned the religious thing because Hal said “But his footsie with the religious right is unnerving.” That’s the same type of shit that was being said around here leading up to the 2008 PE about John McCain for fuck’s sake. There was plenty to hate about him, but it always came down to, “He can’t be trusted because he met with James Dobson one time!” Even if John McCain is some kind of closet fundie, in the same vein as you were mentioning about the healthcare law, I’ve yet to see John McCain ever attempt to introduce any legislation to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. The last time I checked, Texas hasn’t become a Christian theocracy during the Perry administration.

    It’s also interesting that you say all the Republicans only pay lip service to conservatives and that they’re only different from Democrats in rhetoric. I think you’re right to some extent in that hyperboIe is part of PE’s. Even the liberals who run make campaign promises they do not intend to keep. However, if you were 100% right about it, I don’t understand why so many seemingly very bright people around here who understand that for the most part they, as conservatives, are only getting lip service from Republicans, think that the “fundies” are getting anything other than lip service, if Republicans are really closet nanny-state socialists who generally want government to be the only religion.

    I have to disagree that the only difference is rhetoric. Even though John McCain is FAR from conservative, do you honestly think we’d be in the same place today if McCain had been elected in 2008? Do you think we’ll get closer to where conservatives want to be if we re-elect Obama instead of electing any of the Republican candidates in 2012? A yes to either sounds pretty preposterous to me.

    As the saying goes, Rome wasn’t built in a day. The US is not going to become the libertarian conservative utopia that it started as overnight or even during one term. It took a few anti-British separatists years to convince the founding fathers (who sood to gain the most) to declare independence, and the Revolutionary War likely still started before a majority of the colonists were convinced. It has taken the federalists/big-government assholes hundreds of years to get us where we are right now. The big-government people have been chipping away since the beginning, starting with Alexander Hamilton. Nanny-state “progressives” have been around since at least Teddy Roosevelt. And yes, the confiscatory bullshit started with or was greatly expanded by Wilson. Outright collectivists have been around trying for a government-run healthcare system since at least FDR.

    The point is that I think conservatives should be taking a page from the liberal playbook. Incrementalism works. Get what you can when you can. Don’t expect the conservative Alexander the Great to be one of the choices in every election. It may just be me, but if it’s a choice between voting for someone who I mostly agree with and contributing to the election of someone I completely disagree with, I’d rather have someone I just mostly disagree with. My life may be short, and I get tempted to stand my ground and vote for the hell-bound snowball I agree with the most, but I hope the US lasts at least as long as I live, and stopping the collectivists has to start somewhere. Do it for the children!

    Thumb up 0

  8. CzarChasm *

    I have to disagree that the only difference is rhetoric.

    Which is your basic human right, and which I would never begrudge you.

    Even though John McCain is FAR from conservative, do you honestly think we’d be in the same place today if McCain had been elected in 2008?

    Maybe not “today,” but eventually, yes indeed.

    Do you think we’ll get closer to where conservatives want to be if we re-elect Obama instead of electing any of the Republican candidates in 2012?

    Well, surely you don’t think my previous post was intended to advocate for reelecting Obama, do you? Whatever, the point was that the best we can hope for with elections these days is to affect the speed at which our Constitution is completely destroyed, because it seems rather inarguable to me that it is already mostly destroyed. Sure, Bachmann/Palin/Cain/Romney/Perry may slow down the arrival of the final usurpation, but no one person is capable of reversing the direction. I take my opinion on this score directly from Thomas Jefferson:

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country” Thomas Jefferson, 1791

    A little more than 100 years later, Wilson and the progressive globalists of the day flouted Jefferson’s warning and codified a fiat monetary system into law, locking the Constitution on a course of total destruction.

    As I said, the country is already brain dead. We’re just arguing over who is going to pull the plug. Only one candidate in my lifetime (in my late 50s) has ever even talked about ending the Federal Reserve, thus actually doing something that can reverse the destruction, and he is routinely dismissed as a “crazy old uncle” or worse. Of course, I’m referring to Ron Paul, whom I do have legitimate issue problems with, but whom I do not dismiss out of hand just because he sees some issues differently than I do. But whatever, as Jefferson warned, a fiat monetary system will surely ruin this country, and it’s doing just that, and none of the other candidates even have that system on their radar as a problem that needs to be addressed, much less solved.

    So, bottom line, until someone who is both electable and has the cajones to stand up against the fiat monetary system, I don’t think it matters whether Obama or a Republicrat is elected. True constitutional conservatives will never, and can never, be “where they want to be” with that system in place, as that system is anathema to the Constitution, individual liberty and national sovereignty.

    A yes to either sounds pretty preposterous to me.

    So be it.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  9. drunkkus

    Well, surely you don’t think my previous post was intended to advocate for reelecting Obama, do you?

    Oh, no. I understand without doubt that the point wasn’t to advocate for reelecting Obama. I wasn’t picking at you in particular. I’ve been lurking and occasionally commenting at this blog since it’s beginning. Leading up to the last PE, the authors here had a problem with every electable semi-conservative candidate because they weren’t perfect. I thought it was a mistake to vote for the hell-bound snowball on principle then (or stay home, as a lot of people did) just the same as I think it will be a mistake in this election. I’m less concerned with intention as I am outcome. Another four years of Obama is four more years of moving in the wrong direction for this country. A protest vote against McCain for any other candidate was a vote for Obama in 2008, IMHO, and I think it may be the same way in the upcoming PE.

    Whatever, the point was that the best we can hope for with elections these days is to affect the speed at which our Constitution is completely destroyed, because it seems rather inarguable to me that it is already mostly destroyed. Sure, Bachmann/Palin/Cain/Romney/Perry may slow down the arrival of the final usurpation, but no one person is capable of reversing the direction.

    First thing, if no one person is capable of reversing the direction, wouldn’t we at least be better slowing it down, and wouldn’t that mean that even if Ron Paul was elected, that he would be useless to us?

    The fact that no one person can reverse the direction is precisely why I think conservatives are making a grave mistake by not thinking more than two or four years ahead. It’s that short-sighted thinking that has allowed the federalists, who have clasically thought about their goals in the long-term, to kick the shit out of us in the 20th Century, laying the foundation for enslaving us in the 21st Century. I’m in my late 20’s. I can’t afford to vote on principle anymore. I may not be able to make it through any more Obama-type mistakes without being enslaved by the government. I have to be able to survive long enough to see my days numbered to start voting for the proverbial hell-bound snowball. Another term of Obama and then a Biden with the current makeup of Congress, which is not even slowing down the destruction of my country, may not allow for this.

    So, bottom line, until someone who is both electable and has the cajones to stand up against the fiat monetary system, I don’t think it matters whether Obama or a Republicrat is elected. True constitutional conservatives will never, and can never, be “where they want to be” with that system in place, as that system is anathema to the Constitution, individual liberty and national sovereignty.

    Once again, baby steps. We have two choices for affecting the system. I think the best hope is to take the system back incrementally. I think it’s entirely possible to work forward a little at a time towards the individual liberty and state sovereignty Thomas Jefferson enjoyed on June 21, 1788. After all, it has worked slowly but well for the big government people in reverse so far (reverse because it’s moving us back towards the Medieval European feudal system). We have to put on the brakes and stop then go to neutral before we put the US back in a forward gear towards liberty and the individual right to property. That’s not going to happen as long as conservatives can’t think past the next presidential or Congressional term, much less their next decade or their own lifetime. We’re going to have to start somewhere.

    The other option is either type of revolution. I’d be all for grabbing my squirrel gun or my deer rifle and marching on Washington if you were, but that option is useless on account of we’d be pretty lonely and would end up in an American gulag somewhere. Peaceful revolution, which is basically what I’m advocating above, while definitely possible, would take a relatively large group of leaders capable of affecting a tremendous amount of positive change over a long period of time. I don’t think that group is going to be formed overnight. It won’t be formed by electing a single revolutionary (Ron Paul?) and calling it quits. It won’t be formed by sitting out and not exercising our right to vote because the electable less-liberal candidates aren’t perfect. It sure as hell won’t be formed by throwing away our vote on someone unelectable and effectively reelecting Obama. We’re even going to have to outnumber Stuart Smalley, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other liberal turds in Congress, too, and that’s going to take some time. We can get there, but I think we’re going to have start with electable semi-conservatives.

    Thumb up 0