Rumored Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he’s “fine” with New York’s recent passage of gay marriage — because he supports states’ rights.
Speaking at an Aspen, Colo. forum Friday, Perry called himself an “unapologetic social conservative” who personally opposes gay marriage, but is also a firm believer in the 10th Amendment, the Associated Press reported.
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” Perry said. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
Perry really is trying to grab the “Zombie Reagan” mantle with a dual appeal to libertarians and social conservatives. Threading this needle is a lot harder today than it was three decades ago, when social conservatives were just glad to finally have a place at the table in the party of Nixon, Ford, and Bush, and when Reagan’s Western cultural cues reassured libertarians that he was, at heart, one of them, despite his attempts to usher so-cons into the fold.
Today, Reaganesque cultural cues don’t really exist anymore, as the West Coast has become the Left Coast, making the Goldwater/Laxalt model a thing of the past. That makes it harder for Republican politicians to appeal to libertarians on a dog-whistle, wink-and-nod level, which in turn makes libertarians suspect whenever someone like Perry comes along and aggressively courts the Social Right. But Perry may be taking the one tack that remains for a Republican candidate to win both groups, and that is the tack of federalism. Perry can market himself as a social conservative’s social conservative and libertarians won’t give a whit as long as all of those issues are, to Perry, state and local issues. It’s sort of the Rudy ’08 strategy in reverse, where Rudy attempted to convince so-cons that his socially liberal views didn’t matter because he wasn’t going to legislate them federally.
As politics, Perry’s strategy is interesting. But I still believe that Perry’s biggest problem won’t come from either social conservatives or libertarians, but from the sense that his cultural cues are too similar to those of George W. Bush to win swing voters, and also from the belief that beating Obama in the general election will require a nuts-and-bolts campaign that focuses on specific solutions to the jobs problem, something that may evade a more big picture, Tea Party candidate like Perry.
July 24th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
The quasi-Perry campaign is reminding me more and more of the Fred Thompson 08 campaign. Dissatisfaction with the field amongst the hard-core right, a Southerner who at first glance seems the White Knight, the Reaganesque candidate in a field of RINOs. Said candidate waits and waits, and waits, finally gracing the field with his presence. But then the problems start to arise; they aren’t as conservative as initially thought, they don’t catapult into 1st place, and they eventually just become another candidate.
We’ve seen the Perry playbook before, and the outcome isn’t pretty.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I was thinking about doing a post about this ending with the line, “And that’s how Perry lost the GOP nomination in 2012.”
Not that gay marriage is that big of an issue anymore — I don’t think it’s really in the top tier of importance to many voters any longer. But those who care about it care passionately about it.
That’s not even the real problem, though. The real problem is that Perry seems to be misunderstanding his role in this primary campaign. He’s in danger of missing the niche he fits into as a White Knight candidate.
People do not distrust Romney on fiscal issues. In fact, the reason he is the frontrunner in the campaign is because he is solid on these issues. You want someone to take on Obama on the issue of the economy? Taxes? Business? 99 out of 100 folks will say Romney is your guy.
The “dissatisfaction hole” in the current field has been left because folks like Huckabee aren’t running — leaving the field devoid of true southern, social conservatives who can win. (Your current options for socons: Santorum, Bachmann, and Cain. As much as Bachmann is en fuego right now, everyone knows she won’t last. None of those three are viable general election candidates.) And as socially conservative as Pawlenty may or may not be, he is not culturally southern by any stretch of the imagination.
And so the field remains open for a viable southern socon. Tailor made for Perry. Instead, he comes out saying “if” he ran, he would be a full-throated fiscal conservative candidate and says he’s okay with gay marriage.
While I do think that putting gay marriage on the back burner is a winning move for the GOP in general, I also think this strategy – if Perry continues it – will ultimately prove detrimental to his soon-to-be campaign.
(And while we’re on the topic… one of the areas I disagree with Mitt Romney on is gay marriage. His stance on the FMA runs contrary to my more libertarian stance on the issue. I do, however, think Romney’s is a stronger argument than Perry’s on this issue. Gay marriage is not a states right issue because it is not about an event – it is about a status. Being married is something you are, not something you do. Therefore, if you’re going to take a stance on gay marriage, it makes sense to me that it would have to be a federal stance, not a state-by-state stance.)
July 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Hard to argue that he’s wrong no matter which side of gay marriage you’re on.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Like I said last night, my nightmare scenario is that by the time Illinois votes, my choices will be Romney, Bachmann, and Perry.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
W reached swing voters and so would Perry.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
This is not a smart way for him to thread the needle. It shows that he just doesn’t get it when it comes to social conservatives. I am really surprised that he would say something as stupid as this … then again, he says a lot of things before thinking about them. I can’t wait until he gets in so he can be exposed for what he really is.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Makes me wonder how this will fly with those so-called ‘apostles’ who said he was ‘called’ to be president? Of course, they will overlook it, because Perry is not Romney.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
My nightmare is Palin, Newt, or Paul being our nominee versus Obama.
But I’ve been sleeping very well as we approach summer vacation in Iowa.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
It’s hard for me to see him get widespread social conservative support when he is pro-gay marriage. That is second only to being pro-choice, in the eyes of social conservatives. If he alienates them, who is he competing for? The libertarians? I doubt they are going to pass up Paul for Perry.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Amazing how many missteps, miscalculations, faux pas, etc. first-time candidates to the national state make. Perhaps they think that whatever worked for them locally will also work nationally.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
It is not entirely a state issue.There are federal issues among them being that normally a marriage recognized in one state is legal in all states. Gay marriage would become law of the land were it not for the DOMA. That clearly is a federal issue. Also since marriage can be a issue in terms of federal benefits, the federal government has to determine what they recognize as a legal marriage. Perry is totally wrong on this issue.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Perry is copying Ron Paul again. Imitation is the most sincere sign of flattery.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I guess if Perry gets the nomination, Huck and both Matts here will be beside themselves.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Just another example of Perry shooting his mouth off without actually looking at the issue in depth.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Hmmm…
July 24th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Speaking at an Aspen, Colo. forum Friday, Perry called himself an “unapologetic social conservative” who personally OPPOSES gay marriage
July 24th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Craig For Huck,
Your new name should be “Craig for those candidates who have nohing in common with Huck”
July 24th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
#2
“You want someone to take on Obama on the issue of the economy? Taxes? Business? 99 out of 100 folks will say Romney is your guy”.
=======================================
Not true!
First of all your numbers are ridiculous.
Yes,Romney is sold as “mr businessman” and “mr fix it”.
Sarah Palin vowed to compare her record and accomplishments against
any and all candidates.She will expose the whole fake, phony and fraudulent propaganda about Romney as “mr fix it”.
Let’s see what did he fix?
SLC Olymics?
Ha….Feds pumped $1.3 billion in that sorry affair.
Many people could have “fixed it” for a fraction of the billions.
He “fixed” jobs growth in Massachusetts to #47 out of 50 states.
He “fixed”,with his good friend Ted Kennedy,health care and brought
Romneycare,blueprint for Obamacare.
Massachusetts went from bad to the very worst in the nation, #50
in insurance premiums and health care cost,which went through the roof.
Romney “fixed” state budget by raising $980 million in taxes-”fees”.
You see,with record like this Mittens will be exposed for a phony,a fake
a fraud “mr fix it” he is and always was.
Sarah Palin with her stellar and superb record will have a field day
exposing Willard for who he is, Big Government,Big Banks that can not be allowed to fail,Big Crony Capitalism,Big Socialist mandated Health Care,
…..etc….without even talking about finger in the wind flip-flops.
July 24th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
A state by state gay marriage policy is a terrible idea. It is giving up the whole ballgame. DOMA is likely unconstitutional. The Full Faith & Credit Clause requires states to recognize the public acts of other states. If I’m gay and want to get married, I simply go get married in New York and move back to Texas. DOMA will get struck down (especially with Obama refusing to defend it), and then Texas will be required to recognize New York gay marriages.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
If you don’t want to fight the gay marriage battle, just admit it. You can’t have it both ways. This is a battle that still has some chance of being won (though I think it is a limited chance).
July 24th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Jax,
Exactly.
Perry just lost Iowa.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Perry most likely will not run even without gay marriage around his neck.
But saying that gay marriage in New York is state issue,it is NOT,
he killed any chance to run.He’s done.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
There is nothing unconstitutional about the DOMA. The states and federal government have the right to regulate marriage since it is not a part of the constitution. There are a number of public acts that are not recognized by other states. If one state allowed polygamy then all states would be forced to recognize it? I think not.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
23 – There is a federal anti-bigamy law. No state is going to allow polygamy.
July 24th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Craig,
I don’t really give a crap if Perry “personally” opposes gay marriage if he’s not going to stop it, just as I’m not impressed by the fact that Mitt was “personally” pro-life while he was kissing Planned Parenthood’s rear.
And Smack is right about you supporting a lot of folks who have almost nothing in common with Huck.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Matt,
My reply to your last sentence just vanished into thin air. Perhaps Kavon is monitoring it..I’m too lazy right now to retype it.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I’ll add this to it if it ever show up..
When I go door to door for Bachmann in Iowa, I will be going to the EXACT same doors where I emphasized Huck’s ideals. Now I will emphasize Micheles.
Don’t see any difference there.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
shows* up
July 24th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Also add this..I know Rick Perry from business dealings throughout Texas. I trust him on the LIFE issue as much as Huck.
I don’t trust Mitt on the LIFE issue but since he’s got a 1 in 3 chance of being our nominee, I have a Plan B to ease my mind.
This:
Romney/Huckabee ’12
Huckabee/Rubio ’20
I don’t know if Kavon will ever let my comment through that vanished.. but a hint: It involved Pawlenty and TARP, Fair Tax, and duh, beating Obama!
July 24th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
There is a federal anti-bigamy law.
=====================
How is that different from the DOMA? If the DOMA is unconstitutional then federal anti-bigamy laws would be unconstitutional.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
27#
?
Whats the difference between Huck’s & TPAW ideals?…..since that is what you are basing your support on.
Because it can’t be on experience…or accomplishments…or records…or living your life in reality.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
When I go door to door for Bachmann in Iowa, I will be going to the EXACT same doors where I emphasized Huck’s ideals. Now I will emphasize Micheles.
===========================================
Apparently one of those is if you get 99% of what you want instead of 100%. There was no reason to vote against cut, cap, and balance and is shows how incapable she is of governing.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Taking back the White House overrules my support for any candidate.
I’m not married to any politician, car salesman, or TV star. There a dime a dozen to me.
It’s always fluid but I will support the one who gives our nation the best deal. And shakes some sense into it.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
The truth will out.
A comment from a non-Palin supporter who saw the movie:
“I had little interest in learning about her; I’d already decided on my choice in 2008. Everything about her that fell within my range of sight seemed to say, here’s a borderline stupid person who was just chosen as a running mate to bring a bit of excitement into a probably-doomed campaign.
Her “you betcha” way of speaking was a bit foreign and almost too clueless-seeming. And, all the comedians I liked, were making fun of her. I wasn’t voting for her party anyway; why would I care whether there was more to her?
For me, this isn’t so much about whether she ought to be President. I’m not ready to make a judgement about that. But, without digging around to further verify, I assume that much of the documented history told in this film is more or less true, or it’d be quickly shot down by someone —
I feel vaguely resentful that right now is the first I’m hearing about that history.
Maybe a bit stupid on top of resentful, because I never bothered.
I am always happy to see a strong woman making a mark on the world, because for all the trailblazers who have gone before to make it possible, by now there should be so many who are living the life imagined by their “foremothers.”
From what I’ve seen here, this is a person who deserves to be admired. What I saw before was only someone who was portrayed as a joke.
Is it true she had an 80% approval rating in her state?
Did she indeed bring needed changes to her state, and stare down big oil so that years of neglect were remedied?
Did she boldly stand against so much opposition and come out triumphant?
Well, that kinda stuff ain’t no accident.
Was she chosen as worthy and did she step forward with all good intentions and pride, only to be hammered mercilessly with ridicule? Did we really judge her by her way of speaking and by a few well-repeated unfortunate sound bites, without knowing anything else of her substance?
Perhaps she at least deserves to be considered a modern hero to her home state, because it seems she did rather well by them. The people of Alaska saw her as worthy and she didn’t let them down when they needed her.
She seems to have a particular skill at looking at something that needs to be made better, and endeavoring to do just that.
Could that translate well from Alaska’s problems, to the nation’s problems? I don’t know. Could someone who successfully runs a small company then do the same for a vastly larger one? That’s a good question here. At least, in any case, one must start with the attitude that one can do it, and maintain unflagging confidence in one’s self — and she does seem to have that.
She endured misogynistic taunts from her opponents in her earlier campaigns and virtually ignored them. She was a citizen turned politician with no roots in politics, and captured her entire state’s attention. How often have we ever heard her voice crack? Maybe just a little as she speaks of something she’s passionate about, but never in response to being felt “picked on.” On that matter, she seems to always remain stoic and undeterred.
So, “Undefeated”? In a personal sense, yes, this looks like someone who doesn’t seem defeated at all. Even resigning as Governor after returning, at least as portrayed here, seems like more a necessity for the good of her state. If she returned home after being the subject of nationwide catcalls, she became fair game there, too — and likely she had many who were willing to take advantage of that — she decided she couldn’t effectively do that job anymore. Not because she didn’t want to.
I might not vote for her as President, but I feel a newfound respect for her, and I wish I’d known more of her history before now.
I hadn’t wanted to; had no interest in it at all, and before now was never in a situation where my eyes and ears were situated so as to learn about it. I was willing to listen to the jokes and laugh at them, and not look beyond that.
Because of that, I was missing out on what sounds to be a meaningful and inspirational story… and person.”
July 24th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
When I go door to door for Bachmann in Iowa, I will be going to the EXACT same doors where I emphasized Huck’s ideals. Now I will emphasize Micheles.
===========================================
Apparently one of those is if you get 99% of what you want instead of 100% you turn it down. There was no reason to vote against cut, cap, and balance and is shows how incapable she is of governing.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Results vs. Rhetoric.
TPAW has the best Pro-Life record in this race…..and it’s not even close.
Go ahead…read it Craig…don’t be afraid.
During his first year as governor in 2003, Pawlenty signed into law the Woman’s Right to Know Act, giving women information about abortion risks and alternatives as well as information on fetal development. The law became a model for other states. Minnesota was also the first to give women information on fetal pain — coming well in advance of the new trend of banning abortions based on that scientific concept, which Nebraska started last year. The former governor followed up that bill by signing the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act in 2005 to give women even more information on the pain their babies feel during an abortion.
Pawlenty didn’t stop there. In 2005 he signed the Positive Alternatives to Abortion Act to make Minnesota one of just a handful of states that send public funds to pregnancy centers providing tangible support for pregnant women and abortion alternatives. Since then, it has helped more than 18,000 pregnant women and their families.
Again proving his commitment to women and his understanding of the myriad medical and mental-health problems women face following an abortion, Governor Pawlenty issued a proclamation in 2010 designating the month of April as “Abortion Recovery Month” and urging agencies in the state to help women who are suffering problems following their abortions. Recognizing the massive national post-abortion movement, which features millions of women who regret their abortions, Pawlenty again led the way by acknowledging this post-abortion pain in a way most other states have not.
Governor Pawlenty’s pro-life record includes everything from promoting perinatal hospices as alternatives to abortion in cases when a baby is diagnosed with a severe medical condition, to declaring pro-life days recognizing the tragedy of Roe v. Wade, to speaking at rallies and events for key pro-life groups like Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.
But two other aspects of the pro-life debate show Pawlenty is a cut above the average pro-life elected official.
In a time when some pro-life advocates abandoned the pro-life movement on bioethics issues, Pawlenty stood fast. He vetoed a cloning bill that would have legalized human cloning and forced taxpayers to pay for the destruction of human life, saying destroying human embryos crossed “core ethical and moral boundaries.” The governor also signed into law a ban on taxpayer funding of human cloning, because he rightfully acknowledges that adult stem-cell research is not only more ethical but more effective in helping patients. A President Pawlenty would assuredly overturn Pres. Barack Obama’s executive order forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic stem-cell research that destroys human lives and has never helped a single patient.
For pro-life voters, however, the biggest issue in the upcoming presidential election is judges. The current Supreme Court has a teetering 5–4 pro-abortion majority and the next few nominations will likely determine the future of the high court on abortion for decades.
In 2008, Governor Pawlenty appointed a pro-life advocate to lead the Minnesota Supreme Court. Eric Magnuson, who was named chief justice, had written an amicus brief for a pro-life group in a case arguing that taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortions with their tax money.
Governor Pawlenty also felt so strongly about appointing Jamie Anderson to the 4th Judicial District Court that he bypassed the state’s Commission on Judicial Selection to ensure the respected pro-life attorney had a seat.
Pawlenty’s strength on judges also comes by way of his wife Mary, who is a former judge herself. Although pro-life voters appreciated the pro-life actions of presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush, their wives did not share their pro-life perspective. Mary Pawlenty, an evangelical who attended Bethel College, is a heartfelt pro-life advocate who combines a passion for the unborn with an acute political and legal mind.
The Pawlenty pro-life track record has produced proven results: The Minnesota health department indicated last year that abortions have dropped 14 percent and hit a 35-year low.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Bachmann throws political bombs….TPAW gets results.
Iowa is TPAW Country!
July 24th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Now…if TPaw would finally grow some balls and take on Mitt….
July 24th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
That last comment applies to Bachmann too.
Why are they so afraid of Mitt? Running for VP?
July 24th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Both McCain and Huckabee had great success pointing out Mitt’s flip flops. He doesn’t respond well to criticism.
What are they waiting for?
July 24th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Tim Pawlenty Upcoming Events for next week in Iowa.
Is this why Bachmann is attacking now?…….hhuuuuuuummmmmmmm..can’t do Town Halls can you Michele?….hehhehee
JUL 25
Davenport Town Hall
Muscatine Town Hall
Henry County Republican 29th Annual Hog Roast
JUL 26
Washington Meet and Greet
Fairfield Meet and Greet
Ottumwa Meet and Greet
Osceola Meet and Greet
Polk County GOP Meeting
JUL 27
Westside Conservative Club
Story City Meet and Greet
Huxley Meet and Greet
Ankeny Town Hall
Jefferson Meet and Greet
JUL 28
Carroll Meet and Greet
Cherokee Meet and Greet
Sioux City Town Hall
JUL 29
Council Bluffs Meet and Greet
More Det
July 24th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
30 – You obviously don’t know what DOMA says.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“You want someone to take on Obama on the issue of the economy? Taxes? Business? 99 out of 100 folks will say Romney is your guy.”
Not remotely true, even allowing for the obvious hyperbole. If it were, he would be getting better than his roughly 20% in a race where the economy is the #1 issue.
Re Perry: It looks like he’s not threading the libertarian/co-con needle very well, at least with this comment. I’m OK with it — so far, so good, on the libertarian side; but MWS hates it. Oops.
Anybody trying to please both libertarians and so-cons needs to pass the Hovic/MWS test.
Thus far, only Mitch Daniels has succeeded. I keep wondering (as Hamaca commented yesterday) if there’s any hope of getting him (or, more to the point, his wife) to reconsider?
July 24th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I never said Tim wasn’t pro-life. I know he is. But so are my first three.
I said he was a TARPer like Mitt (on my long gone vanished post. So, maybe I had to flip a coin between him and Mitt because of that to get a #4 choice. Mitt won.
Check the scoreboard (polling). I’m not thev only Republican choosing Mitt over Tim. I’ts like a 7:1 ratio for Romney.
Look, I’m trying to beat Obama here, not worship individual “perfect” candidates. None of them are perfect.
Now will I vote for Pawlenty in the future in the general versus any Democrat? Yep.
Will he do well in Ames? Nope.
Will he spin a possible 3rd into the greatest comeback in history? Sure he will. Another reason to dislike politcians and their shenanigans such as rigging straw polls by buying votes.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
43-Hovic
Thus far, only Mitch Daniels has succeeded. I keep wondering (as Hamaca commented yesterday) if there’s any hope of getting him (or, more to the point, his wife) to reconsider?
Yeah, that would really electrify the primary voters.
Sigh….
July 24th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Bob, what is this test?
The Hovic/MWS test.
I’m curious
July 24th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
@34 – People have to watch the movie before it will do any good. I hear it is doing terrible at the box office.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Let me guess, we won’t hear a word about this on talk radio or Fox News. They’ll still be pining for the “true” Conservative Rick Perry and bashing Romney as the “squishy” social candidate.
This really is an idiotic move from the former Al Gore Supporter. You don’t make a statement supporting “STATE” Gay Marriage laws, citing the 10th Amendment, when you’re chief rival in the race uses the same argument for his Health Care plan.
He’s tarnishing his image with both the anti-state power Right, and the Southern Conservatives in one fell swoop. Talk about killing one bird with two stones! What a complete moron.
July 24th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
One of my links that vanished..
http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/2011/07/mike-huckabee-headed-to-congress-in.html
July 24th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
34 tele
“Is it true she had an 80% approval rating in her state?
Did she indeed bring needed changes to her state, and stare down big oil so that years of neglect were remedied?
Did she boldly stand against so much opposition and come out triumphant?”
=================================================
Oh,YES!And much more.
The truth about Sarah Palin,her character,her great leadership skills,
her stellar record and her numerous big time accomplishments,is coming out.
Plenty of time left.
Sarahcuda hasn’t even begun to fight.
When she starts,she’s always tenacious,relentless and ferocious.
GAME ON!!!
July 24th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Daniels? Please!
July 24th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I loved Rick Santorum’s response to this:
“So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?”
Santorum brings up a good point when Perry stood in support of CPS’s raid on the Polygamist compound and their kidnapping of hundreds of women and children a few years ago.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
47. It’s doing fantastic.
Again, the media is lying trying to tamp down anything Palin..
Ten screens netted over $70,000…$7,000/average the first week which puts it in the top 15 all-time for documentaries. And this was with zero marketing, no advertising, nothing but some free social media -twittering and facebook.
This is a limited roll out. It expanded to more theaters this week and will do even more next week, but it will eventually go to DVD, as they are not going to put the marketing dollars into it like films by Michael Moore, for example.
I’ve seen the movie and it is very powerful.
Many screenings have been sold out in advance and it is a hugely successful launch, so wherever you heard it ‘wasn’t doing well’ might be a news source to question in the future.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Perry blew it with this. The uber-focus of the tea partiers on the Tenth Amendment as the be all and end all of life on earth is going to kill Perry. Without social conservatives, a Republican Presidential candidate can’t win — and Perry won’t necessairly have them if he starts making absurd statements like this.
The defintion of marriage is NOT a state issue — it’s not really even a national issue. IT IS WHAT IT IS — between a man and a woman. Government shouldn’t even have to define it because it should be assumed and known — the fact that it does is a sign of the times we are in of a decaying culture and civilization, and the more our culture/country/civiliation embraces faux concepts like gay marriage, the less of a culture/country/civiliation we will become.
Perry’s inability to defend the institution because “New York did it” is asinine. He should be a leader and call it out for what it is.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
54
“the fact that it does is a sign of the times we are in of a decaying culture and civilization, and the more our culture/country/civiliation embraces faux concepts like gay marriage, the less of a culture/country/civiliation we will become.”
Yep. That’s exactly how the Roman Empire fell apart. Unified Borders, Languages, and Culture are the three things that are required for a vibrant, healthy society. Unfortunately, they’re quickly disappearing in America.
If Rick Perry is cool with that, he should be an enemy of Conservatism and should be nowhere near the Republican nomination for President.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Considering the sad volume of how many babies are killed every day, it would be a step (albeit not nearly enough) to return the “choice” to the states by getting a Huck, Bach, Rick, or Mitt/Huck VP in the White House choosing 100% PRO-LIFE judges.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Bottom line, we’re not getting anywhere on the social conservative front with Obama in the White House.
He’s gotta go after next year.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
43 Bob,
Chris Matthews’ panel of journalists on his Sunday show said that Daniels is upset that he didn’t run, and that his decision was solely because of his wife. That said, no one thinks he’s going to change his mind.
It was confirmed that Rudy was getting behind Perry, so no Giuliani this time either.
Equally important as the Hovic/MWS test is the DaveG/ChrisL test, which the only other potential aspirant, Jeb Bush, fails miserably, as per my thread on the subject yesterday.
So here we are.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
46. “The Hovic/MWS test. I’d call it the Hovic/MWS gauntlet. And my candidate has failed it miserably.
Again, I’d love to see Daniels and Jeb get in the race–not because I want them to win the nomination per se, especially Jeb, but because I want the average level of intellect to increase. That’s what appeals to me–I recognize many others aren’t motivated by that, but rather by fiery rhetoric. I’d rather see boring, detailed discussions of what as well as the why behind the what. I want it to be clear to all that conservatism need not take a back seat intellectually to any school of thought, party, or opposing candidate.
July 24th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
#58:
That just sucks. It seems that Daniels is going to be, as far as candidates go, the one that got away.
It’s rather sad that good candidates with good records (Jeb, Daniels, and Barbour) are sitting out of the race while the brilliant likes of Bachmann, Cain and Santorum are running.
July 24th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Dave,
Nothing was “confirmed” on the Chris Matthews Show.
Here is the transcript:
ICYMI…The basis for Gloria Borger’s prediction…
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote the following column last Tuesday:
Rick Perry’s ace in the hole: Rudy Giuliani
July 24th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
58. Dave G.,
Just curious, what different political strains do you and Chris L inhabit?
July 24th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Hamaca: I know you’re not a Daniels supporter — just (like many of us) disappointed by the overall quality of the field. Many of us would like to see a quality of debate/discussion that is not going to come from the likes of Bachmann and Cain.
Dave G: I know it’s not going to happen. He can’t run without his wife’s OK, and she has very good reason to say no. I’m just venting frustration with the crappy choices I’m facing.
July 24th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
61,
I was just being a little silly based on the differences on Jeb held by Chris and I. Actually I think Chris and I are pretty similar in our political views.
July 24th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
It was confirmed that Rudy was getting behind Perry, so no Giuliani this time either.
=========================================
Actually the person to watch is Palin. She will determine the final shape of the field. If she runs then Perry does not and Guliani does. If she doesn’t then Perry runs and Guliani does not.
July 24th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I agree completely with Perry’s position on gay marriage.
Having said that Rick Perry has done virtually nothing to get his ducks in a row over the past two years because he was running for re-election as governor.
What is overlooked was Bush 43 did get his ducks in a row because he knew he was going to run in 2000 + he is a Bush.
Unless your name is Jeb Bush no one can win the GOP nomination in the 21st century without getting his or her ducks in a row.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:01 pm
“Yep. That’s exactly how the Roman Empire fell apart. Unified Borders, Languages, and Culture are the three things that are required for a vibrant, healthy society. Unfortunately, they’re quickly disappearing in America.
If Rick Perry is cool with that, he should be an enemy of Conservatism and should be nowhere near the Republican nomination for President.”
I’ll second this.
A second link I’d make: a productive national economy is necessary for the maintenance of those. As we have sold our productive economy and replaced it with bubble-generated financial wealth (when has the economy thrived in the past twenty years without bubble wealth?), what have we gotten, but a gradual destruction of the social order in the past half-century?
Americans love money, and that is the root of all evil.
The wealth of the Roman Empire destroyed it too, by rotting out the core, which had sustained its civic values, carried its banners to distant shores, and made it indomitable by any enemy foreign or domestic. The dissolution of the Roman middle class, the stratification of wealth into the hands of a few, the uprooting of conservative Roman morality, a political class plagued by debauchery, corruption, and infighting – these were all the wages of a system that sold out characteristic Roman industriousness and preparation in favor of Caesar’s “bread and circuses” – live it up now, don’t bother with the work needed to sustain a great civilization, and let our descendants pick up the tab.
We are repeating the mistakes of the Romans. Already the productive economy is shot, wealth inequality has reached levels far above sustainable in a republic, we have become the world’s breeding ground for pornography and sexual crimes and sins of all types, our politicians are completely useless and self absorbed, and the common people are so bought into Caesar’s bread and circuses they indeed live for little else.
All because we love mammon more than God.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
The idea of letting states govern themselves, and reducing the Feds role in local government always appeals to me. It seems if you legalized gay marriage on a national level, a lot of people would be unhappy. If you made gay marriage illegal on a national level, a lot of folks would be unhappy. If you let each state handle their own issues based on the mindset of the people of that region, a lot of us would be happier.
Example “No child left behind” is a huge fail. All the teachers do is worry about getting the kids to pass their tests. The math test requires the simplest things written out and diagramed. Tedious, awful, ridiculous and they focus on that rather than letting the kids learn in the best way for them. On top of that, it has generated HUGE mounds of paperwork for the schools. Time and resources that could be spend on the kids instead…and the results of the program are dismal. We are bound up in bureaucratic red tape. The Feds tend to mess things up more than they help. Financial bail-out case in point.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
MPC
Americans love money, and that is the root of all evil.
=========================================================
Another bible thumper?
Spare us,would you?
This is a political site,not a religious one.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
The productive economy and traditional social order are the only way to prevent collapse and decline. Those were the foundation of America and without them we have no country.
The financial bubble economy and the perverted social order (sexual perversions, dishonesty, decline of community, the decline of family structure due to lack of discipline in children, indolent fathers, and feminist-led careerist mothers, etc) are twin heads of the same beast. They are the same lustful lie, and they worship the same god, who has never blessed even a single nation. They have always come together, they must be banished together.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
TEX,
“Another bible thumper?
Spare us,would you?
This is a political site,not a religious one.”
You didn’t get my point, TEX. The fact that you disassociate those shows you don’t get it. I’m not here to have petty theological debates. If you don’t agree that the love of money is the root of all evil, perhaps you’d like to explain.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
#69 Even though I agree with a couple of the points you raise and understand the principles of productive economy vs. what ours has become…
I don’t believe you’ll find a receptive audience or useful dialogue here. Your jargon and mindset is very specific to your unique religious culture and preaching fire, hell and damnation seldom gets absorbed by an unsuspecting audience.
People will habitually skip your comments if you keep that up. Translate to political speak since we are many denominations and belief systems here…just a little friendly advice.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
MPC,
Good to have you posting again, good stuff, keep ‘em coming. You do seem to have had some life, or at least thought, altering experience over the last year or so, what happened?
July 24th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
#58, #61, #63 — DaveG and et.al.,
The DaveG/Chris L. axis, ha!
Re: the subject at hand, I had been thinking about doing a write up on Perry in the near future (and probably will do so) that discusses this issue a bit but others as well. That being said, sometimes it is simply impossible to “thread the libertarian/socon needle” on issues and this is probably one of those. Ultimately, individuals on both sides of this issue (and others) have to decide what they can and cannot live with. I have long thought that many of the so-con activist/leaders such as Perkins and others of a similar persuasion would ultimately face a dilemma when it came to Constitutional “strict constructionism” and Federalism, similar to the broader dilemma involving a belief in “freedom” and “free choice” in that there is always the risk that some state or some individual might make a “choice” that they don’t like. When I saw the reports yesterday of Perry’s comments in Aspen, Colorado, that most chic of resort towns, I thought, hehe, wonder how that will go over with the Rev’s Hagee and Wildmon and Messrs. Barton and Perkins who had been publicly identified as the religious right leaders encouraging Perry to run. Philosophical consistency does present political dilemmas. It will be interesting to see if Perry holds his ground or attempts some kind of twisted, convoluted “refinement” of his position.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Interesting timing. I tune into this thread, disparaging gays and money, after spending the day at a gathering at the home of a wealthy married gay couple in the Hollywood Hills.
I have to wonder how many of you would continue to hold your views after spending an extended vacation at this home. You’re simply sheltered.
This couple is, in my lifetime, the epitome of graciousness, love, acceptance, generosity, ethics. They’re not religious but they live by the Golden Rule to a much greater degree than any religious person I know.
I’ve spent a lot of time in red America, with religious relatives, as well, and I must say I see a lot more dysfunction, non-success, and cynicism in that group than in the group I was with today.
If you experienced this side of life, there is simply no way you could hold that it is destroying America. Other things are wrong with our culture, but not gay marriage, and not wealth.
Perry is suddenly sounding very appealing to me and a Perry/Giuliani ticket would bring me back into the fold.
July 24th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
MPC,
According to a Des Moines Register reporter:
“Texas’s Republican Gov. Rick Perry on Friday said he’s “fine” with New York’s approval of gay marriage because such decisions should be left up to states.
That prompted a response from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who tweeted overnight: “So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?”
I’ve noticed that you now support Ron Paul, who do you think is right here, Perry/Paul or Santorum?
July 24th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Metro,
Yes, interesting that you drop by at this precise time. I don’t doubt for a second anything you wrote about that couple. I work with a lady who is in a long term relationship with another lady, I’ve known her for a long time and would describe her as a winner with several of the positive characteristics you list. However, I attend a Bible-believing Evangelical church that is composed of mostly upper middle class to very affluent people. Many of them have all of those positive characteristics you describe, while some possess the not so favorable traits. So my ‘take away’ is that people vary in talent and virtue, regardless of religious belief, tax bracket or sexual orientation.
However, that doesn’t mean, as Senator Santorum said, that ‘states rights’ should be the ultimate trump card in these matters.
July 24th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
BTW, Perry/Giuliani ticket is positively shudder worthy.
July 24th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
It’s all good.
July 24th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Frankly, all of the potential tickets at this point are shudder worthy.
July 25th, 2011 at 12:30 am
73 – Stop with your condescending bull crap. This has nothing to do with whether gay people are nice and friendly or not.
July 25th, 2011 at 6:51 am
Although this opens the door to religious discussion, just to clarify 75, talent and virtue does not equal or result in salvation.
July 25th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Believe me, none of the candidates care about passing the tests of some bloggers on a third rate political blog. Out of 300 million people, I don’t think anyone on here even remotely encapsulates the dynamics of the American electorate. Sorry to burst your bubbles guys. cheers.
July 29th, 2011 at 9:46 am
[...] earlier stated that he was fine with New York’s decision to end marriage discrimination against gay couples, [...]