Conservative columnist says Perry is the man

Jeffrey Kuhner in the Washington Times applauds Rick Perry as “Obama’s worst nightmare.” Kuhner commends almost everything about Perry, though at the end he admits he has some faults:

Mr. Perry is not perfect—far from it. He passed legislation granting in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. He opposes building a wall along the porous southern border. He supports some form of amnesty. He is a globalist conservative, not a Robert Taft-style nationalist.

There are other GOP candidates—Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul—who are more ideologically pristine and muscular. But Mr. Perry is easily the most electable conservative in the current field. He will take the fight to Mr. Obama. He will give no quarter and ask for none. And that’s why he will win—and win big.

In other words, Perry is (as I’ve been saying) like Bush in 2000: he has the broad appeal to win the election, but he will continue the dissolution of the American nation—abroad through the democratization of Muslims and other non-Westerners, and at home through the mass immigration of Muslims and other non-Westerners. Kuhner plainly lusts for a second George W. Bush presidency, or at least he lusts so much for the defeat of Obama that he will gladly accept a second George W. Bush presidency. My gorge rises at the thought. I’d rather get on a spaceship to another planet than go through all that again.

- end of initial entry -

August 19

Joseph C. writes:

So according to Kuhner, it is enough that Rick Perry is right on most issues, even if he is dead wrong on the issue most important to conservatives. (Or two issues; I did not see one word on what type of judges a President Perry would appoint. Would we get Anthony Kennedy or Antonin Scalia? Or is that irrelevant too?)

The establishment republicans are touting Perry for the same reason the media touted Mitt Romney. They know the GOP candidate has a very good chance of winning in 2012, and they want to be sure to cut their losses and make sure it is someone they can live with. I doubt the media is telling the GOP to nominate Romney because he is “electable.” Yeah, sure. Like they have the GOP’s best interests at heart.

Or, to put it another way: Vote for Perry because he agrees with us on things we care a little about, and ignore the fact that he disagrees with us on what we care most about.

James R. writes:

“My gorge rises at the thought. I’d rather get on a spaceship to another planet than go through all that again. ”

Except for candidates you find unacceptable for other reasons, it’s what’s gonna happen. Romney is [words missing] Perry, and while Bachmann is better on fiscal and social issues, how much attention is she going to devote to the national question? Presidents at most focus their attention on one or two things—especially Presidents who are working against the Permanent Government. Those have almost no energy left for other fights.

It’ll be like deja vu all over again. “Beam me up, Scotty.”

James R. writes:

Words weren’t missing. Romney is Perry and Perry is Romney and both are Bush on this issue and many others. What I meant is the “mainstream establishment” candidates are functionally interchangeable. So if one doesn’t like one of them, one won’t like any of them. I suppose they could be put in a blender to create some sort of super-candidate.

Gintas writes:

We are trapped in a Kafkaesque world, even on the right.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 19, 2011 01:16 AM | Send