(Vanity) Thoughts on Perry

grey_whiskers | Aug. 16, 2011 | grey_whiskers

[grey_whiskers]

This vanity is wholly one-sided in its presentation of Perry's records/decisions.

Like Rush Limbaugh, it *is* the balance.

Cheers!

[SoConPubbie]

No I am not.

I am using an organization that reliably and consistently rates politicians on how conservative they are.

Gore failed on the Prolife issue that the ACU rating is based on as proven by this link:

1988 Senate Ratings

You're either aren't aware of the political climate and Gore's extreme Liberalism in 1988 or covering for Perry.

An 8% ACU rating in 1988 is the same as an 8% rating in 2011.

[grey_whiskers]

Thanks grey_whiskers. Just for fun, I’ve got one — “you put the ass in asbestos!”

At least you didn't say "Best ass" -- I might have needed Gardasil.

Cheers!

[SoConPubbie]

Mostly swagger and name-calling.
Typical of Texans.

They are definitely in full cover-up, deny and apology mode for Perry.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Funny that you mention Rush Limbaugh. Rush wanted Perry to get into the race. He really talked up Perry’s conservative credentials.

[grey_whiskers]

They can try. :-)

Go Sarah!

Cheers!

[Catholic Iowan]

100% effective? ReallY?

http://www.cogforlife.org/gardasilMerckAdmits.htm

I don’t think so!

[grey_whiskers]

Gore's subsequent behaviour provides evidence of how much his conservatism was 'real' ; and by the same token, Perry's adoption of the GOP brand back in 1988 in the aftermath of Reagan is only worthwhile if he backs conservatism: otherwise one runs the risk that he is merely blowing with the winds of current opinion.

And it is for *that* reason that his actions w.r.t. Gardasil, and his proclamations that the legislature cannot override an Executive Order, are so important.

Look at all the crap we went through with McCain when he wouldn't back conservatives. Perry may talk tough on the campaign trail, but if he actions don't match the words (see also Weepy Boehner) what's the use?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

So what?

I haven't decided yet if the Build-a-Burgers are tin-foil hat stuff in the first place.

So I didn't include it.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Haven't checked on other states yet.

Quote from post #145 this thread:

"The controversy over Perry's decision deepened as it came to light that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck and that his chief of staff's mother-in-law, Rep. Dianne White Delisi, was the state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil vaccine for preteen girls..."

To prevent cancer, make it opt in with a publicity campaign.

Don't force it on pre-adolescent girls.

(Had it been tested for safety, efficacy, and any side effects during pregnancy yet?)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The snide comment was because of flaming comments of some other pro-Perry posters on this thread about the only people who opposed Perry were blah, blah blah...and for the lurkers who might have zoned out over the name without that.

I addressed the negatives and the "meta-politics" of them since they were not getting enough play on FR: most discussion of Perry was tending towards mindless cheerleading, and it reminded me of Astroturf.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

LOL!

[grey_whiskers]

The issue is whether or not we turn a blind eye to the creeping Sharia and the establishment of a "foothold" for radical Islam under the guise of "tolerance".

Like this:

It's problematic: just as the 60s radicals bragged that they were 'using the Constitution to destroy the Constitution' I fear radical Islamists are insinuating themselves into the culture under the cover of 'moderate' Muslims imported from other countries.

Cheers!

[BuckeyeTexan]

I am using an organization that reliably and consistently rates politicians on how conservative they are.

And apparently, you don't understand how the yearly ACU rating is calculated because you seem to think it's some kind of conservative credit score. It isn't.

An 8% ACU rating in 1988 is the same as an 8% rating in 2011.

Wrong. The ACU rating to which you refer was not Gore’s lifetime conservative rating in 1988. It was his rating for the year 1988 only. The ACU’s yearly rating is based on a legislator’s votes for ONLY the bills considered (voted upon) that year. So if there were no bills about abortion or gun control in a particular year, the rating doesn’t reflect a legislator’s overall positions on those issues. So a 1988 rating is not equivalent to a 2011 rating because the bills voted up by the legislature are not the same.

You're either aren't aware of the political climate and Gore's extreme Liberalism in 1988 or covering for Perry.

You're the one who is unaware of Gore's political leanings in 1988. He was pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-defense. Look it up yourself. Below are some links for your reference.

Here are some links about his pro-life votes:
http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html
http://www.debatethis.org/gore/abortion/

Here are some links about his pro-gun votes:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,996052,00.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Al_Gore_Gun_Control.htm
(For 1988 see section titled “Voted against some gun limitations while in Congress.”)
http://www.kc3.com/news/july6_knox.htm
(Start at paragraph 11)

Here are some links about his pro-defense positions:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=122730
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-11-22/news/8702070578_1_pro-defense-key-votes-voting-records
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33148
(Paragrah 9 under section titled “More Evasions From the Left on the War”)

Here are some links about his overall pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense positions in 1988:
http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/1988-when-al-gore-battled-the-liberal-democrats-by-gregory-hilton/
http://www.hookersandbooze.com/

[Lakeshark]

I think his support for Gore ought to be a small concern for anyone. It's not a game changer for me, but it gives me pause.

Let me think, AlGore, or a continuation of Reagan policies........

What may be a deal killer for me is his past dealings on immigration, his flirtings with La Raza, and his unclear policy on the border. I'm watching, I'm listening, but right now I'm a bit worried about the man. I really don't want an open borders guy like W, and it is possible Perry is his clone on that subject.

We shall see. The campaign should bring out the truth, or at least I'm hoping it does.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I didn’t say 100% effective. I said nearly 100%.

Studies appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several (but not all) of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/70808.php

[SoConPubbie]

Wrong. The ACU rating to which you refer was not Gore’s lifetime conservative rating in 1988. It was his rating for the year 1988 only. The ACU’s yearly rating is based on a legislator’s votes for ONLY the bills considered (voted upon) that year. So if there were no bills about abortion or gun control in a particular year, the rating doesn’t reflect a legislator’s overall positions on those issues. So a 1988 rating is not equivalent to a 2011 rating because the bills voted up by the legislature are not the same.

Hasn't it already been pointed out to you that his three year average around 1988 was around 7%?

[SoConPubbie]

BTW, there was an Abortion vote in 1988 and Gore voted the wrong way.

Check it out on the link I gave you.

[BuckeyeTexan]

An average of those three years reflects Gore’s votes on only the bills that came before the legislature during those three years. If there were no bills regarding abortion or federal funding for it, then that average doesn’t reflect his pro-life stance.

Gore’s 1988 ACU rating doesn’t reflect what people on this thread seem to think it does. And Gore was conservative by Democratic standards in 1988 not by Republican standards.

[SoConPubbie]

An average of those three years reflects Gore’s votes on only the bills that came before the legislature during those three years. If there were no bills regarding abortion or federal funding for it, then that average doesn’t reflect his pro-life stance.

Sorry, but that three year average is an acurate representation of where he was living politically speaking.

On the 1986, 1987 and 1988 ACU Ratings he voted Pro-Abortion. Please review the links as it details the Pro-Life votes that he voted agsinst.

In 1986 he had an ACU rating of 9% and voted the wrong way on the Pro-Life issue that year too.

1986 Senate Ratings

In 1987 he had an ACU rating of 6% and voted the wrong way on the Pro-Life issue that year too.

1987 Senate Ratings

I've also reviewed the links you presented, and basically, with the exception of one document talking about his 40% pro-defense record, which I guess passes as moderate for a Democrat, it doesn't do much to support your contention. It does prove the point that while in the House he was much more conservative, but by the time he had become a Senator, he had flipped.

I think your understanding of Gore's political position during that time frame is a little flawed.