Rick Perry risks channeling Ron Paul
It's already old news how Texas governor Rick Perry has fumbled only so many debates/conferences. But this time he may really have gaffed the gaffe:
I remember when a few months ago, only so many were cheering Perry on as a messianic coming, and when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer pointed to the questionable school curriclum involving Islam and Aga Khan used under his state administration, some even went out of their way to apologize for him (and criticizing Geller just because she pointed to a Salon article is silly; she's used various reports from the NYT, which can be just as hostile to her, and nobody had a problem with that). But now, and probably ever since the material Geller found on the internet about Aga Khan was erased from the internet, such fanfare seems to have died down, as the apologists must now realize that Perry's not what he could've been.
Maybe this could serve as a lesson to the Perry apologists about why it doesn't pay to just cheer on a guy whose policies are questionable if he cannot handle debates and act like he's the next amazing coming. Already, Newt Gingrich is starting to gain a lot of the traction Perry once had, and we'll have to see if he's got a better understanding of all these issues than Perry does.
Also, if Perry's stance on immigration in the USA is poor, then why should we have to buy that he's really respectable of Israel? And even if he is, that doesn't mean we should overlook his poor handling of locally based issues. Indeed, we should be disappointed.
Republican candidates for president on the debate stage in South Carolina Saturday agreed that addressing the out-of-control national debt is essential for national security. At one point Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke of how his administration would grant foreign aid, with every country starting at “zero dollars:”I'm afraid this is failing to make a proper difference between countries with civilized cultures and those that lack it, like Pakistan, which they also bring up as one that doesn't need our valuble tax dollars. This runs a serious risk of parroting the same lines spoken by the even more dismal Ron Paul. Already, Perry's statements have caused concern in the Jewish community.
When asked by a Twitter user how this policy would apply to Israel, Perry responded that like every country, Israel would start at zero.
“Obviously Israel is a special ally and my bet is we would be funding them at some substantial level,” said Perry. “But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.”
I remember when a few months ago, only so many were cheering Perry on as a messianic coming, and when Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer pointed to the questionable school curriclum involving Islam and Aga Khan used under his state administration, some even went out of their way to apologize for him (and criticizing Geller just because she pointed to a Salon article is silly; she's used various reports from the NYT, which can be just as hostile to her, and nobody had a problem with that). But now, and probably ever since the material Geller found on the internet about Aga Khan was erased from the internet, such fanfare seems to have died down, as the apologists must now realize that Perry's not what he could've been.
Maybe this could serve as a lesson to the Perry apologists about why it doesn't pay to just cheer on a guy whose policies are questionable if he cannot handle debates and act like he's the next amazing coming. Already, Newt Gingrich is starting to gain a lot of the traction Perry once had, and we'll have to see if he's got a better understanding of all these issues than Perry does.
Also, if Perry's stance on immigration in the USA is poor, then why should we have to buy that he's really respectable of Israel? And even if he is, that doesn't mean we should overlook his poor handling of locally based issues. Indeed, we should be disappointed.
Labels: Israel, United States
