The L.A. Times has a "problem" with Rick Perry.

By D.C.

The L.A. Times editorial staff has a "problem" with Gov.Rick Perry.What a surprise.In the Sunday,Aug.28,Times,appears this editorial,"The problem with Perry".In this piece (of "blank"),the editors detail their so called "problems" with Gov.Perry and his vision for the country.

Let's go through some of these "problems" they have.Here they ask the set up question and begin to answer their own question;
 "But who is Rick Perry, and what will Americans get if he's elected?"

 "One thing they won't get is another George W. Bush, the other Texas governor to whom Perry is often compared. Perry is more rigidly conservative than Bush, more resistant to compromise and more anti-establishment. In his book, he positions himself as a model "tea party" Republican, and he rails against the scourges that most irk movement conservatives: federal incursion into states' rights, a government that seems only to expand and never to shrink, and an activist Supreme Court that sets policy rather than interprets the Constitution."

What's wrong with being a "rigid" conservative? Thats a positive quality.What's wrong with being a Tea Party Republican? Conservative's belief in the 10th amendment of the Constitution or "states' rights" is just liberal code that means all white conservatives are racists,so here they are implying this about Perry.Government is too big and only getting bigger.The courts are loaded with moonbat liberals who legislate from the bench.These are not wrong ideas to have,they are the right ideas to have.

Next,the editors have a "problem" with Gov.Perry's stance on Social Security.They do not care for his ideas about a private account system.Then concerning replacing Social Security with private accounts they write;

 "Replacing it with private accounts imposes more risk on everybody and presumes a level of financial expertise that many Americans don't possess."

Here we go again.I am too dumb to know how to save any money or how to invest that money.Yes folks,we have some egghead liberal telling all of us we are too dumb to run our own lives and we need government to hold our hands through life.Typical.

Here they have a "problem" with Gov.Perry's ideas about Obamacare;
 "Like many movement conservatives, Perry is on an almost messianic quest to repeal the healthcare reform law, which he says is "the closest this country has ever come to outright socialism." Perry believes that the mandate for all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, that federal bureaucrats will ration care even in cases of life and death and that the law will raise taxes, fund abortion and worsen the deficit. Most of this is misleading or untrue. The law will raise some taxes, but it won't fund abortion, nor, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will it worsen the deficit."

What's wrong with any of that? He's right about all this stuff. It is socialism.The mandate is unconstitutional.Federal bureaucrats will ration care.They do in every other socialized system in the world and they will here too.Obamacare will jack up taxes through the roof. It will fund abortions simply because the government is such a horrible money manager.Once that money trickles down to groups like Planned Parenthood,there is no accountability as to how they spend those funds and there is no reason to think this money will not fund abortions.

This stuff about the Congressional Budget Office is a major load of crap.Everybody knows they only crunch the numbers they are given.If you give them a bunch of phony baloney numbers then you come up with ridiculous answers such as Obamacare will not worsen the deficit.Obamacare will blow the already giant deficit up.

They have a "problem" with Perry's stance on National Defence;
 "He believes President Obama's attempts to limit nuclear weapons are misguided because they ignore "the realities of a world full of power-hungry despots who respect us not because of our ideals but because of our strength."."

Gov.Perry is 100% correct about this.So where is your "problem"?

Yet another "problem" these goofballs have is Perry's politics;
 "If you thought the Republicans in control of the House were an uncompromising bunch, they've got nothing on Perry. In Texas, the governor has never been known for reaching across the aisle and pressures moderate Republicans to toe the conservative line. He believes the GOP lost its congressional majority in 2006 not because of an unpopular war but because the party compromised its small-government principles. Under a Perry administration, it would be Rick's way or the highway."

I call this leadership,something sorely missing from the White House now.This is no "problem",it's an asset.

The Times has a "problem" with what they call Perry's,"disturbing connections to fringe religious groups,"

Liberals always try to demonize Republicans who openly display their Christian faith.It's a typical scare tactic from their toolbox of leftist propaganda.Liberals real problem with religious faith is not with religion at all.It's with faith itself.

Conservatives,religious or not,have faith in the ability of the individual to self determine their own future.Liberals have no faith in man to determine his own future.They think people need their hands held by big government from the cradle to the grave.Liberals see this faith intertwined with religious faith.They fear it because when people do not have to rely on government there is no need for a big government and thus no use for liberals or liberalism.This fear of faith is what drives liberals to work so hard to paint religious folks as quacks or nuts.

Another "problem" they have with Perry is,"because he believes that the overwhelming scientific consensus about man-made global warming is "a contrived phony mess"."

Global warming is "a contrived phony mess".It is just a scam so that big government liberals can shake down private business for billions and billions of dollars that will go to grow the size of government and not do a darn thing about this mythical,non-existent,global warming.

They saved their biggest "problem" for this final paragraph;
  "Perry expresses deep nostalgia for the laissez faire, robber-baron era at the turn of the 20th century, when government stayed out of the way of business, unions were weak or nonexistent and the Progressive movement hadn't yet taken off. He extols the virtues of men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt for their charitable activities, implying that moguls know better about how to care for the poor than the government or liberals. Unmentioned are the social crises that fueled Progressive-era reforms: the open warfare between labor and capital, and the staggering gap between rich and poor that spawned violence and misery nationwide. We've already seen how that vision plays out, and it's not a model for the future; it's a warning from the past."

I'll give you a "robber baron".How about Barry O's good buddy,GE CEO and the jobs czar,Jeffery Immelt.Moguls do know how to better care for the poor than the government.Look at what big government liberalism has done for the poor.It's kept the poor in poverty,dependent on government and voting for democrats.
 "We've already seen how that vision plays out, and it's not a model for the future; it's a warning from the past." We have already had a pretty good view of Obama's vision and his model for the future is a failure before the future even gets here.You want a warning from the past? How about the total failure of marxism.Somebody should send you dopes at the Times this warning.How about passing it on to the president.

The L.A. Times' "problem" is not with Rick Perry.Their "problem" is inside their own heads,it's the mental disease of liberalism.