Mac-Coleman

13 September 2011 –

Rick Perry blew it last night, particularly in front of the Tea Partiers. The question of executive orders and when they should be used was a great question. It goes to the center of an issue dear to Tea Partiers: constitutionally dictated separation of powers and specific responsibilities of the branches of government. Ron Paul hit it squarely: legislating by executive order is a wrong thing to do. Unfortunately for Rick Perry, the case study used by Rick Santorum to challenge Rick Perry’s record was the executive order that required all 12-year old girls in Texas—with a restrictive parental opt out option—to be inoculated against cervical cancer. This specific example, not surprisingly, changed the question from executive orders and separation of powers to the soundness of the policy itself. After Ron Paul gave the right answer, Rick Perry’s interlocutors quickly range-gate stole the argument from a rather dry one to an emotional one that handcuffed Rick Perry.

When the focus was still on the subject of executive orders, Rick Perry admitted that he was wrong to implement this inoculation policy with an executive order. If he had stopped there, others’ harangues on the immorality of the inoculation policy could not have gone forward. But, he put a bulls-eye on his chest when he explained further—oh, when will they ever learn to stop talking when they are ahead?—that the policy was a good one, but that he should have pursued it through the legislative route. This additional comment, as heartfelt as it may have been, took the subject from a relatively safe one to an explosive one. Not good. It further moved the issue from executive orders to the rights of parents vs those of government over children. A good discussion, but not to be confused with the subject of executive orders. Ah, the dangers of letting others dictate the focus of the argument.

Rick Perry’s second faux pas was to poorly explain his policy of letting illegal immigrants get in-state tuition in Texas colleges. He explained that the policy allows in-state tuition for immigrants who have lived in Texas for a certain amount of time and who show that they are prearing to become citizens. Later, he repeated that statement without explaining the key concept of preparing to become citizens. What does that mean? Are these people legally accepted in the U.S. through specific legal processes and now are on a path to citizenship? Or, so these people simply show proof of being in Texas for a certain amount of time—legally being in Texas is a moot point, I guess—and that they now simply “desire” to become U.S. citizens sometime in the future? After Governor Perry repeated the same phrasing in his defense, his policy sounded more like the latter, liberal policy than the former, conservative one. Not a good thing to intimate in front of Tea Partiers and the nation. Sadly, except for Governor Romney’s silence, the candidates’ harrumphing and demagoguery that followed sounded like Democrat office seekers in a La Rasa Unida rally.

The in-state tuition policy for illegal immigrants sounds like it makes every college campus in Texas a sanctuary campus. Where is the severe criticism from the right? From anywhere in the conservative community? Has illegal immigration become too sensitive an issue to confront squarely on the hustings? I certainly hope not.