Why Governor Perry is still likely to be nominated

Red State ^ | October 27, 2011 | barleycorn

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Numerous preemptive obituaries are being written for Governor Rick Perry’s campaign. These efforts are premature because they fail to understand and appreciate the fickle winds of political fortune.

Governor Perry has substantial political assets that make him a potent candidate and that will give him another chance to prove himself to Republican voters.

Each candidate brings their own set of positives and negatives to the game:

Mitt Romney has money to burn, establishment support, business experience, and passable debating skills. He also has a record far to the left of the majority of Republicans, a history of changing his position on major issues, and gives the impression that he will let you down when your back is turned.

Herman Cain has business experience, a high likability factor, and a fresh approach to conventional problems. He also has a propensity for confusing statements, no history of political success, and seems less vested in his own campaign than are his supporters.

Newt Gingrich has laser-like intelligence, a thorough understanding of policy choices, and excellent debating skills. He also has two ex-wives, a tendency to talk too much, and a manner that strikes many independents and women as smug or arrogant.

Rick Perry is not an able debater. In fact he seems to be bored with the entire exercise and I don’t blame him for that. The process that currently passes for “debate” is a valueless mixture of antagonistic press conference and TV quiz show. Rick Perry is not a policy wonk. Neither was Ronald Reagan. Neither was Dwight Eisenhower. Neither was George Washington.

What Governor Perry does have is:

A demonstrated ability to win elections.

A demonstrated understanding of how to lead and govern.

A Reaganesque capacity to touch the “mystic chords of memory” that bind us together.

A large stockpile of cash.

A set of opponents who all have significant electoral problems of their own.

While being ahead is intuitively always better than being behind, the clear political fact is that polls in October-November-December, don’t win elections in January and February. An Iowa State University poll published on November 18, 2003 showed Howard Dean at 29%, Dick Gephardt at 21%, John Kerry at 15%, and John Edwards at 8%. A Pew Research poll published on December 2, 2003 showed Dean at 26%, Gephardt at 22%, Kerry at 9%, and Edwards at 5%. (H/T nationalpolls.com)

The Democrat’s experience in 2004 is I think highly relevant as it was largely the mirror image of 2012. Eight years ago Democrats loathed George W. Bush just as conservatives today can’t stomach Barack Obama. Like Obama now, Bush was widely seen as vulnerable and thus there was a wide open scrum for the Democrat nomination.

For all his money Mitt Romney has been unable to close the deal with Republican voters. For all his current polling success, Herman Cain still appears to be a long shot to stay the distance. For all of his smarts and ability Newt Gingrich retains major downside risks.

The flaws of his opponents, together with his own considerable skill and potential, leaves an opening the size of Texas for Governor Rick Perry.

[Irish Eyes]

Yeah, my group believes in US sovereignty and doesn’t believe in leaders using executive orders to force vaccines on the innocent because we know better than they do and because we get money and donations from drug companies. LOL

Perry is a crony capitalist and he will never be able to go after Obama for doing what he has no problem doing. Perry is lethal.

Get with it. Will ya?

I see that you are from Indiana. Exactly how much do you know about Texas? It looks as if you do not are not exactly up to date.

[Yosemitest]

You support him. I won't.
He's NOT a conservative.
If he's on the ticket, I'll do a write-in.
I'm not wasting my vote promoting an "Establishment Republican".
Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain is my second.
Newt is my third choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[trisham]

I’ve never met a politician who I haven’t thought was a nice guy - and that includes my former governor, Jim McGreevey, who sweetly kissed my best friend on the cheek one week before announcing he was a “gay American.” (My best friend is a lady!) So, I’m pretty cynical about that.

Mr. Perry, nice guy or not, is simply not up to the job and it seems that the majority of freepers have figured that out. But, like all pols, he will do what he has to do, until he runs out of money.

**********************************

I hear you and I agree. Niceness is an important attribute in a candidate, but if unaccompanied by intelligence it is worthless.

[onyx]

Everyone here is smarter than that one.


Please Donate Today!

Everyone here is smarter than that one.


Please Donate Today!

[trisham]

Exactly how much do you know about Texas? It looks as if you do not are not exactly up to date.

****************************

Is Perry a candidate running for the presidency of Texas? That's good to know.

[Yosemitest]

"Since the recession began, desperate job seekers have flocked to Texas at a clip of roughly 1,000 people per day.
And they're finding work, too.
Despite a huge population influx and a bruising national recession, Texas' unemployment rate remains below the national average.
How remarkable has the Lone Star State's economic performance been?"

I refer you to post #184.

" ... Analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data collected by the Census Bureau show that
immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this growth since 2007, not native-born workers.
This is true even though
the native-born accounted for the vast majority of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas.
Thus, they should have received the lion’s share of the increase in employment.
As a result, the share of working-age natives in Texas holding a job has declined in a manner very similar to the nation a whole.”

"As a result, the share of working-age natives in Texas holding a job has declined in a manner very similar to the nation a whole.”



If nearly half the of the jobs Perry claims to have created went to illegal aliens, this statistic coupled with the governor’s willingness to give non-citizens a free ride on education, reflects an astounding lack of seriousness and leadership on these issues.

As conservatives continue to discover Perry’s real record in Texas, they continue to be disappointed in what they find.

Yeah, Perry creating lots of jobs for ILLEGALS.

[casinva]

This goes to “eyewitness” reports of so many who have met Governor Perry in real life. I have heard people time and time again say that in person, Rick Perry is a genuine person, a real human being, and a person you can feel comfortable with.

Now, you just clued us in that Rick and Anita Perry are wonderful servants of God’s love and grace too and that they have a special love for military men and women and for vets.

What’s more is that their love and care for the military men and women of our country is not just on a political level (which those of us from Texas know is definitely evident) but also on a personal level.

Thanks for sharing that with us.

I think it’s good we get to hear the real person that is behind that politician with strong stands on principles and policy.

After all, if he were sitting in that Oval Office come January 2013, we would be getting both that strong politician we all know him to be as well as that gracious person you just described.

Romans 12: 1:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

[MizSterious]

Good point. Actually, I started out as a Cain supporter—then he said some things that made me think twice about that. And then when I mentioned that after those remarks I liked Perry a little better, the vitriol was astounding—enough so that at this point, judging from Cain’s supporters, I wouldn’t vote for him if he were the last candidate on the ballot. I wonder if they realize how much harm they are doing for the man they claim to support?

[dragnet2]

Give it a break! Your spamming of freerepublic is getting very obnoxious. The guy is a stammering dunce in the debates and was dumb enough to tell 75% of the country they had no heart.

Ya don't like 20 articles a day being posted by the Perry fan club?

Where's your humor?

See, the strategy is if they post enough pics of him posing on hay bales with his dog, shooting a six shooter at Knotts Berry Farm, kissing the Pope, or roping heifers and other assorted farm animals, the easily led and those and drooling in cups will love him!

[TADSLOS]

Ping.

[Longbow1969]

You think that if Cain got the nomination, that Republicans wouldn't vote for him?

No, I think ONLY Republicans vote for him. I don't think he'd get hardly any of the mushy middle or crossover vote that is needed to actually national win elections. And if that is not bad enough, as a complete novice he is far too likely to do and say stupid things that blow up his campaign.

With the exception of Romney, any other Republican, even Ron Paul, can beat Obama. Any.

Yes, I see this same insane overconfidence on FR sometimes and wonder if the people that say this stuff actually have any real experience with, or understanding of, our election system and history. You do not know what the political conditions will be in Nov 2012, and you'd better be planning for a very tough, close election.

[normy]

Of course. I wanted to like Cain and he was actually my second choice for a while. When he refused Perry as a VP possibility but liked Mitt I became suspect. Then people claiming to support Cain started getting really ugly, even though I am sure some of those were Romney people. Now I think if Perry doesn't make it I will support Gingrich.

I wont be voting for Cain unless he runs against Obama.

[af_vet_rr]

Yes, I see this same insane overconfidence on FR sometimes and wonder if the people that say this stuff actually have any real experience with, or understanding of, our election system and history. You do not know what the political conditions will be in Nov 2012, and you'd better be planning for a very tough, close election.

Obama ain't going to be able to fix his problems between now and November 2012, not when a lot of those were problems he promised to fix when elected the first time. 2010 showed that his supported started to drop pretty quickly.

[Gaffer]

I agree. His comment about "no heart" is what did him in. But the real reason why he isn't likely to go all the way is his reluctance to debate; he just plain sucks at it. I can understand the jockeying with the other Republican Candidates and making allowances for him. But the nod, if he gets it, mandates he debate the One (The Evil One) in a venue with moderators that will bias and slant every question for Obama and against Perry. This is just a given. It wouldn't surprise me that Obama will be allowed a teleprompter in each debate.

If Perry is going to skip out on most of the rest of the GOP debates, this just confirms what we all know.

[Gaffer]

You have a really creepy obsession with this man's picture. Particularly when you choose to use one when replying to a logical and cogent response on your posts. You mostly just don't make any sense.....just papp and pictures - over and over and over.

[normy]

Up to the job? Rick Perry runs a state with 24 million people, with the 13th largest economy in the world and a 1200 mile international border.

He's flown C-130's all over the world.

He was an Air Force Captain with a military command. He's an Eagle Scout.

He created over a million jobs while the US lost 2 million.

Rick Perry is more qualified to be president and is more ready to lead this nation than Herman Cain has ever been in his life.

Rick Perry came from the poor rural cotton farms of West Texas and became the governor of one of the most powerful states in the US.

There is no better candidate. Better debater? Romney and Newt.

Better motivational speaker? Yep Herman Cain (who by the way has a rule among his lower level staff, don't speak unless spoken too).

Better candidate for President. No way. More prepared to lead this nation? Perry and Newt are the only ones.

[Longbow1969]

Obama ain't going to be able to fix his problems between now and November 2012, not when a lot of those were problems he promised to fix when elected the first time. 2010 showed that his supported started to drop pretty quickly.

A lot of that depends on what the environment is at the time. Will the country be talking about debt or will we be talking about some mythical "jobs bill" or some other issue. Nothing can stay forefront in the news forever, the media moves from issue to issue and a lot depends on what captures the public's interest.

Further, this is not the same country as it was in the past. The American population is much more dependent on government and will likely vote more and more like Europe. 47% now pay no income taxes, 48% are in some way dependent on government transfer payments. Where once upon a time people felt screwed by a bad economy and wanting to give the new guy a try, now they are living off government money and have far less incentive to do that - worse, the dependence this creates makes it far LESS likely they would vote for someone who threatened to curtail or eliminate their freebies.

You are absolutely dreaming if you believe Obama will be easy to beat. He will get no less than 45% of the vote, and it is far more likely he will be closer to 50%. If I had to guess 2012 will be close, along the lines of 2004 - if we nominate someone that can't hold up through a tough election we will lose.

[txhurl]

Wow. Case in point.

[magritte]

Yep. Most of the anti-Perry’s are illegal haters. Bottom line.

[McGavin999]

Yes I do, the voter ID law is to keep illegal aliens from voting. Seems like you are the one supporting illegals, isn’t that funny! Here you’ve tried to convince everyone here that you are so against illegals and you are complaining about the voter ID law. The only people I have ever heard fight an ID law are illegals, their enablers, and.....democrats.