First, the Texas governorship has limited actual authority.
Most of the governor's power rests in appointments. Very little power rests in influencing legislation, except via veto or by the selection of which items to include in a special session of the legislature.
Most actual power rests with the lieutenant governor. Therefore many of the accomplishments credited to Perry (or formerly credited to Bush, when he was governor) are actually largely attributable to others.
Secondly, Perry has always seemed to be more about Perry, than he has been about actually doing things for the good of the state.
Thirdly, Perry has very little international expertise or experience.
Michelle Bachman seems a more sound candidate, although admittedly she is not nearly as well understood here in Texas as is Perry.
Having said all of that, I certainly would support Perry, if he were to become the nominee, as an alternative to four more years of Obama.
Considering what the country faces, Perry is one of the hardest working Governors in the country and has done an admirably great job as Governor of Texas. (Considering the complexity of the state.)
Texas is like no other state. It is extremely large in land area as well as population. Considering the vast and diverse industrial/business complex, for a governor to advance the state to the top in most all categories of growth, that says a lot about that governor.
He puts GW Bush to shame in comparison.
“Thirdly, Perry has very little international expertise or experience.
Michelle Bachman seems a more sound candidate, “
Bachman doesn’t have any “international expertise” and what more, she doesn’t have any executive experience or a record to run on either. The Dems would take her apart like Humpty-Dumpty in the general elections.