Posted on 09/01/2011 11:48:22 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I’m impressed by Rick Perry. He’s got an effective speaking style. I like his book, Fed Up! I’ve also defended Perry against a biased New York Times hit piece. Perry still needs to be vetted on the campaign trail, but on current indications, given his extensive gubernatorial experience, sterling record on job creation, and ability to unite the libertarian and social conservative wings of the party, Perry would make a great nominee. Having said all that, I think we need to be honest with ourselves about Perry’s potential vulnerability.
The Left has been busily mining Perry’s book Fed Up! for material they can use to paint him as an extremist. It’s not a fair claim, as I’ve already argued, but there’s enough rhetorical ammunition around that the claim will be made — and made repeatedly — nonetheless. The latest example comes from Ruth Marcus. Ramesh and Michael Barone have responded to Marcus’s most explosive charge, but the fundamental controversy remains.
The easiest way for Perry to diffuse the raft of charges that will continue to be made against him based on Fed Up! would be to put forward some concrete proposals on entitlements. Perry could embrace the Ryan plan, or offer a Medicare proposal of his own. He could also express support for Social Security, while calling for a higher retirement age for people now 55 and younger. These moves would carry political risks, of course, but given the unrelenting attacks that will be leveled at Perry on entitlements, doing nothing may be riskier still.
Barring that move, Perry could still be an excellent and successful Republican presidential nominee. Yet I think it’s fair to say that, as it stands today, he’d be a riskier pick than Romney.
David Catron recently claimed that, while Perry can beat Obama, Romney cannot. While Catron makes some good points, I’m not persuaded. Even if Romney finds it awkward to attack Obama on health care, he’ll do it anyway — and it will work. In this case, the conventional wisdom is right. To the extent that the campaign is a referendum on Obama, he loses. To the extent that it becomes a choice election, Obama has a chance to win. In the public’s mind, this election is already going to be a referendum on Obama. So Romney will be treated as a clear alternative, even before he begins to criticize. On the other hand, unless Perry takes steps to diffuse the attacks on his book with clarifying proposals, he may become almost as much of an issue as Obama. That would make Perry the riskier choice.
This may be a risk well worth taking, of course. Quite possibly, the liberal caricatures of Perry will backfire. And while I don’t at all agree that Perry plans to dismantle entitlements, I do think he’s likely to pare back welfare-state overreach to an even greater extent than Romney. That’s a good thing.
On the other hand, Romney is no slouch. I’ve been reading Romney’s book, No Apology. Perry’s federalism makes him a polar opposite of Obama. In a slightly different way, however, Romney’s business experience does the same. Just about every lesson about economic productivity Romney draws out of his extensive background in business puts him dead against Obama’s regulatory state.
Yes, Romneycare was an unfortunate and failed attempt to compromise with Massachusetts liberals. No doubt, at the time Romney thought this would set him up for a successful presidential run. Even so, all of Romney’s business instincts tell against Obama’s broader plans. Romney would undo the economic damage of the Obama years and get the economy growing again. That’s what comes through loud and clear in No Apology.
It’s still early in the process. The upcoming debates will tell us a lot. Conservatives are right to be excited by Perry. He may be the solution we’ve been looking for. But the fundamental goal is, and must remain, to defeat Obama. Things could change, but as of now Perry remains the riskier bet. Flaws and all, Romney is not only the more likely winner, but a candidate with more positives than conservatives now give him credit for. On the other hand, as noted, even at slightly greater risk, Perry may well be a chance worth taking. And with the right set of proposals, Perry could go a long way toward diffusing his vulnerabilities.
What I’m really saying is that I haven’t made up my mind yet. We’ve got to get this one right. Perry’s great, but he still needs road testing, and a chance to lay out his policies. And as of now, for all his problems, Romney shouldn’t be written off. Try reading both Fed Up! and No Apology and you’ll see that our two frontrunners are both live options for conservatives.
Mittens, not on my life.
“What I’m really saying is that I haven’t made up my mind yet”
That sums me up. While I have strong positive and negative opinions about all of them, declared and undeclared, it IS early.
I just don’t think Perry is electable. I don’t think he plays well outside of his base. And there are just not enough of us to elect anyone. Gotta run, but have many more thoughts on the issue. May try my first “vanity”. ; )
Romneycare or Dream act?
The “Electability” question is one of the things got us McCain for the last election.
Captain Gardasil or Slick Willard ? Double FAIL.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Thus is the lot of a Ho.
Although I agree with Perry on just about everything, I think he is a loose cannon who has provided Axelrod and Plouffe more than enough ammo to sink his campaign.
If the election becomes about Social Security and Medicare, the GOP could very well lose. If the election is all about Obamacare, the Dems lose big time, without doubt.
Electability is overrated.
Elections are won by the candidate that most excites his or her base. In terms of an incumbent, elections are a referendum on that person.
“... while Perry can beat Obama, Romney cannot”
And THAT’S what I’m talk’n about!!!!
Do we or do we NOT want the WH?
Romney can’t beat Perry.
Romney can’t beat Palin.
Romney can’t beat Bachmann.
Romney can’t beat Paul.
One of these isn’t even running...yet.
He wouldn’t beat Obama. The enthusiasm gap would be too much.
I like Perry because he wants to put America back to work.
But if all he has is has ‘favorable climate’ speech, forget him too. If he doesn’t set out a plan with a measurable unemployment % objective, it isn’t a plan, it’s just a political speech. Obama said 8%, what does Perry say?
Mitt vs Mugabbe , you stay home?
Karl Rove ran Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's 2010 primary challenge against Gov. Rick Perry and lost.
Axerold ran John Sharp's 1998 Lt. Gov. race against Rick Perry (at the same time Karl Rove was running GW Bush's re-election for Texas Gov race and telling Perry to go easy against Sharp -- (Perry refused to take Rove's suggestion) -- so Bush's base would broaden for his 2000 WH run).
John Sharp (Axelrod) lost to Rick Perry and Perry became the first Republican Lt. Governor of Texas since Reconstruction.
If Perry had done things the way Rove requested, Perry knew that the Democrat voters would vote for Bush then cross back to vote for the popular Democrat, John Sharp for Lt. Gov.
In effect, Rick Perry was running a campaign against Rove and Axelrod at the same time.
And Perry won.
After 11 years with Gov. Rick Perry at the helm, Texas Republicans hold a super majority.
Rick Perry's fight back in 1998 - his understanding of how to win, has had much to do with how Texas is faring today....and how the country will fare under a President Perry.
BTW, John Sharp and Rick Perry are friends. Recently, Gov. Rick Perry gave an approving nod to John Sharp's nomination as Chancellor of Texas A&M (where they first started out together -- Rick Perry ran John Sharp's campaign for student body president and Sharp ran Perry's campaign for Yell Leader (they both won)
John Sharp:"When you're running against Perry, you better bring your lunch.
**********************
Rick Perry started as a Democrat in West Texas (essentially THE only party). He served in the Texas legislature - was known as one of the "pit bulls," conservative members who sat in the lower pit of the House Appropriations Committee and bitterly fought spending increases.
Perry changed parties in 1989, joining Phil Gramm and other conservative Texas Democrats, who now had a true ideological party with a burgeoning Texas GOP.
When Perry campaigned for Lt. Gov. [1998], he and his campaign staff were in it to win and his hard-nosed style was against the "friendly" advice and request of GWB [in re-election bid for Texas Gov] and Rove to run easy against Sharp, a popular democrat (and Aggie friend of Perry's from their A&M years together). Rove wanted to broaden Bush's base for his upcoming White House run. Perry told them where to stick their advice, because he knew the voters would vote for Bush for Gov. and then cross back over and vote for Sharp (D) for Lt. Gov, if he just walked through the motions like the Bush-Rove team asked him to do.
Perry won the seat for Lt. Gov. -- the first Republican elected to that office since Reconstruction. Now 13 years later and into his 3rd term as Texas governor, the GOP holds a super majority. So Perry has earned his conservative spurs -- fighting both parties!
[The Bushes and Rove supported Kay Bailey Hutchison's primary challenge against Gov. Perry in the 2010 election too]
Gov. Perry and The TEXAS Dream Act
[snip]
It’s important to point out that there is a huge difference in the TEXAS Dream Act and the The Dream Act that was pushed in Congress and failed. The Dream Act in Congress was full of all kinds of goodies other than allowing children of illegals to receive in state tuition. The Texas Dream Act was focused only on that. I happen to agree with The Texas Dream Act, and so did everyone in the Senate in Texas. It passed with ZERO “no” votes. Add to that, it has been proven to be successful.
These are a few things you need to know about the [2001] Texas Dream Act. The child has to have lived in Texas the three years leading up to high school graduation. These students are given no special treatment in getting into Texas colleges and universities. They must get in on their own merit. They are paying the tuition (with or without financial aid). It’s estimated that these students make up about 1% of those entering college.
[snip]
Most of us agree that border control MUST be dealt with first. The problem with all other efforts on this issue in the past is that the borders were not sealed. If there is anyone who we can trust to do that it is Gov. Perry (if he decides to run for President). He knows what goes on down at the border. He has gone there many times. He knows what needs to be done. There is no doubt in my mind that if he were President, he would seal our borders. But Perry also understands Hispanic outreach.
[snip]
Anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-queer agenda, Obomney care, etc.
No way could that worthless bastard win.
The liberals are pushing him because they know he will lose, and drag Congress down with him.
Perry plays well in Texas. No one knows how well will do outside of that state.
No matter what we here on this website happen to think of Social Security and Medicare, both of those entitlement programs remain ENORMOUSLY popular with the public in general. Most people feel they’ve worked and paid into the system most of their lives and they are entitled to collect back from it.
I think the GOP nominee would be better served going after Obamacare.
The only way BHO can win is to destroy his opponent and raising huge doubts. The things Perry has said about Social Security give plenty of ammo to the Dems. Senior citizens are the fastest growing segment of the population and the highest propensity voters.
“Elections are won by the candidate that most excites his or her base. In terms of an incumbent, elections are a referendum on that person.”
I think is correct. This election will somewhat be a referendum on the Obama Administration....which frankly has done very poorly.
All the GOP needs to do is pick a candidate that generates the most interest and excitment by the most faithful of GOP voters which is the conservative base. The candidate that can best do that is most likely to win.
Now here is where the rub is. That may or may not be Perry..or Palin...etc. I don’t know yet who best motivates the conservative base to vote and contribute money.
Many on this thread will say Perry is best. However, many others will say Palin. A smaller number will say Bachmann, or another. Here on FR at least....only a very small minority will say Romney....and the majority of that group will be the handful of Mormons the lurk on FR trying to win converts.
I won’t even speculate about the vast ranks of the “conservatives” in the world outside of FR.
I don’t get this “Perry doesn’t attract votes outside the base” montra. I think too many here are buying into the false meme that he is some sort of extremist. He’s a fairly mainstream guy that constantly wins the middle. His views are very much in line with the majority of voters now, and his solutions are proven to be friendly to job growth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.