Posted on 10/05/2011 9:07:44 PM PDT by DRey
What Perry’s fundraising shows, his backers argue, is that he’s the only conservative candidate in the race with the resources to compete against Mitt Romney over the long haul. In other words, he can spend his way out of his current predicament.
And while Perry has likely lost his chance to run away with the Republican presidential nomination, his eye-opening cash haul — collected in just 49 days — suggests he may yet be able to wrest it from Romney in an expensive, bruising nomination fight that drags on into spring.
“He is going to have the resources to run a comprehensive and lengthy campaign,” said Mississippi Republican National Committeeman Henry Barbour, a Perry supporter. “It’s clear that he would have raised more than $17 million if not for the loss of momentum that happened in Florida, which makes the $17 million more impressive.”
(snip)
If the Perry team is correct and Romney has already disqualified himself with too many GOP primary voters, there’s only one other candidate in the race who looks capable of cobbling together the right set of votes to claim the nomination.
“We’re 90 days out from the first ballot being cast and I don’t know whether Romney can seal the deal,” said Jeff Ballabon, an influential GOP fundraiser supporting Perry. “But $17 million in seven weeks from 20,000 in 50 states just said loud and clear that Perry can.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
What planet are you living on? As likeable and conservative as Cain is, he has no money or clout in the general election against Obama since he’s never been in public office. It’s not fair but it’s the facts. Cain will be a flash in the pan after this week just like he was up until the straw poll in Florida. Cain can’t raise money in truckloads like Perry or Romney. He will be on the sidelines just like Palin because of his unelectability, regardless of how much you loathe Perry or Romney. That said, I guess you’ll be staying home next November considering those choices of reality. Real smart.
I’m not sure where you’ve been, I’ve written many posts as such over the past decade on a multitude of political figures and state political histories, et al.
You are correct in that he ran for the U.S. Senate back in 2004. In that race he faced an establishment choice (then-Congressman Isakson) and another Conservative, then-Congressman Mac Collins. Both he and Collins were excellent choices, Isakson somewhat less so. Cain had my endorsement then and despite overwhelming odds, just missed by 3% forcing Isakson into a runoff. If he had won such a matchup, he would’ve joined Zero as a freshman Senator that year.
However, in some ways, it may have been better that he did not win that race. He would’ve been tarred and feathered with the unpopularity of that body, and it isn’t exactly the best venue for demonstrating executive capacity. Some urged Palin to make a Senate run, but I think that would’ve been a terrible place for her at the present time (I could see her as a Senator AFTER her terms as President as an elder stateswoman, but not before). It turned out to be a terrible mistake for George Allen. Great Governor who was hamstrung as Senator (and clearly biding his time to run for President, allowing himself to take his reelection for granted, and even the Democrats were flabbergasted that he blew the race — all they really wanted to do was soften him up for ‘08).
I’ll cite even another example of a potential Senate matchup that never materialized that benefitted the Republican... and that was Ronald Reagan. Since he was also expecting to run for President by 1976 (prior to ‘74, the assumption was presumably against Agnew in the primary) and his term as Governor expired in 1975, the only available office to run for was Senator. He was going to challenge freshman incumbent and ultraliberal Alan Cranston. Watergate, however, changed that and with the national unpopularity of the GOP and polling indicating he would lose in that climate, he opted not to do so. Still, had he done so and won, again, like with Cain, he would’ve been stuck in an unpopular and very divisive Senate, which would’ve caused him more harm than good.
There’s a reason why no Republican Senator has won the Presidency since 1920 with Warren Harding (and Harding was WAY down the list of choices as a relatively obscure member, after more popular Governors and other figures including a General, couldn’t muster majority support). There was another businessman from Rhode Island, a Conservative, whom had never run for office before named Don Carcieri (whom I myself touted for the Presidency). He ran for and won the Governorship there, twice, and led there under difficult circumstances with an extremely weak state GOP. Back to Cain again, because he is a Georgian, and the state is now heavily GOP after what had been more than 130 years of uncontested Democrat control, the opportunities have vanished for him to try to make a go of the Governorship.
I think there are rare times with certain exceptional individuals that we need not look exclusively to having held political office as a prerequisite for the Presidency. I think military leaders are one and high profile businessmen/businesswomen are another. If they’ve led a large multibillion-dollar company with scores of employees, that can very well be considered a Gubernatorial equivalent in my estimation. I think even our Founding Fathers would agree.
The arguments of Perry’s being “undefeated” in office as a reason for running him is not necessarily a positive. You have to look at why and how he has managed it, and you’ll start to see that he has lucked out, which isn’t necessarily an indication of supreme skill, but one of timing. He was a Democrat from a heavily Democrat county serving in the TX House, not a particular feat. When he saw the Democrats crumbling at the state level and with a push from Karl Rove (not exactly known for backing Conservatives, but establishment big government types — i.e. Specter over Toomey), he challenged a nutty moonbat incumbent in a race that almost any respectable GOP candidate could’ve prevailed in for Ag Commissioner.
With Dubya gearing up for the Presidency and the legendary Democrat Bob Bullock retiring as Lt Governor, Perry made logical sense at the time as a statewide figure to move over to that job. It would be his only real challenge of a race against John Sharp, which he won (however, Dubya’s landslide 1998 victory may have been Perry’s only saving grace — without those coattails, Sharp might’ve kept the seat for the Dems and perhaps even altered Dubya’s Presidency plans — and before you say that’s unlikely, I’ll cite the Conservative GOP Governor of California in the ‘80s, George Deukmejian, who turned down entreaties by the party to run against Bush, Sr. in 1988 because he didn’t want to turn the state over to a moonbat Democrat Lt Governor).
Perry then never had to “compete” to get the Governorship from the start, it was dropped on his lap. He was essentially handed another (full) term as a “gimme” in 2002. It was in that time that I soured on him (for reasons we’ve gone over endlessly), as did a LOT of Conservatives. When 2006 came around, it was a disaster. Although opposition to him in the primary was desultory, the general was quite telling. He lost close to 1/3rd of his support from 2002, a million votes, ending up with a paltry 39% of the vote. That was awful for a sitting Governor. In actual votes, that was the fewest to vote for a winner since Mark White edged out incumbent Bill Clements in 1982. He might’ve looked the “best” candidate only because of his opponents in a 4-way race, but that should’ve been a sign that it was time for him to hang it up for 2010 and a decade in office.
There were many Conservatives that have been waiting to move up in the state, but have remained at a standstill because Perry, KBH and Cornyn refuse to go, and they’ve all since become captives of the establishment and statism. I would’ve backed ANY reliable Conservative to oust Perry for 2010, but once again, he lucked out because he managed not only to draw a Washington establishment pol (vs Austin establishment) but the supposed “Conservative” opponent who was threatening him early on turned out to be a 9/11 Truther Ron Paul nutter. For all the Perry folks that flaunt Palin’s endorsement, remember who Perry was up against. He was the LEAST of the worst, but that still didn’t make him “great.” He also earned a paltry 51% in the primary against those equally bad opponents, his lowest % of the vote in the primary since before he’d been Governor. Again, pretty poor. Going on to the general against about the best Democrat that the weak TX party could put up, he lucked out again simply because of the national climate, not necessarily due to a ringing endorsement of his leadership. Most troubling was his willful dodging of ex-Houston Mayor Bill White in debates. We’ve now seen the results of that, he is absolutely terrible in such a format, and he knows it. Were he to be the nominee, he would be mercilessly mocked for his performance as such and Zero would be put at an advantage. Though debates don’t necessarily win a Presidential race, in a close contest, they could have an impact, and we saw how poorly Dubya was and Perry is even worse, and the comparisons between the two are inevitable.
As I said, it’s long past time for a change, and we need to get away from these career politicians and the prima donnas who think they’re owed the highest office in the land. I think Cain is, absent Palin, the best we have currently running. I think he, also like Palin, has the potential to reshape the country in ways Perry simply cannot and begin to change the political dynamic. We are paralyzed now and it’s going to take someone from out of the normal political realm to move us back and bring us together again. And for whatever else, we know that even if he is by chance unsuccessful, we know he’ll be far better than what’s in the White House now. I’m willing to give him the chance and the benefit of any doubts, and I think a lot of Americans fed up with politicians will too.
Right, right. As Perry has tanked, why do you have such a fascination for his threads?
No one cares about Perry anymore, as you say...
Perry supporters are ‘obnoxious’ because they actually refute outlandish claims... and it’s embarrassing for someone to be caught making them.
I don't know one unemployed person in my large circle of friends and many of us own various type's of small businesses employing between 3-5 people.
It's sunny and people are happy.
We're doing so well that we can even spend 400 million of our own tax dollars to secure the US international border with Mexico.
If Texas is not a sh!thole, why should anyone think the USA would be?
Calling in your gang for a ‘had-been’? Wow.
If this is a precursor to the fair tax, that means we will start giving out prebate checks to those under the poverty level. What a disaster that would be in 20 years.
I always think of tax plans or any plan, and what it would be like under Obama and that is the worst case scenario.
9-9-9 will sink Cain. Nice guy but bad plan.
President SHOULDN’T be the first office you hold. I agree.
But we must work with what we got. To me Cain’s inexperience is trial compared to the negatives of Perry (or Romney).
Trial=Trivial
That's all speculation on your part, unless you can back it up with data.
This wouldn't bother me even if you prove it up. Big business is sitting on trillions of dollars, waiting for a president they can count on for a better regulatory climate and low taxes.
That sounds just like RICK PERRY, brothers and sisters!
Perry's action of defunding Planned Parenthood cements his commitment to the pro-life issue.
His position on illegal immigration is much better than many want to admit.
Perry has been the victim of a piling on by the other candidates. No one has had to withstand the level of scrutiny as Perry.
This latest "rock" "controversy" is just crazy and Cain took the bait.
This primary season has taught me we are not going to find a perfect candidate and so far, I see nothing serious enough to make Perry a deal breaker.
Ron Paul is a crazy, dangerous man.
Amazing, you take Romney over Perry. So what you are saying is that giving in state tuition for children of illegal immigrants is far more dangerous for you than Romney super liberal record on many issues including Romneycare that was the model for Obamacare.
Cain is in it as a Romney attack dog against Perry. Cain’s dream is that if Romney is the nominee he will pick him as his VP. Many on our side are too blind to see this basic fact.
Herman Cain's resume is a lot, lot longer than CEO of a large pizza chain. Why don't you try reading the whole story sometime instead of just what the MSM wants you to know?
In general, I agree that actual experience in public office is a plus. But there are exceptions.
Romney's resume would be a lot more impressive without that four year gig as governor of Taxachusetts.
ObaMao's resume as a street agitator would have been a lot more realistic had the public looked behind his relatively innocuous record (mostly voting present) as a U.S. Senator.
When Bill White, Texas liberal Democrat, ran against Rick Perry in the last governor’s election in Texas, his supporters gave those same kinds of accusations, all vetted with no damage attributed to Governor Perry.
Going through the aggressive array of false claims and accusations from that last election was actually good for Governor Perry as he was able to rise above the false claims and accusations.
Even if true, the stalking horse is running well ahead of him. I'd much rather have Romney at the bottom of the ticket than him or his ideological twin Perry at the top.
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.