Why Does Rick Perry Think He Can Win South Carolina?

TPM ^ | January 5, 2012 | Evan McMorris-Santoro

[Cincinatus' Wife]

After his embarrassing result in Iowa, Rick Perry seemed to get the message the polls have been sending him for months: Republican voters just aren’t that into him. On caucus night, said he’d go back to Texas and figure out what comes next.

But within hours, Perry was sprinting into South Carolina, to make at least one more stand.

Given that the TPM Poll Average shows Perry pulling just 4.8% support in the state, a clear question arises: What on earth is he thinking?

The answer is, team Perry really thinks they can make it happen in South Carolina. The campaign says it really is all-in in the Palmetto State.

“At the end of the day, Gov. Perry is the only Washington outsider in this race, and the only candidate proposing real, substantive conservative reforms that will overhaul Washington, get America working again, and reintroduce fiscal sanity,” spokesperson Liz Mair told me. “Those are key attributes that South Carolina voters care about, especially fiscal, social and Tea Party conservatives who make up a sizable chunk of the electorate in the Palmetto State.”

Perry, of course, has made government reform a huge part of his agenda. He wants a part time Congress, he wants to cut lawmakers’ salaries, he wants to eliminate departments. It’s the kind of thing that supporters say could really resonate in South Carolina.

Mitt Romney’s new surrogate, Sen. John McCain, has been making that case out a line against Rick Santorum in South Carolina, where he points out that unlike the state’s senators, Santorum was pretty friendly to earmarks.

“I think it’s wrong for America and so does Sen. DeMint and so does Sen. Lindsey Graham who have been staunch fighters against earmark and pork barrel spending,” McCain told the South Carolina crowd. “And I know you’re proud of that.”

Indeed, South Carolina Republicans have a long history of backing the kind of candidates who want to turn their government upside down. Gov. Mark Sanford (R), who was popular before he took that Appalachian Trail trip, once brought live piglets down to the state house to protest what he said was the porky ways of state lawmakers.

But if Perry really thinks he can ride this wave in South Carolina, that tactic hasn’t yet been evidenced yet. His first ad in the state is a retread of a bio spot [Values] from November that doesn’t even mention his government reform plan.

But it does mention something else Perry backers say plays well in South Carolina: his military background and Christianity. Unlike New Hampshire, where Molly Ball showed how hard it can be for a values candidate to make a connection, South Carolina is a land where mixing in some ol’ time religion into your stump speech is very much appreciated in a lot of places. In addition, the state is home to a lot of veterans and active-duty military. Perry is a vet himself, and can speak their language, too.

The combo went down very well for Perry in South Carolina in months past. In August, I spent a couple days following Perry around the state. He was so famous back then a guy literally stopped on his way to pick up his wife who was going into labor to have her talk to Perry on a cell phone.

So, Perry’s dialing up South Carolina voters again. And he’s betting the house that they’ll still enthusiastically pick up the call.

[gogogodzilla]

That’s not a knock, but my prediction and why I think so. If you don’t think it to be accurate, then you ought to say why, not complain of the fact I made the prediction in the first place.

[af_vet_rr]

One important fact/detail is that this was legislation passed almost unanimously by the Texas legislature in 2001 by a vote of 177 - 4. Thus it was the will of the people of Texas via their elected body.

Several important/facts details:

Perry signed additional legislation in 2005 to help deal with legal issues raised by the 2001 legislation.

In 2007 when Republican legislators were talking about repealing this legislation, Rick Perry publicly defended the in-state tuition rates for the criminals.

In 2010 during the gubernatorial election, Perry again publicly defended it.

In 2011, Perry went so far as to say during a presidential debate that critics of the legislation don't have a heart.

Perry strongly believes in this legislation. When Republicans were talking about ditching it in 2007, that was his perfect chance to walk away from it, but he not only defended it, but would go on to defend it all the way up through 2011.

[af_vet_rr]

With the exeption of the F-16 and some trainers, all the AF aircraft in service are multi-engine.

I was about to point this out to another Freeper. This "multi-engine" stuff is nonsense.

[smoothsailing]

By looking off in the distance, I mean as someone would if they’re using their hand to shade and focus.

Well, like I said, there's no way of knowing from the photo where he's looking.

Just before the death of actor W. C. Fields, a friend visited Fields’ hospital room and was surprised to find him thumbing through a Bible. Asked what he was doing with a Bible, Fields replied, "I'm looking for loopholes".

[smoothsailing]

Perry strongly believes in this legislation. When Republicans were talking about ditching it in 2007, that was his perfect chance to walk away from it, but he not only defended it, but would go on to defend it all the way up through 2011.

Don't the Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the Texas Legislature? Even if they don't, isn't the power supposed to rest with the Lt.Governor and the Governor is a weaker position? Does what "Perry strongly believes" matter to the Legislature?

In any event, if the Legislature doesn't want to make available in-state tuition for the eligible children of illegal immigrants, why don't they repeal the existing law and dare Perry to veto it? What are they, a bunch of cowards, or is it that the majority still supports the current law?

[Dr. Sivana]

That’s not a knock, but my prediction and why I think so.

Sure. More Anti-Establishment Republicans are onto the games that gave us McCain and Dole. Men like Jim Robinson and Rush Limbaugh express our frustration. Gingrich rightly points out that after five years and millions of dollars, Romney still cannot crack 25%.

The bulk of the delegates will be selected after South Carolina. Anyone of these candidates (Perry, Gingrich, Santorum) should be able to best Romney in a one on one. Santorum polls well in SC.

Each cycle is different, and Santorum is certainly not Huckabee. For starters, Santorum should play well in the delegate-rich rust belt region, whereas Huckabee's appeal is mainly limited to the South and Plains states. It will be a challenge for Gingrich to do well among women voters. Also, though Santorum wasn't shy about voting for government projects, I don't recall him promoting the nanny-state type projects that Huckabee was so fond of.

I think stating that Santorum is a big spending, big government conservative is a simplification. His last year in the Senate was 2006, and a lot has happened since then. My suspicion is that Gingrich voted for a lot of the same stuff with him, and that Santorum as a freshman Senator was not going to buck the party on spending.

I don't see that as killing him in the south or in the rust belt. None of our guys are gonna do well in the northeast.

[deport]

Yes the Legislature could revise/cancel their previous legislation if they so chose to. So far they haven’t and it is in their bailiwick for that action to occur. Several states, a dozen or so, have this rule and I believe it is only OK that has reversed course on it.

To say it’s all Perry is a stretch at best as he can only veto, sign or let it become law without his signature.

The governor was a weak position by design until the Texas Constituion was amended allowing for the governor to be re-elected as many times as the people so chose. That increased the power substaintially via the appointive process when a governor is elected several times as Perry has been.

[circumbendibus]

Yes. Needs to do well in debate tonight. Others have soft support.

[MestaMachine]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

[Theodore R.]

Like a columnist wrote, Santorum has been there all along; it just took too many too long to notice. Now we need a second miracle in NH and a third in SC.

[af_vet_rr]

Don't the Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the Texas Legislature? Even if they don't, isn't the power supposed to rest with the Lt.Governor and the Governor is a weaker position? Does what "Perry strongly believes" matter to the Legislature?

Whether the Republicans have a veto-proof majority or not doesn't matter, because Perry not only likes the legislation, but he defended it several times, with the last being during one of the debates last fall when he said critics don't have a heart.

In any event, if the Legislature doesn't want to make available in-state tuition for the eligible children of illegal immigrants, why don't they repeal the existing law and dare Perry to veto it?

Welcome to Texas politics! Nobody wants to piss off the major donors in Texas, because you cross somebody like Bob Perry in a state where there are no limits on campaign donations, and you'll find yourself being primaried by somebody that Perry decided to throw money at. Bob Perry has donated millions to Rick Perry, has donated a lot to Dewhurst, Joe Straus, and many others.

That's why when Bob Perry made it known last year that he wanted the anti-sanctuary cities bill to die, people let it die, and nobody really stood up for it.

[Theodore R.]

I don’t believe TX governors have ever been term-limited. At one time many served only two consecutive two-year terms, but there are no limits on the office. Connally served three two-year terms and could have run again in 1968. No one has run as often as Perry, who had weak Democrat opposition.

[MestaMachine]

The honest truth is there is NO ONE in this race who hasn’t had a bad pit stop somewhere along the way. These are men, not gods. There is only one of those. And I doubt that G-d wants to be president, even of the USA. But looking at what IS, (and I know it’s supposed to be ‘who’ but to me it’s a what,) ANY of the three would be a thousand times better.
I am going to be watching tonight’s debate. I hope they bloody romney within an inch of his candidacy and paul too.

[deport]

I failed in that I should have specified ‘unlimited consecutive terms’.

[af_vet_rr]

The bulk of the delegates will be selected after South Carolina. Anyone of these candidates (Perry, Gingrich, Santorum) should be able to best Romney in a one on one. Santorum polls well in SC.

Don't forget that South Carolina has open primaries and the Democrats have every reason to vote for Romney to try and get him the win, plus he's got Nikki Haley out shilling for him. And of course the libertarians will be crossing over and voting for RuPaul.

[smoothsailing]

LOL! If only a snappy salute could win a war.

[af_vet_rr]

Now we need a second miracle in NH and a third in SC.

Don't put much faith into SC, the results will be heavily skewed towards Willard and RuPaul with it being an open primary. I won't be surprised if they get 45% - 50% between them.

[smoothsailing]

So the legislators don’t want the tuition law, but they are bowing to the will of Bob Perry?

Do their constituents approve of that. If not, why not just vote them all out of office, and that rascal Rick along with ‘em?

Are the constituents uncaring and lazy?
Are the legislators all corrupt jerks?
Or is it just all that damn Rick Perry’s fault?

Heck, I thought Texas was supposed to be a great place. You make it sound like some third world hellhole run by thugs. LOL!

[baysider]

Perry is wearing his boots tonight for the New Hampshire debate...”Freedom” and “Liberty “

[af_vet_rr]

So the legislators don’t want the tuition law, but they are bowing to the will of Bob Perry?

Some do, some don't. There was a chance in 2007 when some Republicans started to work on repealing it.

Heck, I thought Texas was supposed to be a great place. You make it sound like some third world hellhole run by thugs. LOL!

When you don't have limits on campaign contributions and when the legislative pay is insignificant, you don't mess around with the billionaires like Bob Perry, because he can spend $100,000 easily to see you defeated, and $100,000 to him is like $500 to you or me. He's not going to miss it.

Unfortunately that's the way things are. As a recent example, Bob Perry and his fellow billionaire Charles Butt worked to defeat the anti-sanctuary cities legislation last year. That legislation was allowed to die - Rick Perry didn't come back to Austin and fight for it or speak out against Bob Perry. Joe Straus and everybody on down from him certainly didn't raise a big fuss either.

If you're not familiar with Bob Perry or Charles Butt, Bob Perry is a homebuilder, Charles Butt owns a large grocery chain. You can connect the dots and figure out that they might just benefit from having a lot of illegals floating around the state...That's why you'll never see comprehensive Arizona-style or Alabama-style legislation that passes all the way through to the Governor's desk.