[Texas Gov] Perry walks fine line of following, leading - George W. Bush comparisons are inevitable

AUSTIN - Sometimes, men toil in the shadows of giants, predecessors who loom as large as redwoods. For Rick Perry, the shadow is cast by a Bush.

And he knows it. The Republican governor tells the story of 3,500 elated fans who filled a baseball stadium to celebrate the University of Texas' national championship last month.

He was surrounded by success, sitting in the third-base dugout with Longhorn coach Augie Garrido and retired coaching legend Cliff Gustafson, who holds the record for all-time wins in college baseball.

The announcer spotted Mr. Gustafson and called him out to the field, and "the place goes absolutely nuts," Mr. Perry said. "Augie looks over at me and says, 'Try following that.'

Mr. Perry gets the glow and glower that comes with following a political champion. When George W. Bush catapulted to the presidency, he left Mr. Perry to fill the vacancy.

Democratic challenger Tony Sanchez and even some Republicans say Mr. Perry is having a hard time filling the large boots left behind. The Sanchez campaign is seeking to capitalize on that sentiment, using the ad tag line: "We didn't elect him. We don't have to keep him."

Mr. Perry rejects that and says being compared to the super-popular Mr. Bush will not hurt him politically. "The answer's no," he said, calling it "a real opportunity" to build upon Mr. Bush's accomplishments.

Bruce Buchanan, a UT political science professor, said any governor has a hard time following a beloved state leader, but it's even harder when the guy left to become president.

"He does have some disadvantages, and he does look small compared to his predecessor," Dr. Buchanan said.

Some of that is based on Mr. Perry's own low profile, stemming from his difficulty in championing an issue that strikes a strong chord with voters and generates free publicity, Dr. Buchanan said.

He pointed out that in a recent independent poll, 74 percent of Texans could not name one thing Mr. Perry has accomplished during his 19 months as governor. By contrast, three years ago, more than half could name an achievement of Gov. Bush.

The recent survey also showed that 51 percent of Texans view Mr. Perry favorably. That is about 20 to 30 points below the approval ratings given to Mr. Bush when he was in office.

Still, with Mr. Sanchez on pace to spend upward of $60 million on his race, recent surveys show Mr. Perry holds a comfortable double-digit lead, Dr. Buchanan said.

"There's a big undecided group," Dr. Buchanan said. "If the race gets close, as it figures to, then questions such as a charisma deficit could be decisive."

Even supporters of Mr. Perry said they recognize, when compared to Mr. Bush, the steak doesn't have the same sizzle.

Corpus Christi lawyer Lance Bruun attended a recent rally for Mr. Perry and allowed, "Bush left hard shoes to fill, no doubt about it."

But he said Mr. Bush carried an anticipation of the presidency, which lent him a popularity that Mr. Perry couldn't hope to match. "Mr. Perry is just running like any other regular governor right now ... and I think he is doing a good job," Mr. Bruun said.

Carolyn Walters, who voted for Mr. Bush in the last gubernatorial election, put it this way: "There's just something Perry lacks that Bush had."

Ms. Walters was studying the candidates at a meet-and-greet with Mr. Sanchez in Henderson. This year, she lists herself as undecided in the governor's race.

With Gov. Ann Richards and Mr. Bush, Texas had a decade of state leaders who played on a national stage. That high-flying stature is probably at rest for a while. Texans are returning to a less dynamic notion of governor, and under such expectations, Mr. Perry will do well, supporters say.

"It is constitutionally not a strong office. I think Bush was the exception," acting Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff said.

The strength of the office is in its bully pulpit, and its power increases exponentially with popularity. Indeed, Mr. Bush was revered in the state House, which is narrowly Democratic, and the Senate, which is narrowly Republican.

In his last State of the State address before the Legislature, Mr. Bush was interrupted by applause 30 times. Mr. Perry's State of the State last year was punctuated by five applause lines.

Democratic detractors hope the gulf between the leaders can be highlighted and exploited.

"As people get beyond the photo ops, they'll see how he doesn't measure up to George W. Bush," said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. "If they thought George W. Bush had a lack of intelligence, they should see the challenge now."

Mr. Coleman, a paid consultant for Mr. Sanchez, said he is still angry at Mr. Perry for his vetoes of important bills from the last legislative session.

It is a frequent complaint raised by lawmakers. Mr. Perry vetoed 82 bills the largest number recorded in Texas. Some fault how he handled the vetoes, which critics say demonstrates the gap between Mr. Perry's leadership style and that of his predecessor.

Mr. Bush worked with lawmakers to change bills he didn't like into laws he could live with, and members were forewarned of his vetoes. But some lawmakers say they felt ambushed by Mr. Perry because he raised scant objections during the legislative session and then killed the bills many of them passed with broad bipartisan support.

Mr. Coleman said he might have disagreed with Mr. Bush on policy issues, but, "You never doubted his sense of purpose."

Of Mr. Perry, he said, "The reality is that the guy is not engaged. He is not a part of making Texas a better place."

Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for Mr. Perry, said Mr. Coleman was among a handful of members "who seemed more interested in making political hay than negotiating with the governor."

Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, chairman of the House Republican caucus, said he sees the governor's vetoes as a difference in attitude from his predecessor.

"Rick was a little more matter-of-fact and businesslike," Mr. Marchant said, adding that the governor seemed more focused on the public policy aspects of the bills than the personalities involved. "That's my take on it. I know there are different views."

He said some of the members might have gotten "kind of spoiled" by both Ms. Richards and then Mr. Bush.

They spoke with the members personally, used their considerable charm, and they attempted to soften the blow of most vetoes, Mr. Marchant said.

Democratic state party chairwoman Molly Beth Malcolm said the contrast between Mr. Bush and Mr. Perry has nothing to do with the coddling of lawmakers. She said it's about working with people regardless of party labels.

"It doesn't make any difference whose footsteps you're following and whose shadow you're in Perry has not shown the leadership qualities that it takes to be governor of Texas," Ms. Malcolm said.

Mr. Marchant disagrees, saying he attended many meetings on legislation in Mr. Perry's office and sometimes found himself to be the lone Republican lawmaker in the room.

He said there are differences in style. Mr. Bush used to roam the halls of the Capitol, dropping in on influential lawmakers and seeking their counsel and eliciting good will. Mr. Perry, a former House member and lieutenant governor who presided over the Senate, has dealt more formally with members by having meetings in the governor's office, Mr. Marchant said.

He also pointed out that Mr. Bush enjoyed a good relationship with then-Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and House Speaker Pete Laney. It is widely known that Mr. Perry and Mr. Laney don't get along, Mr. Marchant said.

Mr. Laney is circumspect about the governor and their relationship, but he will say that Mr. Perry is much more partisan than Mr. Bush.

As for the difference in management style, "I worked very closely with Bush on a lot of issues. Perry, his management style is for him to do his own thing ... without our involvement," Mr. Laney said. "That makes it a lot different."

Mr. Ratliff said Mr. Bush understood that the Senate operates on personal trust and commitments. "George W. had that in his personality, and it made people want to help him," he said.

The vetoes, meanwhile, have made senators wary of Mr. Perry, Mr. Ratliff said. "It will certainly impact the process in the next session, assuming he's governor again, because many of the members will be looking over their shoulders," he said.

Mr. Sullivan said his boss has his own warmth and charisma and works well with most legislators. "Anyone who knows Rick Perry knows him to be very outgoing and gregarious and interested in bringing people together," he said.

He said in some ways, Mr. Bush benefited from being a fresh face in 1994 and had a clean slate with all the lawmakers.

"In Governor Perry's case, he had 15 years of working in and with the Legislature. He had very strong relationships and some that were more frayed," Mr. Sullivan said.

In an interview, Mr. Perry said he that admired Mr. Bush and the way he used the governor's office and that he has learned something from strong predecessors through most of his political career.

He pointed out that he followed Democrats Jim Hightower as agriculture commissioner and Mr. Bullock as lieutenant governor two legendary figures and innovators.

"I think it makes me a better manager, a better leader, a better governor," he said.

"Walking into the operating room behind DeBakey would give you a little bit of twitch in your shoulder," Mr. Perry said of famed heart surgeon Michael DeBakey. "These guys set the bar high, but that's OK. The good news is, I've been clearing the bar."

The bottom line, said political consultant Bill Miller, is that so far Mr. Perry is doing pretty well on his own.

"He's got a lead in the polls. He comes out of central casting, and the look and demeanor is very Texas," Mr. Miller said.

He said that Mr. Perry is creating his own candidacy that is distinct from Mr. Bush. But, he said, the specter of Mr. Bush remains, especially because the president is a daily presence.

"You can't ever get out from under the shadow," Mr. Miller said. "It's a handicap Perry has to deal with."

The recent survey also showed that 51 percent of Texans view Mr. Perry favorably. That is about 20 to 30 points below the approval ratings given to Mr. Bush when he was in office.

And President Bush still commands a very high favorability rating in the national arena!

I don't view Perry favorably. He has caved in to the most liberal of the democrats on several occasions and I don't know of anything positive that I could say about his performance as governor. I can't support the lying hypocritical Sanchez, but I can't vote for Perry either. I guess I'll either sit out the governor's race or write in a vote for Nolan Ryan for governor. But of the two that are on the ballot, my choice is "none of the above."

I couldn't agree more. Perry signed the bogus hate crime bill (based on a phony incident in San Antonio) when he first got into office. I will not vote for Sanchez, but I will not vote for Perry either. Jerk off Republicans need to learn that they can loose their base even if it means someone like Sanchez gets elected. Screw Perry.

I don't much care for Perry either, but look at the alternative! I don't ever want to see a guy like Sanchez in office.

From my perspective as a gun owner, Sanchez' statement that he "backs the rights of sportmen" is a big tipoff that he'll sign any anti-gun bill out there, as long as some Elmer Fudd can still go out with a antique shotgun and blast away at ducks.

Sanchez is also corrupt as Hell. Also, I believe that under Sanchez we will end up with an income tax.

Perry may not be the greatest (and he certainly isn't), but sometimes you need to be practical. IMHO, it is better to work from the inside of a party that is mostly on your side, vs. pi$$ing into the wind by voting third party or not voting. That is what grass roots politics is all about, since no third party will ever have a chance at the higher levels. The reality is that the Demopubs and Republicrats have politics locked up at the national level and at the higher levels of all state governments (exceptions like Minnesota notwithstanding). Our only real hope as conservatives/libertarians (small "L") is to move the Republicrats to the right.

I don't want to see Sanchez in office either, but at the same time it took Jimmy Carter to get us from a RINO like Jerry Ford to a true conservative like Ronald Reagan.

Perry has done very little to reassure me that he isn't just as far to the left as Sanchez.

It is a tough call. In the short term it might be better to hold my nose and vote for Perry. However, in the long term, it is time that these "finger in the wind" pol's learn that they will loose if they screw their base. They are banking on not loosing the "hold your nose" vote. And, if this keeps working for them, they will continue to screw their base while kissing up to people who have never supported them and probably never will. They must learn they will loose.

Besides, if he has signed all kinds of liberal BS, what makes you think he will not blast your 2nd amendment issues if he thinks it will get him votes? We already know he will ignore conservative priciples if he thinks he can keep the conservative base while making like a Democrat. Screw Perry. He needs to loose.

"...in a recent independent poll, 74 percent of Texans could not name one thing Mr. Perry has accomplished during his 19 months as governor."

That government is best which which governs least.

On that score, I like Mr. Perry just fine!

Sit out this election, then when Sanchez gets elected, whine and moan about it?

Great plan!

Here's how our system works: if you want a different candidate for your party, you accomplish that at the primary level. When the general election comes, you look at the alternatives, you bite your tongue, and you vote.
Case in point: John Cornyn, a far worse candidate than Rick Perry, but still far better than Ron Kirk.

However, in the long term, it is time that these "finger in the wind" pol's learn that they will loose if they screw their base.

Yeah, but that's not the way most elected officials look at things. Instead of running further to the right, many say that they must gain the support of more moderate voters to get elected next time - thus they run to the center. Honestly, I think the primary election is the time to elect more conservative candidates.

At least Sanchez is an experienced businessman. Other than his negative ads with mostly false accusations against Perry, the Sanchez background would suggest a moderate position which is what we're getting with Perry. There was no alternative to Perry in the primary. Perry's office ignored me and thousands or millions like me when we tried to convince him not to cave to liberals last year. I told them at the time, if he was going to betray his constituents then he needed to let someone else run as the GOP candidate this year.

It is a hard decision. You are right about them running more to the middle after they get elected. It is almost like you are better off to elect a Democrat because he will then forget his base and pander to the middle and right to get re-elected. Unfortunatly Bush has done this to a degree. Somewhere along the line they need to know that if they grant anmesty to 4 million illegals, they might get 2 million votes from them, but loose 6 million from the base. It really is a case of long term vs short term political analysis.

No politician ever need do anything for their base, because the base has nowhere to go except third party (throw vote away) or not vote (throw vote away) or just throw your vote away. I hate politics. I want to go home now. Can I have a hall pass?

I like you, what state are you going to be a future governor of? You have my vote.

I don't want to see Sanchez in office either, but at the same time it took Jimmy Carter to get us from a RINO like Jerry Ford to a true conservative like Ronald Reagan.

I see the point, and even agree to an extent. However, I can tell you from sad experience (former NJ resident) that once an income tax is imposed, no matter how small, it is never removed and always grows. Also, Reagan was assuredly better than Ford, but I'd like to know which parts of the Fedgov were dismantled and which onerous gun laws were repealed during his tenure?

Unless the political movement that defeats a politician can stay cohesive over a reasonably long period, the defeat of a single candidate is usually of little consequence. The gunowners defeated both Florio and Dick Zimmer in NJ, the former because he rammed through that state's "assault rifle" ban, the latter because he voted for the Brady bill as a member of the House. However, the group hasn't stayed cohesive enough, so the Dems nominated and elected a gun-grabber (McGreevy) and the Republicrats have never ceased putting forth RINOs. A positive alternative (i.e. a well-supported and financed candidate) must be available to take the defeated one's place - screwing a particular candidate doesn't make the mindset go away. It only results in some short term satisfaction and in giving the other party (definitely very liberal) another seat. I continue to believe that by working within the Republican Party a change can be effected. Third parties and not voting are the political equivalent of a pi$$ed off kid stamping his feet and running up to his room - a good attention-getter, but not much else.

I suppose, deep down, I know you are right. It was so nice voting for Bush/Cheney because I really wanted them to win. It was a vote for someone, not a vote against Gore/Whatshisname. Let's just hope Perry remembers who brought him to the dance, and not pine for those who would not even return his phone call.

Thanks, Wphile. Sigh......seems like when W left, Texas politics went to hell in a handbasket. I'm far more worried about the Cornyn/Kirk race to replace Phil Gramm than I am about the gubernatorial race. Rick Perry has been disappointing, but I'll vote for him over Sanchez in an instant.

Thanks for the ping - found this VERY interesting.

Perry should have been able to use the Bush blueprint and continued on with status quo. Even Clinton knew how to ride the Bush train FOR EIGHT YEARS and take credit for it - why can't "one of ours" do it? George HAD to lay the foundation for Perry. Not only that, it seems that Perry should be out there running on party platform, taking advantage of the inspiring spirit George is generating on a national level, and bring it on home.

Sheesh! WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE ANY SEATS, PERRY!!!

FIX IT, AND THEN WIN--PERIOD--END OF STORY.

Also, Reagan was assuredly better than Ford, but I'd like to know which parts of the Fedgov were dismantled and which onerous gun laws were repealed during his tenure?

Point well taken, it's always easy to run downhill (move to the left) rather than to run uphill (move to the right). Despite Reagan's conservatism, he was only able to cut government programs marginaly. Once government programs are in place, its hard to repeal them. That is why I cannot side with the 'defeatist conservatives' that say, "just let the Democrats win - they will mess things up and the country will blame them." The only thing that happens when Democrats are in power is that they move the country to further to the left with a big smile on their face. What we can do is support the best and brightest most well-rounded conservative candidate in the primary. (Or run for office ourselves).

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.