Meet Rick Perry, the Anti-Romney

With potential to unite tea partiers and mainstream Republicans, party insiders say the Texas governor is a leading 2012 contender.

Republican political operatives continue to see former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as the frontrunner for their party's 2012 presidential nomination, but Texas Gov. Rick Perry has become his primary challenger according the this week's National Journal Political Insiders Poll.

At the same time, some of the biggest names in the GOP have now become afterthoughts to lead the party in 2012: former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who remains a popular figure among conservative Republicans, has tumbled to eighth spot in the GOP Insiders ranking. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the architect of the party's 1994 takeover of the House, has fallen out of the top-ten rankings altogether.

Romney's strengths remain what they have always been: his fundraising ability, the experience he gained from his losing 2008 presidential bid, the tendency of Republicans to nominate someone who has been around the track and his years running a private equity firm before he became governor which give him credibility on the economy.

Agree with everything you wrote. I have deep regard for Gov. Palin and will need a lot of will to not eviscerate the first person I run across wearing one of those "C" word tee shirts. But I am just old enough to recall what it felt like to be in a conservative Republican family during the Johnson Goldwater campaign and I fear that would be something like the fate of a Sarah Palin national campaign in November of 2012.

If she decides to run can she win the Republican nomination? Certainly. But 2012 will be a campaign we cannot, for the very sake of the survival of this country, afford to lose. On that I would at this point consider Perry to be a safer bet.

You have a very selective memory where history is concerned.

All the same things were said about Reagan.

And Reagan was in much worse shape where polling was concerned even later in the race; as late as 8 or 9 months, I believe, before the election he was down by 30% to Carter.

And as far as this election being important, you are correct, however, your contention that it is more important than any other race is debatable and is definitely not a reason to go with 2nd best and Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Cain Are all definetly 2nd best where Sarah Palin is concerned.

"Uh, Perry was just interviewed in WHO radio in DM regarding his Christian faith and his prayer event this weekend. This guy is going to have broad appeal."

Disagree. What he'd do is look to independents like an even more cronyist and hypocritical caricature of GWB - so much so that they might vote dem again to keep him out. Turning this election into another referendum on Bush is literally the only way for Obama to win. The DNC are absolutely salivating at the thought of being able to run against Perry.

As for the primaries, I'd be pretty amazed if he could beat Romney. Perry has very little support outside the old Confederacy. The only thing Perry really has going for him is his relative newness to the race. Once you start looking closely, he's a $200 haircut with not much going on beneath it. If he were to actually threaten an upset of Mitt, the beltway types will start airing all the snafus he's made in Texas through MSM outlets. His illegal immigration stances, and TTC would knock half his support out from under him overnight if they were more widely publicized.

Actually, it is going to be fun to see you telling us how great Perry is and why we need to vote for him after he wins the nomination.

See that's the difference between you and I. You're willing to sacrifice your principles on key conservative points because you incorrectly think he can win.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my principles. He will always be a flawed candidate to me because of his record.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my principles.

It's laughable that you think there is any difference between Perry and Palin as far as their records go. Palin was no more or less conservative than Perry when she was in office.

But, you're damn right I'd rather see Perry in office than Obama. I'd rather have Perry picking Supreme Court justices that will be on the court for the next 30 years. I trust Perry to implement ideas that will turn the economy around and to sign pro-life legislation.

If Gov. Palin enters the race I will vote for her in my State's primary (against anybody) and if she wins the nomination I will work my a** off for her election. So in terms of personal preferences between the two we're actually on the same page. But I am not going to disparage or jump on the "Perry, he's a RINO" bandwagon that seems popular with some other admirers of Gov. Palin around these parts. Not with more concrete evidence than I've seen put forward, so far.

And regarding what would happen if both enter the race, I do see the possibility of Romney, who I actually detest more than I ever did JMc, limping into the convention with a plurality of delegates. Then one or the other would need to throw his (preferably) or her (second choice) delegates to the other to prevent another McCain type hold-my-nose-and-vote election.

Hope that clarifies things. My memory of history may not be perfect but it's precise on certain points. I've also once or twice drawn the comparison between 1980 and 2012 and Reagan's supposed weakness vs. Carter. That is my hope. A repeat of 1964 (or 1996 or 2008) is, admittedly, what I fear. The demographics of 47% on the government teat and the willingness of the Dems to lie and cheat their way in (with a likely Reichstag moment and perfect collusion by the press) makes things more dicey than was the case in 1980. It is a different world. Carter was an incompetent a**hole. This "One" is genuinely evil and most likely somewhat, if not rabidly, insane.

“With potential to unite tea partiers and mainstream Republicans, party insiders say the Texas governor is a leading 2012 contender.”

With the way Tea Party Patriots were raped by the “mainstream” Repubs over the debt ceiling....I’m not sure that this statement speaks highly of him. I don’t think Tea Party Patriots want to unite with mainstreamers...they want (rightfully) to remove them from office for dereliction of duty.

No doubt that Romney is not a conservative, but a New England mainstream (pre Reagan) Republican. However, Perry has given me pause recently over his dodging conforting the homosexual agenda under the guise of “state’s rights”....which is just a convenient thing to hide behind rather than take a clear stand. DOMA is under fire and will fall if more states, like New York, keep recognizing homosexual marraige. So, this cannot be a “state issue” anymore. Homosexual marraige needs to be banned in all 50 states by federal laws - preferably a constituional ammendment. For that matter so does abortion.

I don’t trust Perry....he isn’t too solid in morale/social issues. And will vote for Palin (if she runs) or Bachmann. I won’t support Perry in the primary. IF he wins the nomination...I will hold my nose and vote for him. However, I WILL NOT ever vote for Romney...even in a general election against Obama. I will vote third party first. I’m 57 and have never voted for anyone but the GOP nominee....this electin could change that if Romney is the nominee.

“I personally find sitting out the 2012 election to be inexcusable, no matter which candidate emerges from the GOP primary. Stopping Obama is job #1, even if I do have to hold my nose and vote for Romney.”

I disagree. Romney doesn’t belong in office and will never get my support...even against the vile Obama. A Romney administration would do more harm than 4 more years of the Kenyan.

IF Perry choses to run...so be it. However, he is just within my “acceptable” level to vote for in a general election.

A Romney administration would do more harm than 4 more years of the Kenyan.

That is a hyperbolic statement.

Do more harm to what? The country? Absolutely not! I can't think of anyone that could do more harm to America than Barack Hussein Obama, who's intent is to "fundamentally change" this country. The economy will remain paralyzed so long as he is president.

Would Romney hurt the GOP? Perhaps. But i would much rather have Romney for four years, and then run a primary challenger against him in 2016, than to have another four years of Obama, from which I don't think America can recover.

I certainly don't want to have to vote for Romney, but if he is nominated, I will have no choice but to vote for him. Obama is the worst thing that can happen.

“That is a hyperbolic statement.”

I apologize for being vague. I don’t think Romney will do any better of a job than Obama and he won’t be significantly more conservative. The end result is that he will hurt the country and set back Republican conservatism. Better to endure 4 more horrid years under a dem than a psuedo repub that could permanently hurt conservatism in the party.

Also, I will not hide the fact that I don’t like his politics and I don’t like his religious beliefs. I cannot vote for him. So, I will vote third party...for the first time....or I will leave the ballot blank for that office.

If a more conservative candidate is not given the nod...I could hold my nose and vote for Perry...but NEVER for Rommey.

Quite frankly, I’m glad the Bushes don’t like him. He must be doing something right! It’s probably because he could see through GWB and knew he was “all hat and no cattle” as I said before. Rove bashed Sarah Palin, too, which makes him an idiot.

These Beltway Elitists have to go. They really do think they are better than we “common folk” are. GWB’s attitude towards Perry is a good example. “Perry’s just a hick Aggie, while I graduated from Yale.” Well, whoop-de-doo! My dad was an Aggie and I will vote for an Aggie any day over an elitist Yankee (this could apply to Romney, too) or any of the other Beltway Bozos, in direct contridiction to the MSM who tells me I should vote for their annointed one.

pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-life, pro-family and traditional marriage, pro-business and getting gov’t out of the way. Strong on controlling the border and illegal crossings. 10 years as Governor during a time when the Dems have run to neighboring states to avoid redistricting.

Personally, his open support for the prolife community and his stand on life is the best recommendation I can give him. He is there for the pro-life advocates in our State and knows what he is talking about when he attends our Rallies and fundraisers.

He also talks about marriage by explaining the difference between liberty and license.

Disagree. Perry’s maybe 20% of what you claim he is. I trust him about halfway on RTL & RKBA because his record on handling judiciary is mixed at best. He actually went on a personal vendetta and ran a conservative justice out of office, and had him replaced with a moderate. Most of his appointments have been moderates and a few progressives thrown in. His backing of Giuliani last time around should throw up a HUGE red flag as to just how deep his commitment is on those issues.

His record on fiscal issues is not as advertised. Worse than GWB when you get into details.

On borders/immigration - once again, if you actually get into the details of his record, he’s worse than any candidate in the field, dem or republican. Alot of his early big-money backing is coming from militant open-borders and amnesty supporters. In short, he’s a pandering snake who’d probably make a worse president from a conservative viewpoint than McCain would have.

Chalk Texas’ jobs picture up to things Perry had nothing to do with plus a bit of dumb luck with energy prices surging.

No way I’d trust him to set the GOP agenda for the next 4-8 years. I’d almost rather another 4 years of Obama as long as we can take both houses of congress. The pubbies tend to grow a spine under dem leadership. With a RINO at the helm, they’re worse than useless, and we’d end up having to spend more time and money fighting our own party leadership over some pretty substantial issues.

No Perry. No way. If he or Romney get the nod, I’ll probably be voting 3rd party. The deeper I’ve dug into Perry’s record, the worse the smell gets.

>> He must be doing something right! It’s probably because he could see through GWB and knew he was “all hat and no cattle” as I said before. Rove bashed Sarah Palin, too, which makes him an idiot. These Beltway Elitists have to go. They really do think they are better than we “common folk” are. GWB’s attitude towards Perry is a good example. “Perry’s just a hick Aggie, while I graduated from Yale.” Well, whoop-de-doo! My dad was an Aggie and I will vote for an Aggie any day over an elitist Yankee (Unreconstructed Catholic Texan) <<

The "elitist Yankee" George W. Bush was FAR more popular with Texas voters than Perry ever was (Bush won re-election by a 70% landslide and cruised thru the primaries), whereas Perry is lucky to break 50% of his best days... he usually ends up with something like 40% in a 4-way race with 3 laughable "opponents". You may like Perry far better than GWB, but your opinions certainly aren't shared by most Texans.

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.