Rick Perry: The Tea Party Candidate?

Big Government ^ | January 9, 2012 | Charles C. Johnson

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Is Rick Perry the Tea Party’s last hope in the 2012 election? As he prepares for his Alamo-moment in South Carolina, the longest serving governor in Texas history makes the case for limited government.

Video

It’s a deliberate play for South Carolina’s once powerful Tea Party to come to his aid. During the 9AM MSNBC debate today with David Gregory, Rick Perry promised the Tea Party across the country that he would have their back against big spending Republicans. But will they have his?

Today, Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express promised on Breitbart.tv that the organization will endorse before the January 21st.

Perry’s proposals of cutting the pay of Congress and prosecuting congressmen for insider trading have been popular among Tea Party supporters. Indeed, in November, Perry was accused of “pandering to the tea party” by none other than House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). The Texas Tea Party, however, withdrew their support of the governor for his support of sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. An October Washington Post/ABC poll confirms that his support was cratering among Tea Party activists, placing him just above Romney and Ron Paul. Perry is hoping that South Carolina is a bit more generous.

Only a few of the Republicans swept into power in South Carolina by the Tea Party have made endorsements. Tea Party darling, Gov. Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt Romney and has been an active surrogate for the former Massachusetts governor as far afield as New Hampshire. Haley’s support in South Carolina, however, is cratering. A poll conducted by Winthrop University between Nov. 27 and Dec. 4 showed only 34.6 percent of those surveyed approved of Haley’s job performance, making her one of the least popular governors in the country.

Haley’s support for Romney may be pecuniary or payback. Romney’s “Free and Strong America” political action committee donated $36,000 to Haley’s campaign in 2010. More than 35 other Romney-backers received PAC money from the former Massachusetts governor before making their endorsements. Perhaps they were merely returning the favor. Or perhaps their campaigns were paid for that favor early in the process.

Thus far, the very popular Tim Scott has declined to endorse anyone for president. Rep. Scott’s highly coveted endorsement is seen as something of proxy for Senator Jim DeMint, the godfather of both the Tea Party and the South Carolina. In 2008, DeMint endorsed Mitt Romney, but in 2012, he has remained deliberately on the side lines.

Of the federal legislators in South Carolina, only freshman congressman (and Tea Party favorite) Mick Mulvaney has endorsed and he has endorsed Rick Perry. Mulvaney reportedly decided to support Perry after seeing his 20% flat tax proposal. “It’s very, very similar to what we’ve been talking about in terms of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative group within the House Republicans, and he went a little bit further than I think we’re going to go even. I was enthusiastic about somebody actually taking some bold steps,” Mulvaney told MSNBC. Perry also won the support of Bobby Harrell, South Carolina’s Speaker of the House.

South Carolina’s Tea Party groups hold their own convention in Myrtle Beach on Sunday, Jan. 15, and Monday, Jan. 16, the same day that the next– the 16th– of the presidential debates takes place.

Perry’s sure to be helped by his South Carolina advisors, which include former state GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who believes that Perry will play well with both evangelical and military voters who make up the Palmetto State’s Republican electorate. “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidential campaign pockets, and South Carolina picks Republican presidents,” Dawson told reporters after Perry’s fifth place finish in Iowa.

Though there is no clear Tea Party candidate in South Carolina, Tea Party groups are pretty clearly opposed to Mitt Romney. Karen Martin, the head of the Spartanburg County, S.C., chapter and other Tea Party leaders put it simply in an interview with National Public Radio:

“There’s no Tea Partier that I talk to in the state or nationally that would want to promote Romney. Other than the people that have come out publicly and endorsed Mitt Romney and the people left over from his 2008 campaign, I do not personally know anyone that does not despise Mitt Romney and doesn’t hate the idea of him being our nominee.”

Governor Perry will be sure to keep proclaiming his conservative bona fides, especially on the Tenth Amendment, which is popular among Tea Partiers. To capitalize on that vote, Perry would do well to throw his backing to South Carolina’s fight against the Justice Department over voter fraud. He would also do well to speak out against President Obama’s unconstitutional recess bids, especially as those recess bids governing the National Labor Relations Board which is at war with Boeing over relocating their plant to a right-to-work state.

[dsutah]

Yeah, I remember that! In that way, he and George Bush are similar. Certainly, one can complain about what they didn’t do, or didn’t do strongly enough. However, there is a certain “rough-and-ready” aspect; a “can-do” practicality that is shared by the two men! Maybe it’s because they’re both Texans, who knows? :^)
Another thing I would add, is that even though he was from Calif., Ronald Reagan also shared that trait. That’s one of the many things I appreciated about him!

[CynicalBear]

>>This has been debunked repeatedly. Oh, and despite rumors to the contrary, Rick Perry’s daughter Sidney Perry is not married to a “high-ranking Iman” — in fact she isn’t married at all. Such rubbish.<<

I have never said she was or even brought that subject up. Yet you keep replying to my posts with that. Is it to obfuscate from the content of my post somehow to through deflection to steer the reader away from the truth of my post?

Your post contains nothing referencing or refuting the facts in my post. Perry supported and even helped Muslims build a Mosque in Texas.

[sam_paine]

Stunk of both chrony capitalism at its worst, and the overreaching of the government to strong-arm very young girls to get vaccines for STD’s

How do you feel about the other state mandated vaccines: measles etc? Just this new one because of STD related, or because of the cervical cancer related?

Did you know that by Texas State law, you can opt out of any of the "strong-arm" vaccine mandates? So are you upset because this is not different than any other vaccine, or is it because the issue has been framed as if it were different?

TITLE 25 HEALTH SERVICES PART 1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES CHAPTER 97 COMMUNICABLE DISEASES SUBCHAPTER B IMMUNIZATION REQUIREMENTS IN TEXAS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION RULE §97.62 Exclusions from Compliance
Exclusions from compliance are allowable on an individual basis for medical contraindications, reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, and active duty with the armed forces of the United States. Children and students in these categories must submit evidence for exclusion from compliance as specified in the Health and Safety Code, §161.004(d), Health and Safety Code, §161.0041, Education Code, Chapter 38, Education Code, Chapter 51, and the Human Resources Code, Chapter 42.
(1) To claim an exclusion for medical reasons, the child or student must present a statement signed by the child's physician (M.D. or D.O.), duly registered and licensed to practice medicine in the United States who has examined the child, in which it is stated that, in the physician's opinion, the vaccine required is medically contraindicated or poses a significant risk to the health and well-being of the child or any member of the child's household. Unless it is written in the statement that a lifelong condition exists, the exemption statement is valid for only one year from the date signed by the physician.
(2) To claim an exclusion for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief, a signed affidavit must be presented by the child's parent or legal guardian, stating that the child's parent or legal guardian declines vaccinations for reasons of conscience, including because of the person's religious beliefs. The affidavit will be valid for a two-year period. The child, who has not received the required immunizations for reasons of conscience, including religious beliefs, may be excluded from school in times of emergency or epidemic declared by the commissioner of public health.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Your post contains nothing referencing or refuting the facts in my post. Perry supported and even helped Muslims build a Mosque in Texas.

I will let them read my links and decide for themselves the reason you keep posting this on Perry threads. You and I both know why you do it.

[magritte]

Dirtboy is most likely a Paultard...they hate real conservatives...hurts their feelings...

[dirtboy]

Uh, MORON, please provide a single post where I have supported RuPaul.

You can't. I hold him and his spam surrender monkeys in utter contempt.

But the truth never gets in the way of your slimeball Perrybot attacks. My point entirely, and you just made it for me.

I am not even calling for Perry to get out now. It's a calculated risk for there to be three anti-Romneys in SC, but the situation is too fluid now. But if Perry cannot get out of single digits in SC, he needs to get out of the race instead.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Time for your nap.

[dirtboy]

I see it’s time for you to start your usual idiocy you resort to when you can’t respond to what I have said. So predictable.

[magritte]

I apologize. Keep in mind, however, the huge majority of anti-Perrys on this forum have been Paultards and people who want illegals shot at the border.

Who, then, is your candidate that you are actively promoting?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

......So predictable.

Like you calling people names? Don't you know how to express yourself in a civil manner?

[dirtboy]

I will support whichever of the three candidates emerges as the front-runner after SC, especially if one has a clear advantage over the other two. All three have pros and cons to me. I lean Gingrich but not so strongly as to actively promote him over the other two. My primary concern is not getting stuck with Romney, and a split of the anti-Romney vote is what Mitt is counting on.

And IMO the impetus on Gingrich in SC is even stronger than it is on Perry. If Gingrich cannot top Santorum and Perry in SC, he should get out, it should be a very friendly state to his candidacy. Whereas if Perry can come in a strong second, he can make the case to stay in.

Whoever comes in third should definitely get out.

[dirtboy]

Like you calling people names? Don't you know how to express yourself in a civil manner?

This coming from you after you lied about me being a vicious Perry critic, when I have been nothing of the sort?

It seems that lies are what the worst of the Perrybots are reduced to. And most Perry supporters aren't bots - but you are.

I accord people the courtesy they deserve. Paid hacks who savage other conservative candidates deserve little.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Whoever comes in third should definitely get out.

Since the delegates are not winner take all (that will change on Super Tuesday - March 6 - I believe) it would be wrong for a solid, consistent conservative to drop out now, (we've seen the roller coaster-musical-chairs nature of this primary) and possibly leave us without a viable candidate.

[dirtboy]

Both SC and Florida are winner-take-all. It was McCain's back-to-back wins in 2008 and Rudy's dropping out that in turn catapaulted McCain into Super Tuesday.

So thanks for making the case that whoever comes in third in SC should drop out, since FL is winner-take-all and not proportional as you claimed.

[CynicalBear]

>>You and I both know why you do it.<<

Did Perry help lay the cornerstone for that Mosque or not? Has Perry ever said anything to warn about the dangers of Islam?

[magritte]

Ah, but here’s the rub: SC is only worth 25 delegates now instead of 50. Florida is down from 99 to 50. A sweep of these two states is ONLY 75 delegates. Tennessee has more delegates than Florida, Alaska has more the SC:

All candidates will try to linger til Super Tuesday in March: FL and SC pushing up their primaries has lessened their importance.

[dirtboy]

I do agree that the situation has changed since 2008. Rudy set up NY and NJ to sweep him into the lead after a Florida win. The only problem with that plan was that he didn't win Florida, and McCain ran through that door instead.

However, it also does not change the fact that Romney is banking on a continued divided anti-Romney vote. The vote was not as polarized in 2008 as it is now. IMO we cannot have a candidate lingering in third place among the anti-Romneys that is also possibly denying wins to the other two.

And I am not even demanding that Perry win in SC - Gingrich needs to. If Perry can gain enough momentum to take a solid second in SC, IMO he should stay in. But the weak sister after SC needs to get out.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

“....In the meantime, the primary calendar is full of quirks. South Carolina (Jan. 21), and Florida (Jan. 31), will award all their delegates to the candidate who gets the most votes, even though they are holding their contests before April. Both states already lost half their delegates for holding early contests, so the state parties decided to make them winner-take-all. The RNC says there are no additional penalties for violating the proportional rules.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/28/v-fullstory/2564342/wacky-rules-complicate-race-for.html

Looks like this moving dates around has changed a lot of things. I hope Perry wins the VA court case and keeps making the dates on other state ballots (as he has been). It will be a very interesting primary as the number of delegates has dropped in many states due to being “punished.”

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

[magritte]

I am hopeful that Huntsman goes 20% in NH and stays in for Maine and Nevada on 2/7 ... he may be surprising coming up...

[dirtboy]

We cannot afford a prolonged race with three anti-Romneys. That is EXACTLY what Mitt has hoped for all along. Even if Perry or Newt or Santorum were to limp along at the tail of the pack in single-digits, that could cost one of the other two a win.

I have set the bar lower in SC for Perry than Newt. Newt is close to home territory, he needs to win there or go home. But also, Perry should be able to get some traction. He's from the South as well, and his military background should play an assist there as well. If Perry can't pull into at least a solid second place in SC, IMO he needs to fold, and dittoes for the other two if they come in third.