Perry delenda est!
The left must be very, very afraid of Rick Perry, because the attacks on him have come with almost unprecedented speed. There’s something about Perry that seems to make people think he may be the only really credible threat Obama has right now. Therefore, Perry delenda est.
He’s a Christian jihadi, or illuminati, or something like that! He’s a turncoat! He mustn’t take credit for the Texas economy! He’s a horrifying loose cannon! He’s pro-Muslim! He’s a crony capitalist (unlike Obama)! He’s sexist! He’s whatever people think will discredit him.
There’s no question that Perry is not everybody’s cup of tea. He’s one of the more conservative candidates in the field, for example, and he’s got that Texas swagger that makes a goodly part of America say oh no, not again!
But the trolls are out in full force. You can see it very clearly in the comments to this thread. Some of them are concern trolls from the left, pretending to be on the right. And some of them really are on the right, mostly disgruntled (are there any other kind?) Ron Paul supporters.
And then there’s the inimitable Bill Clinton, who calls Perry a “good-looking rascal.” Takes one to know one.
Not only that, he’s a Dominionist!
And Bachmann is too.
That is, according to this Daily Beast columnist, who never misses an opportunity to tell us how religion is the root of all evil.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html
CV: that’s what I was referring to in my first link.
I found a cite giving the Texas Job statistics that you might want to add as a link.
http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590
It appears that the author did his homework on the government statistics sites and he does source his information.
That settles it, he’s got my vote (if Santorum drops out).
I’ve seen both Wasserman-Schultz and Axelrod credit the stimulus for the relatively good economy and job growth in Texas.
It’s odd that the stimulus failed in every state except the one state governed by the guy who could beat Obama in 2012.
Funny how it worked out that way, huh?
I sincerely doubt that ‘they’ will be able to “palin” Perry, although there is every indication they plan just that and worse. Somehow I doubt he will take it lying down….at all. However to date I have rather enjoyed their full fledged efforts and thankfully I believe many Americans are wise to that game after the past few years. Considering the Rasmussen poll just released an hour or so ago…..it ain’t working (at least not yet).
I never thought Bill Clinton was good looking. I never understood the women who had dreams with Bill in them.
Texas managed to do tort reform under Perry. That ain’t chopped liver. It also, IMO, has much to do with the better economic results and in-migration.
The rapidity of the attacks are an indication that they think Perry is very dangerous to Obama. I hope he has a good media response team. Let no lie, rumor, innuendo, or distortion get legs. That is what it will take to compete against the politics of personal destruction, which is the only route open to Obama since he has an abysmal record.
On a down note. I have listened to a couple of Perry sound bites with my eyes closed. I would swear it is W speaking. Is my hearing off? I hope so; as I don’t believe this comparison is a positive for Perry.
And he’s (Perry) a secessionist and a Gore supporter and reminds me of Gov. Connally (a Nixon supporter) – all Stetson and no head.
According to the WSJ, Rick Perry has a crony capitalism problem.
“All told, the Dallas Morning News has found that some $16 million from the tech fund has gone to firms in which major Perry contributors were either investors or officers, and $27 million from the fund has gone to companies founded or advised by six advisory board members. The tangle of interests surrounding the fund has raised eyebrows throughout the state, especially among conservatives who think the fund is a misplaced use of taxpayer dollars to start with.”
Tea Party types loathe that sort of cronyism.
We’ll see how Gov. Perry handles himself, in the palinization that is already in full swing. (Unless we can stop this in its tracks, friends, this is how elections will go henceforth. The liberals did it to Gov. Palin, and it worked… meaning that they will continue to do it, over and over, until it no longer works.)
I’m reserving judgment on Gov. Perry for now. He looks very good so far. Then again, he’s been a candidate for less than three days. Give him time. We’ll see how he handles a have-you-quit-beating-your-wife question after being awake for 36 hours… and we’ll see how he handles outrageous accusations, made up out of whole cloth, that gain traction. (These things will happen, if he stays in the race; see above.)
One last point: as I’ve said before, just about anybody on the Republican side would be better than President Obama. If Mitt Romney gets the nomination, with his little dog Toto as a running-mate, he’ll get my vote in the general election.
For the primaries, though, I want the Republican nominee to be either: (a) Sarah Palin, or (b) someone who stood up for her when it counted. That the Republican establishment let her stand alone to face the hurricane was unforgivable.
Is Perry on record vis-a-vis Palin? Please set me straight if I’m wrong about this. But I don’t remember him coming to her defense when she needed it. (Nor did anyone else, outside of blogs and talk radio. If any politician stood up for her, I missed it.)
Perry appears to be an opportunist. The cronyism, the switch from a Democrat to what ever sells in Texas, and his down home religious pandering makes his integrity suspect. That said, if he is the Republican candidate I will support him 100% as the lesser of two evils.
Pawlenty did not stand up for Palin. Look where he is.
I’ve looked into the Muslim connection, the “apostolic” connection, and the crony captialism connection and concluded that they are what they are: connections not substantive enough to worry about. Nothing like 18 years of sitting under Jeremiah Wright, declaring him a spiritual mentor, then spouting “I didn’t know” nonsense.
But I’m not discounting a Stark perspective, either.
Still a Palin man.
Palin endorsed Perry in his re-election fight against the Bush backed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. She also appeared with Perry at one of his rallies. If she doesn’t run, she would probably endorse Perry. His entry may be the factor that keeps her out of the race. We’ll see. Palin has an uncanny knack for upsetting apple-carts.
If it’s Perry versus Romney, I choose Perry.
I don’t think any mainstream GOP leaders came to Palin’s defense. She has this nasty habit of ratting out corrupt GOP politicians, smashing cosy relationships with Big Oil, and endorsing anti-GOP establishment candidates (which would include Perry).
Looks like we’ll soon have enough neck and neck republicans in the field to force the media into unavoidably jumping the shark on personal detruction this election.
Here’s the “miracle” that is occurring: People don’t want Romney and they don’t want Perry. They want Palin. She’s running a genius campaign, a campaign not informed by intellect but character and actual love for her country. Genius. She’s figured out that one doesn’t have to be a politician to be a politician.
Baklava: do you agree at least that Clinton’s a rascal?
Clearly the Reds are terrified of Perry. This is where Palin needs to step up and draw their fire to her as well. Keep ’em guessing whom to dump on. Palin’s a less viable candidate, but I don’t think that they can help themselves from heaping vituperation on her. Old habits die hard.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Reds have finally fatigued the response by trying at least to Palin (Goldwatering?) yet another Republican.
At some point even the most somnolent independent voter will probably figure out the pattern, especially now that the Party’s iron control over sources of information has been broken. Thanks, Algore, for inventing the Internet!
Pat Says:
August 16th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
According to the WSJ, Rick Perry has a crony capitalism problem.
And Oboingo doesn’t? Put down your bong..
Pat, and to all concerned, I’m sorry. I should not have dropped that little piece of snark.
BUT, Oboingo is a major Crony Capitalism player, and he picks who wins and loses .
On reading Whitaker Chambers’s Witness I was struck by how little leftists’ methods have changed over the last half century. It’s worth reading Witness just to see the vituperation heaped upon Chambers by the NYT and WaPo (he was a drunk, a nut, a homosexual, he tore the tags off of mattresses, he didn’t floss, etc.) once he broke with the CPUSA and denounced Alger Hiss as a Red – which we now know he was.
I know I’m showing my ignorance, but thank you Neo for the lesson in latin in the title of this post! I’ll file that one away for future use. 🙂
JJFJJ: If you have watched Perry’s speeches, he also resembles Bush at times in some of his expressions. However, I don’t think the Bush comparison would hurt him. Exactly the opposite. The cowboy “treason” statement about Bernanke is playing well in his favor at this point.
Physicsguy, I suspect the next two years will give us occasion to reflect on the wisdom of Cato the Elder’s exhortation re Carthage.
I’m a Texan, so Perry’s “cowboy style”, accent, etc. don’t bother me. But I know it does some people. He needs to tone that down some and be more careful with his words without losing his naturalness.
His comment about Bernanke being greeted in an ugly way in Texas and almost being treasonous was very unfortunate and when I first heard about it this morning, I said “Ut oh…that’s a big gaffe.”
I think he’s kinda’ pumped because his announcement to run for President has been so warmly received. He needs to settle down though.
His prepared speeches have been excellent…at times almost Reaganesque to my ears. And after reading the “Perry threads” on some conservative blogs, it seems he has struck a cord to even non-Texan Republicans.
I think Republicans have been yearning for a candidate that has “fire in his belly”, a good record (yeah, I know…he has a few issues but every politician does who has been doing anything), and is conservative.
Don’t underestimate him as a campaigner. In his first statewide race in Texas, he beat a VERY popular Democrat for Commissioner of Agriculture, an important post in Texas. In his last race for governor, he beat a sitting senator who has been popular for a long time in Texas in the primary and then beat a very popular mayor of Houston in the general election. He’s disciplined and tenacious.
I like the principles of several other Republican candidates but right now, Perry is my man. I am dying to see him debate Obama. I think there may well be some “There ya go again.” moments in those debates.
Bush’s plunging popularity was mostly a manufactured one by media. I suspect more than a few people realise every day that they only thought they despised 4% unemployment and the mispronunciation of the word new-cu-ler.
Oh..I forgot to mention he won a race for Lt. Governor in Texas (I think maybe the first Republican to win that race in a long time.) Lt. Governor in Texas has more power than even the governor in some ways.
1. The demon Pedanticus is tempting me…must resist…my defenses are giving way…
Neo, the post should properly be titled ‘Perry Delendus Est’: Rick Perry is male whereas Carthago in ‘Carthago Delenda Est’ is female. The fading tatters of my high school Latin are confirmed here.
2. As people have noted, Obama is probably more vulnerable to the crony-capitalism charge than Perry is. That accusation will probably be made by third parties.
I expect that Perry will be hit with a one-two punch against his economic record and his religious beliefs. Carl’s link and others like it appear to debunk the economic attack on the merits (though not necessarily at the propaganda level). The accusation that he is a wannabe Dominionist or theocrat is going to be harder to deal with because some of his supporters really do seem to be religious extremists; Perry has to keep them on board while mollifying swing voters.
(If the economy is bad enough, the Republican will win. If the economy is good, Obama will win. In the intermediate situation where Obama is vulnerable but not mortally wounded, things like a candidate’s religious loyalties could make the difference.)
3. Although I don’t see his path to the nomination, I’m still saying that Gary Johnson is best qualified.
Looks like the Messiah has advised Perry to be careful what he says about Obama not having a military background.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/16/obama_to_perry_be_a_little_more_careful_about_what_you_say.html
This from the man who has insulted every decent American almost daily for 3 years.
Perry switched party lines. So did I. Just 3 decades sooner than Perry.
Some amateur polisci stuff in some of these these comments, plus George Pal and Pat as frightened libs for our amusement.
I had a dialogue with an “America-loving” German during W’s 1st term, in which he said W was “Too much a cowboy” for him. He seemed to object to plain-speaking frankness…unbecoming in a POTUS, apparently.
I expect to walk my boots off for Perry.
1. texexec Says:
His comment about Bernanke being greeted in an ugly way in Texas and almost being treasonous was very unfortunate and when I first heard about it this morning, I said “Ut oh…that’s a big gaffe.”
Like Harry Truman, Perry grew up on a farm. Like Harry Truman, Perry was a military officer. Like Harry Truman, Perry is blunt-spoken.
The comparison should be made artfully. (For one thing, the Truman presidency was not completely successful; HST gets extra credit because he truly did do his utter best.) Above all, Perry should not make the comparison himself like Quayle did wrt JFK.
2. On the merits: well, I’m no economist and maybe our situation is more dire than it seems on the surface, but, yeah, what the bleep is the government doing printing money? Per George Orwell, could this policy be so stupid that only an intellectual like a Princeton professor would implement it? Afaik Obama’s unctuous support for the Fed’s independence does not deny that printing money is what they’re doing.
3. Afterthought: Just saw SteveH’s link. Off the top of my head, that is a more serious gaffe than the Bernanke one. Failure to get the concept of civilian control of the military?
Of course, Obama’s “gracious” reaction is not gracious in the least.
Bill Clinton is certainly a rascal, but…good-looking?!
Don Carlos:
I’m unsure of your objection to Pat’s comments. All three of them are right on the money.
Particularly the one at 2:53. The Republican leadership is as afraid of Palin as the Democrat leadership, with good reason.
I had a dialogue with an “America-loving” German during W’s 1st term, in which he said W was “Too much a cowboy” for him. He seemed to object to plain-speaking frankness…unbecoming in a POTUS, apparently.
Too unsophisticated for Europeans. You need that special sophistication that gave us the Treaty of Versailles, for example, or the Munich agreement.
When I lived in Europe I was introduced (several times) as “an American, but one of the good ones.”
I gave them the masculine equivalent of the Mona Lisa smile.
Obama on Perry, from SteveH’s link: “But I’ll cut him some slack. He’s only been at it for a few days now.”
Are we then to understand that Barack Hussein Obama is disparaging someone else’s level of experience? Seriously?? The man who’s left no pooch unscrewed for the last three years is giving tips now? No reports of lightning strikes, I take it.
I’m not on the Perry bandwagon. I’ve read some disturbing things about him. He strikes me as yet another internationalist who talks a good game and appeals to American conservatives. (Oh, look! He wears cowboy boots!) I have serious misgivings about him with regard to national sovereignty, border security, and illegal immigration.
In short, he sounds like a rerun of George W. Bush. I voted for Bush both times, which was a no-brainer considering who his opponents were, but as time marches on it’s clear that he was never the conservative that many people thought he was, particularly with regard to economic issues.
Despite all the job creation, from what I’ve read, Texas has serious debt problems, and Perry has raised taxes and fees as governor.
As things stand now, my preferences are 1. Palin, 2. Bachmann, and 3. Perry. If any of them win the nomination I’ll vote for them in the general election. I can’t say the same for Romney, who I despise more every day. And I know I’m not the only one. We had all better hope and pray that Romney doesn’t win the nomination, because there is an excellent chance that he will lose the general election. As with Dole and McCain, it will be yet another case of the Republicans nominating a candidate because it’s “his turn”.
Not really a debt problem in Texas, as we have to balance the budget, and they did it without raising taxes. OTOH, Perry rather allowed the Left too much latitude in setting the terms of the argument. The State’s biggest single expenditure is for schools. They cut the amount of increase in school budgets. There were huge howls from the entrenched school bureaucracy, about “short changing the children” and all that. Perry could have come out swinging, pointing out that we have doubled our per child school expenditure in the past decade, with considerably less than a doubling of performance, that, in fact most of the increase has been soaked up by increasing spending on administration. He said nothing, just let the whole thing drift. I really prefer Palin, who, in spite of the image create by the Leftist media, is actually rather a wonk, especially about oil production, a very big deal in Alaska, of course. She also sat on City Council, sorted out those sewer bonds and bridge contracts and all that. I much prefer for the person setting broad policy goals to have some understanding of just what those will mean, when they are actually put into effect.
However, I shall vote for him, if that’s my alternative to the O’Guy.
I’m convinced Sarah Palin plans to run, and this is a clear part of her playbook.
Democrats cannot run on any remotely reasonable record, and will hammer any Republican candidate mercilessly in the hopes of scoring a knockout.
Palin has been the numero uno target since 2008, and has taken tremendous flak. Yet she has emerged amazingly intact. But notice she isn’t the target any more, while still campaigning pretty much like a candidate.
Its like the Eye of Mordor has moved off her, looking around for a better target, glanced off Bachmann and Romney and settled on Perry. In doing so, the Left have taken their eye off the main player, and they will rue the day.
But also in doing so, they are also making it very clear that the person they want to portray as the worst choice possible for President isn’t anyone in particular: it is a generic “whoever runs against Obama”. Following the Alinsky rules, it is important to personalise, but this is more of a generalising. It is a mistake which dilutes the Democrats message by smearing too many people in the same sort of way, and each time the target changes, the more obvious it becomes just how cynical the process is.
Palin benefits by keeping a low profile at this stage because she is drawing her real opponents (Democrats) out by having them attack her decoy opponents (Republican challengers). It is working a charm.
It is going to be a tragic waste if Palin chooses not to run.
Neo:
And then there’s the inimitable Bill Clinton, who calls Perry a “good-looking rascal.” Takes one to know one.
In Texas, Governor Perry is known as “Governor Good Hair.”
That anyone here still feels the need to assert they will vote for someone other than Obazo is amazing. That should be a given.
I just read a well researched article giving Perry’s pluses (it was suggested as required reading on another blog and I agree with that.).
The link is:
http://tinyurl.com/3u2xcl9
If you have concerns about Perry, read this with an open mind and I challenge you to refute the facts in the article.
If you are already a Perry supporter, this article gives you plenty of ammunition for debates with others.
After reading this article, I think Perry can crush Obama in 2012. Not only that but I think he can help pull Republicans back into the House and maybe a few senators as well.
Remember…we have to retain the House majority, get a majority in the Senate (hopefully even filibuster proof), and win the presidency to turn this country around.
W/ regard to the Palin referncees above:
I’ve been a Palin fan since she first appeared on the national scene (with McCain’s announcement of her as VP candidate) but I hope she doesn’t run in this cycle. Rathtyen (12:35 above) notes that the “eye of Morder” has moved off her looking for a better target. I disagree. It’s looking for an ACTIVE target. As long as Palin doesnt’ run, she’s not seen as a direct threat.
I think that she can have more influence on the outcome of the election as a spoiler from the outside. She can gin up substantial support for whichever candidate she supports and help to draw the fire away from him/her.
If she runs, she may not be able to win because of the press demonization of the past. That will all become active again–the Katie Couric and Charles Gibson interviews will not die in short order. Even if she did win, the press would make her administration a living Hell. Her administration would begin where the press left off with G W Bush and after 18 months of media obfuscation, mis-direction and contributing to as many obstacles as possible, they would say “see, we told you she was incompetent.”
One futjer note.
The press would want o make Palin look soo incredibly bad that they could then say “even Obama wasn’t THIS incompetent.” It would be their way of saving face, rewarding their emotional investment in Obama and justifying the pandering thay did for this current administration
above–that’s “One further note:”
Sorry
Here’s an article that refutes most if not all of the “negatives” being brought against Perry:
http://tinyurl.com/3s6gfzn
Again, it’s required reading with an open mind.
A contributor to C4P thinks Palin is “alley cat smart” and has a grand strategy that will only make sense in hind-sight. I don’t know if I agree with his analysis but it makes for interesting reading. The key for her is to make it a 3-way race instead of a 2-way race.
http://tinyurl.com/4ygm963
At least, he looks very presidental. If somebody in Holywood look for an actor who can play some fictional POTUS, a man with such face and manners would be exellent choice. There is something Reagan-like in his facial features, too.
Sergey:
At least, he looks very presidential…
In addition, he has much more executive experience than ∅bama: 8 years as TX Agricultural Commissioner, 2 years as Lieutenant Governor, and 10 1/2 years as Governor.
But no experience as Community Organizer, as far as I can tell.
texexec,
Thanks for the excellent links about Perry. A whole lot of information there by a man who seems fair minded.
I’m sending these to all my e-mail correspondents.
My take so far is that Perry will be a formidable candidate. Not on his band wagon yet, but he looks good.
A Dominionist! I hated those shape-shifting b*stards! Except for Odo, he was a good guy. Maybe Perry is, too.
Perry is clearly the alpha male in almost any room.