I agree with Paul Mirengoff that Rick Perry…
…has been looking pretty good during the border crisis, unlike nearly everyone else. Perry handled Obama’s visit with just the right combination of cooperation and challenge, courtesy and criticism. And prior to that, a couple of weeks ago he took matters into Texas’ own hands and stepped up local patrolling of the border, without waiting for the motionless Obama to do anything.
And speaking of looking good, I still approve of the eyeglasses.
Did you see the pictures, Neo?
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2014/07/10/something-is-very-wrong-in-the-obama-white-house/
The comments in the original picture post had interesting observations too, of Hussein slapping Perry on the back a few times and then shoving him along with the elbow.
Via Ace, here’s Jennifer Rubin on Perry: “When and if he does run for president the first image that pops into voters’ minds may not be the 2012 debate performances, but instead the 2014 border crisis.”
Note the “may”. I’m sure the MSM will do its best to deep-six the current image.
He looks good.
How’s he going to address his 2012 befuddlement? I’ll buy the medication cover story but how many will join me?
Perry, like most Republicans, has a few built in advantages over every single Democrat-Commie-Liberal there is:
1. He is a good person and not a bad one.
2. He loves America and does not hate it.
3. He values hard work and honesty while Democrats do not (they value other people’s hard work so they can take money from them at gunpoint, the word for that being robbery of course).
Republicans should never tire and never wane in saying that all they are doing is being good people; and that Democrats are universally rotten people, inside and out.
Republicans need to stop pretending that Democrats are good people. They are not. They are at best lazy takers; and more typically vicious monsters.
You know, Reagan had a good manly look that Perry has. Churchill and T. Roosevelt did not but that look hid a fierce will. My favorites, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, all have looks, the least probably with Ted Cruz who has the highest intellectual chops. The best looker: Sarah.
Run, Sarah, run.
Unlike our current president, Perry actually has done something. He was an eagle scout and a student leader. He was a farmer and Air Force pilot. He was an agricultural commissioner. He has been governor of one of the biggest and most economically successful states. He has balanced budgets and kept taxes low. What’s not to like?
Does he even have a chance? I wish.
Now if only Canadians would start illegally entering the U.S. in droves, Scott Walker would have his chance to shine!
;P
Perry’s my pick.
He can probably also bridge the Tea Party/establishment divide…that’s money & votes.
Nobody will care one whit about 2012. If Perry performs in 2016, all will be forgotten.
Paul still has a lot of visibility, and he could definitely play the role of spoiler if he goes all independent kooky.
But I’ve seen Paul become too wishy-washy in recent months to take him seriously anymore.
I have to agree that the new, improved Rick Perry is interesting. Living in Texas I have watched Rick do some of the dumbest things in the past and, at times, I thought about the only thing he could do right is grow really nice hair, which I have very little of.
Now with a little more age and lots of time in office, Rick, like a good blue cheese or a really nice wine has matured. Adding the glasses he looks less like a salesman for high end cars and more like someone who could actually be a leader. He has also learned to engage his brain before he opens his mouth and he has become a savvy politician who can communicate.
If the Republicans are going to have a chance then we need to field a candidate who can reach the middle and project concern and confidence in meeting the needs of all the voters. Rick might just be a guy who can take the abuse from the left and the media and become a viable presidential candidate reaching out to the voters in the middle.
He has a bit of the Teflon coating, good hair and glasses that make him look smart that a front runner needs and we could do a whole lot worse. Yep, that’s a great slogan, “We could do a whole lot worse.”
In the past Rick Perry has not appeared to be very quick on his feet. Debates will probably remain a tough venue for him to broaden his appeal. Sometimes very good people do not get a chance to demonstrate their leadership capabilities because they do not appear to be as sharp as they really are. Romney was just too nice. Christie is an example of the feisty debater even though he is probably not very conservative and comes across as too political. As always, each candidate potential is a compromise.
When Perry entered the 2012 race I thought he’d be a leader of the pack. But it turned out not to be. So this time around I wish him luck but don’t have a lot of hope. I am against hope and change ya know.
Like Old Texan said, we could have done a lot worse, and have. Ann Richards was a real piece of work. The female LBJ in the big mouth department.
My least favorite law she came up with was the “Robin Hood Tax”, which as the name implies, robbed from the “rich” and gave to the “poor”. She was good at marketing theft.
Rick has done some things to piss off conservatives, but on balance, he has been a good governor and we are better off under his leadership. He actively works to bring business here, and maintains a friendly environment where they can grow. And we still don’t have a state income tax.
One thing that an astute opposing campaign might be able to negate – it is Texas law to balance the budget – the governor doesn’t have a choice, legally speaking. But I guess we could counter that at least he obeys the law, which is something the current thug in chief feels no obligation to do.
Also in Texas, the real political power belongs to the Lt Governor, and Perry was Lt Governor while GWB was governor, a position he handled well.
Yep Bob Bullock made GWB look real smart when he took office as governor and Bullock was the Democrat Lt. Gov., they made an effective team and then Perry replaced him in 1999.
We are either smart enough or blessed to have a state legislature that only meets every other year and passes most of its bills in the last week of the session.
That would be a novel idea to have a Texas politician for president, don’t ya think?
The people that turned their backs on Perry at their first opportunity are self-centered in their error. THEY wouldn’t have done what he did, would they? They won’t forgive a trivial error in dealing with a hostile MSM, would they?
TX’s biggest problem is it is turning latino before our very eyes. Perry should provoke a clash with the Federales who are bussing leetle teenage MS13 wannabees all over the USA. Pull a Bundy, Rick!
He has a record as governor of the wonderful state of Texas to be proud of.
Don Carlos:
My defense of Perry in the fall of 2011 was here.
I was thinking about some conservatives when I wrote about “The people that turned their backs on Perry at their first opportunity”, Neo, not the usual suspects, the dolts like Friedman. Rather, the people who carped at him for not being smooth and quick enough in those stupid debates.
@ Don Carlos,
Yes, fair-weather friends.
@ neo-neocon,
A recent poll at Ace of Spades HQ has the top three spots:
1) Walker
2) Cruz
3) Perry
I’d take any of them.
Matt_SE:
My list would be Walker, Perry, and then Cruz. The first two have plenty of executive experience, Cruz does not.
I have the same doubts about Walker as I do Perry — shaky conservatism. Both have expressed at least sympathy with issues I don’t care for. Just because the left has its panties in a twist over Walker doesn’t impress me. Getting them angry is easy.
The difference, IMO, is exposure and name recognition. There, I think Perry wins. The recent border mess is only strengthening Perry’s hand.
Cruz is as solid a conservative as there is on the national stage. Name recognition is his problem, along with some preliminary demonization.
I believe credibility is more important than experience, assuming a moderate level of competence. A good leader will delegate to capable underlings. What can’t be delegated, however, is the desire to improve/reform. It’s either there, or it isn’t.
So, my dream ranking would be:
1) Cruz
2) Perry
3) Walker
Being pragmatic, though, I would have to rank them thusly:
1) Perry
2) Walker
3) Cruz
The best of both worlds would be a Perry presidency with Walker as the VP and heir-apparent, with Cruz as Senate Majority Leader.