Success in national politics almost always comes down to timing.
Running for president is a deeply personal decision, because it requires unparalleled discipline and endurance, a wildly unreasonable invasion of privacy, and, as Gov. Haley Barbour (R., Miss.) has pointed out, a willingness to make a ten-year personal and family commitment.
The Republican primary field is mostly complete, but it leaves many on the right wanting. They believe it does not contain the next Ronald Reagan, the kind of candidate who can directly attack the policies of President Obama while uniting the conservative movement.
Advertisement
Texas governor Rick Perry has a golden opportunity to fill the vacuum. He did not envision being in the position that he finds himself in now — no one could have. The dominoes had to fall in a certain way, in a certain order.
Many candidates who could have filled the hole in the current field passed, for their own reasons. Governor Barbour would have been the southern candidate with significant financial backing. Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) would have been the social conservative with Reagan-like communication abilities. Sen. John Thune (S.D.) would have been a next-generation candidate in the vein of Obama. Gov. Mitch Daniels (Ind.) would have been the serious candidate laser-focused on the debt.
Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a natural choice to represent Perry’s corner of the candidate pool, or even to receive Perry’s endorsement; two of Perry’s top aides left to serve as senior advisers to Gingrich. But they both resigned last week, and one of them, Perry’s longtime senior adviser Dave Carney, was seen traveling with Perry in New York on Tuesday.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.), in spite of her recent strong debate performance, remains a controversial figure who is viewed with suspicion by Capitol Hill Republicans and the GOP establishment. Businessman Herman Cain is beloved by the Tea Party, but remains a long shot for the nomination.
Waiting in the wings is Governor Perry, the one remaining electable candidate who’s open to running. He has a powerful story to tell.
Governor Perry is uniquely positioned to win two of the first three Republican nominating contests (Iowa and South Carolina), unite the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, raise enough money to compete with Mitt Romney, and establish a narrative that contrasts well with President Obama’s. With Perry as governor, Texas has created more private-sector jobs than all other 49 states combined. This election will hinge on the economy, so there may be no better messenger.
Governor Perry initially said he would not run for president in 2012. He has called being governor of Texas “the best job in the world.” And he clearly believes it, as he chose to run for an unprecedented third term as governor in 2010, soundly defeating Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in a March 2010 primary despite trailing in the polls for some time.
When Governor Perry said he would not run, I believed him. But the ground has shifted beneath his feet. The man, the moment, and the opportunity have converged. Just as President Obama saw an opportunity and seized it in 2008, Perry can do so now.
Governor Perry has been genuinely surprised by the depth of interest in his potential candidacy, including stirring praise from Rush Limbaugh.
Over the next few weeks, Perry is road-testing a campaign stump speech. He spoke at a Hispanic-focused pro-life event in L.A. on Saturday, addressed a major fundraiser on Tuesday in New York City (where he also sat down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board), and is chairing the Republican Governors Association meeting in Charlotte this week. This weekend, he will address the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, a high-profile event that is drawing most of the current presidential field.
If he runs, Governor Perry will look to replicate his record from Texas at the national level. He cites four principles as the reason that Texas has succeeded while states such as California and New York have lagged behind. First, “don’t spend all the money.” Second, keep regulations “fair and predictable.” Third, enact tort reform that “does not allow for oversuing.” And finally, fund an accountable education system.
Yes! Go, man, go. He's a great man, a great conservative and a great Governor with a wonderful record in his home-state. Soon as he got in, he'd sweep the nomination and then stomp Obama.
He'll get in it any day now and really put some excitement in the race!
I turn 50 in December this year. The first vote I ever cast was in 1980 (when I voted AGAINST Carter). The only time I've ever voted FOR a candidate was 1984, and ever since it's been voting against the greater of two evils.
It seems to me Rick Perry would once again allow me to vote FOR someone.
Great article. I think Perry is going to be an instant contender upon throwing his hat into the ring. I wrote an article last week about Rick Perry, and how he will shake up the conservative field.
My dream ticket would be Perry/Ryan but Perry/Cain or Perry/Bachmann would make me smile.
If Perry gets in the GOP race will be over in early 2012. Perry/Ryan, Cain, or Bachmann, all effective communicators could take it to obama while making their Pro Growth case to the citizens.
Okay, I live in Texas. No one really loves Perry in Texas. We vote for him because, suprisingly in this conservative state, there has been no one better.
He's pro-illegal immigration when he can be, although sometimes he posteurs as being as a border hawk.
He's for messing with the private sector by mandating wind generation - which has left Texas unable to deliver electricity when demand is high and the wind isn't blowing. (We had rolling blackouts this winter)
Okay, I live in Texas, too, and I have loved having Perry for governor, as has my family and most of the people I know, who all happen to be very conservative Republicans.
How anyone could claim Perry is "pro-illegal immigration" defies credulity. I defy anyone to provide evidence for that particular charge.
You're going to hear a lot from people claiming to represent Texas and I would advise anyone following this subject to be wary of what they read and hear. Tearing down Perry has been kind of a cottage industry of the Texas left, who see it as their mission in life to bring down someone they despise, and fear. That is particularly true for some metropolitan newspapers down here. The San Antonio Express-News, for one, might as well register as a Democratic opposition group given its single-minded and spectacularly unsuccessful efforts to undermine this governor.
All I would suggest is that people remember that Texas is a very conservative state with a very discerning electorate and Perry has yet to lose an election here, including the last one, when he won easily in the face of near total media-opposition and a fanatical effort by the left to bring him down.
The writer is a political consultant, I see. Let me guess: he's on retainer by Rick Perry. If not, he needs to learn the fee-based principle for services rendered so he can get paid for such propaganda. I've never read a more thinly-veiled "advertorial" in my life. This is beneath the dignity of the NR founded by the late, great Mr Buckley (may he rest in peace, and may it please God in his providence to deliver us a successor equal to his stature).
Huh? "beneath the dignity of the NR" founded by Buckley? Do you read NR -- the magazine that endorsed Goldwater over the "Rockefeller Wing", endorsed Reagan over Bush, and which endorsed Romney over McCain just 3 years ago?
It's an opinion magazine, and its writers have opinions. This wasn't even the Editorial Board's endorsement.
I live in Texas, and I think Perry would be great. He is NOT perfect. But he's probably about the most conservative that can be elected. He's dynamite on the stump and unlike some of the others, he will not be afraid to take the fight to Obama. Plus, he is more reliably conservative than Bush was. He is pretty strongly pro-10th amendment, pro-growth, etc. He handled crises (like Katrina) well. He's had a few dings in his record, but really, so does every candidate. I think his dings are less perilous than, for example, Romneycare.
Please, please, please, take Rick Perry. He is not the miracle man that the national media makes him out to be. He is a very divisive politician that does not care for anyone but Rick Perry. He has never held a real job, and don't forget that he was originally a Democrat that switched parties only for his personal gain. I would gladly vote for him for a job in Washington just to get him out of the State of Texas so we could possibly get a person who is genuinely concerned about Texas and not the next election.
as an Arizonan, not a Texan, I am all for Perry. Matt's article was a good one, though i'd like to see a full interview with Governor Perry in NRO. Perry will be an answer to Romney. I will support him whole-heartedly.
Auggh!!! These sycophantic articles drooling all over Rick Perry are getting old NRO!! Plus, clearly Mr. Mackowiak is trolling for business.
All you Perry lovers are in for a surprise if you think he's your savior. Conservatives in Texas already know better. Any true vetting of Gov. Perry will reveal he's about on par with all the other candidates (they all have flaws, the only fatally flawed candidate being Romney).
And MReed53, your suggestion that any Texas conservative commenter who doesn't absolutely just love Rick Perry is really a liberal troll is ridiculous and laughable. Conservatives, unlike liberals, don't deify their elected leaders. Rick simply ain't all that. We can be honest about him, dislike him even, and still vote for him in the general election because we can see the greater good overall. Hence, Rick Perry continues to win in Texas. As has already been stated repeatedly in the comments of other articles about Perry, the only reason he keeps winning here in Texas is because the alternatives in the primaries and general election (so far) have all been even worse. He'll get my vote in the general election if he gets the nomination, but I pray he doesn't get the nomination.
Nate the Stampede,
I'd like for you to point out anything I wrote suggesting that "any Texas conservative commentator who doesn't absolutely just love Rick Perry is really a liberal troll."
What I said was in response to another post which claimed that NO Texas conservatives loved (or were enthusiastic about) Perry. That, I said, was pure bull, and that's a fact. YOU may not be enthusiastic about Rick Perry and all of your votes for him may have been because he was running against someone you disliked even more, but the vast majority of Perry voters I know only lament him running for President because we'd lose him as governor. Certainly, he is the best governor in my lifetime, and I ain't no spring chicken.
I did suggest that people should be wary about some of the statements they read on this and any other conservative forum because some of them are liberal plants. I'll also stick by that one, because it's pretty obvious.
For the record, I am fully aware that just as some on the left view Obama as insufficiently Marxist, there is a segment of the right that does not like Perry. Much of that same segment would have been equally unhappy about Reagan or Goldwater. Some of them won't be happy with anyone other than Ron Paul and some of them won't be pleased with anyone other than Michelle Bachman. There is also a segment of that segment that would not be happy with anyone outside the John Birch Society.
The fact is that neither Paul nor Bachman is going to be nominated, unless they end up running on the Libertarian or Constitution Party line, and neither one of them would stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected in November. To genuflect once more before Chairman Bill, what the GOP needs to do is nominate the most conservative candidate who can be elected. Surveying the current and potential field, that looks, as of now, to be Rick Perry.
So is he conservative or not? half the Texas people say he's in RINO territory and the other half say he's great. Which is it? Does anyone objective have a place to go to look at his record so I can judge for myself?
I'm liking what I see of Perry, but I have a couple of misgivings so far -- misgivings that I hope and expect will amount to nothing, but here they are.
The article states: "Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was a natural choice to represent Perry’s corner of the candidate pool, or even to receive Perry’s endorsement; two of Perry’s top aides left to serve as senior advisers to Gingrich. But they both resigned last week, and one of them, Perry’s longtime senior adviser Dave Carney, was seen traveling with Perry in New York on Tuesday."
Why would Gingrich, a clown candidate as well as a cad with no chance whatever to gain the nomination, be "a natural choice to represent Perry’s corner of the candidate pool, or even to receive Perry’s endorsement"? That does not speak well of Perry at all.
Related to that question -- why would "two of Perry’s top aides [leave] to serve as senior advisers to Gingrich"? Sure, they were paid, but they must also have political interests. Do they see the men as interchangeable?
The article also states: "If he runs, Governor Perry will look to replicate his record from Texas at the national level. He cites four principles as the reason that Texas has succeeded while states such as California and New York have lagged behind. . . . And finally, fund an accountable education system."
Let's hope he doesn't really want to replicate state funding of "an accountable education system" by the federal government. Let's indeed go so far as to hope that his 10th Amendment instincts will lead him to abolish the Department of Education.
Hardcastle,
First, while Newt has wandered into some strange territory of late, particularly on the environmental stuff, I think you and some others judge him a bit too harshly. He's never been a RINO and certainly can lay claim to have played a truly historical role in the conservative movement. No one of fair judgement would ever mistake him for Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins or even John McCain. Newt's trouble has always been that his mind is too facile and his mouth too quick to utter half-formed thoughts that would have been left unsaid if further digested. That's one reason he was a great backbencher and conservative revolutionary but a less than successful speaker and a spectacularly bad Presidential candidate. Anyway, you might have reason to worry if Perry's guys -- and remember they are professionals who get paid -- had gravitated to Lindsey Graham, but I would hardly put Newt in that company.
As for how to judge Perry, you can look at his ten-year record as governor and his offices before that. I think it's also instructive to look at how unhinged he makes the mainstream media and the Democrat party down here. It's like Palin redux. Incidentally, I'm a huge Palin fan and I would have supported her immediately if she was running, but the fact that Perry appears to be a go tells me she is sitting this one out. She campaigned all over the state for him when the Bushies were trying to replace him with Hutchison. Do not be surprised to see Palin become one of Perry's earliest endorsements. That should tell you something about him, too.
On a totally different note, it is really galling to have to enter a code extolling General Electric's federally subsidized green agenda in order to get past the filter and post to National Review. Sponsors are sponsors, I know, but that's a little hard to swallow.
I don't share your regard for Gingrich, who has not demonstrated his supposed brilliance to my satisfaction. That consideration is separate from the fact that he is also a liar of no character. So my misgivings haven't been entirely satisfied. If Matt Mackowiak wishes to do his guy a favor, he should not play up the comparisons to Gingrich, and if Perry's former staffers return to him they should prepare their explanations.
I will be interested to learn about Perry's views on education at the federal level. Here's hoping they amount to "no funding" and "hands off."
Hardcastle,
You're welcome re. the input.
Re. Newt, believe me, I'm as aware as you are of his shortcomings. I just don't think it's either fair or accurate to lump him together philosophically with people who really are far to his left. The book deal I don't view as any real character flaw; that was more a case of the typical Dem character assassination playbook, payback for Jim Wright and the Republican Party's constant willingness to leave its wounded on the field.
The other character questions are more personal in nature and certainly fair game for people to consider when they ponder a potential President (sorry Bill Clinton).
As for Perry and the federal role in education, I can tell you that he refused to even participate in the DOE's "Race to the Top" $4-billion grant award competition because he believes the feds are too involved in what's an essentially local responsibility and attach too many strings to the money.
To be more precise, Perry said federal grants "bait states into adopting national standards," and "undermine states' authority to determine how their students are educated." He also rejected Obama's push to have states adapt common education standards, saying that Texas "would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children's future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington, virtually eliminating parents' participation in their children's education."
That ought to give you some idea of where he stands on the subject. I would also think the praise Perry wins from Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck would offer conservatives unfamiliar with his record some reassurance. Hunters and gun owners should also like the fact that Ted Nugent throws in a "God bless Rick Perry" in almost every one of his Outdoor Channel television programs.
