Until Monday night’s CNN/Tea Party debate, it looked like Texas governor Rick Perry was in the sweet spot (or at least that’s how it seemed to me). In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released just before Monday’s debate, not only was Perry leading Romney by a healthy margin (30 percent to 18 percent), he was also considered more electable (42 percent to 26 percent). When three-quarters of GOP voters consider electability their top concern, that’s a big deal.
But again, that was before the debate in Tampa.
Advertisement
Perry had some good moments and some very bad ones, which is hardly unusual for any front-runner. What came through during the debate, however, is that Perry doesn’t have a front-runner strategy. Indeed, it’s not clear that he’s got any strategy at all other than to be Rick Perry, the guy who walks on stage looking like he’s ready to chest-bump anything that walks, swims, or crawls.
With the exception of his needlessly controversial characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme,” Perry seemed bizarrely unprepared for the attacks thrown his way. And even on that score, Perry’s responses to Romney were largely substance-free. He offered some debate zingers but failed to offer anything like a suggestion for how he would fix Social Security. If he’d done so, he’d inoculate himself from Romney’s demagogic charge that Perry wants to destroy it.
Speaking of inoculation, that’s a fighting word for Perry these days. He was tag-teamed by former Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Michele Bachmann on his decision to require mandatory vaccination for all 11- and 12-year-old girls against human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer. Bachmann attacked Perry for his abuse of authority and for allegedly doing a favor for the vaccine’s manufacturer, Merck, whose chief lobbyist used to be Perry’s chief of staff.
Perry has said the decision was a mistake insofar as it should have been debated in the state legislature first. Perry should have left it there, but then he told Bachmann, nervously, “I raise about $30 million. And if you’re saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I’m offended.” Unfortunately, he made it sound like he was taking offense not at the insinuation of bribery, but at the suggestion he could be bought so cheap.
That, in turn, set up Santorum to attack him from the religious right, catching Perry almost totally unprepared.
Perry’s support for the vaccination is defensible, while some of Bachmann’s attacks were dismayingly demagogic. At times she made the vaccination sound like grotesque human experimentation, with Perry forcing a “government injection” upon “innocent little 12-year-old girls.”
But the fact remains Perry was unprepared for the ambush. He was also caught off-guard when his sweetly platitudinous support for the Texas version of the Dream Act (giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition at Texas universities) invited boos from the Tea Party audience.
Amidst all of this, Romney was, figuratively speaking, stroking his white cat and cackling. For much of the last year, Romney’s plan was to use Bachmann to destroy Tim Pawlenty and then run as the “anybody but Bachmann” candidate. That was always risky, since it’s far from obvious that Romney could have beaten Bachmann in South Carolina. But, as fate would have it, the plan actually worked too well, and Pawlenty was pushed out of the race entirely.
Now it turns out that Romney can use Bachmann (and Santorum and Ron Paul) against Perry, too. And, even better for Romney, Bachmann will likely destroy what little plausible electability she had by attacking Perry from the right.
Meanwhile, Romney is hanging back, looking ever more presidential as the pack tears at Perry like jackals softening up the kill for the patient lion waiting just beyond the tree line. Or, to violently switch metaphors, Romney is drafting behind Perry until it gets close enough to the finish to slingshot past him.
It’s a strategy particularly well suited for Romney because he’s not an exciting GOP front-runner. Fair or not, he’s a lot like Sen. John Kerry in 2004, who was going nowhere until Howard Dean self-destructed.
The problem for Romney is that it’s a plan that depends entirely on forces outside of his control. Perry’s a dogged competitor who is famously interested in learning from his political mistakes and improving his campaigning techniques. Quite simply, he can get his act together before it’s too late.
Both candidates are where they want to be — which means one of them is wrong.
I disagree with Jonah on this one.
Perry was attacked by Bachmann and Romney. And I don't think it made them look too good.
Bachmann, whom I like, sounded shrill and a bit desperate about the vaccinations and over the top. And Romney is just plain wrong about Social Security. It is a ponzi scheme and it should be privatized. With all the attacks I think Perry came off better than the others.
I thought Perry looked pretty good in this debate. Except for his ideas about immigration I thought he handled himself well.
I say this as a Palin supporter.
I have to agree with the author [in homage to Perry's first debate performance wherein he apparently forgot Rick Santorum's name] that Perry has fallen out of the catbird seat. And it's his own undoing. In his introduction to the CNN/American Gladiator/WWF debate, Perry re-used the line that excited so many us initially - the goal of making the federal government as insignificant in our lives as possible. But, he hasn't backed the doctrine with any substance. While he has a fantastic stage presence and is very likeable, his performances so far have been a disappointment. In fact, among all of the candidates, he appears to be the least prepared for debate. Perhaps he's just getting warmed up, but it's troubling to see the lack of polish on a candidate with his years of political experience. And, I'm still waiting for a candidate to advance a comprehensive vision for the country that might give independent voters something to chew on.
Not to say that he doesn't have to step up his game a bit in these debates, but as compared to Romney's pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped persona, I think Perry comes off as refreshingly candid and unscripted.
Heh ... someone on these comments mentioned the other day that they believed conservatives don't like Romney because we think he's "liberal".
I got to thinking about that - and realized that my objection to Romney is that he just switches positions as political expediency dictates. He's for things before he's against things.
The McCain 2.0 charge sticks well enough to Romney - but Kerry 2.0 strikes me as being a whole lot closer when it comes to describing Romney.
Thanks Jonah! Although it doesn't appear to be your impression of him, it's good to see that thought repeated by someone else. =)
First, the "experts" claimed Perry's treason rhetoric directed at the Federal Reserve would do him in. The next derailer of his campaign came when he compared Social Security to a Ponzi scheme. Now he's said to have lost the sweet spot because of an executive order he's admitted was a mistake and unrelenting attacks from his fellow GOP candidates.
Most voters don't care about a state-mandated HPV vaccination in Texas - mandatory vaccinations for school children have been around for decades - or participants in a debate ganging up on the front runner. What we do care about is creating jobs and fixing our broken government, so we'll vote for the candidate we believe will do the best job. And we won't forget the lesson of election 2008: What a candidate says in front of the camera isn't what counts. It's what that candidate will do behind closed doors when no one is paying attention that does.
Once again, our pundits are falling victim to our “the thing that happened yesterday is the most important thing ever” mentality. I know Jonah has a column to write, but let’s have a little perspective:
1. It has been only one month since Rick Perry announced his candidacy and less than one week since his first debate. Romney has been running for four years now, Bachmann for two. How about we cut the guy just a little tiny bit of slack for not being practically perfect in every way.
2. Isn’t one of the main criticisms of Romney that he is too polished and comes off as plastic? Yet, Perry you crack Perry on the knuckles, which he apparently drags on the ground, for not being Romney-like.
3. What percentage of undecided voters tuned into the debate. I am as plugged in as anyone, but I missed half of the debate because of my sons’ football practice. I am sure I am not the only one who falls into this category.
4. Most voters (IMHO) are not parsing every word every candidate speaks. They are trying to become comfortable with them. When Bachmann demagogued the Gardisil issue, it made me less comfortable with her even though I thought she was correct on the issue.
Let’s all take a deep breath and let the process play out.
The Stupid Party rules. All the GOP has to do is talk about the economy, stupid. And the man with the absolute best record with respect to the economy, a real record, not the phoney ideological posturing of Bachmann and Paul and the rest, is Texas Gov. Rick Perry. But what is he forced to do? Appear at these absurd cattle calls where he is compelled to answer questions about teenage girls and social security. Keep it up nitwits. You'll get nice, mild-mannered many-time loser Mitt Romney as your standard bearer next November. And then you'll get Barack Obama for four more years.
Many of our pundits, who for certain prefer Romney to be the nominee, are willfully ignoring the one trillion pounds elephant in the room which is the basic fact of why it is almost impossible for Romney to be the Republican nominee. Here is the basic fact:
Romney is a liberal Republican from Massachusetts the most liberal state in the Union and the owner of Romneycare running against three times governor of the largest conservative state in the Union. Therefore due to this basic fact of politics it is almost impossible for Romney to defeat Perry for the Republican nomination.
No amount of spinning, attacks, image re-making, lies, distortions, etc… by Romney and his supporters, and his pundits, is going to change the basic fact and it consequences.
PS: Perry has not started his attacks on Romney yet to show him as the liberal Republican who he is. There is massive amount of materials against Romney that would easily expose him as a liberal Republican. Many of those are videos of Romney advocating liberal positions that would drive the vast majority of Republicans of the cliff.
I have a feeling there's going to be a big divide between GOP men and GOP women on whether Bachmann seemed "shrill" or "demagogic" on this issue. She answered like a mother, not like a politician. Excessive, yes, but it seemed like an honest, gut-level response.
Her cronyism charge showed me someone who would not be a poll-driven President. Both Perry and Romney would be. We knew this about Romney. Now we know it about Perry.
It's not about learning from past mistakes. It takes one flinch to reveal weakness. Perry had about three flinches.
Conservatives who choose Perry over Bachmann are choosing the second best, and for expediency's sake. You already know, deep down, who you'd trust more to go toe to toe with Harry Reid in the event the Democrats do keep the Senate.
Further, I want to see that brutal streak, together with that exquisite grasp of detail, turned against Barack Obama in the general election debates. She'd peel him like a grape.
I still like Cain best out of the whole pack, but otherwise, I'm for the redhead.
She most definitely did sound like ap olitician. Especially when she went on to Greta Vanstrussen's show afterwards, and gave the spiel about a mother crying to her on how that vaccine made her kid disabled.
I like Bachmann. Perry deserves to be criticized on this issue. Rick santorum's critique was more on point, while hers made her sound like a weird anti vaccine wacko. But that definitely was not, nor did it sound like motherly concern- it was all strategy, and one that is obviously blowing up in her face.
"But here’s my problem: I find the prospect of another four or eight years of defending these cultural distinctions to be intensely wearying.
My weariness is hardly a major consideration for anybody..."
Jonah described Perry as "the guy who walks on stage looking like he’s ready to chest-bump anything that walks, swims, or crawls." Why would anyone still believe that the weariness he described so well is not a major consideration? Perry's inability to put together policy ideas into words is more than just a superficial issue. It is indicative of questionable capabilities, especially to be President of the United States (not Texas or fly-over states like mine) and represent Republican ideals in a winning manner. It is also an indication of his lack of seriousness in preparing for the debates and a lack of forethought on policy per se.
As a resident Texan, I think I know what Perry will do - he WILL, in fact, produce a Social Security reform plan, as Jonah mentioned, and go on offense with it.
He's got one more primary issue to deal with: the trans-Texas corridor. But it's difficult to explain, and, like the gardasil stuff, largely a matter of clumsy tactics than principle.
I don't agree that either the Gardasil or the illegal immigration issues are not matters of principle. And I definitely believe that white-washing his shortcomings as a candidate as merely tactical is short-sided on conservatives' part.
Jonah, this column is too clever by way-more-than-half. None of this positioning and strategizing and game-theorizing would be necessary if not for one fact:
Perry looks pitiful in the debates.
It's really that simple. If Perry were a lot better debater and Romney were a lot worse, we'd be talking about something else. Like what Perry should say in his acceptance speech at the convention.
As long as Perry looks clueless onstage, he keeps Romney (and everybody else, for that matter) in the race. I know you don't want to be quite so blunt, but we both know what's happening here.
You finally get around to the obvious at the end, when you recommend that Perry improve his campaign. Of course, the only part of the campaign that matters now is the debates. And yeah, Perry better get better, as your old running mate John Podhoretz observed over at Commentary.
Perry has unwittingly made Romney an even more powerful force in the general election by innoculating him from Democratic charges about Social Security. Romney has come to the defense of Social Security, and that means Obama will not be able to demagogue the issue in the general election.
Follow
