Back at the end of August, I wrote in the Morning Jolt:
Jeb Ellis is one of those guys who I wish wrote more, because it always seems thought-provoking, it certainly seems to be generated by discussions with folks at the highest levels of finance and politics (he is President George W. Bush’s cousin, you’ll recall) and sometimes you can feel him nudging the national conventional wisdom in a new direction, paragraph by paragraph: “The Republican ‘establishment,’ such as it is, is quickly coming to the realization that the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is Texas Governor Rick Perry’s to lose. He leads in Iowa and he hasn’t even really campaigned there yet. He’s running second in New Hampshire, which is all he needs to do. And he’s running comfortably ahead in South Carolina (again, without much campaigning), which is the gateway to the South. The South is the base of the modern Republican Party. Perry has become, in less than a month, the Southern states’ de facto favorite son.”
Of course, that was two debates ago, and Ellis now writes that we’re still waiting for Perry to slam the door on his competition:
Had Texas Governor Rick Perry performed better in the two most recent GOP presidential candidates’ debates, he’d be well on his way to the 2012 nomination . . .
Back surgery in all likelihood had something to do with his apparent weariness and inarticulate answers.
But more alarming was Perry’s evident lack of command of the subject matter. As John Podhoretz wrote at Commentary after the CNN/Tea Party debate, Perry had trouble with some fairly straightforward policy questions. He seemed not only out of his depth, he seemed unprepared. Here’s Podhoretz:
The main problem here, though, is that he seems to think he can wing these debates by referring to what he did in Texas here and what he did in Texas there. That is insufficient not just when it comes to giving voters a chance to judge him by the policy choices he might make; it’s insufficient because it suggests he thinks he can get away without getting specific and demonstrating a command of national and international issues.
. . . Perry need only meet two tests to win the nomination. Test #1 is that he has the knowledge and experience to serve effectively as president. Test #2 is that he has an even (or better than even) chance of defeating President Obama next November. All the other pieces of the puzzle are there. He has a very powerful base. He has the money. He has (enough) established political support.
Perry has so far failed Test #1. He needs to pass it, again and again, in debate after debate, to win. If he continues to fall short in these debates, then he won’t be the nominee. He’ll be in the discard pile with all the others.
I can near-guarantee that the comments section under this post will be full of commentators insisting that Perry was fantastic in the debates, and that this is petty carping from the inside-the-Beltway Georgetown cocktail-party establishment squish RINO class. And I’m sure there will be those — who transparently prefer another candidate — who will declare that the Perry mystique is broken, that he’s obviously a dunce, that he has coasted on shallow charm that plays well in Texas but will flop in much of the rest of the country.
I think the best one can say about Perry’s two debate performances is that they’ve been good enough — he is, after all, still the frontrunner in most polls. I think the worst you can say is that, so far, Perry is deeply disappointing to any Republican who wanted a presidential nominee who could naturally and easily articulate a powerful argument for conservative principles and think on his feet.
It’s not like the idea that Michele Bachmann would go after him was a surprise, nor was the angle of “crony capitalism,” and the heart of Perry’s defense is that he’s offended that someone would accuse him of altering his position for a donation so small.
Perry has plenty of time, and will have plenty of opportunities to regroup. But it’s fascinating to think that the conventional wisdom around him could change so dramatically in two weeks, and essentially after two key nights . . .
I dont think his back problems and recovery from surgery has been given due consideration as something that could be wearing him out in hour 2 of these debates
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, what I find interesting is how insanely nuts his supporters have gone online because he DIDN'T win the nomination by acclamation right there on the floor of the Reagan library, attacking anyone and everyone, candidate, non-candidate, pundit or blogger, who even hints that Perry might NOT be the second coming of Jesus. Ron Paul's supporters are looking on going "Whoa, dude, you guys are going too far". I think you have the right of it, Perry's got plenty of time to polish his game, but it's worth noting how many people latched onto him as a conservative messiah figure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a reason Perry avoided debates in almost all of his races during his lengthy political career. He can't do it.
Now that the shine is off the newest toy in the GOP contest, note the polls are once again sporting "someone else" in double digits when Palin is not offered as choice. In two most recent polls "someone else" polled higher than the former front runner MandateMitt.
Enter stage center...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlmost every poll that has Palin in the race hasn't really changed the race. In fact, Perry lead grows because she take more votes from Romney than Perry (I assume because he's the more well known politician when compared to Perry).
Palin is a player, but when she quit as governor of Alaska she also bowed out of the 2012 race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSave the "quitter" meme for democrats. Perry is drawing a salary which good people of Texas are paying him while he is running around the country applying for his next gig. That's what permament political class looks like.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCurrent officeholders running for another position is nothing new. This is a non-argument.
Obama and McCain both drew a salary from the good people of the United States serving as Senators while "running around the country" running for President. So did Hillary. So did George W. Bush as Gov. of Texas. So did Al Gore as Vice President. So did George H. W. Bush. So did Jimmy Carter as Gov. of Georgia.
And the list goes on... next subject please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAm I the only one who sees the lack of a front runner as a good thing?
Three reasons.
1) Each debate sharpens candidates and separates the fringe from the contenders.
2) Each debate allows voices that may not get "their canidate" to have their opinion voiced and defended well. I think the scorecard stuff is interesting for debates, but I also think that the field has shown some genuine depth that goes unrecognized because folks are cheering for their guy or gal.
I left the GOP years ago because I felt they were on full-RINO. I'm happy with the current debates because when the major candidates hear what resonates with the crowd, they (hopefully) are reminded about what the principles of GOP should be.
3) Remember the Alinsky rule. Once the opposition has a face, you demonize that person. They kept taking shots at Palin before this heated up, expecting her to get into the race. They still take the occassional shot when she goes on a bus tour. Mitt comes out on top and we hear about the Obama folks lining up the "weird" attack angle. Perry is moving ahead and the major media falls in line dutifully.
Let the debates continue. Sharpen the candidates and give voice to strong conservative principles. Hone the message so it can reach beyond the GOP. And for goodness sake, save the sharp elbows for Obama. You surely know when a candidate is picked, the media and White House will demonize him (or her).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe strange fervor of the Perry supporters has been a bit puzzling. Nothing about the guy's demeanor is particularly charismatic. His politics are standard stuff these days. Then, he had the prayer thing and I was reminded of the Huckabee zombies all over the Internet. Perry is what can stop the Mormon and that sends the Evangelicals into a fervor.
I'm OK with it as long as Perry can beat Obama and is in fact a conservative. Most Evangelicals are not conservative in that they want the government shoving people around, making them live Christian lives. Perry is not Reagan, but he acceptable and has a chance against Obama.
He does have to get better at the issues. If he were a woman or black, the lefty media would be savaging him as a bimbo right now. Another clunker of a debate and he will be tagged as a mimbo by the media and that's going to sting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's September 15, 2011. Anyone who thinks that the nomination was going to be a slam dunk after two debates needs a good dose of reality.
Perry's biggest problem isn't the way he gave the answers. It's the answers themselves. The vaccination thing is bad for Perry. No answer is going to make those that disagree with it happy. He's also weak on immigration if that's a major issue with a conservative voter. No answer Perry gives is going to help with that.
However, the two biggest issues in this election is ObamaCare and the Economy. Perry has plenty of time to polish his answers before now and the first vote. That's still MONTHS away. Most people still aren't paying attention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCount me in as someone who has Perry as my first choice of the declared candidates, but who is unimpressed with his debate performances so far.
The problem is though, none of the other candidates are appealing to me. I liked Bachmann but she has done even worse in recent debates. Romney is a total non-starter. And the rest of the field is just meh.
So Perry is still it for me. The only person who could make me switch my vote is Palin if she entered the race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseditto
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with you until the last sentence. Palin is a non-starter for me, just like Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Perry is right on a lot of issues but I am concerned about his seeming lack of preparation. This is not a contest for head of the condo association or even governor of Texas, and this is not something he can just wing and bluster through without thinking about the issues first. If he can't articulate a reasonable answer to questions about his mandatory vaccination plan, the DREAM act like law he signed or any of the million other things he said in his book, we need to know that now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody ever won a nomination by winning debates. Those of us who pine for a witty nominee with a firm grip on conservative political philosophy (sadly, I'm one -- I know better but I can't help myself)need to grow up. The next President will be a skilled professional politician, which guarantees that he won't be anyone's pick to lead a seminar on the thought of Edmund Burke.
Plausible Presidents are limited to a very small group of people with limited (and limiting) life experiences. Perry was the best we could come up with. He'll have to do. And he will do.
The idea that he has missed an opportunity to put the competition away is at odds with the stark reality that he has put the competition away. Nobody else in the field has a prayer of winning the nomination. You don't have to be a sparkling wit when you have no serious competition.
Conventional wisdom says it's a two man race, Perry v. Romney. Conventional wisdom is bunk.
As it stands now, Romney is virtually assured of defeat in Iowa, SC, and FL. Game over. Romney's position is indefensible. He's running as the guy who gave gay marriage a running start by rolling over when the MA SJC ordered it, signed the prototype for Obamacare, climbed on to the sinking global warming ship, and did everything in his power to help the Democrats portray Republicans as eager to roll Granny off a cliff. There is no part of the conservative coalition that finds him attractive. No party has ever nominated at candidate so utterly at odds with its core principles.
At least John McCain had powerful appeal among veterans and national security conservatives. Romney has no constiuency and without a constiuency he will lose and lose badly. He peaked some time before Perry entered the race. He has only just begun to deflate.
Perry may not excite many people (he doesn't excite me), but he has at least some appeal for every part of the conservative coalition. As a result, a two man race between Perry and Romney is, in effect, a one man race. Perry is running without meaningful opposition.
He's not going to get much of a test in the general either. If one assumes, as I do, that our economic situation will deteriorate dramatically between now and November 2012, neither Obama nor any other Democrat nominee can run a competitive race.
Perry doesn't have to get any better, which is good because he probably can't. It will be amusing to watch all the commentators as Perry soars and his opponents crash and burn. No doubt they'll attribute his success to some imaginary improvement in his schtick. In the real world all he has to do is what he is doing and, if he can keep breathing, come 2013 he'll be President Perry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight now our economy is the worst in recent history, and President Obama still outpolls governor Perry and every other Republican candidate except Romney. Don't you find yourself saying "how can this be" ? This should be a walk in the park for any credible Republican candidate but, so far, it's not. Perhaps Governor Perry has already poisoned his own well by his positions and rhetoric on social security and immigration. Do you have a better explanation? Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama leads among registered voters. Among likely voters, Romney leads in the swing states, and even some Dem states like MI. Google "Romney Obama likely voters" and scan the first couple pages.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseServeral possible additional explanations for Obama outpolling Perry in addition to your explanation:
a. Skewed sampling, a complaint commenters often make when any new poll comes out. Maybe they're right.
b. The media (duh!).
c. The level of harshness and demagoguery in the attacks fellow Republicans are throwing at each other. They may or may not take out Romney or Perry in the process, but they may be dragging everyone down right now.
d. Timid congressional opposition. There really isn't a strong Obama foil in the Republican leadership in the House or Senate. They are trying to be friends, trying to be collegial, really won't go after him like politicians with any common sense would. People just aren't hearing enough criticism of his actions coming from anyone, including Republicans.
e. The deplorable state of affairs in our nation right now (the "Mark Steyn" explanation).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell Joe, A and B sound too much like shooting the messenger to me, C has plausibility, harshness and demagoguery certainly seem to be Mrs. Bachmann's raison d'etre . D, the Congressional Republicans don't strike me as excessively collegial, especially during the debt limit fiasco. E has merit, even if I can't buy in to Mr. Steyn's brand of gloom and doom, undeniably there is a great deal of sickness in our society. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would venture to guess name recognition inflates Romney's name somewhat. How much, who knows. But he's been running for president for 4 years, so he's well known.
What I can't figure out is why the Tea Party would have anything to do with Romney, regardless of the promises he's made. Talk is cheap, measure a man by his actions. And Romney's actions have left Massachusetts in worse financial condition than when he became governor by saddling the state with a healthcare system that, in spite of mandating people buy insurance, accounts for 40% of the state budget.
So tell me again why we should trust him to address the federal budget and entitlement problems?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have to trust him because he's the one candidate out there with the best (perhaps only) shot at beating President Obama. Romney or four more years, you choose. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse