Race for the Republican Nomination (Part 3 of 3): Rick Perry’s to Lose
By Ken Falkenstein | Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 | Politics
In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I explained that the Republican base is fed up with Republican candidates and leaders who abandon core conservative principles for the sake of winning reelection and that we demand a principled, viable, and inspirational leader to restore our country. In this year’s election, there is one – and only one – candidate who might meet the demands of the Republican base, and that candidate is Rick Perry.
Prior to Rick Perry’s entry into the race in mid-August, Mitt Romney was the frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, but this status was shallow and superficial. It was based upon on name recognition from his prior run in 2008, his impressive message discipline in the early GOP candidate debates, which he won by not losing, and a relatively weak field of opponents. In other words, Romney was not the frontrunner in the sense of having earned enthusiastic support from a clear plurality of Republican voters. He was merely the least objectionable candidate in a field of flawed candidates.
So, although Romney was the nominal frontrunner, the Republican base remained decidedly unenthusiastic about him. After all, what conservative could get excited about nominating a man who, as Governor of Massachusetts, had written and enacted the blueprint for ObamaCare, who continues to defend that scheme as good policy and criticizes ObamaCare only for being a federal program and not for being a monstrous usurpation by the government of our individual liberties, who buys into the disproven myth of man-made global warming, and who has flip-flopped on the ultimate issue of principle and personal conscience, abortion (having gone from being adamantly pro-choice as a politician in liberal Massachusetts to being adamantly pro-life as a candidate for the votes of the substantially more conservative national Republican electorate)? And who could be inspired by a man who has lost all but one election in his lifetime and who chose not to seek reelection in the face of a tough challenge by a leftist Democrat?
So, the fact that Mitt Romney’s was the frontrunner proved that there were no candidates in the race who met the demands of the Republican base.
Enter Rick Perry.
A CNN poll conducted from August 5-7, when Perry was merely considering entering the race but had not yet announced his intentions, showed him immediately jumping into second place just five points behind Romney. A CNN poll conducted less than three weeks later, on August 24-25, after Perry had announced his candidacy and begun his formal campaign, showed Perry with a 2:1 lead over Romney. (Perry had a nearly 3:1 lead over Michelle Bachmann despite the fact that she’d been in the race for many weeks and had won the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll on the same day that Perry announced his candidacy. All of the other candidates were far behind in the single digits, including Ron Paul, whose support diminished from 14% in early August to a mere 6% in the latter poll.) Every poll since then has shown Perry with a decisive lead over Romney and the other candidates.
So, is Rick Perry merely the latest flavor of the month, with his frontrunner status as shallow and fragile as Romney’s was, or is his support real and meaningful? I submit that his support is real and meaningful and that the nomination is already his to lose.
Until mid-August, the field of candidates consisted of a frontrunner with a history of political opportunism rather than principled conservative leadership (Romney), a challenger who does have a history of principled conservative advocacy but does not have the experience or qualifications to instill confidence that she can win the general election (Bachmann), and a number of other candidates who, for various reasons, have gained no traction.
Rick Perry catapulted to the lead immediately upon entry into the race precisely because he exhibits the qualities that Republican voters are demanding (as discussed in Part 2 of this series):
1. He is a principled conservative who espouses conservative principles with passion and conviction.
2. As the longest-serving governor in the history of Texas and the longest-serving governor currently in office in the country, he has a background of executive leadership that both qualifies him for the presidency and instills confidence that he will be effective in advancing the conservative agenda.
3. He has demonstrated by word and deed that he understands the Constitution and will follow it, and throughout his career he has advocated the wisdom of its limits on government.
4. He has demonstrated the ability to articulate conservative principles in a way that makes those ideas not only understandable but attractive to the people.
5. He recognizes that we face extraordinary problems that require the bold and confident application of conservative ideas to meet and overcome.
6. And he believes that America is a great and good country because our founding principles are correct and wise.
I am not endorsing Rick Perry – at least not yet. He is still unproven on the national stage, and I am waiting to see if he’s ready for prime time. Running a national campaign and appealing to people in all regions of the country is a far different experience and challenge than anything Perry has done within the confines of Texas. Indeed, Texas is hardly a microcosm of the nation as a whole (in the way, for example, that Virginia is).
Some of Perry’s bold and brash rhetoric and style may not play well in certain areas. There is a difference between expressing ideas confidently and expressing them arrogantly. When ideas are expressed with confidence, as Reagan did, people can be inspired. When ideas are expressed with arrogance, as Newt Gingrich often does, people can be repelled. Rick Perry has a tendency to cross the line into braggadocio, and this tone will not attract the independents and conservative Democrats that we need to win the election.
Perry also need to improve his debate performances. He was a mixed bag at his first two debates, although he did reasonably well considering that he was the prime target of the other candidates as a result of his frontrunner status. Nevertheless, there is clearly room for improvement. Good candidates learn and improve with experience; compare Romney’s uninspiring debate performances in 2008 with his much better performances in this election cycle. Perry’s challenge is to improve his debating skills quickly. If he succeeds, he will inspire confidence in his intellect and talents.
As a relative novice to national politics, gaffes can be expected by Perry early and often, especially since he is known for shooting from the hip. And we can expect the leftist establishment news media to trumpet and exaggerate each such gaffe and, indeed, to contrive gaffes where none truly existed, in their effort to discredit and destroy his candidacy before it gains more traction. Perry will be tested in the way he responds to the efforts of the leftist establishment media to destroy him – and those efforts have already begun.
All of that said, Rick Perry enters the race for the Republican nomination with a deep well of good will among Republican voters based on the reasonable perception that he meets the criteria that the Republican base has been seeking and demanding. If Perry remains the principled conservative leader that he has been as the Governor of Texas, and if he can effectively balance his well-established candor with a disciplined and well-managed campaign, then there is no other candidate in the race who will be able to beat him.
The 2012 Republican nomination is now Rick Perry’s to lose.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently a civil litigation attorney with Poole Mahoney, P.C. in Virginia Beach. But his concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
12 Responses to "Race for the Republican Nomination (Part 3 of 3): Rick Perry’s to Lose"
So Ken, what is his jobs plan? The longer you wrote platitudes, the more I asked, “where’s the beef?” Creating low wage jobs and accepting the largesse of the energy companies may work in Texas, but it won’t for the nation. His performance as Governor has been weak at best considering the educational achievement of the citizens, the lack of health care for over 25% of the workers, and his dismissal of science as the basis of knowledge and scientific and technological progress may work in west Texas but not in the country as a whole. Lastly, he is no businessman, he is a politician. Your puff piece is disturbing and lacks substance. This is not a beauty contest.
Straight from the man who rhapsodizes over Obama : “This is no beauty contest.” Priceless.
Ken,
This was a big build up with an even bigger let down. I am mystified how you can disqualify Mitt Romney because of his significant baggage and then so breezily brush aside the same baggage that Perry has. I seriously doubt if Perry will ever gain the support of Independents or Blue Dog Democrats. His evangelical Christianity, to begin with, is a major turn-off to a majority of those voters–not because they are not Christians themselves but because many of us who are devout believers also think that religion is a very personal and private matter, something that you carry in your heart and not something that you wear like a flashing neon sign. In my opinion, that was the largest factor in Mike Huckabee’s crash in 2008. Additionally, Perry comes across like a loose cannon, as someone who is shallow in his thinking, and who is insincere. Have you really forgotten about his statements about Texas seceding from the United States? Then there is the death penalty problem. Although I am a supporter of the death penalty, there are many swing voters who oppose it. And the Willingham case certainly isn’t going to help him maintain that he was merely upholding Texas law. Finally, if you know anything about the Texas state government then you know that the governor is little more than a ceremonial figurehead. He has virtually no appointment authority as all state commissioners, judges, and other officials are elected. His legislative agenda is limited to one 90-day session every two years. In other words, he has no executive experience that would prepare him to be POTUS. In the minds of many voters, that will equate Perry to the ineptness of GWB.
As they say in Texas, Rick Perry is all hat and no cattle.
Let’s just say that both Perry and Romney are electable with differing strengths and weaknesses. Perry has the more engaging personality, has executive decisiveness and won’t run in fear from the media or political opponents. He has had to weather some fierce political fights. He is rather brash but his actions in Texas don’t strike anyone as bizarre. His Texas ambience and evangelism will turn off some voters in the middle and activate more determined opposition from the Dem base. In this election cycle unlike 2008 more such voters are going to vote for him anyway because they can’t stand the thought of four more years of Obama unfettered by any constraints.
Romney has relevant business and government experience and is not a career politician. His business experience is a rare attribute and a big plus in 2012. However, as Ken notes he doesn’t relish a political fight either. He has executive ability but he will be more intimidated by the leftist media and the Dems in enacting necessary legislation. On the other hand he has more experience working with very leftist opponents though the legislative result is a decided mixed bag. Romney will be better if the House and Senate are decisively Republican and conservative which is fairly likely. He is a bit wooden as a public figure. He has his own religion issue that the Dems (lovely and tolerant people that they are) will pound mercilessly. He will appeal to more blue state voters though it is unclear whether he would actually carry those states as opposed to making a slightly better showing. Obviously the Electoral College doesn’t reward close losses. However he certainly does put more states in play which will make it tougher on Dems to defend everything.
Have I seen both sides now?
Let me be clear. I’m not ADVOCATING for Perry or even endorsing him. I’m OBSERVING that his frontrunner status has a pretty solid foundation because he has a background that inspires hope that he meets the qualities (that I discussed in Part 2) that Republicans want in this cycle’s nominee.
It’s true that Perry is not perfect, and HR’s criticisms are valid. But as I also said in Part 2, we’re not demanding perfection. We’re demanding SINCERITY. And Perry does seem to be sincere in his conservative convictions.
Now, as I discussed in Part 3 above, it remains to be seen whether Perry can communicate his conservative principles in a compelling manner that inspires conservatives and persuades independents. Right now, conservatives are giving him the benefit of the doubt but are still trying to be sure that he will be a strong candidate to take on Barack Obama.
Personally, I’m not ready yet to endorse him yet, but given the lack of any other good strong viable conservative candidates, I hope he performs well enough that I’ll be able to do so down the road.
Mr. Falkenstein has created a conservative litmus test that he believes Governor Perry turns the paper red. The truth is that Perry scares the bejebees out of conservative Republicans. First and foremost, Perry talks conservative but acts like a big-government crony capitalist and uses government programs to raise campaign money. Not with standing, Texas has had substantive tax increase under his tenure. Moreover, are Perry’s Constitutional questionable use of executive orders. Perry, the former Democratic legislator that endorsed and fund-raiser for Al Gore, may just be another coat-tail rider with self-serving chat-chat.
Knowing Republicans cringe with Perry’s garrulous hostility toward Social Security.
Yes, I believe Obama is licking his chops to face self-destructing Perry.
valentinus,
I would say that you have done a balanced job of evaluating both Perry and Romney–and demonstrated why neither one will beat Ocarter.
The biggest mistake that the Republicans can make in this cycle is to mimic the Democrats in 2004. They were so convinced that Bush 43 was a one termer, that they nominated an arrogant, northeast liberal with some pretty unsavory anti-war baggage, as if Kerry would be an upgrade from Al Gore. Are the Republicans going to do the mirror image of that and nominate another Texas governor?
BTW, you make a very good point about the Electoral College. Ever since the 2000 race, liberal Democrats have been pushing for proportional division of each state’s Electoral votes based on the popular vote. They, in effect, want to alter the Constitution so that the President is elected by the popular vote at large and not by the States, something that would benefit liberal candidates in the rodent warrens of the northeast and the Left Coast. If the Republican candidate can keep it close in those states in 2012, even if he doesn’t win, and demonstrate that proportional division would dampen the influence of the blue states, then that should put a wet blanket on the idea.
If I were Obama I would be real happy that Cain is not doing so well. This will be turned into a RACE race as long as the waspy candidates rule the roost.
The real winner last night? Trump.
If anyone else is the nominee the election is a referendum on Obama. Given his poll ratings, you’d have to say that’s advantage GOP.
If Perry is the nominee, it’s a referendum on Social Security. Advantage Democrats.
HisRoc, I don’t see any pertinence between the circumstances of 2012 and 2004. It is more similar to 1992 and 1980. I agree sort of with the Kerry-Perry rhyme you state. But if Kerry had run in 2008 or if 2004 had had the same economic circumstances of 2008 he would have won. Would Bill Clinton have won in 1988? Would Al Gore have lost in 1992? Someone said timing is everything.
I can under the problem Republicans have and it is emphasised in this Bearing Drift assessment. It appears all the leading candidates have flaws that make it to tough to get elected. The right-right can’t stand Romney and the moderate Republicans can’t stand Perry. The Repubs won in 2010 because there is always a low turn out in an off year and the Tea Party turned out big. They won’t be able to control the election in 2012. The Republican congress has shown their true colors to the public and that will bring them down.
Do-not-feed-the-trolls.
Leave your response