Why Governor Perry is still likely to be nominated

Red State ^ | October 27, 2011 | barleycorn

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Numerous preemptive obituaries are being written for Governor Rick Perry’s campaign. These efforts are premature because they fail to understand and appreciate the fickle winds of political fortune.

Governor Perry has substantial political assets that make him a potent candidate and that will give him another chance to prove himself to Republican voters.

Each candidate brings their own set of positives and negatives to the game:

Mitt Romney has money to burn, establishment support, business experience, and passable debating skills. He also has a record far to the left of the majority of Republicans, a history of changing his position on major issues, and gives the impression that he will let you down when your back is turned.

Herman Cain has business experience, a high likability factor, and a fresh approach to conventional problems. He also has a propensity for confusing statements, no history of political success, and seems less vested in his own campaign than are his supporters.

Newt Gingrich has laser-like intelligence, a thorough understanding of policy choices, and excellent debating skills. He also has two ex-wives, a tendency to talk too much, and a manner that strikes many independents and women as smug or arrogant.

Rick Perry is not an able debater. In fact he seems to be bored with the entire exercise and I don’t blame him for that. The process that currently passes for “debate” is a valueless mixture of antagonistic press conference and TV quiz show. Rick Perry is not a policy wonk. Neither was Ronald Reagan. Neither was Dwight Eisenhower. Neither was George Washington.

What Governor Perry does have is:

A demonstrated ability to win elections.

A demonstrated understanding of how to lead and govern.

A Reaganesque capacity to touch the “mystic chords of memory” that bind us together.

A large stockpile of cash.

A set of opponents who all have significant electoral problems of their own.

While being ahead is intuitively always better than being behind, the clear political fact is that polls in October-November-December, don’t win elections in January and February. An Iowa State University poll published on November 18, 2003 showed Howard Dean at 29%, Dick Gephardt at 21%, John Kerry at 15%, and John Edwards at 8%. A Pew Research poll published on December 2, 2003 showed Dean at 26%, Gephardt at 22%, Kerry at 9%, and Edwards at 5%. (H/T nationalpolls.com)

The Democrat’s experience in 2004 is I think highly relevant as it was largely the mirror image of 2012. Eight years ago Democrats loathed George W. Bush just as conservatives today can’t stomach Barack Obama. Like Obama now, Bush was widely seen as vulnerable and thus there was a wide open scrum for the Democrat nomination.

For all his money Mitt Romney has been unable to close the deal with Republican voters. For all his current polling success, Herman Cain still appears to be a long shot to stay the distance. For all of his smarts and ability Newt Gingrich retains major downside risks.

The flaws of his opponents, together with his own considerable skill and potential, leaves an opening the size of Texas for Governor Rick Perry.

[smoothsailing]

LOL! One good Perry sign deserves another! :)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

No, not that I’ve noticed. If you have a link to something supportive and positive Erickson has said recently about Perry, please put the link on this thread. I will stand corrected and say thank you.

[MEG33]

That’s a fair statement..If Perry cannot win the nomination...Cain gets my vote.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"NO ONE has to click on these articles."

Well, thank you for that golden nugget of wisdom. What in the heck would we do without little meg explaining things to us?????

Understand this ... if someone wants to post thread after thread regarding opinions of why Perry will be nominated, that someone darn well ought to expect comments that contain opinions of why he won't.

Such is the world of public forums.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I on’t know a soul who will vote for him in a primary. LOL

Is that you Pauline Kael?

"I can't believe Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

[McGavin999]

How many ILLEGALS are there in Texas?
How many ILLEGALS has Perry deported?

You must be a foreigner because you don't seem to know how our government works. The states can not deport, that is the job of the feds. The number of illegals in Texas is a result of the federal government not doing the job that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. You might try reading that document, it's not very long and it was written so anyone could clearly understand it. Here's a link for you in case you haven't had a chance to read it Constitution of the United States

[Irish Eyes]

I on’t know a soul who will vote for him in a primary. LOL

Sorry about that you must be hanging with the wrong group.

[Yosemitest]

Perry likes the ILLEGAL MUSLIMS, also.

Why shouldn’t Rick Perry’s Islamic ties be vetted?

Why shouldn’t Rick Perry’s Islamic ties be vetted?

The rush to anoint him our next President is overlooking a great deal.

Imagine a candidate for President of the United States who says all the right things: he will cut taxes, he will roll back the disastrous and defeatist policies of his despised and discredited predecessor, he will restore America’s pride and renew America’s hope.

This candidate is handsome, telegenic, articulate, and apparently unafraid to joust verbally with his failed predecessor, as well as with an adversarial press.

Imagine also that this candidate had raised funds for and had a longtime association with a power player in party politics, a man who was owed favors by virtually everyone who had ever won an election for his party, but a man with ties to some extremely shady characters – say, for example, that this power broker had received, for an organization of his founding, a loan of $10,000 and a gift of another $10,000 from a man who was now in prison for raising money for a terrorist murder plot.

Imagine further that the candidate had partnered in educational initiatives with a billionaire who owned, among many other things, to be sure, a bank that had been accused – and never cleared -- of funding a terrorist group, and of complicity in the murder of an American reporter. That billionaire also owned a development organization that bore his name, and that partnered in various initiatives with the government of a country listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and that was now essentially at war with its own citizens.

Do you think that such a candidate would be questioned about these associations, and that he would deserve the questioning, and would be expected to produce honest, full, and serious answers to concerns about whether he was turning a blind eye or would, as president, turn a blind eye to certain kinds of activity that aided and abetted terrorism?

There is such a candidate: his name is Rick Perry. He has occasioned tremendous excitement among Republicans and conservatives, to the extent that those who dare to ask legitimate questions about his associations and beliefs are being attacked and vilified by people who are ostensibly on their own side. I already know of friendships being broken over this candidacy.

Nonetheless, these questions must be asked. I criticized Bush for his ties to the Saudis, and Obama for his fatuous fawning over the Islamic world. I don't see why Rick Perry should be sacrosanct. The next President of the United States will inherit a responsibility made even more awesome than it usually is by the catastrophic policies of his predecessor, which he will have to move quickly to reverse or else see the nation continue on the path of a prolonged and severe decline from which it may never recover. That is all the more reason not to leap onto the bandwagon of just anyone who looks this week as if he has a chance to defeat Barack Obama, and to rush to demonize those who dare to ask if the emperor’s clothes are really of that good a quality. Now is the time, of all times, to ask of Perry and of every other candidate probing, searching questions, and to investigate their ideas and associations with a critical eye – an operation which, if it had been performed on Barack Obama in 2008, we might not be in this fix.

And so we see first of all that Perry and Grover Norquist held a joint press conference in March 2011. Perry appeared at a fund-raiser for Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group. Also, Norquist actively campaigned for Perry back in 2009. Their association is longstanding: Perry was investigated by the Texas Ethics Commission in 2004 for allegations that the Governor illegally used campaign money to finance a trip to Bahamas; the point here is not the allegations, but the fact that along on the Bahamas trip at his own expense was Grover Norquist. Perry and Norquist are clearly not just casual acquaintances.

As David Horowitz pointed out several years ago, Norquist has worked with “prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities.” Among them was Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was once the most prominent and powerful “moderate Muslim” in Washington, and is now in prison for helping to finance an al-Qaeda plot to assassinate the Saudi king, whom jihadis consider to be inexcusably lax in his Islamic observance (primarily in allowing infidel American troops onto the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War). Alamoudi gave Norquist’s Islamic Institute, a gambit to try to garner Muslim votes for the Republican party, a $10,000 loan and a $10,000 gift.

Norquist is unrepentant; he continues to partner with Islamic supremacists. Is this the sort of man our next president should be associating with? Does Perry really need Norquist to carry over his tax-cutting message? Does he know about Norquist’s unsavory ties? Does he care? Do Republican candidates need Norquist so much that they have to put up with his taint?

Why can’t such questions even be asked? And why can’t Perry’s ties to the Aga Khan likewise be investigated? The Ismailis are a peaceful sect; however, what Pamela Geller uncovered in her article on Perry Wednesday ought to raise at least a few eyebrows even during the current Perry pep rally. Geller reveals in her article that in 2008, the Aga Khan Development Network signed three agreements with the Syrian Government, and that “between 2003 and 2008,” the Aga Khan’s group “spent $40 million to develop business in Syria.”

Syria has been listed by the State Department as among the State Sponsors of Terrorism since December 29, 1979, and, as Geller notes, “for years has allowed the jihad terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah to operate with impunity out of Damascus.”

Nor is that all. Another Aga Khan organization, the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, is one of the owners of the Bank al-Habib in Pakistan. In 2007, Daniel Pearl’s widow Mariane sued that bank, charging that it had funded al-Qaeda and was involved in killing Daniel Pearl. Those charges have never been answered.

In a 2006 interview with Spiegel, the Aga Khan revealed himself to be no friend of the freedom of speech. He complained that “many young Muslims feel because they think that the Western society has the intention of marginalizing or damaging them” and noted that “anyone who knows the faith of Islam, for example, would have known that the caricatures of the prophet were profoundly offensive to all Muslims.” Indeed; but what was one to do about it? The Aga Khan called for self-censorship, and all too many in the West are only too happy to oblige him in that, whatever the implications may be for the freedom of speech. “I am told,” he said, “that there was an internal debate between the editors of that publication and they actually knew what they were doing. They took a risk and somebody should have said to them, Why get into that situation?”

Why indeed? Maybe to uphold the principles by which a free society can resist tyranny?

Can all this really be waved away by an avowal that the Ismailis are peaceful? Is it really just an exercise in guilt by association to ask Perry about actions by the Aga Khan’s various organizations? Or do those actions suggest that the Aga Khan is not as peaceful as he may seem, and that Perry is less than discriminating in his associations than he should be, and certainly that any president should be?

Certainly, for America’s sake, it is imperative that Barack Obama be defeated in 2012. But that is no excuse to accept any candidate who looks as if he could beat him, no matter how potentially damaging his associations or poor his judgment.

Rick Perry needs to be vetted. He, and all candidates, must be vetted.

You need to pick a candidate who likes U.S. Citizens, not ILLEGALS.

[MEG33]

How so? One does not have to click on, read or comment.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

David Stein: Debunking the Rick Perry “Pro-Shraria” School Curriculum Myth

Amil Imani Governor Perry's Islam Connection ………”No matter how I tried, I couldn't reach the conclusion that this inclusion promotes Islam or is pro-Sharia. It seems that the mere fact that Islam is included in the curriculum represents supporting it. And with regard to the concern that the education curriculum Perry promoted is pro-Arab and against Israel, the evidence is exactly the opposite. The lesson on Israel reads: …”

[Longbow1969]

All Cain needed to do was win the Florida poll and he appeared on every talk show in existance for the next week and it’s not slowed down.

Personally, I think Cain has been getting the most glowing press - at least from the more conservative media. I think Cain is a nice guy, but I believe he'd get crushed if he were our nominee against Obama. I mean, utterly destroyed in McGovern like fashion. Why so many conservatives are throwing in with this guy I will never know. Herman is a complete political novice who is liable to say something utterly stupid and blow up his campaign at any moment, and yet so many people are backing him? I don't get it. I doubt Cain does either. I don't think he really believed he had a chance of winning and was mostly just interested in pushing his point of view and selling books. I don't think he will be the nominee, but the fact that so many are supporting him without realizing how badly he'd fare in a general election is a little disturbing. Maybe they feel they have no choice.

In my opinion, Perry is the only candidate in the race that can realistically stop Romney. If Perry can't communicate better and run a sharper campaign, then I guess I am stuck supporting Newt because I'd have no other option.

[Yosemitest]

26 plus years in the military, I know a LIAR when I see one, and Perry is a LIAR.
Trust him at your own peril.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

You should have seen Perry’s speech Sat. night in Iowa—it was superb. http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/perry-regains-his-footing-at-iffc-event/

[samantha]

You are very delusional, talking faster than slow snail pace is preferable for understanding and attentiveness. Nobody has a problem understanding someone that talks fairly fast as long as they enunciate, and Perry mumbles sometimes especially when not sure of himself. That is on top of the other negative speech patterns and foibles.

Trying to make a silk purse out of sow’s ear does not cut it. Endless,stifling love for the candidate will not make things true that just are not.

[Katarina]

Thank you CW, beautiful family and love the photo of Marcus and Rick Perry as well.

[samantha]

Does he paint his toenails,and wear open toed sexy sandals?

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

The truth is absolutely irrelevant to you, isn’t it? You KNOW Perry is not pro-illegals and yet you continue to repeat the lie over and over. It is extremely disappointing to know that a so-called conservative would continue to lie—just to try to destroy another candidate.

[Katarina]

Wow so you are the new owner of FR???!!

I guess you are upset that the posts about Perry are not about Romney. If you were a true conservative you would not mind posts about Perry or Cain or Sarah.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Either you have not heard the man in normal conversation, giving a speech or having a dialogue with someone, or you are just on this thread to counter effective dissemination of information (Got that from Rush and I just love it).

Speaking of Rush, get him to run -- or Sean Hannity. You seem to want a talker. There are a LOT of talkers out there but they don't usually like the day to day slog of governing nor are they good at it.

Perry is a good governor and he fights for the people.