Skip to comments.Bachmann and Perry...Turning on Palin?
Posted on 06/11/2011 1:36:32 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
While I freely concede that both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have a right to run for President, it is impossible to overlook the fact that their recent benefactress, Sarah Palin, is rolling out her own Presidential campaign at the same time. This would not generally be extraordinary. In politics, alliances are sometimes (although not regularly) forged and broken. However, in my forty years or so of close political observation, I cannot remember an analogous situation in which the beneficiaries of one politician turn on their benefactor (especially a benefactor as conspicuous as Palin) so shortly after having obtained and used the benefactor's endorsement and appearances to secure both campaign cash and votes. In fact, not since Judas hustled away to the Chief Priests from the Last Supper has there been such a propinquity between the favor and the betrayal. I predict that this disloyalty, spotlighted by the freshness of the favors spent upon these two by Palin, will sour the stomachs of GOP primary voters who tend to place more emphasis on character, which is to say: loyalty. Americans despise disloyalty. Disloyalty and its associated character flaws are a tragedy in a human being, but they are a catastrophe in a President. The association, in the American psyche, of disloyalty and the traitor, Benedict Arnold, bespeaks the level of national revulsion with this particularly poisonous character flaw.
Michele Bachmann, by all accounts, faced a tough reelection fight against State Senator Tarryl Clark, a more attractive and far better financed ($4 million war chest) candidate than she had faced in in 2008, when she narrowly beat lightly regarded and under-financed lobbyist Elwyn Tinkenberg by less than 3% of the vote. At Bachmann's request, Palin rode to her rescue early, appearing on her behalf at a packed rally of over 10,000 in Minneapolis on April 8, 2010, which was nationally televised on Sean Hannity's FOX program. Bachmann parlayed Palin's endorsement and high profile support into a fund raising bonanza of $13.4 million, which she used to swamp Clark. Indeed, the lopsided money advantage freed her to travel around the country campaigning for others and posing as the real TEA party heavyweight. Armed with this Palin-generated largesse, she easily beat Clark by 12%, the largest margin of victory in her career, including her two state Senate Races. Now she is using the balance of these "thirty pieces of silver" to pay odious characters like Ed Rollins to smear Sarah Palin as "not serious" and too lazy to "gain substance" in contrast to Bachmann, who "ha[s] worked hard" and been "a leader of the TEA party". Such treachery, which is both frank and fresh, makes me and every fair-minded person (whether pro- Palin or neutral) sick to our collective stomachs.
Rick Perry similarly faced a very competitive GOP primary against a sitting U.S. Senator, who is more liberal than he, and a solid conservative, Deb Medina, who was very popular with conservatives in Texas and nationally. In essence, he was squeezed from both directions, a challenge on the left and on the right. As she did with Bachmann, Palin went to Perry's aid early and often, endorsing him in the summer of 2009, ahead of the March 2010 primary. The first poll of Perry (by Rasmussen on September 16, 2009), which included both Hutchison and Medina, showed Hutchison pulling ahead of Perry 40-38, with Medina in single digits at 3%.
Perry crowed ad nauseam about Palin's endorsement in order to prevent Medina from gaining real traction and eclipsing him among conservatives. At the time of the endorsement, Perry had this to say about the value of Governor Palin's endorsement and their warm personal friendship:
'Facing a tough Republican primary fight next year in his bid for a third term, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is brandishing the heavy artillery: Sarah Palin's endorsement of his campaign."If there's a bigger endorsement in the Republican universe, I don't know who it is than Sarah," he declared in a telephone interview over the weekend. He described the Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee as a "close personal friend" who knows my heart."'
As Matt Lewis observed in the article, "Palin's nod is indeed an asset for Perry, helping him cement his appeal to social conservatives in the Lone Star State." While Perry never again fell behind, even Palin's endorsement could not totally blunt the momentum for Deb Medina, who continued to rise in the polls, reaching a high point of 24% on February 7, 2010, three weeks before the primary, and reducing Perry's showing to 39% (Hutchison had 28%). Enter Palin again. She appeared at a nationally televised rally in Houston that drew over 8000 people on Super Bowl Sunday, February 8, 2010. After the rally, Medina never again broke 20 in a poll.
With Palin's conspicuous and staunch support, Perry barely beat back the challengers in March 2 primary, winning 51% to 30% for Hutchison and 19% for Medina. Even with Palin's support, Medina nearly forced a runoff, so great was conservative revulsion with Perry in Texas. Had Palin backed Medina as strongly as she backed Perry, it is quite possible that Medina and Hutchison would have been in a run off, and Perry would have been odd man out. Had Palin done nothing for Perry, it is a foregone conclusion that he would have faced a tough runoff. In other words, Perry owes Palin his political hide.
As I said at the outset of this article, both Perry and Bachmann are free to run for President or any other office for which they are constitutionally qualified. The First Amendment however also grants observers the right to express themselves on both the timing and the circumstances of their putative candidacies as well as their previous interaction with "close personal friends" who come to their aid. In assessing both Perry and Bachmann, conservative voters should ask themselves the following question: "In light of how these two have conducted themselves toward Sarah Palin in the last year or so, do you trust either of them---should they be elected--not to double cross you?"
I believe that question answers itself.
I’d like to see the best and brightest conservatives obey Reagan’s 11th Commandment and have at the issues, the current administration and congressional ineptitude with everything they’ve got so the public can pick the one with the most fire. Also, the one that clearly bothers the lying media the most!
Ping — I admit I have no idea what the heck is happening this election cycle.
“Baffling” doesn’t begin to cover it...
Let's please not forget that Medina turned out to be a truther.
I am not sure the numbers back up your dramatic rhetoric a la l Perry — though I think the time lines you present are instructive. I think Median self destructed and Perry would have beaten KBH anyway.
I would also say that since none of the three are as yet announced, this is a bit of an academic exercise. If Palin were to officially announce, or even “unofficially announce that she’s definitely in” — then the Perry and Bachmann issues may well take care of themselves.
Pat looking for a moderate Nazi.
So anyone who might seek the Republican nomination is being “disloyal” to Palin on the off chance she might decide to run herself?
None of this article makes sense on any level.
I do not think Bachmann and Perry are double-crossing Sarah Palin at all. If anything, by putting themselves into the race early, they are helping Palin keep her options open by keeping some RINO (like Romney) from becoming a front-runner early on.
If and when Palin does get into the race, she will immediately become the front-runner and be able to easily absorb the organizations and resources that candidates like Bachmann and Perry have already built. Also, Bachmann and Perry are obtaining some visibility and experience on the national stage so that either of them would be good running mate candidates once Sarah is nominated.
maybe Palin will go independant, am sick of BOTH party’s as is
Oh dear Lord, do not let the media get a look at this headline. The next thing you know, all the MSM outlets will be running stories like, "DOES PALIN ENJOY BISEXUAL THREESOMES? SOURCES SAY THAT PERRY, BACHMAN ARE TURNING HER ON!"
Why don’t you wait and see who enters the race?
If people in their campaign are stupid enough to pick a fight with Palin, then they might as well save their contributors the money now. Cooperation is the key here. If at some point in the primary campaign they wish to draw on their differences good, we can hear what they think makes them better. If they are going to try to damage other candidates, the only name they better disparage is BHO.
This piece is crap! If there is ANY truth to it, I can tell you who will still be standing after the dust settles... and it won’t be Perry or Bachmann.
Pat wants a moderate Nazi.
Whether or not Palin’s support made the difference, she did support them. So this disloyalty reflects badly on both of them.
There were a lot of complaints when Palin agreed to endorse McCain in the last election. I didn’t like it myself. But. She HAD to do it. She owed McCain, even considering the fact that McCain’s handlers doublecrossed her.
It was McCain who asked her. And she went and helped campaign for him for two or three days. That was it. But she did refrain from speaking out against him.
She was caught between a rock and a hard place, but I think she did the right thing. No more than was necessary, but she did it. Frankly, it didn’t make any of the conservatives here at FR like McCain any better, and it shouldn’t have had much effect on conservatives in Arizona, either. Caveat emptor. Anyone who voted for McCain after seeing him action all those years didn’t need Sarah Palin’s brief appearance to persuade him to be a stupid idiot.
Competing with Palin is not “turning” on her. How ridiculous, and how condescending...we don’t even know if Sarah wants to run for that office, or play kingmaker and then become Secretary of the Interior AND Secretary of Energy. I think that’s the job she’d rather have.
What have I missed? What is perry saying about Sarah?
Read the first sentence.
“While I freely concede that both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have a right to run for President, it is impossible to overlook the fact that their recent benefactress, Sarah Palin, is rolling out her own Presidential campaign at the same time.”
The man says that Perry and bachman have every right to run.
What he is referring to is the statement made by Ed Rollins the other day about Palin. Whta he is saying is that he hopes these people do not turn this into a bashing of any of the candidates. He wants them to fight clean. Already Bachman has stepped on a dog turd by hiring Ed Rollins. Rollins has already attacked Sarah.
Personally I have seen enough Presidents from Texas.
Bachman has proven herself a lightweight with her daily gaffes,and Rollins is one of them.
This is a total waste of bandwidth, let them all run, no one owes anything to anybody....
I likek that logic. Although Ed Rollins is a creep.
This is what a lot of we Texans have been dreading and expecting. Perry WANTS to be president for his own ego, not the country.
If he senses Palin would snip 1/8 point as his VP running mate, the no dice.
He’s probably already got a female VP picked out, likely a NE Rino.
“I am not sure the numbers back up your dramatic rhetoric a la l Perry though I think the time lines you present are instructive. I think Median self destructed and Perry would have beaten KBH anyway.”
Well, her rise was pretty steady until February 7 (her high water mark), three weeks before the primary and the day before Palin’s high profile rally with Perry. There were two polls after the rally (but before her truther comment on Beck on February 11) that showed her support falling to 17%. She wound up with nearly 20. I don’t think the comment hurt her in any material way. Most Texans probably don’t care about such matters as they are speculative and the Governor has nothing to do with foreign policy. They would be more interested in taxes like the business taxes Perry was so hot to hike. Perry might or might not have won. He certainly wanted Pain’s endorsement in the worst way. And he spoke of her as “ knowing his heart” Sheesh.
And Perry swore up and down during the 2010 campaign that he would not run for President and recently said he would only enter if Palin refused to enter.
I can barely read those comments, and his other prevarications, without my skin crawling.
Seriously, do you trust this guy? If so, please tell me the basis. He looks like southern freed Romney to me.
In recent days, I’ve made my feelings known on Bachmann. I could never trust her based on what I’ve learned about her.
As for Perry, I do not believe he can beat Palin in the primaries if both are in, but I’m going to hold fire until I find out for sure what he’s up to. From the standpoint of political philosophy he’s no Reaganite but — after years of watching him and watching people I respect express their personal admiration for him — I’ve never felt he’s a backstabber. Doesn’t mean I’m right about that but it tells me I need to know more.
We’ll see what happens with him. You’re absolutely right about the help Palin provided for him down here (although Medina may have self-destructed to some extent) and I think that’s a prime reason that the Bush family and Karl Rove despise her so much.
>> the point is that these 2 people never defended Sarah for either Tucson or anything else that was thrown at her and now they may want to run against her. <<
Uh no, that was not the point of this post, but the Tucson point you make is valid to bring up - if what you say is true.
>> I agree that everybody has the right to run but their attitude towards Sarah these last months does not indicate a very good, honest and grateful character. Character IS important for the next president if we want to save what’s left of America..<<
I am putting Bachmann/Rollins off to the side and not commenting on that, but I am not sure where Perry’s attitude is bad toward Palin. My only point, ONLY point, was that I’m not sure I agree with the dots that were connected on Palin and Perry’s election success. I am not debating the character issue.
Liberal FEAR,Palin’s nod is indeed an asset.
“So anyone who might seek the Republican nomination is being disloyal to Palin on the off chance she might decide to run herself?”
That is not what the article says, and you know it.
I do not like Perry very much and he is my third choice out of the three folks discussed here - except that Bachmann is pushing him with Rollins for third, frankly. My respect for Palin remains extremely high and probably has increased with the e mail dump. She seems spotless even among the private world of email, a world that would not fine ME spotless by any stretch.
I simply am not sold, based on what you have said versus other research I have done on Perry-KBH that your rhetoric matches reality — and therefore I am not sold on your premise that Perry is violating any kind of trust.
But given the three, I’m Palin for sure.
My intuition says Bachmann and Palin will fail on their own records. As Sarah waits to announce, I think many will self-destruct. When she gets in there will be a clear choice.
I should have said “will fail on their own records AND ABILITIES”.
Why do you say that Perry is “turning on Palin”.
Show me one negative thing that Perry said about Palin.
Palin just recently brought up Perry as someone she would like to see in the presidential race.
So, what are Bachman and Perry accused of doing/saying? I haven’t heard.
Frankly, I am more concerned about beating back Mitt Romney and not because of his religion, either.
Mitt Romney is going to use the attacks on his religion to discredit the religious right and he is already doing so. By discrediting the religious right, he discredits most of the Palin supporters, as irrelevant.
WA state Republicans are setting up to endorse Romney, I’m pretty sure.
“So anyone who might seek the Republican nomination is being âdisloyalâ to Palin on the off chance she might decide to run herself?
None of this article makes sense on any level.”
Really? I don't think he's that stupid. Look at the strength of the Tea Party... they certainly have Congress' attention.
Your writing belongs in the "fiction" section...
Wow, really reaching with this scenario. Palin is not even a declared candidate. Of course the liberals try to destroy any Republican who might dare to challenge their boy Obama, so they get 2 for 1 in this article trying to “destroy” Perry and Bachmann all at once. Nice try, but laughable. Of course all the while Obama is destroying his chances by screwing things up worse than LBJ and Carter did. The economy will tell the tale in 2012 and Perry arguably has the best economic record to run on of anybody in the USA. If he runs, he will be formidable to say the least.
I see this situation developing because, as you noted, despite the phony Democrat polls and media happy talk about how great Obama's chances are for re-election (running on - what?) he is doomed to defeat. I view the Bachmann and Perry candidacies as sheer ambition on their part and understandable, to a point, although the Bachmann camp disparaging Palin remains problematic for me because it was unnecessary. I stated in an earlier post on another thread that I suspect Michele Bachmann is angling to be Romney's V.P. and that the GOP hierarchy is encouraging her as a means to thwart Palin, who they intensely dislike.
I believe that part of the problem is the fact that nobody knows what Sarah Palin will do. If she decides to sit this one out, these other conservatives will obviously vie for her endorsement and her help in fund raising as well as campaigning. An ambitious politician sees time being wasted and in Perry's case, the opportunity to run for president opening up - and they are not about to let it pass them by. Bashing Palin and showing disloyalty to her after she helped them get re-elected is troubling. However, I'm confident that if Sarah Palin chooses to run, they'll throw their support to her and all will be well because, once ambition has run it's course, we all know that defeating Obama is the real goal. I doubt Sarah Palin will be distracted from that goal, should she decide to run, as I hope she will.
I hear you, but the silence of Perry and Bachmann both after Tuscon and now after the email dump is further damning evidence, I would contend.
I am not and have not said they should not run. But both appear to be ramping up campaigns and hiring staff. If Palin’s emails and her crosshair ads for TEA party congressman are fair game for comment, I certainly think how these two have dealt with her is a fair comment on their character.
I for one, have a hard time seeing how Paul Laxalt or Jack Kemp, friends and ideological soulmates of Ronald Reagan’s but for whom Reagan had done much less politically than Palin has done for Bachmann or Perry, could have brought themselves to challenge the Gipper in a GOP primary. Congressman Phil Crane, however, was a Reagan protege who challenged the Gipper in 1980 and drew 7% of the vote in Iowa, allowing GHW Bush to win 33-31. Crane had every right to run, but after Reagan’s election, Crane became a pariah. Bush and Baker and Dole were all welcomed back into the fold, but Crane never got back in, even though he was a staunch conservative. The Reaganites considered him to be stalking horse and a quisling, and they never trusted him again.
Trust is the coin of the realm in politics. Neither Bachmann nor Perry (if as looks very likely, both run) will have covered themselves in glory and they are going to have to answer the character question.
I sympathize with what you are saying, but let’s be clear about something.
Palin has been too opaque as to her intentions. When she plays the “I don’t need a title to serve” game, that gives others an opening.
This is Palin’s own damn fault. Now she’s going to have to fight these people for bandwidth, because she jinked around about ramping up her game.
Palin has no one to blame but herself, and let’s be clear, both Perry and Bachmann have the right to compete.
Bachmann is a Potemkin villiage candidate who is working for Romney, but she has the right to compete.
Bachmann has indicated she is running. Is she supposed to wait for Palin? It is time for Palin to make a move if she's going to run. The others have no reason to wait.
You’re wanting another four years of Obama, huh?
Here’s our problem: Perry could never convince himself to believe we were all voting for Sarah and not McCramp. He also probably doesn’t believe what Sarah did last November.
And he’s not likely to settle for anybody’s VP.
He has two choices: take the RINO Establishment up on destroying Sarah (no cabinet posts or otherwise) in exchange for a POTUS shoo-in, knowing he
can destroy zero by 5 points WITHOUT Sarah’s support, or include her as a matter of principle, and courtesy to conservatives.
The Establishment wants Sarah gone, vaporized, regardless of what her base is willing to do to keep her relevant.
Sarah loves the country too much to go third-party and put zero back in. She may decide Kingmaker is the way to go. If the Establishmnt can keep the MSM silent about certain parts of his past, he’s got her checkmated already.
Upon further thought, I think Perry want pick Cain for VP, although I doubt Cain’d take him up on it. Not that I expect Cain to get past Florida.
Between the three of them; I would vote for Sarah without hesitation.
On KOAI (San Antonio) they were reporting last week that Perry would not run if Palin ran. I assume they based this on SOMETHING.
Part of what we do on these forums is to project ahead. I don’t need to wait until any of them has declared in order to comment. If anyone thinks that the activities of last year and the scenarios I posit (which is far from improbable, since all three have made unmistakable moves toward running recently) reflect well on Perry or Bachmann, then by all means vote for them. I merely identify what Palin did for them in the very recent past and speculate that, if they run (which I said, but won’t repeat again, they have a right to do), it will reflect poorly on their character.
As for Palin’s timing, that has no effect on the scenario. Maybe they think she is not running. She goes on the bus tour. She is releasing the epic film to set the record straight on her governorship. She is doing it first in Iowa, NH and south Carolina. I think that is pretty good evidence that she is. Bachmann has said she will not be deterred if Palin enters the race. Perry’s people have walked back his assertion that he would only run “if she didn’t”. So the assumptions I make are not at all off the wall.
I never said Perry said anything negative about Palin. Phil Crane never said anything negative about Ronald Reagan. His challenge to Reagan in 1980 left him held in contempt by Reagan and his men as a traitor. And that is a documented fact. I contend that people may well draw the same conclusions about Bachmann and Perry (if they run)
Not a truther, just didn’t belive the government’s story.
As any rational person would.
No, that's divisive hype, mostly driven by Paulbots and Obama trolls, don't fall for it.
Beyond that, Bachmann made a boneheaded move bringing in Rollins. If she hasn't dumped him already, she should.
Perry and Palin could actually make a formidable team, such an eventuality wouldn't bother me...
Followed your story a bit until you claimed how Debbie Medina was the darling of Texas Cobnservatives.
FYI, Miss Deb was a “shooting Star” or “flash in the pan” and did get a lot of short term attention UNTIL she opened her mouth and showed us all that Libertarian Deb was no more than a ronpaul type nutcase. Her shooting star was just like the ones we can see on any beautiful Texas night, gone in an instant.