Rick Perry's Prime Directive: Destroy Cain

Hot Air.com ^ | 5:00 pm on October 23, 2011

[drewh]

The Iowa caucuses are now just 72 days away. Once Iowans vote on Jan. 3, the 2012 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination ceases to be about debates and gaffes and spin, and begins to be about actual results.

This week’s uproar over Herman Cain’s CNN interview with Piers Morgan will likely be a distant and irrelevant memory by Jan. 3. Despite Cain’s rhetorical difficulty in consistently articulating a pro-life position, his bona fides on the issue have long been established, as demonstrated in 2006 when he led a $1 million effort to encourage black voters to vote pro-life.

What should be more troubling for Cain’s supporters are persistent concerns about the strength of his campaign’s “ground game” in Iowa. Organizing for the Iowa caucuses is a time-consuming, labor-intensive effort and 10 weeks is a very short time in terms of building effective operations in each of Iowa’s 99 counties. That’s why many people were startled a week ago when ABC News showed Cain’s Iowa headquarters nearly empty:

Duane Lester of All American Blogger interviewed Cain’s Iowa communications director Lisa Lockwood this weekend at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Forum and asked her about that video:

Lockwood’s explanation — that many of Cain’s volunteers in Iowa are working from home, rather than from the campaign office in Urbandale — may help reassure Cain’s supporters, as do the latest poll numbers from Iowa. But the poll numbers also point toward a looming danger for the Cain campaign:

When you look at the RCP average, you see that every Iowa poll for the past two weeks (beginning with the Oct. 7-10 PPP poll) has shown Cain in first place and Perry in single digits. It is therefore scarcely surprising … that the prime directive of the Perry campaign is now “Destroy Herman Cain.”

Allahpundit yesterday explained what Perry’s situation means going forward:

[W]hile Perry can skip New Hampshire, I think he’s stuck having to compete in Iowa. Sooner or later he’ll have to suck it up and start attacking Cain in earnest.

And this is very much in line with what I wrote Friday:

That the Perry campaign has become a purely negative organization — a machine whose prime directive is the destruction of other non-Romney candidates, leaving Perry as the sole hope for the Anybody But Romney movement — is an inevitable consequence of how the campaign began with the goal of becoming the overnight front-runner. When you begin with that kind of plan, with your campaign organized around the idea of raking in front-runner money, you inevitably encounter a problem when, for example, a poll shows your candidate in sixth place in Iowa. … [T]he Perry campaign’s relentlessly negative message now – the turn to the Dark Side, as it were — is a predictable reaction to the failure of their original plan to become the overnight front-runner and Only Legitimate Alternative to Romney. Those who bought into the original plan, which fell completely apart within six weeks of Perry’s Aug. 13 announcement … are now trapped into an all-or-nothing effort to destroy Herman Cain.

That lengthy contemplation of the strategic logic of the Perry campaign was prompted by an item from Alexander Burns in Politico, showing how Cain has previously given ambiguous answers, based on a Human Events article in 2003, when Cain was beginning his campaign for Senate in Georgia. Having spent enough time on the campaign beat to know how these things happen, I observed: “$17 million buys a lot of opposition research, as well as a team of people paid to disseminate it. Excuse me for suspecting that Politico columnists don’t spend their spare hours reading eight-year-old back issues of Human Events, IYKWIMAITYD.”

Of course, there’s no telling who dug up that 2003 article. Mitt Romney’s also got an ace team of opp-research guys on their staff and, when I mentioned the Politico column in a phone conversation Thursday with Cain campaign communications director J.D. Gordon, he pointed out that Team Obama isn’t exactly shabby when it comes to planting oppo-research hits in the press. So it would be unfair to jump to the conclusion that Team Perry was responsible for that item, however …

The poll numbers in Iowa and the strategic logic of the Perry campaign point inexorably to the necessity of Team Perry “going negative” on Herman Cain — and doing so PDQ, while Perry can still get the maximum advantage of his fund-raising advantage.

Perry finished the third quarter with more than $15 million cash on hand, whereas Cain had about $1.5 million cash on hand. But the Cain campaign is now getting a huge influx of contributions and it has been suggested they may be raking in $200,000 a day online now, which would translate to more than $5 million by the end of October. That would be “Romney-esque money,” as one GOP consultant put it, and if they could keep up that pace, Team Cain might be approaching financial parity with Perry and Romney by Thanksgiving. So if the Perry campaign wants to strike hard on Cain with TV and radio attack ads, it behooves them to do it before the Cain campaign can accumulate the money and organizational resources to fight fire with fire.

And if Team Perry does mount an attack-ad campaign against Cain, they will almost certainly do so in Iowa. The combination of poll numbers and the campaign calendar explains this:

Iowa caucuses ………………… Tuesday, Jan. 3 New Hampshire primary …. Tuesday, Jan. 10 South Carolina primary …… Saturday, Jan. 21 Florida primary ……………… Tuesday, Jan. 31 Nevada caucuses ……………. Saturday, Feb. 4

Notice that there are 10 days separating New Hampshire (Romney’s must-win state) and South Carolina (Perry’s must-win state). If we assume that Mitt wins his must-win, Perry would be under extreme pressure in South Carolina, and the pressure would be even worse if Perry fares poorly in Iowa. And if recent poll numbers are any indication, Perry could fare very poorly indeed in the Hawkeye State:

Public Policy Polling (Oct. 7-10) ………….. Perry 9% (4th place) Insider Advantage (Oct. 16) ……………….. Perry 6% (6th place) University of Iowa (Oct. 12-19) …………… Perry 6% (5th place) Rasmussen (Oct. 19) …………………………. Perry 7% (6th place)

Can the Perry campaign afford for their candidate to finish fourth, fifth or sixth in Iowa? No way, José. They don’t necessarily have to win it, but if Perry finishes as far back as fourth in Iowa on Jan. 3, it’s unlikely he will do much better in New Hampshire on Jan. 10. By the time the South Carolina primary rolls around on Jan. 21, the media will have been doing “death watch” reports on Perry campaign for more than two weeks. If Perry then underperforms in “must-win” South Carolina, there will be another ten days of “death watch” coverage before the crucial Florida primary on Jan. 31. Romney is reputedly strong in Nevada, so by the time votes are counted there on Feb. 4, Perry could be batting .200 in the first five nominating events, and perhaps even 0-for-5 if he were somehow to lose his “must-win” state.

The strategic situation clearly indicates the necessity for Team Perry to leverage their current cash-on-hand advantage by mounting an attack ad campaign against Cain in Iowa, in hope of restoring Perry’s status as the most viable choice for the Anybody But Romney voters, who are a majority in the GOP primary electorate.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

I might just start one at that. I’ve never done one, though, so I’ll probably screw it up. ;-)

Speaking of Palin, Newt was one of her earliest advocates and a person who encouraged McCain to put her on the ticket. I’m not saying he was instrumental in getting her on the ticket because McCain, I’m sure, was far too egomaniacal to listen to anyone like Newt. But he recognized her national potential, I must admit, before I had ever heard of her.

Hank

[lonestar]

Perry is a big government establishment Republican.

ROFLOL!! Wallow in your ignorance!

[BillyBoy]

< PERRYBOT KOOL-AID MODE >

Just who is YOUR candidate?? Here in TEXAS we have been proud to call LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON our leader for over 10 years. He ain't PERFECT but NOBODY is. Have you ever BEEN to Texas? If not, then you damn yankees should SHUT UP and stop telling us who to vote for here in Texas. Mind your own state, we won't be taking advise from the people who gave us NIXON.

If LBJ is so damn 'weak' in 1968, how do you explain him WINNING office here in TEXAS over and over again? If you can't WIN an election you can't go the White House. LBJ has won MORE elections that ANYONE else running for President right now. Bar none. How many did YOUR candidate win? Texas is one of the most conservative states in the country. Always has been, always will be. We know a LIBERAL when we see one and LBJ ain't no liberal. If LBJ had governed as a liberal we wouldn't have voted for him ONCE over the past decade.

Johnson is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate we have in the 1968 election cycle. I frankly don't give a damn if he's polling behind Robert Kennedy AND Euguene McCarthy now. Last month he was ahead but now some yankees in New Hampshire are opposing him because they're biased against us TEXANS. Who else could possible win in '68? Nixon? The guy who couldn't get elected Governor of his OWN state AFTER he was Vice President? Don't make me laugh!

You know something else, LBJ is a CHRISTIAN. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know you non-Texans hate it and just don't understand us CHRISTIANS. You HATE Johnson because he's a bible-beliving CHRISTIAN, don't you? Did you know Johnson is maternally descended from a pioneer Baptist clergyman, George Washington Baines, who pastored some EIGHT churches here in Texas? And Johnson's parental grandfather Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr. raised him to be a good Christian boy who read the bible and went to church EVERY Sunday. Quite a contrast to the faux-Christian Nixon whose Quaker "Christianity" doesn't even believe in Baptism. I think it's about time we have GENINUE Christian in the White House, don't you?

And maybe it OFFENDS you that LBJ served OUR nation in World War II. When he was a young man, he became a navy officer and earned a Silver Star in the Salamaua-Lae campaign to protect and defend YOUR freedoms. But you HATERS won't give him any credit for that, will you?? Did YOUR candidate earn ANY silver stars??

I've heard all the negative garbage from you ANTI-TEXAS BIGOTS before... haters trashing him over Medicare, Medicaid... do you WANT seniors to DIE?? I guess you must HATE seniors getting the affordable medications they need. Vietnam... blah blah blah... maybe you anti-South Vietnamese BIGOTS hate asian people too?? Great Society...War on Poverty...Johnson didn't cause this problem with poor people in our country. He came into office and inherited this problem with thousands of homeless people and he could either let them starve or do something about it. He then choose to DO something about it. If you don't like his solution, too bad. Your guy has done nothing about poverty.

You PURISTS are never gonna get the PERFECT candidate...LBJ is the ANTI-NIXON candidate now and he's the only one going after Nixon. Everyone else wants to be Nixon's running mate. JOHNSON-1968. You HATERS better accept it.

[MEG33]

I did not vote for LBJ..I am a Texan and support Perry.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Drink it !"

[fieldmarshaldj]

Why ? Opposing Herman Cain means you support Slick Willard and hence Zero.

[MEG33]

I don’t oppose Cain. I support Perry..We’ll see how the race develops.

[Dengar01]

SHAME ON YOU!!! You are ANTI TEXAS and obviously Pro-Union (even though DJ lives in TN which I believe is below the Mason-Dixon line).

Did ya'll know Sam Houston got thrown out of office for opposing secession? I bet some of our Texas Koolaid Perrybots don't know that.

What do I know? I'm just a damn Yankee!

[fieldmarshaldj]

One is antithetical to the other. Perry is a big government RINO establishment candidate, Cain is a real Conservative. As for seeing how the race develops, the two leading candidates are Cain and Slick Willard. Perry is in 4th place (or worse) and dropping by the week. Time to get on the Cain Train so we can defeat Willard and Zero.

[South40]

"Drink the Perry Kool-Aid!"

[South40]

[MEG33]

Of course you must believe that about Perry or you would not slam him so much ..but I do not believe he is a big government RINO..

I don’t slam any of the candidates but Romney on occasion..It is largely unnecessary to slam Romney..I’d be preaching to the choir.

I am under no illusion that I could change your opinion so we can just agree to disagree.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The party establishment considers only two candidates acceptable to maintaining the status quo and standing against the drastic changes that must be made. Those two candidates are Slick Willard and Perry.

[Netizen]

Is that the hot yellow kool aid that goes with the pretzels for the gas jets?

[lonestar]

You drank it. Y'all are not a lot different from Jim Jones...group thinkers...not an independent thinker among you.

None of you are very bright!

[Norm Lenhart]

I do not understand people thinking Romney is a contender, nor do I understand the fear people have of him. Look at his numbers. Unchanged for 5 years. He is nothing and all the money/RINO support and TV commercials will not move him into the big chair. Did not in 08, Has not yet in 11 and will not in the future.

Conservatives don’t want him, libratarians don’t want him, mods don’t want him...only RINOs want him. And they are a fraction of the party. A small fraction screaming long and loud in the wilderness. We outnumber them and they need us to elect Romney. But we will not give them the power, nor the votes to do it. On the other hand, we can lose all the RINO votes and still win against Obama.

[Norm Lenhart]

Thinking illogical thoughts independently does not make one ‘bright’.

Faced with the choice of buying the RP line of ‘logic’ pushed by that of his supporters or being accused of being a cultist...

well...just read the tagline. I’m in awfully good company.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I don’t drink the poison of RINO establishment phonies as you liberally quaff. As for you, since you don’t like us and think us so stupid, feel free to leave.

[BillyBoy]

>> You are ANTI TEXAS and obviously Pro-Union (even though DJ lives in TN which I believe is below the Mason-Dixon line). Did ya'll know Sam Houston got thrown out of office for opposing secession? I bet some of our Texas Koolaid Perrybots don't know that. What do I know? I'm just a damn Yankee! <<

Heh. True, that's a little known fact of history that most of the Texans don't want anyone to know about. In fact, the situation was even more damning than the one you described.

Texas had ALREADY seceded from the union and Houston REMAINED the duly-elected Governor of Texas. Houston had opposed secession from the United States but was outvoted. He was forcibly and physically REMOVED from office (an illegal coup) a month later, because he refused to take an oath to support the Confederacy (Houston rightly predicted the war was a lost cause and preferred for Texas to be neutral, correctly pointing out that Texas had been an independent Republic prior to joining the union, and thus reverted back to "independent Republic" status and in no way was obligiated to join OR support the Confederate States of America)

In short, Sam Houston was the one standing up for Texas' soverignity, the Texas constitution, and "states rights", it was the pro-slavery Confederate supporters who wanted to override Texas law and make Texas the puppet state of a powerful, distant federal government (namely, the C.S.A.) Houston's speech before he was removed by force stated:

"Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void."

It's not surprising the freepers who want to hold up Texas as a shining example of limited government, state sovereignty, etc., ignore this little historic detail. Just as they are quick to point out that Obama rose to power in Illinois but conveniently ignore that Texas gave the nation LBJ or that they overwhelmingly voted for FDR, Woodrow Wilson, etc., etc., while those socialists were far less popular up here. If you point out these facts that conflict with their idlyic fantasy portrait of their state, they're scream "HATER!" and so on.

And yeah, they're accuse you of knowing nothing about Texas history or culture and ask if you've ever been to Texas. I have, so the best way to respond is to do as Rick Santorum did when Rick Perry snarled "have YOU ever been to the Texas border?" and point out that - yes, and your fellow Texans prove you're wrong. Just as Texas' role in the confederacy actually trampled on "states rights" and standing up to federal authorities, so it is that a vote for "tea party candidate" Rick Perry is in reality a vote to support the establishment and kill the tea party ideals.

[BillyBoy]

You NON-TEXANS don't get it. Dropping to 5th place makes him even MORE electable...