Still skeptical about Rick Perry

by Rossputin | 5:28 am, August 17, 2011 | 1 Comment

After being in the race for two days, Texas Governor Rick Perry is polling ahead of former front-runner Mitt Romney and trading ahead of him as well on InTrade.com.

Yesterday, Rasmussen reported that Perry had a 29% to 18% lead over Romney among likely Republican voters they polled. Michele Bachmann was third at 13%, which is behind the undecided at 16%.

And over at InTrade.com, Rick Perry is trading around 38% to be the GOP nominee while Mitt Romney is trading about 30%.

It’s exciting, as someone who wants Barack Obama to lose his next election, to think that there’s an appealing, principled, intelligent, electable Republican candidate.  Clearly, many people think that’s what Rick Perry is.

And he may well be, but I am as yet unconvinced.

As someone said to me, Fred Thompson never looked better than the day before he officially entered the presidential race. After that, his rapid flame-out was almost hard to watch.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Perry follows a similar trajectory, if for different reasons.

Let’s compare Perry and Romney for a second. (Sorry, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul fans, I just don’t think they have the horsepower, and I wouldn’t support Ron Paul anyway given his answer about Iran on Thursday night and other disqualifying errors of his foreign policy views.)

Perry is, to the Republican base, at least initially appealing. He seems principled on many issues, not least the 10th Amendment, but also has some serious Achilles heel issues, including immigration. As far as intelligence, it’s too early to tell, but I have to say I don’t come away from hearing him lately thinking “that guy has a big brain.” And then comes electable, and this is where I think Perry may be extremely vulnerable. He may be the worst mix of Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin, by which I mean that in 2008 there were quite a few moderate Republicans and independent voters who were so turned off by Palin that they voted for Barack Obama. (I was so turned off by McCain that I voted Libertarian.)

Romney is much less appealing to the Republican base. He seems less principled on certain issues, both because he’s known to have changed his views and because of his role in passing Romneycare. I don’t think there’s any doubt as to his intelligence; he’s clearly smarter than Perry (but not as smart as Gingrich.) And then comes electable, and this is where I think Romney has an advantage over Rick Perry. Romney doesn’t generate great enthusiasm among the GOP base and the Tea Party – yet.  But if it becomes clear to voters who, whether Republican or independent, want Obama out that Romney can beat him but Perry can’t, how will GOP primary voters fall?

A recent Gallup poll shows Republicans care more about electability than full agreement on policy. Furthermore, that view was more common among conservatives than among moderates, and conservatives are the vast majority of primary and caucus participants. So, the Romney vs Perry calculus goes, or may go, like this: Is Romney so much more electable than Perry that we’re willing to go with a guy in whom we have somewhat less confidence that he’ll uphold our conservative principles?

During the Thursday debates in Iowa, Romney didn’t stick his foot in his mouth. And other than one recent comment about corporations being people – a comment I agree with and which was the basis of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision – he’s giving the left-wing media very little to work with to beat him up, though they’re just getting started.

Perry, on the other hand, begins his campaign by calling Ben Bernanke “almost treasonous“, or more precisely that Bernanke would be that if he “printed more money.” Perry speaks like someone who hasn’t a clue about the Fed, and I say that as someone who thinks Bernanke is doing a terrible job and a terrible disservice to the nation and the world by enabling our big-spending government. I’m not looking to defend Helicopter Ben. When asked again, Perry stood by his comment, adding that he is “passionate about the issue.” Really? Even people who are passionate about Federal Reserve Bank issues aren’t passionate about them. Is Perry’s style going to be “passionate” about everything, so he can out-passion Mitt Romney (not that that’s an incredibly difficult task)?

Perry also has made most of his news in the weeks prior to his official entry into the race by praying. This is simply no way to win over the critical independent block of voters, though smarter political minds than mine (such as Tony Blankley on my radio show the other night) said that Perry’s strategy there is smart: the overt religiosity, particularly it being non-Mormon may make him more likely to get the GOP nomination, but it’s far enough away from the general election that nobody will remember it by then.

I’ll remember it, though, and as much as some of my religious Christian friends won’t like it, I’m turned off by his combination of overt religiosity and political campaigning. I don’t need to hear about a “loving and perfect god (who) is also a personal god” from a man who seems at least as home playing preacher as playing governor.

Let me be clear: I often support Christian conservative candidates with my vote and with donations. But there’s something about Perry’s aggressive preaching – and that’s what his Prayer Rally was to me – which I think is just fine for a citizen, and perhaps even for a governor, but unseemly in a would-be president.

Again, I know many people will disagree with me.

If you’re one who disagrees with me, let’s put aside our personal views on religion and even on the proper public involvement of a politician with religion for a minute and allow me to pose a question: What’s more important to you, beating Barack Obama or having an evangelical Protestant commander-in-chief?

If it’s the former, then this issue better concern you because Perry will turn off independent voters in droves with his prayers, his hyperbolic statements, and, like it or not, his drawl, which sounds like a slightly drunk love child of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Lest it be said that I’m a shill for Mitt Romney, let me point out two articles I wrote for the American Spectator, one preferring Mitch Daniels to Romney and another pointing out Tim Pawlenty’s policy advantages over Romney. (I am a big Daniels fan, not such much with Pawlenty, and my article was written before Pawlenty’s disastrous first GOP debate.) I have not endorsed anyone in this race, despite being leaned on here by close friends who are Romney supporters; I have kept my powder dry.

Romney is an uninspiring candidate on many levels, but he has the best economic credentials in the field and that’s the most important issue facing the electorate today. For me, in this election season, electable is itself inspiring.

Yes, Texas has created a tremendous number of new jobs and yes, Perry gets a bit of the credit. But I don’t think Perry will be able to explain it well enough. I think he may come across as, in part, the recipient of a happy accident of happening to be in Texas when things other than his leadership, such as high energy prices, were the primary drivers of job growth. Again, I’m not downplaying the success of Texas or even the success of Perry, but I do think Romney will likely still make a clearer case that he understands business and economics better than Perry does. Romney will offer soothing but aggressive competence; Perry will, if recent days are any clue, offer bombast.

Bombast usually doesn’t win elections, though it did in 2008’s remarkable conditions. But people realize that voting for the big talker really hurt them last time. They’re not going to want a literal and figurative cowboy, at least the independent voters won’t. And do people really want another Texas governor after the Bush fatigue of 2006-2008?

So that takes me back to my main question: If GOP voters come to believe that nobody outside the GOP base would vote for Rick Perry, and that therefore an Obama victory is more likely than not with a Perry nomination, will the GOP base hold its collective nose and nominate the probably-more-electable Mitt Romney.

I don’t know, but I think that the out-of-the-gate betting odds on Perry are too high. He shouldn’t be 8 points ahead of Romney. It’s too far until the election, too many debates still to come, and it’s hard to see how Mitt Romney doesn’t have an advantage in those debates, though they both have about equally great hair.

I’m open to hearing what Rick Perry has to say, but if he keeps coming across like a preacher more than a president, a cowboy more than a competent executive, then in a two-man race with Romney, I’ll support Romney. My singular political goal is the defeat of Barack Obama so that he doesn’t get four more years to defeat America. So, among the current GOP field (but not including Ron Paul) I’ll support whom I believe to be the most electable Republican, period.

Comments