Tag: rick perry

• The Fashionably Late Don’t Get to Be President

  ”Hey, ev’rybody! What’d I miss?”

  **

  I don’t think anyone could have foreseen Rick Perry’s dizzying drop in support during the past few weeks. I, for one, definitely feared him as some kind of unstoppable teabagger-infused jugger-nut who might very well fool the American electorate into making him president by virtue of his swagger and love for Jesus. It’s happened before.

  And I still seem to be alone in thinking that his goofy New Hampshire speech was not quite the camel-back-fracturing straw for his candidacy. It almost doesn’t matter; he’s performed so poorly — so unexpectedly poorly — in all other areas save fundraising, that if he had giddily groped female staff members in front of the crowd, it still might not have made much of a difference. Probably would have helped.

  Of course, it could all turn around. Indeed, the Iowa caucuses are not far away, and I’d say it’s crucial he finish in the top two in order to remain relevant, as he’s almost certain to fare badly in New Hampshire. But Cain is having, well, a rough time of it this week, and Newt Gingrich then becomes the next guy in line to gather up winger support, and I think even they find him unbearable. (Hell, if they want someone who can speak in complete sentences, they have Romney!)

  But let’s presume for the sake of this post that Perry really is toast, that this whole presidential adventure has been a humiliating farce in an otherwise astoundingly successful political career. What’s at the core of this? Why couldn’t he pull off another big victory?

  I think his string of successes are important to keep in mind here. He’s obviously capable of waging fierce, laser-focused, and sometimes even scrappy campaigns, and he has always prevailed — always! And with this cycle’s risible field of competitors, there was no reason a seasoned, tough pol like Perry could not have mowed them all down if he’d really wanted to.

  And I think that was the problem. I think Perry is blowing it because he doesn’t really want it. Not really. I don’t mean that in the Herman Cain “oh shit I might be president that wasn’t supposed to happen” kind of way, I mean that Perry probably ran for president because it looked like he could win, not because he really wanted the job. He clearly has no Grand Vision for the country, he has no philosophical core that is fueling his charge. He probably saw that he could win if he ran a half-decent campaign, and boy, wouldn’t it be nice to president?

  My only evidence beyond his wretched performance for his ambivalence is the one thing I think should have tipped off everyone who covers this subject: his late entrance.

  Look at Mitt Romney: he’s been running for president since at least 2005. He’s spent every iota of his being for years and years on his quest to become the commander in chief. This guy wants it bad, and it shows in his almost pitch-perfect campaign this cycle.

  Go back a season, and look at John McCain: he’d been running for president since 1999, and it wasnt until 2008 that he overcome amazing odds to eke out the GOP nomination. This guy probably contorted himself more violently than Romney could ever hope to in order to appeal to the necessary constituencies to pass GOP primary voters’ muster, and the depths of slime to which he stooped in the general election were shocking. This man wanted it bad.

  And now look at folks like Wesley Clark and Fred Thompson, two guys who got in late to much fanfare, but ultimately waged pathetic campaigns (and I say this as a Clark ‘04 supporter), and then compare them with folks like Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels, three ostensibly qualified contenders who clearly just didn’t want it badly enough. Not nearly as much as Mitt or McCain, anyway.

  A late entrance into a presidential campaign tells me — at least now it does — that a candidate doesn’t have the maniacal political rapaciousness that is required to ascend to the Oval Office. If he or she did, they would have been bending all their efforts (like Romney, McCain, Obama, and Hillary Clinton) to that end the second it was possible. But Perry didn’t. He sauntered in late to the party, loudly interrupted the conversations already going on, and managed to spill punch on the floor while doing a bad impression of the host.

  For some reason, I’m guessing, Perry probably thought he was going to have a cakewalk to the White House, so his lack of drive wouldn’t matter. But that’s never how it works. Obama and Hillary Clinton both wanted to be president so badly you could see the madness in their eyes (and some wear their mania better than others). That goes for McCain, too. John Edwards was nuts, sure, but he didn’t have that drive, or else he would have handled his affairs differently. Mike Huckabee didn’t have that drive either, or he would have put a more earnest effort into fundraising in his ‘08 run.

  There are only two exceptions I can think of as far as eventually-elected presidents who may not have lusted after the office all that much: Dwight Eisenhower (who got to be president because that’s just what happens when you win World War II) and George W. Bush (who simply felt he deserved to be president — which is different — and had the name of someone who had already been president).

  It’s not clear to me that Obama wants to hold on to the presidency as much as Romney wants to take it from him, and I think that’s really, really going to matter one year from now. As for the rest of them? Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul would all like to be president, but know they won’t be. Huntsman, and Pawlenty before him, thinks he ought to be president, but can’t be. Cain never intended to become a factor in the race at all, and soon probably won’t be. Bachmann thinks she already is president, but never will be.

  Perry thought someone would hand him the presidency, and now that he can see that they won’t, I’m guessing that this game isn’t fun anymore.

  November 8, 2011

  2004 presidential election, 2012 presidential election, politics, rick perry

  ---

• I Hate Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney for President!

  

  I don’t think those of us in the reality-based community are sufficiently panicked about the prospect of a Rick Perry presidency. First, it’s foolish to think that Barack Obama has this election in the bag no matter who the GOP nominates. Second, Rick Perry is running away with this primary right now, besting Romney by double digits in most national and state polls. Third and most importantly, he’s just the right combination of dumb, ruthless, and insane to be formidable, electable, and unthinkably dangerous. Dangerous in foreign policy, dangerous in his rejection of science (or better-put, “knowledge”), dangerous in how he is likely to treat the poor and uninsured, dangerous in his brazen theocratic leanings. Dangerous, really, because he could win and start getting his way.

  In most conventional races, one hopes that the opposing party nominates their craziest partisan so that our guy or gal can crush them in the center-focused general election. Perhaps in most cycles, Perry would be among that group of candidates. I’d be a little giddier if I thought, say, Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich were close to scoring the top of the GOP ticket. For the Republicans to nominate a less rabid conservative would make Obama’s chances all the narrower. But Perry has emerged in a unique time, a time in which a charming, folksy nut bag can take advantage of the desperation, ignorance, and fear of even the political center and win the White House.

  Now, there is no acceptable GOP candidate (save perhaps Jon Huntsman, who I think could make a plausible run for the Democratic nomination as a kind of moderate, blue dog type). All of them would be disastrous for the country, disaster for the principles held dear by liberals, disaster for the poor and working classes, disaster for the separation of church and state, disaster for national security and foreign policy.

  But there are degrees. No one would doubt, for example, in 2000, that even though George W. Bush turned out to be a disaster of unpredictable proportions, that, say, a Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes presidency would have been triply or quadruply worse. There are degrees.

  This is why progressives and Democrats (not the same thing) should defy convention. Stop rooting for a Bachmann or Palin nomination, because neither will happen. Likewise, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain are all destined to at some point lose this nomination race. There are only two possibilities: Perry and Mitt Romney. Rooting for Perry is total folly. He could be elected, perhaps rather easily, and would be perhaps the most damaging of any of the aforementioned candidates (save perhaps Bachmann, but she lacks any political skill for actual governing, which I will get to). Given the very real — even likely — possibility of a Republican in the White House in 2013, there is really only one thing left to say.

  Mitt Romney for president!

  Not really ”for president” of course. But liberals should wish with all their hearts, and do whatever they can, to see that Romney wins the GOP nomination. Do opposition research for him on Perry, lift up other right-wing candidates to steal his thunder, speak well of Romney — in conservative terms of course, whenever possible. (Example: “It sure seems like Romney has a better plan for lowering taxes than Perry.”) If you can spare it, donate to Romney’s campaign, and specify it for the primary season.

  I know this sounds crazy, but it’s crucial. Less than keeping Obama in office, progressives should really focus their efforts on making sure Rick Perry never becomes president. Ever. That means taking the chance that Romney might be instead.

  You know I loathe Mitt Romney. To make a casefor him pains me more than I can tell you. But many of those reasons for which he earns my disgust are the very reasons why he would be preferable to Perry. Consider:

  • The most obvious: Romney is at his heart more moderate than Perry. Yes, his positions on gay marriage, abortion, taxes, health care, etc. are wrong, but they are less wrong than Perry’s.

  • He is far smarter than Perry, and far less jingoistic. While he has made no bones about publicly detesting Obama’s insufficient slobbering love for American super-awesomeness, he is at least a shrewd and subtle thinker who is less prone to blunder the country into some military disaster because of some knee-jerk macho overreaction.

  • Most importantly: Mitt Romney has no principles. He is of and entwined with the rich establishment, but he is primarily concerned with self-elevation. His flip-floppiness, his willingness to say and do anything to earn political favor make him a far better Republican to have in charge than the Idiot King, Rick “Treat-Him-Pretty-Ugly” Perry.

  Think about it. Though we are, for now, taking an unfortunate and dangerous lurch to the right in American politics, it can not be permanent. If 2006 and 2008 taught us anything, it’s that Republican policies and behavior allowed to run rampant eventually make their flaws transparent. The country will lurch back toward the center.

  With Perry in the Oval Office, he will, even more so than George W. Bush, stand firm in his wrongheadedness, and remain steadfast in fighting for his far-right laundry list of tragic priorities.

  But Romney will feel those political winds, and bend with them. To every breeze and gust of moderation and progressivism, Romney will open himself up like a sail and drift, drift. Romney is eminently pliable, and that is our best hope. As his only concern will be his own preservation, a President Romney would adjust his course as the political currents take the country in directions he would normally find uncomfortable — but not unfamiliar. Romney the Senate candidate backed abortion rights. Romney the governor passed universal health care. All because his constituency, the source of his political winds in Massachusetts, was center-left.

  Perry is a terrifying threat to the health of our democracy, to the integrity of everything America has achieved since Roosevelt. Both of them, even! Romney would be a huge disappointment, and do his own level of damage to the country. But the impact crater of his presidency’s collision with the electorate would be far smaller than if we ran headlong into a Perry presidency.

  So I say without reservation: Until August 27, 2012 at the opening of the Republican National Convention, Romney for president!

  September 16, 2011

  2012 presidential election, mitt romney, politics, rick perry

  ---