[The views expressed here are mine alone. Some people may not like me because of them, but that's OK. These things need to be said, and not just by talking heads on TV. No one else should get credit for this diatribe, otherwise they would've written it themselves.]
I was reading an article a friend posted on Facebook about Rick Perry’s name being brought up for presidential candidacy and I had to chime in. For starters, let me just say that this is ridiculous.
No, not just Perry’s candidacy, but the strategy being deployed by the Republican Party to identify a viable presidential candidate to go against our President. The simplest way to describe the strategy is: throwing shit up against the wall. I’m embarrassed by the shortsighted or visionless approach by the Party. I would never say I agree with all the things Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the George Bushes did – because there’s so much wrong to point out – but I will say this much: the Republican Party has out-executed Democrats since the LBJ years in terms of overall strategy of presidential politicking. I think even Bill Clinton would agree with me there if he were being honest (so maybe I shouldn’t count on it).
Ever since ’08, however, it’s been a shotgun approach by Republicans with names being thrown around with little substance or legitimate chance of electability. And, quite frankly, since we all know that Obama has to epically fail in the next 16 months to lose re-election the real strategy isn’t to win the presidency in ’12. At least that’s my belief since he pretty much has my vote in the bag and I’m one of those key “swing voters” every candidate desperately wants rather than the Republicans and Democrats they know vote along party lines.
The real strategy for the Republicans is to pick a candidate who can attack Obama’s campaign on one or two core issues that will enable them to maintain control of the House in mid-term elections in ’14 and, possibly, secure the Senate. That’s how they’ll be able to gain control of the national dialogue and find that next two-term Republican president.
But, that’s not happening yet. Michael Steele is partially to blame. The Tea Party is mostly to blame. So this is what we’ve got so far.
First it was assumed that ’08 VP nominee Sarah Palin and contenders Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee would be the cream of the crop, but significant holes have been poked in their efforts over the last two years. Palin is a policy nightmare, Romney already lost the nomination once and is super weak on healthcare, and Huckabee doesn’t have a clear-cut strength on a national level. Huckabee just dropped out and Palin and Romney still look like weaker opponents for Obama than John McCain did last time around.
Then a bunch of familiar names have been mentioned. Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. He’s about as far right as they come when the country wants something in the middle. Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi. He’s about as rural as they come when the country lives in cities. Newt Gingrich. He’s about as much of a has-been as it gets and he’s got a campaign operation to prove it. Barbour is already officially out too.
Lately, new crops of Republicans have been discussed. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and his crazy budget plans. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his controversial ways. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is seen as a challenger to Palin as the Party’s queen as of late. Christie says he’s not running because he isn’t ready to lead the country. The others are, hopefully, smart enough to agree.
And then there are the not-even-a-chancers. This is a group of politicians who have been around long enough to have a national profile, yet no semblance of a chance at winning a national election.
Rudy Guiliani is remembered for 9/11, but there’s no way he beats Obama – the guy who can now take credit for killing Bin Laden. He’ll release all the photos and videos if it means winning re-election, count on it.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul can garner fringe votes, just not nearly enough of them.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has the political experience, but does Indiana have the momentum to produce a president? The last time a state this small produced a president was Arkansas with this young charismatic guy named Bill Clinton. And Daniels knows he’s not that guy.
The same can probably be said about Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and Chinese ambassador, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a guy who supposedly has what it takes, but no way to show that to the American people because he’s not a guy city residents can get excited about, except maybe St. Paul.
Rick Perry falls in this group of not-even-a-chancers, too. Sure, he’s been the longest-tenured Governor in the nation’s second most populated state and that means something. But, no, it doesn’t mean he’s great at his job. It means Texas is an amazing state and we’re less dependent on having a good governor than most other states. Companies like the one I work for should get credit for the state’s economy, not a governor who’s never faced a truly inspiring opponent inhis career.
Rick Perry is a pointed finger, when America wants a president with open arms.
Why? Because our statewide conservatism allows Perry to cut school funding, limit tax base increases, be an enemy of public transit and the arts and take credit for all the Fortune businesses that are based here in Texas without much of fear of losing re-election because the state’s Democratic Party has not proven itself capable of producing a candidate with statewide appeal since the Ann Richards years.
Rick Perry’s candidacy is ridiculous because if the way Texas has been governed over the last dozen years is an indicator of what he’d bring to the White House, no one in America should want that at all. And the Republican Party should be smart enough to a) realize that, b) get his name out of the conversation more quickly [the party is starting to look silly…OK, it already does], and c) figure out the difference between a good candidate and a bad one.
Like the difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
And one final note on this ridiculousness. This is something that probably won’t be written about in a ton of articles or discussed on TV programs even if Perry’s run does become official, but I am convinced this is the underlying truth of Perry’s potential candidacy: While so much was made about Obama’s perceived lack of experience in ’08, just as much should be made of Perry having too much of the wrong kind of experience when it comes to campaigns: experience beating candidates who never stood a chance. Sure, he beat Kay Bailey Hutchison in the ’10 primary, but her campaign was destined for failure the second she decided that maintaining her seat in the Senate was more important than running for Governor. Against Obama, there will be no such advantage.

Recent Comments