Flurry of new polls sez Rick is the top dog...

Rick is the new front runner nationally... which is a scary place to be... but a good place to be as well... you can bet a pretty penny the attacks will only amplify against Rick from all corners... including some on not really the far right so much as the "aligned with another candidate" right.

Gallup is the gold standard, and they have Rick truly surging (link). Excerpt follows...

Shortly after announcing his official candidacy, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has emerged as rank-and-file Republicans' current favorite for their party's 2012 presidential nomination. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationwide say they are most likely to support Perry, with Mitt Romney next, at 17%.

The Daily Caller also has Rick surging this week (link). Excerpt follows...

Perry now leads the field in all five categories polled this month: first choice, most electable, second choice, best at dealing with the economy, and best at keeping Washington spending under control — often by a large margin.
Perry is the top choice for 29.3 percent of Republicans, handily trouncing Michele Bachmann’s 17.0 percent and Mitt Romney’s 11.1 percent.
But Perry has not just captured the hearts of Republicans; he has also captured the minds of those who are pragmatically looking not just for a nominee they like, but for one who can beat President Barack Obama. He is also considered far and away the most electable, with 46.5 percent naming him the most viable candidate to beat the incumbent president. Romney takes just 19.8 percent of the vote in this category, a sharp drop from July, when he led in this category with 33.5 percent. Michele Bachmann’s share has dropped to just 9.6 percent, falling precipitously from 21.1 percent in July.
That’s particularly problematic for Romney.

Rick as a second pick beats everyone else's first pick. 

PPP is one I hate... they oversample Democrats and do a really poor job in Texas in particular... but they also have Rick surging in Iowa and nationally (link). Excerpt follows...

In PPP's first national poll since Rick Perry's official entry into the Presidential race he's jumped out to a double digit advantage. Perry's at 33% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Michele Bachmann, 8% for Newt Gingrich, 6% for Herman Cain and Ron Paul, 4% for Rick Santorum, and 3% for Jon Huntsman.

Conservative voters have been looking for a candidate that they can rally around and Perry's filling that role. Romney continues to lead with the small portion of voters describing themselves as moderates at 27% t0 20% for Bachmann and 15% for Perry. But Perry gets stronger and stronger as you move across the ideological spectrum. With 'somewhat conservative' voters Perry leads by 15 points with 38% to Romney's 23% and Bachmann's 11%. And with 'very conservative' voters the advantage expands to 22 points with him at 40% to 18% for Bachmann and 14% for Romney.

[SNIP] 

Perry also leads head to heads with both Romney (52-36) and Bachmann (56-26). In the match up with Romney Perry picks up Bachmann supporters (47-37), Cain supporters (61-29), Paul supporters (43-28), and Santorum supporters (68-21). Romney gets Gingrich supporters (51-35) and Huntsman supporters (76-24).

In the match up with Bachmann Perry wins Cain supporters (49-38), Gingrich supporters (52-32), Paul supporters (44-28), and Romney supporters (53-20). Huntsman supporters (24-21 for Bachmann) and Santorum supporters (44-43 for Perry) split pretty evenly. 

Rick looks like he may be the guy... and in match ups with Obama he is usually about neck and neck... although Rick was actually leading among independents... and Rick seems to do better among likely voters than just casual registered voters...

The game plan now might be to keep Rick on a slow and steady pace. Don't overexpose him. Fight back all the smears and lies from the left and right alike.

A big national lead is important, but a small lead in Iowa can quickly turn into a 4th place finish in the Iowa Caucuses. New Hampshire also remains an up hill climb for Rick, although his fiscal message he stuck with during the 2010 election in Texas could play very well there. South Carolina is likely his for the taking. Florida may be close, but Rick should do well with voters eager for jobs and an improved economy. Nevada, the same....

A few big hurdles are on the way. Debates. The expectations on Rick will be extremely high to perform well at the upcoming forums and debates. He may be underestimated since he didn't debate Bill White, but people falsely claiming off hand that "Rick never debated in 2010" are just not telling the truth... he debated twice in the primary and did well enough to put Kay away by 20+ percentage points and avoid a runoff...

The final big hurdle is money. Rick needs to raise a lot of money and have a lot of money in the bank... he needs to get his super PAC operations in order. He still has a lot of staff to hire in various states and back home in Texas, and he still has a lot of television commercials to produce and air. Those take money. Money will be a big driver of this race, and if Rick can show a solid number after this quarter in which he got a late start he could make it a two person race with Romney... if he does that he wins the nomination even with occasional minor gaffes and errors and missteps... it would just be too difficult for anyone else to overcome that. Still... Romney will have more money than Rick and will likely decide soon to start attacking... but Rick has withstood a lot of money in negative ads spent against him over the years and done just fine...

Rick and Al Gore...

Texas political reporter R.G. Ratcliffe sort of sets the record straight on Al Gore (link). Excerpt follows...

Rick Perry was NEVER Al Gore’s Texas 1988 chairman
Posted on August 22, 2011 by rgratcliffe

OK, whack on Republican Gov. Rick Perry in his presidential campaign for having once been a Democrat.
Whack on Rick Perry for endorsing Al Gore in his 1988 presidential run.
But would everyone quit saying he was Gore’s state chairman, because it is simply not true.
Gore in 1988 was viewed as the Southern conservative alternative to Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis. The leaders of the Gore campaign in Texas were House Speaker Gib Lewis, Democratic Chairman Bob Slagle and Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby.
On Jan. 5, 1988, Gib brought Gore to Austin to receive the endorsement of 27 state legislators. One of them was Rick Perry. If Perry even spoke that day, his words were so lame that they did not get quoted in news stories. In the Houston Chronicle and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Perry was just listed in alphabetical order as one of the lawmakers backing Gore.
I have tried to find a news release from the event to see if there was any possibility that it said something like: Legislative co-chairs for Gore. But I have not found anything like that. So I recently asked an Austin political consultant who was deep into the Gore campaign that year if Perry was chairman. He told me no. He said Perry did the news conference and then a one-day endorsement fly-around of some of the legislators. And that was it.
But the Texas politician who was a state presidential campaign chairman that year was Democrat John Sharp, who was backing Dukakis. In his 1998 lieutenant governor’s race against Perry, Sharp started telling people Perry was Gore’s campaign chairman. Sharp’s campaign in media accounts started off calling Perry vice-chairman of Gore’s campaign, then co-chairman and finally chairman. Perry and his campaign responded to his backing of Gore, but never repudiated the title.
Here is the simple truth. Rick Perry endorsed Al Gore in an effort to suck up to Speaker Gib Lewis in hopes of gaining a House leadership position in the 1989 Legislature. It didn’t happen. Then in the interim afterward, when the Calendars Committee chairman resigned, Perry wanted that position. Gib snubbed him and gave it to speaker pro tem Hugo Berlanga. About 10 days later, Perry switched parties and said he likely would run against Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower.
From beginning to end, it was pure political opportunism. If you want to criticize Perry, criticize him for that. But he was never Al Gore’s Texas chairman.

I think a little more context is in order... it was pro gun pro life Southerner Al Gore versus far left liberals like Gephardt, Dukakis, and others... endorsing Al Gore was ironically a way for Rick to prove he was a conservative Democrat and not the new breed of very liberal Democrats...

You might even look at it and conclude that Rick decided when Dukakis won the 1988 nomination that liberals had won the internal battle there was no more hope of reforming his party... Democrats were not worth saving or reforming or returning to their Jeffersonian roots...

So he became a Republican... and the rest is history...

More recommended reading on the Al Gore thing (link). Excerpt follows...

Any discussion of the governor's political past should take into account the following context. First, in the early 1980s in rural West Texas, most if not all routes to Austin ran through the Democratic Party, a party divided into liberal and conservative factions. Second, in 1984, the Democratic Party held more than three-quarters of the seats in the Texas House, which in turn was run by a speaker (Gib Lewis of Fort Worth, 1983-93) from the party's conservative faction. Third, Perry's voting record on the House floor placed him in the conservative wing of the conservative faction of the Texas Democratic Party. Fourth, during Perry's short tenure in the House, the space within the Texas Democratic Party for politicians with conservative ideological profiles such as Perry's was rapidly disappearing. In the end, given Perry's conservative ideological position and the evolving nature of partisan politics in Texas, by 1989 Perry had but two choices if he wished to pursue a career as an elected official in Texas: change his political beliefs or change his party. He opted for the latter.

Here is another good read (link). Excerpt follows...

As the Texas Democratic party was slowly taken over by that liberal movement emanating from Austin and increasingly, Houston, millions of conservative Texas Democrats changed parties to remain true to their conservative beliefs. Rather than being cause to question Perry's authenticity, his switch is a testament to the solidity of his conservative principles. As I and so many other Southerners are fond of saying, "We didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Party left us," which is exactly what happened to Rick Perry.

The other thing to remember is that Rick also said he felt Al Gore had "gone to hell" since the 1980s...





I know this "former Democrat" thing must be really baffling for a lot of people outside of Texas... or outside of southern states... but there are still a number of conservative Democrats in the southern states although that number is rapidly dwindling...


If you know anything about Texas politics, you know that former GOP presidential candidate Phil Gramm who is so hated by the left was also a Democrat at one point in his life... 


Ronald Reagan was also a Democrat who loved FDR until somewhat late into his life... Rick switched to the Republican side before Texas really switched several years later... in fact everyone thinks of Texas as this GOP bastion for so long, but Republicans still did not control the Texas legislature until 2003...


When I see the stuff about "Al Gore's campaign manager" I usually just tune out the person saying it because they are obviously not very well versed in recent political history... and if I were to come up with a venn diagram of the people who say that line and some of Ron Paul's nuttier conspiracy theorists, it would look like just one circle... it is the exact same people pushing the Al Gore stuff... 


Read these things. Ask some Texans not affiliated with Ron Paul and not under the age of about 35 or 40 about the old days in Texas politics and you'll realize... again... ironically that Rick supporting Al Gore was an attempt to prove his conservative bona fides... and having once been a Democrat likely makes him a stronger not weaker candidate... 

Rick's masterful entry into the 2012 presidential race...

Rick's entry into the presidential race was truly amazing. Bachmann's win in Iowa's straw poll was rendered irrelevant. Then Rick schooled Bachmann on her own turf in Waterloo... some are already calling it her "Waterloo" as in her big folly of arrogance that caused her to fall. Politico tells the story (link). Excerpt follows...

 But the contrast that may lift Perry and undermine Bachmann in their high stakes battle for Iowa had less to do with what they said than how they said it — and what they did before and after speaking.
Perry arrived early, as did former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. The Texas governor let a media throng grow and dissolve before working his way across the room to sit at table after table, shake hand after hand, pose for photographs and listen politely to a windy Abraham Lincoln impersonator, paying respect to a state that expects candidates, no matter their fame, to be accessible.
But Bachmann campaigned like a celebrity. And the event highlighted the brittle, presidential-style cocoon that has become her campaign’s signature: a routine of late entries, unexplained absences, quick exits, sharp-elbowed handlers with matching lapel pins, and pre-selected questioners.
She camped out in her bus, parked on the street in front of a nearby Ramada Hotel, until it was time to take the stage. Even after a local official’s introduction, Bachmann was nowhere to be found. It was not until a second staffer assured her that the lighting had been changed and a second introduction piped over the loudspeakers that she entered the former dance hall here. By the time she made her big entrance to bright lights and blaring music, the crowd seemed puzzled.
Bachmann’s stump speech drew mostly polite applause until she closed by giving a large apple pie to “the oldest mother in the room” — a local centenarian.
Then she stayed on stage, signing T-shirts from above, which her staff then distributed to a steady but not overwhelming crowd.
Finally, she swept through what was by then an empty ballroom behind a phalanx of six aides who shielded her from reporters and the handful of Iowans who remained.
“She kept us waiting, she was not here mixing — then she was talking about what a great evening it was. How do you know? You just got here,” said Karen Vanderkrol, of Hudson, Iowa, who said she agreed with the substance of Bachmann’s speech, but that one line in particular rang false: “I am a real person.”
“She can say she’s real and part of the people, but that’s not what we do,” Vanderkrol said of the congresswoman’s behavior.
Several other attendees seemed to leave similarly disappointed.

Ouch for Bachmann... Bachmann spent all of that money and put in all of that work almost for nothing...

Perry's peeps put out this masterful video which is exactly the right tone and tenor... not too overboard like Tim Pawlenty's videos, but not boring either... just very well done...

Then Rick seemed to stick his foot in his mouth by criticizing Ben Bernanke extremely strongly... but my hunch is that this Bernanke moment is a big parallel to the secession stuff.

On both issues, Rick never said what people want to believe he said... he certainly never advocated for secession and never said Bernanke was treasonous... but the impact is still there... Rick is scoring major points with voters for speaking bluntly on an issue they agree with... that Bernanke is a bad fed chairman and the fed is printing too much money...

Then Ed Schultz took Rick's comments about debt being a black cloud not just out of context but just plain lied about what Rick meant by "black cloud." Insinuating racism, MSNBC threatened to dominate the news all week before I am sure Obama's peeps forced Ed Schultz to apologize to make it go away so they could get back to attacking Rick unfairly in other ways (link)...



These unfair criticisms of Rick have caused peeps to rally to his defense... even peeps who don't support him necessarily yet...

On the economy, the MSM and liberal bloggers are failing to assail the unassailable... and speaking of peeps who don't even support Rick... even bloggers supporting other candidates have come to the defense of the Texas miracle... for example Political Math... the guy who did those videos with the pennies I think... has this detailed blog about how the left is not being truthful about Texas while Rick is being modest if anything (link)...

My advice to anti-Perry advocates is this: Give up talking about Texas jobs. Texas is an incredible outlier among the states when it comes to jobs. Not only are they creating them, they're creating ones with higher wages.

What has all of this wrought so far? Rasmussen has Rick winning by double digits (link)... which should trouble all the other candidates yes... but I would be troubled by these numbers if I am Rick's peeps... if it gets down to a single digit race next week then suddenly Rick has stalled and lost momentum and all of that... and people like to pounce when a candidate slips a little in the polls... and the press will try to blame his Bernanke comments or the fact that more peeps have gotten to see the "real" Rick... which is all pretty shoddy and unfair but that is how it goes... even if a different pollster with completely different methodology comes out and shows Rick down by 5 points or 7 points the story might be that Rick is fading already which would not likely be true...

It is interesting to see Rick be attacked from almost every side... some on the right are fringing themselves by suggesting Rick is some kind of pro shariah candidate or that miracle vaccines are suddenly bad (link)... all while the left works itself into a tizzy about Rick being a Dominionist crazy right winger who hates science and progress... they need to get their stories straight because the stories do not match up...

Really I think Rick has seized Romney's inevitability from him... and seized Bachmann's thunder from her... the next big event will be the September 7 debate... in the meantime Rick has less than a few weeks to hone his message and raise a ton of money... If Rick can post a solid fundraising number at the end of this quarter while withstanding unfair attacks from all sides he probably solidifies support and cruises to a victory in the caucuses and primaries.

He may not be perfect to all GOP voters, but he is as close as it gets to the vast majority of them. You want a strong social conservative who is pro life and pro 2nd amendment? Check, check and check. You want a strong fiscal conservative with a strong record on job growth and keeping spending, debt, and taxes in check? Check, check, check, and check. You want a national security conservative who may be wary of some of our adventures but certainly is not suicidal or isolationist... check and check...

Rick has all the check boxes covered... he looks the part... he gives one hell of a speech... he is a fighter which is what voters want... he drives Obama and his cadre of peeps insane...

Rick has entered the race masterfully thus far... although I do believe he can perfect his stump speech and not have to read off the page... and I do believe he will have to have a much more extensive online operation out there fighting misinformation from all sides and promoting his side of the story.

Is it just me, or has the MSM already gone a little crazy over the possibility of Rick running?

They've already lost their marbles. Prepare for this to get even uglier as it becomes obvious that Obama is unelectable due to the economy and Rick with all of those amazing Texas job creation statistics is the best person to take the message of economic renewal to the people.

The MSM hyperbole over Rick may actually be the death knell for their credibility and relevance once and for all...  Rick dealt with the same thing in Texas and basically ran around them rather than through them.. marginalizing the media in Texas in a big way... he won big... can he replicate the same strategy at the national level? It will be a lot more difficult, but Rick will have more online allies than McCain had in 2008 if he can win the nomination...

Kay's peeps trying to exact revenge for their shameful primary loss?

Jennifer Sarver who worked on Kay's failed 2010 campaign against Rick has some words of advice on how to communicate in a campaign...



Now Sarver has turned her attention to attacking Rick's higher education reforms (link)... which has raised the ire of Rick's allies... Peggy Venable of the influential Americans for Prosperity posted about Jennifer...

Jennifer Sarver is chair of the Texas Exes Public Relations Committee and spokeswoman for the Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education...and she is trashing Vedder and higher education reformers?  Sounds like she needs a little schooling and UT needs some new public relations help.

It isn't just Jennifer Sarver. It is several former Kay peeps, issuing anti Rick missives... Others have also noted the strangeness of former Kay peeps leading this attack on Rick... it just feels like a personal vendetta at this point instead of a real policy difference of opinion (link). Excerpt follows...

The Coalition for Higher Excellence in Higher Education – a group that supports higher education reform ideas offered by the state’s university presidents and chancellors and has expressed concerns with some higher education reform ideas offered from outside academia – fired a rhetorical howitzer at Gov. Rick Perry yesterday. Political observers in Texas are left wondering why the organization chose to attack Perry by name and how this will play out.
The coalition’s main communications consultants used to work for U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former president George W. Bush, two elected officials whose political interests have not always aligned perfectly with those of Perry.

[SNIP]

When asked about the statement attacking Perry by name and why it was issued, Shussler replied, “The statement was a response from the Coalition, which includes more than 200 leading Texans, including many supporters of Governor Perry, who are concerned about the negative impact of some of his higher education proposals.”
Some grassroots conservatives are troubled. “I know that Perry’s uncompromising commitment to fiscal and social conservatism doesn’t always sit well with some of the more moderate members of the Republican Party,” said State Republican Executive Committee member Jason Moore, a talk radio talk show host on KWEL in Midland. “But I’m surprised that some of the business leaders who have joined this coalition would condone these kinds of cheap shots at Perry.”
Most of the coalition’s press releases are distributed by Jenifer Sarver, who used to work on Hutchison’s staff. Sarver is chief of staff to Karen Hughes, who used to work for Gov. and later President George W. Bush. Both currently work at the Austin office of Burson-Marsteller.
Willeford said that the Burson-Marsteller firm is a paid consultant to the coalition. “As far as what is put out by the coalition and what is posted on our website, all that goes through our operating committee,” she said.

[SNIP]

But some Republican activists hope that this coalition will avoid messages that might be perceived as political attacks. “I sure hope that this coalition doesn’t allow former staffers for Hutchison and Bush to use the organization to attack Perry personally by name or harm his presidential chances in any way,” said Toby Marie Walker, a tea party activist in Waco, Texas. “Given the problems President Obama has created for our nation, the stakes are too high for that.” 

More recently, pork barrel queen Kay seemed to take a swipe at Rick basically saying she basically has no plans to endorse him... saying it in a very petty and spiteful way which is the norm for Kay these days (link).

What a nightmare this whole thing must be for Kay... not only was she supposed to cruise to an easy victory over Rick she ended up losing by 20 something points... and now he is intrade's most likely candidate to be the Republican nominee surpassing Mitt Romney on that betting market (link).

For the peeps who are already putting slogans about Rick being 4 more years of Bush on bumper stickers... remember that Karen Hughes was also among Bush's big 3... Rick and W. seem to get along well personally but there is a huge chasm in the camps of the two candidates... with ironically... Rick the former Democrat being the more principled and conservative of the two... and hiring more conservative peeps around him as well as which matters tremendously when it comes to policy making...

More than two years ago Rick made an obvious joke about Texans wanting to leave the union... it is newsworthy now?

Texans are a very independent group... and Rick has still never advocated for secession... but something that was posted and seen by many tens of thousands of people more than two years ago online has popped up again as new news in the media's drive to sensationalistically "vet" Rick (link). Excerpt follows...

well-known tech blogger Robert Scoble told The Texas Tribune on Tuesday that he remembers the meeting with Perry in the governor’s office in 2009. It's clear from interviews, blogs and Twitter postings that the remarks were recorded nearly a month before the April Tea Party gathering, which helped launch Perry’s successful 2010 re-election effort.
In the meeting, Perry can be heard speaking to the group of tech bloggers about the founding of Texas in 1836. A slideshow shows Perry pointing to a painting of the dramatic fall of the Alamo, artifacts in his office and the “Come and Take It” logo on his own boots.
Texans have a “different feeling about independence,” Perry told the group.
“When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation,” the governor can be heard saying. “And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”
The bloggers erupted in laughter after the remarks, and the slideshow was posted under the headline “Texas Governor Rick Perry jokes about Texas leaving the United States.”

One of the tech bloggers from California I believe... perhaps Robert Scoble himself... in the recording even suggested that he would move to Texas if it became its own country... amid the robust laughter...

Heck you can buy "SECEDE" t-shirts and bumper on the drunkest part of 6th Street in Austin. For Texans it has nothing to do with George Wallace or the Deep South type of thinking and everything to do with our state's unique history... Texas was its own country at one point you see... with its own president... and its own ambassadors to other nations... and Texas is the only state to enter the United States via treaty rather than annexation...

...And given that Texas provides a disproportionate amount of jobs, tax dollars, military servicemen, oil, NFL football players, and other exports to the rest of the nation, sometimes it seems like Texas could still be its own country... and taking away the prospect of a violent Civil War Texas very well might be a lot better off as an independent nation with a continued strong affiliation with but independence from the rest of America... for Texans and non Texans the whole "secede" thing is sort of a larger than life mythology based in actual history... it is a shirt that tourists buy because they think it is funny... and a harmless line bloggers loudly laugh about because it is funny...

In the end Rick still never advocated secession... which actually irritates some of the more hard core secessionist peeps who wanted him to just sign an executive order making it happen... Ron Paul did advocate secession though... in a video defending Rick, Ron Paul went all in on secession. Ron Paul correctly tells the camera that Rick didn't call for secession... but then Ron Paul goes on to say how Texas can and likely should secede and how it is an important Constitutional principle and check on government in favor of liberty...



I guess it says a lot about the viability of the respective candidates that Ron Paul actually calling for secession isn't newsworthy while Rick obviously joking about others wanting secession gets the headlines... yet if Ron Paul places in the top few in Iowa's straw poll this Saturday will they start "vetting" him or do they just not even know how to handle him? I wouldn't likely vote for Ron Paul for president in a primary, and especially not this year, but I could see quite a lot of unfair, cliched and lazy media "vetting" if he were to become a top tier candidate with a strong finish as the polls currently show he will have... you have to wonder if Ron Paul actually talking up secession would be part of that?

Wow... some epic and not to epic videos in support of Rick... all from outside groups...

This one is from Students 4 Perry and it is the most compelling and on message...

"IT'S TIME FOR RICK PERRY"   

This one is from Vets for Perry and is good enough I guess... it featured veteran and Texas lawmaker Jerry Patterson talking up Rick... the Veterans for Perry have a couple of other videos too promoting Rick's record as a veteran...

"Jerry Patterson: a Veteran for Rick Perry"   

Time for Rick Perry is okay... seems a little off somehow actually with some of this random b roll... also their use of the speech and clips of the crowd are out of sync and just awkward...

"It's Time for Perry"   

This one is apparently actually on television in Iowa on Fox News...

"What if? Rick Perry for President 2012"   

There are new videos popping up every couple of days it seems... and now... with the Response day or prayer and fasting going well (link) and Rick possibly declaring in South Carolina at the RedState.com convention (link)... or maybe just declaring to declare... maybe we will see some David Weeks productions with Rick actually in them actually speaking to the American people in his own voice...

Everything you ever need to know about Rick...

Matthew Dowd who by all accounts doesn't know Rick very well but is well known for his Bush involvement wrote a thing I have seen called "everything you need to know about Rick Perry."

Okay so what is it he has to say (link). Excerpt follows...

Having observed and known the governor, both as a Democrat and as a Republican, through 13 election cycles, I offer a primer on Perry in five key points:

1. He is an extremely astute politician with a keen sense of where voters are, and he has great instincts on message. Perry has ruthless discipline and communication. They say in politics, “Don’t let your boot off an opponent’s neck till Election Day.” Perry doesn’t take his boot off till a year after the votes have been counted and the opponent has faded into oblivion. He is actually a better campaigner than George W. Bush (Perry’s predecessor as Texas governor) was when he first entered the national scene.

1. Perry has surrounded himself with a very loyal staff. His aides believe in him, and he in them. He is involved in campaign decisions, but he delegates well and doesn't stop being loyal because a mistake might be made. This is a huge advantage in the ebb and flow of presidential campaigns. 

1. His statements related to possible Texas secession actually helped him in his recent race in 2010, and will help him in a national campaign in the Republican primaries and caucuses.  In an environment where Republican voters despise the federal government, anti-Washington rhetoric is music to their ears.   Conversely, this talk will hurt him in a general-election race. Moderate voters in the Midwest will see it as off-putting. 

1. Although he has run many times for both district and statewide office in Texas, Perry has never been fully vetted by the media. He underwent some scrutiny in his races for governor, but he has never endured the full-court press that happens in a presidential race. What the media discovers will not be as important as how he and the campaign handle the intense spotlight for the first time. Perry and some of his staffers are known to have thin skins. They will need to grow calluses if they are to succeed in the show. 

1. Perry has never lost a race. While many immediately list this as a positive (and it is laudable and suggests huge talent), losing at some point in your career makes you better when the inevitable problems hit. I have learned more from my losses in life and politics than from my victories. It’s the losses that really cause self-reflection and growth. President Obama and former Presidents Bush (father and son), Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon learned enormous amounts from setbacks in their political careers, and those losses eventually helped them win the White House. We know Perry can win. The real question is: Can he suffer defeat and rise to the next battle?

Umm... really? That is all we need to know about Rick?

I would say that some of these are sort of accurate but could apply to any candidate... and the one about Rick not being vetted? What planet is this guy on? I guess I understand the feeling that Rick will get ambushed on random trivia questions if and when he goes to Iowa or New Hampshire, but Rick is likely the most vetted of all the possible candidates including the current resident of the White House... he is constantly and often unfairly vetted... they make things up... they imagine scenarios... they exaggerate and sensationalize... they cover the same ground again and again... in his various campaigns every accusation has been lobbed at him you could think of... he has been vetted by opposition researchers affiliated with Kay, with Tony Sanchez, with Steve Mostyn, with Chris Bell... everyone has looked into every nook and cranny of Rick's life and finances... there aren't a lot of surprises.

If Dowd means that Rick hasn't faced the press conference gauntlet that is also pretty dubious... although maybe he can make the point that Rick must hone a new national message that he can stay on and not get tripped up... and clarify and tighten some of his 10th Amendment talk for example so he doesn't run into trouble with the pro life peeps and anti gay marriage peeps again... all while still enticing those libertarian kinds of peeps with the federalist argument. Right now some of that is a little unexplained and hard to follow...

As far as the thin skin argument goes I have not noticed that per se with most of them but definitely with some... but no more than any other staffer or consultant or advisor out there for any candidate... if anything Rick has pretty thick skin... especially compared to many of the opponents he has faced... he seems to be able to rattle his opponents more than they rattle him in other words...

One thing about the thin skin argument is that none of his peeps can fire back and say "no we don't" because that proves the point... so I will say it for them... it is not really a unique attribute of Rick or his peeps. Maybe Dowd means that they hold grudges and exact their revenge on peeps who cross them... and who knows maybe there is some of that but again no more than any other political operation out there, and I really don't understand the thin skin argument from my observations over the decades.

If someone set out to write "everything you need to know about Rick" I definitely don't think that would be the authoritative list no offense to Matt Dowd...

Rick within a few points of Obama, and he's not even running yet...

You may have seen the various polls showing a "generic" Republican beating Barack Obama....

What about real Republicans?

Romney the front runner whom everyone knows at this point in terms of name identification is roughly tied with Obama. Rick who is obviously very well known in Texas but not as much outside of Texas is within striking distance of Obama, and Rick has not even declared his candidacy (link). Excerpt follows...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that President Obama would enjoy a modest 44% to 39% lead over Texas Governor Rick Perry. Given that choice, 10% would opt for a third-party candidate and eight percent (8%) are not sure.

From the MSM, there is an effort right now to define Rick... as well as Michele Bachmann... as too far right especially on social issues... see the Colbert Report hit piece on Rick and his running mate God... which I guess is "funny" but maybe I am too old to get it.

Still, there is a huge reservoir of undecided voters, and a huge reservoir open in terms of defining Rick. Without even running yet Rick has become the likely anti Romney choice for Republicans... Bachmann may have peaked too soon... we shall see won't we...

I think this has to be very good news for Rick if he is thinking he is going to pull the trigger and run... if he jumps in the race the MSM and not so MSM on the liberal side will try to define him and Texas in the way that Obama would like... but Rick has to stay strong and confident that his record in Texas is unparalleled today in terms of adding new jobs....

Rasmussen explains more and cautions against reading too much into these numbers just yet...

It’s important to note, however, that Romney benefits from being perceived as the frontrunner. In 2004, the last time an incumbent president stood for re-election, Howard Dean was the early Democratic frontrunner and he polled best against George W. Bush.  John Kerry was always a few points behind. However, once Kerry became the frontrunner in early 2008, his numbers became as good as Dean’s.

Polls conducted a year-and-a-half before an election provide a snapshot of where things are today but give little indication of what the mood might be on Election Day. If the economy substantially improves before November 2012, President Obama will be heavily favored to win re-election. If the opposite happens and the country endures a double-dip recession, just about any Republican challenger would be favored. If the economy stays as it is today, the race could be very competitive.

A good measure of the president’s re-election prospects is his Job Approval rating among likely voters. His final vote total is likely to be very close to his final Job Approval figures.

Romney leads the polls for the GOP nomination among Republican Primary voters. However, it is far too early for the polls to give a sense of who is likely to emerge as the Republican nominee. In 2008, John McCain never took the lead in a national primary poll until December 31, 2007. 

I believe 2012 will be all about the economy. Even if the economy improves a little bit between now and election day... a 50/50 proposition... it won't be enough improvement to win. Of all the possible candidates, Rick can draw the most profound contrast on the economy... especially on job creation...

I think the analysis Rasmussen puts out there is pretty solid... if the economy miraculously fully recovers, which there is almost no chance of... Obama wins easily like last time. If the economy gets worse, no way can Obama win. If the economy stays roughly where it is, or maybe gets slightly worse or slightly better, it will be a close race...

America would have to add hundreds of thousands of jobs every month between now and November of 2012 just to get unemployment down below 8%... I don't see that happening... and despite the downplaying of the living, breathing Texas economic powerhouse by Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow and those kinds of hacks... Texas factually speaking has created more new jobs than any other state in America by far... second place is not even close... Obama can't touch that.

The issue becomes... Rick will need to hurry to define himself and his own record before the MSM fully defines him as they are trying to do now...

Rick's time as a Democrat... like Reagan's?

It is interesting what people get interested in at the same time...

The New York Times... actually the Texas Tribune... seemed to get interested in this story about Rick being a Democrat back in the 1980s at the exact moment TIME magazine got interested in it...

First the Texas Tribune version (link)...

Gov. Rick Perry, a no-apologies conservative known for slashing government spending and opposing all tax increases, is about as Republican as you can get.

But that wasn’t always the case.

Perry spent his first six years in politics as a Democrat, in a somewhat forgotten history that is sure to be revived and scrutinized by Republican opponents if he decides to run for president.

A raging liberal he was not. Elected to represent a slice of rural West Texas in the state House of Representatives in 1984, Perry, a young rancher and cotton farmer, gained an early reputation as a fiscal conservative. He was one of a handful of freshman “pit bulls,” so named because they sat in the lower pit of the House Appropriations Committee, where they fought to keep spending low.

[SNIP] 

The liberal Texas Observer called Perry the “Benedict Arnold of the Democratic Party” for siding too often with Clements, the Republican governor, and not enough with his Democratic colleagues.

This is obviously not news to readers of Rick vs. Kay... we covered this issue ad nauseum during the primary when both Kay and 9/11 Truther Debra Medina tried to use it against Rick. The problem there is that that attack was just so divorced from reality. Not only was Ronald Reagan once a Democrat, but the idea that Rick was insufficiently conservative because he was once a Democrat would get you laughed off the stage in Texas. Most Republican activists today remember just twenty years ago, when there was almost no such thing as a Republican, and the ones we did have in office were not always conservative enough for the grassroots... which is why conservative Democrats hung around for as long as they did. In fact, 2010 might have been the final gasp of air for conservative Democrats in Texas. They all either were defeated or switched parties to the Republican side. The only Democrats left now are liberals.

TIME magazine also did a profile on Rick's time as a Democrat, calling it his inconvenient truth because of his support for then-centrist Al Gore over liberals in the race (link). Excerpt follows...

 The tale begins in 1984, four years before Perry took the helm of Gore's Texas campaign, when Gore, then 36 and a congressional wunderkind from Tennessee, followed in his father's footsteps by winning a U.S. Senate seat. That same year, Perry, who was 34 and from much humbler roots as the son of a Texas Rolling Plains cotton farmer, won a seat in the Texas house of representatives. Both young men were handsome sons of the South and proudly touted their philosophical bearings in the regionally dominant conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

In 1988, seizing on the opportunity afforded by a lineup of southern primaries on Super Tuesday, Gore announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for President. Ronald Reagan's second term was drawing to a close, and Republicans were set to nominate the next in line, then Vice President George H.W. Bush. The Democratic field was wide open, with a raft of candidates to the left of Gore, who was dubbed the "southern centrist" by the press. The young Senator, described by the New York Times as "solidly built, dark and indisputably handsome," lined up a list of conservative Democratic big-name supporters, including Senators Howard Heflin of Alabama, Terry Sanford of North Carolina, Bennett Johnson of Louisiana and Sam Nunn of Georgia and Governors Jim Hunt of North Carolina and Buddy Roemer of Louisiana. (In 1991 Roemer, like Perry, left the Democratic Party for the GOP; he is now also reportedly considering a Republican presidential run.)

Gore shared the views of his fellow southern centrists — he opposed the federal funding of abortion, supported a moment of silence in schools for prayer, approved funding of the Nicaraguan contras and was against the ban on interstate handgun sales. It was a platform a conservative West Texas Democrat like state representative Perry could stand on, and he signed up to chair the Senator's Texas campaign. 

Several more-liberal state Democratic Party leaders cast their lots with two of the other candidates, Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. But Gore worked the Texas legislative ranks for support, winning the backing of Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis and Lieut. Governor Bill Hobby. Lewis was especially important to appointing legislators to vital positions on fiscal committees. And so it was not surprising that 27 members of the Texas legislature, including Perry, a young two-term legislator, joined the duo in their support for Gore.

Both of these are pretty good and fair reads, although they may leave out some key details and add some details that are a bit overblown. You should probably read both of them if you want to carry on an intelligent conversation about old Texas politics and Rick's place in them... these are certainly better done than many of the hysterical things I have read in recent months written by people who have no idea what they are talking about but feel like they have found some scoop so they rush to tell the world "HEY DID YOU REALIZE RICK PERRY WAS A DEMOCRAT OH MY GOSH STOP THE PRESSES THE WORLD MAY END!"

Paul Burka, for all his nonsense lately, wrote a pretty good blog called "Dear Yankee" with several dos and don'ts for non Texans trying to write about Texas and - or Rick... and his number two bullet point is about the former Democrat thing (link). Excerpt follows...

2. It’s not a big deal that Perry was once a Democrat. To suggest otherwise will make you look foolish. When Perry was elected to the statehouse, in 1985, conservative Democrats ran the Legislature. In 1989, realizing that a conservative had little future in the party, Perry switched to the GOP. He has been a rock-solid Republican ever since and has driven the state party further to the right.

Texas truly is a pretty unique place, so sometimes our history doesn't translate in the context of say New York history or Massachusetts history... but Burka is right on this one... and not just about the media... other presidential candidates will look foolish if they try to point and say "Rick was once a Dem, we can't trust him!" My hunch is that most of them will be smart enough not to serve up that soft ball for Rick and instead may subtly use it behind the scenes, but even then... it is not a liability... and it only makes the mystique of Rick's unabashed conservatism more attractive and intriguing. So far, I see it mostly coming from the Ron Paul peeps, very loudly and repeatedly, but not very effectively.

I will say that Rick switched to the Republican side at an earlier point in his life than President Ronald Reagan switched to the Republican side as I have been reminded by Rick supporters... if asked in a debate or in a big national interview, Rick probably can't call himself the next Reagan, but he could sure hint at it... because that's who we're all looking for... the next Reagan.

Finally I would leave you with this blog from the American Thinker on Rick's journey from Democrat to Republican back in the 1980s (link). Excerpt follows...

In the articles, blog posts and their attending comments being posted here at American Thinker and at other websites about the possibility of Texas governor, Rick Perry entering the presidential race, there seems to be some question as to Perry's authenticity as a conservative and Republican because he was once a Democrat and was Al Gore's Texas campaign manager in 1988.

As someone who lived almost thirty years in Texas, perhaps I can clarify the issue. The Democratic Party that controlled Texas for 150 years was more conservative than half the current Republican Party nationwide. Just a few decades back, everyone in Texas was a Democrat. I was raised a Democrat and married into a long-time, Yellow-dog Democratic family in West Texas. We were all conservatives except for a couple of rebellious hippie types residing in Austin, which at that time was becoming the liberal capital of the South.

As the Texas Democratic party was slowly taken over by that liberal movement emanating from Austin and increasingly, Houston, millions of conservative Texas Democrats changed parties to remain true to their conservative beliefs. Rather than being cause to question Perry's authenticity, his switch is a testament to the solidity of his conservative principles. As I and so many other Southerners are fond of saying, "We didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Party left us," which is exactly what happened to Rick Perry.

By the way, the Democrat who beat out Al Gore for the candidacy in that primary was a Massachusetts liberal, Michael Dukakis. Another primary candidate was Jesse Jackson. Gore, from Tennessee, and Dick Gephardt from Missouri were considered the conservatives in that primary race.

Too many Americans forget that Al Gore hasn't always been the flaming liberal he is now. Gore was the scion of an old Southern family, son of a U.S. Senator who once advocated using nuclear weapons to end the Korean War. While more liberal than most Southern Democrats, Gore's father was conservative enough to refuse to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like his party, he gradually became more liberal, too much so for his conservative Tennessee constituents, who booted him out of office in 1970 and handed political power to the Republican Party for the first time since Reconstruction.

So Al Gore was a product of a liberalizing Democratic party in that 1988 primary, but he was still more conservative than all the other candidates except Gephardt. By campaigning for Al Gore in 1988, Rick Perry was not betraying his conservative principles, he was, like so many of us, simply a product of the changing political times, another Southern Democrat slowly awakening to the fact that he was being abandoned by his increasingly liberal party. It is noteworthy that it was the very next year after he campaigned for Gore that Perry changed party affiliation.

I can see how being around Al could do that to you...

I do hope to see Rick on stage answering this question, because I really feel like he could both knock it out of the park with independents and moderates, and reassure the hard core base of the GOP, in one fell swoop. If anything, Rick's background gives him a special connection to those rural or formerly rural peeps in places like Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana, won by Obama... Rick can relate to them. He can relate to former Democrats or "Reagan Democrats" who also aren't really Democrats anymore but may not be so sure about those fat cat Republicans either...

Bush Peeps vs. Rick Peeps? A Feud? Overblown?

Douglas MacKinnon sez the Rick vs. Bush thing is way overblown (link). Excerpt follows...

MacKinnon: Don't believe the anonymous chatter about a Perry-Bush feud 

For all of those trying to make that into something it's not, I've got some news for you. Most Republicans, conservatives, independents and Americans who are paying attention could care less. Ultimately they just want to know two things: Is Perry going to run, and if he is, does he represent the adult leadership the voters are so desperately seeking?

What does bother people are anonymous quotes from cowardly political aides who operate from the shadows and make not so thinly veiled threats. That New York Times story showcased two of them. The first "warned Mr. Perry against establishing his own conservative bona fides by criticizing Mr. Bush, saying, ‘If you're really trying to be the nominee and want to go the distance, you just don't want the former president of the United States and his people working against you.' "

The second chimed in with, "He's going to need all the help he can get from all the Republicans he can muster, so he ought to be prudent about that."

A few things about those anonymous threats. First, do these "close associates" of Bush really mean to say that if Perry does happen to have an honest difference of opinion on policy, that he's not allowed to voice it? Ever? Second, that if Perry does vocalize a difference, then Bush's "people" are going to work against him? What's that mean, exactly? Back another Republican? Donate to the Obama campaign? Hold their breath until they turn blue? What?

I agree with a lot of this. Blood got a little boiling at times between a camps during the 2010 race. Remember, my whole thing was that I had great friends on both sides of the Rick vs. Kay divide. A lot of those Kay peeps were Bush peeps, but a lot of those Rick peeps were also Bush peeps, something often overlooked by people trying to drive a certain agenda.

I will say though that Karen Hughes does seem like she is cruising for a bruising (link). No matter how often I have seen her praise Rick and his campaign when she speaks at luncheons and gatherings, she still does seem to end up on the other side from Rick on many important and hotly debated issues. For example, Rick and his conservative allies are trying to shake up colleges and universities and tame the explosion of costs and the bubble forming in higher education ... Karen Hughes' public relations shop is meanwhile issuing press releases trashing Rick and the efforts of the reform minded think tanks on behalf of the UT administration... one wonders how many taxpayer dollars are being spent trashing reform and rallying around the status quo but I digress...

Even on this issue... it doesn't feel like something that will kill relations between Bush peeps and Rick peeps. Karen Hughes is just one person. Karl Rove who was also a Kay person is on television regularly pimping Rick as a great communicator, great fundraiser, a smart and savvy politician, and all of that...

Don't forget also when Bush's campaign manager Joe Allbaugh endorsed Rick over Kay... and many other staffers worked for both Bush and Rick... there are a lot of examples of the Bush team being with Rick, but the examples of them not seem to dominate the headlines.

Rick has some policy differences from George W. Bush. No Child Left Behind was a signature piece of legislation for Bush. Rick hated it because it expanded federal power and dumped costs and mandates onto Texas and other states... Bush never or rarely used his veto pen to the point of allowing a lot of spending... Rick has vetoed many billions in spending and line item vetoed a lot as well. Rick is generally more conservative than Bush on some issues... but that doesn't mean they don't get along or that Bush's peeps... other than maybe Karen Hughes on ed reform... are going to actively work against Rick....

Rick will obviously get questions about Bush if he hits the campaign trail. Rick will need to distance himself from some of the policies of Bush... and if pointing out substantive policy differences antagonizes the anonymous Bush peeps who feel the Bush legacy is their legacy... well... they are just being petty.

Strangely enough Rick mostly benefits from the perception that there are two distinct camps and Rick's camp is different and disliked by the Bush camp... yes Bush's reputation is rapidly being rehabilitated especially when people remember that the "terrible jobless Bush economy" had an unemployment rate of 5.2% on average while Obama's "recovery" is planted firmly above 9%... still... Bush still gets blamed by a lot of Americans for the economic situation we are in right now. Rick has the economy going his way but he may have some difficulty convincing peeps that a man from Texas has the solutions due to the Bush baggage... that is just a reality... and the reality is that Rick is reportedly going to call Bush for advice on running for president... they are friends in that professional sense... and I think they both realize the legacies and histories will be written later... and in the meantime politics sometimes requires distancing yourself a little bit from your friends...

2012 watch... Rick beats Michele Bachmann among teapartiers....

Rick recently dominated a Freedom Works Straw Poll of tea party peeps (link). Excerpt follows...

Washington

First, a disclaimer: The poll was completely unscientific. Some 160 tea partyers from around the country had gathered at the Washington headquarters of FreedomWorks, a conservative group that trains tea partyers in political organizing and advocacy. With reporters watching, the assembled activists were asked for a show of hands on the Republican presidential candidates.

The winner: Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He isn’t a candidate yet, and it’s not certain he ever will be. But Governor Perry’s “victory” is just one small indication that, were he to run, Perry would start with the goodwill of the GOP’s most energetic wing.

Texas Tribune boss Evan Smith tweeted a hint to Michele Bachmann's peeps about a story in the Texas Tribune about Rick's allegedly controversial views on things...

Maybe some wishful thinking by Evan Smith, no fan of Rick's, or maybe he just wants conflict because conflict gets more eye balls on his website...

Jay Root wrote up a story on Rick's book and some of the things he wrote in it (link). Excerpt follows...

Months before liberal Congressman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, teamed up with Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to back an effort to de-criminalize marijuana, Perry was making essentially the same point in his book, writing that Washington has greatly overstepped its bounds by making pot use a federal crime.

“It ought not be the federal government’s job telling them they can’t do it,” Perry said in that November interview. “I totally and completely disagree with the concept of legalizing marijuana, but it ought to be California’s decision.”

Perry has made the same argument about same-sex marriage. He’s against gay marriage himself — reflecting the conservative state he represents — but he has argued in favor of allowing each state to decide for itself what its policy will be.

“If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas,” Perry says. “If you don’t like medical marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.”

....

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia and veteran presidential campaign analyst, said the 2012 GOP primary is a good forum for Perry to be putting forth edgy proposals. Tea party enthusiasts are demanding that politicians shake up Washington and enact deep spending cuts.

“I don’t think he has a thing to worry about on these items in the Republican primary. There are a lot of cross currents that will protect him,” Sabato said. “So many of them have unorthodox positions. It’s a choose your poison type of election year for Republicans.”

I don't know that these positions are even very controversial... most Americans oppose gay marriage but probably don't mind if some other state allows it... most Americans don't smoke marijuana or want it legal near them, but they don't care if California makes it legal... if you believe in states having rights, you have to take the good with the bad I guess...

Rick's positions on entitlements being a ponzi scheme are spot on as well.... and will only help in 2012... Rick is ahead of his time maybe but controversial seems to be an overused word by the msm.... they declare it controversial therefore it is... technically anything is controversial if you have more than one side on the issue... even mom and apple pie are controversial because you could always find people to support and oppose anything...

Cal Jillson officially jumps the shark... "you can't run for president bashing the national government"

SMU political science professor Cal Jillson came up with this doozie in an article about whether Rick might run for president (link). Excerpt follows..

"So much of what made him successful in Texas has been his bashing the national government," Jillson said. "And you can't run for president bashing the national government."

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................

I don't know if Rick is running or thinking of running or anything like that, but the winner of the 2012 election will absolutely be the most effective basher of national government.

The other thing that is so funny about Jillson's comment is Rick was constantly questioned by "experts" just like Jillson about why his gubernatorial campaign was so focused on Washington... because surely he had some ulterior presidential motive behind it... why else would he ever talk about Washington... no Texas campaign would ever do that... it doesn't make sense, and it remains to be seen whether it will work in Texas.

Now it is the opposite? Professors in general, not just Jillson, may have jumped the shark with this comment.

Is Rick running?

It sure seems like Rick may be suddenly thinking about running... and why wouldn't he?

ECONOMY AND JOBS

Texas has the best economy in America, with more jobs and more prosperity than any other state. Other people are more knowledgable about this than I am, but the contrast between Texas and Illinois or Texas and the rest of the country is pretty startling... and if jobs and the economy are a big issue how could you not pick the governor with the absolute best track record of any in the nation...

FISCAL ISSUES

Rick was one of the only peeps against bailouts back when bailouts were the coolest thing in the world... Rick will be the only candidate who can say he has actually cut spending... and that he has done it more than once... Rick was against ethanol mandates from the beginning which conventional wisdom says makes winning Iowa more difficult but my belief is that Iowa Republicans will respect someone who is principled and doesn't pander on something that has obviously failed. Rick has been strong for a balanced budget amendment, which I think would be a popular campaign plank in a run for president...

BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION

Rick seems to have found a very good formula on immigration and border security. He appeals to Hispanics because his rhetoric is not caustic, and he doesn't call for drastic measures that seem more like racism or discrimination. On the other hand, he is one of the most hawkish elected officials out there when it comes to securing the border itself and criticizing the federal government for their failure on the issue. While Rick might not win the more jingoistic "they took our jobs" crowd in some place like Iowa, he appeals to the vast majority of reasonable voters with his tough on border security but not angry at Mexicans views.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY

He is one of the only possible candidates with actual military experience having served in the Air Force for several years in the 1970s... flying missions all over the world. Rick has visited Iraq and Afghanistan many times and seems to be a rock star with the military rank and file, not to mention Israel, China, Europe, and other places in an official capacity. Rick also seems to have found a happy medium between the "neocon rethuglican" pro-war all the time caricature and the crazy pacifist anti-war peacenik caricature of peeps like Ron Paul or Howard Dean... from what I gather Rick supports the idea of the war on terror, supported going into Afghanistan and Iraq, but thinks it's now time to extricate America as best we can from those theaters and rethink the way we fight our battles... in a smarter way that keeps our homeland secure but also doesn't sacrifice our brave young men unnecessarily... It will be hard to call him just another Bush on foreign policy, but he's also not as irresponsible as the Ron Paul isolationist bent...

Bottom line is that Rick probably has more foreign policy experience as a sitting governor than the current president has after more than two years as the actual president... and Rick definitely has more experience and credibility on military issues and national security than almost any other Republican in the race...

SOCIAL ISSUES

There may not be a more pro life governor in the history of this country than Rick. There may only be a handful of more pro second amendment governors ever. Rick has the social issues locked down, but interestingly he has framed his philosophy in a way that says to the socially moderate or socially liberal Republicans that he is for states deciding these issues instead of the federal government... still... nobody will mistake Rick's faith... he has cultivated a rabid following at mega churches around Texas, and when he preaches at these churches, he clearly knows the Bible and is not just pandering or awkwardly giving a prepared speech... he is a social conservative in his heart... despite being accurately described as libertarian leaning as well... his philosophy may be contradictory for some, but it is the sweet spot of the Republican Party...

TEA PARTIES

How many candidates went to tea parties in April 2009? Not many prominent ones. In fact most prominent politicians sneered at the notion. Rick embraced the tea party movement from the earliest days. He is a favorite among conservative activists, online right wing bloggers, and precinct chairman type people, and others. Rick knows how the tea parties work. He wouldn't ever pander to them or try to control them the way some candidates do... but he would be the candidate with the most tea party support the instant he got into the race.

FUNDRAISING

Rick is from Texas. He has been the Republican Governors Association finance chairman and is now the overall chairman... he knows how to raise money. His campaign raised a lot of money online in 2010. He has proven he can raise a lot of money in one day... although federal limits may make it a lot more difficult since he has always raised money in Texas without limits...

CAMPAIGNING

Rick is a great campaigner. He embraces social networking and online media. He is made for television with his tan skin and full head of hair... like the Marlboro man image he has held since twenty years ago when he first started getting into politics... many who have seen him in action know that he is disciplined unlike almost any other candidate... he gets up early and doesn't get off message... he trusts his army to fight his battles, and he does what he needs to do without driving his staff about minutiae crazy like many politicians...

PERSONAL STORY

Rick has a great personal story. He would be the least privileged president in American history in terms of his upbringing. His house did not have running water for a good part of his childhood, from what I have read in the past. He literally had an outhouse for a long time. His mother sewed his clothes and even underwear until he went into the military. He was not rich... he did not live in Indonesia and attend a Muslim school... he grew up in Paint Creek, Texas and fought for his success the hard way. He knows how to ride a horse. He knows how to fly a plane. He knows how to shoot a gun. He runs. He rides bikes... and rides the other kind of bikes... he shoots coyotes and loves his dog... Rick is the kind of exciting candidate that Republican primary voters can get a tingle up their leg about... and his personal story appeals to middle class Americans in middle America... plus Hispanics and others who also may have grown up without privilege... Rick was an Eagle Scout... he is definitely the picture of the fifties kid who grew up and avoided the hippie dippie drug scene and opted for the straight laced pro America scene throughout the sixties and seventies...

Plus Rick has been extremely well vetted in his personal life... and his personal life despite some salacious rumors that have popped up and been shot down is pretty boring... he married his high school sweetheart... has two young adult kids... he has so many schedulers and handlers and peeps around him that if he had gone off to "hike the Appalachian Trail" I think we would all know about it by now... juicy things like that do not stay secret over the course of tough campaigns year after year after year against candidates with crazy amounts of money for opposition research...

CONTRA

Does Rick have detractors? Has Rick been governor long enough that he has pissed some people off on some little issue? Of course... and unlike say Romneycare or Pawlenty's support for ethanol and other liberal ideas or Herman Cain's support for bailouts, none of Rick's so called mistakes are deal killers for reasonable people.

The biggest downsides to Rick are pretty miniscule. He supported allowing girls to be vaccinated against HPV, which causes cervical cancer. He overturned himself before that ever actually happened, after he saw the public outcry over the issue. The knock is that he wanted to personally inject little girls with a dangerous STD drug, but that is silly. People would have been able to easily opt out under his plan... but again, he saw the public reaction and killed the plan before it ever took effect.

Another one is on the fringe of conspiracy theories... they call him a Bilderberger because he spoke at a conference along with dozens of other major politicians of both parties. When Rick has been asked about it in public, he usually makes it sound like he went in, gave a speech, shook a few hands, and left... and that the whole thing was pretty unremarkable. When I see someone bring up Bilderberg, I automatically dismiss them as a kook, and so should you. Maybe Bilderberg has some secret society aspects to it, but it seems pretty clear Rick is not even in their club.

The other one is the Trans Texas Corridor... which is perhaps the most visionary idea in transportation since the interstate highway system... imagine if I told you that there are private companies willing to build new transportation infrastructure, including roads, trains, and utilities, and do it on their own dime. Obviously they need something in exchange... and that is usually tolls and fares on roads and trains, respectively. Plus, they obviously have to be able to buy the land along the right of way using eminent domain. Meanwhile, the government would still build non toll roads and expand and maintain existing highways so people have "free" options. 

There is nothing unconservative about transportation privatization, but people objected to it being a "land grab" (as if government-built roads don't use land) or that it was a foreign company (it was a San Antonio based company with a Spanish partner)... or they just didn't like the idea of roads not being "free" (government-built roads cost more taxpayer dollars and take longer to build). The best part of Rick's plan was that it would take these many many billions of dollars from the private infrastructure companies and give that over to the state to expand and maintain "free" roads like I-35. As it is, Texas can't afford to build new roads or repair and maintain existing roads into the future. We don't get enough of our own highway dollars back from the federal government. We have too many people moving here, yet gas tax revenue is both declining and being eroded by inflation... either you are for privatization of some new construction projects or you are for higher taxes... either you are for private companies playing a role in building roads, or you are for not having new roads. The case for the TTC is solid. The criticisms are almost always misguided. Rick has gone out of his way to push eminent domain reform to prevent abuse of private property rights. I think there will just always be a very vocal sub set of peeps who oppose toll roads and view "freedom" as being able to drive without paying the costs associated with driving on safe, efficient roadways. Like the HPV vaccine, the TTC is dead anyway, so it's not even a real issue.

Other knocks on Rick are that he endorsed Rudy Giuliani in 2008, and Rudy was not conservative enough... Rick's rationale was that he could beat Hillary Clinton, which was true at the time. The press try to knock his job creation funds like the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Emerging Technology Fund as being slush funds for rewarding friends and supporters, but no matter how many articles they write, people still like the idea that Texas can entice businesses and close the deal with tax breaks for moving here. Creating jobs and attracting businesses from other states is hard to knock. Otherwise, being called Governor "Good Hair" is not actually a negative in the way that liberals use it. Being in office too long is another knock, but that's not really a knock when you're an outsider running against Washington... and you are new to most peeps. Other things I have heard are that he worked for Al Gore in the 1980s back when Al Gore was the conservative choice in the Democratic Party... and remember that being a Republican in Texas before about 1990 didn't mean you were conservative, just as being a Democrat in Texas back then didn't mean you were liberal. Texas was basically a one party state with liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats. Rick was always a conservative Democrat. If anything, I think having been a Democrat way back when but having a conversion helps Rick. It helps him in the Ronald Reagan or Phil Gramm comparison... both former Democrats and future Republican heroes. It helps him with the millions of voters out there who understand exactly where Rick is coming from. It's not about party, it's about principles.

Another so called problem that usually ends up being a positive is the "secession" stuff. Rick never actually used the word secede. Nor did he advocate for it... he in fact said we had a good union and that he sees no reason to dissolve it. Still, the Rachel Maddows of the world casually throw out that "Rick is a secessionist" line with such regularity that many may think it is actually true. If asked, the secession comment actually allows Rick to talk about his strongest points... that people are fed up with the federal government's one size fits all mandates on the states...

The other big knock is what people are calling Rick's "Bush Problem." Others might call it Bush Fatigue. Rick is from Texas. Ironically, the Bush team may snipe and undermine his efforts because they don't like Rick, all while the anti Bush peeps will bash Rick for being another George W. Bush. Rick can't win on that, and the Bush and Texas handicap might set him back. That being said, Rick can overcome that by distancing himself from George W. Bush on a few key issues and showing that Texas is the most bustling economy in the country under his tenure.

THE ONLY HOPE

Whether Rick ultimately runs or not, he may very well be the only hope to win in 2012. Obama is strong but vulnerable, especially on the economy. In terms of the primary, who other than Rick unites all the various portions of the Republican electoral coalition? Who brings fiscal conservatives, tea party peeps, traditional conservatives, social conservatives, midwest conservatives, national security conservatives,  and the rest all together? Rick excites crowds in Manhattan and California, just as much as he excites crowds in Abilene and Tyler, Texas.

I support the movement to draft Rick into the race. I think... contrary to conventional wisdom... that Rick has the luxury of waiting a few more months to make his move. He has a platform as RGA Chairman... he is traveling around the country for that... he has plenty of exposure in the media but not too much exposure... Rick can play the wait and see game a few more months before making a move, but if he is even just considering getting in, he may want to continue talking like he may get in, in order to scare away the money and committed support from other candidates.

Could one of the declared candidates win? Of course they could. Republicans will rally around our guy to defeat Obama regardless of who it is... but unless Rick thinks Obama is unbeatable in 2012 and instead has his eye on 2016, why not flirt with the "Draft Rick" movement a little bit until you make your final decision?

If Rick runs, I think he may exceed expectations yet again after being underestimated... can he ride that all the way to the White House? It will be tough, but he may be our only hope.