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.