Things have gotten lively in New Hampshire the last couple of days. In the Republican primary there tomorrow Mitt Romney is widely expected to win (see New Hampshire polling info) in a state that borders Massachusetts, where he once was governor. The rest of the field is angling for second place. Still, the unRomneys have taken a break from savaging each other and are now turning their fire on the frontrunner.
Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry have all lashed out at Romney. Word is out that Gingrich's "unaffiliated" Super PAC has received a $5 million gift from Las Vegas tycoon Sheldon Adelson to hit Romney for destroying jobs during his days as CEO of Bain Capital. Romney didn't help himself any on this score by today declaring, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
The real dynamics of this may play out in South Carolina, where Romney currently polls about 10 points ahead of Santorum and Gingrich. For the conservatives to have a chance, they really need to narrow the field. Huntsman doesn't figure to be much of a factor in South Carolina and it will likely be Perry's last stand. If Romney can hang on there, winning against a crowded field with 30% of the vote, his inevitability campaign may well start to run the table and effectively lock things up in February. On the other hand, if Perry, Huntsman and one of the others drops out after that, the survivor might have a chance to get Romney in a one on one and start to come up with a win here and there.
Either way, it certainly is interesting to see conservative Republican pols smacking a fellow GOPer for being a heartless businessman willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of regular workers to pad his own profits. If this seems a productive line of attack for them to take in a Republican primary campaign, just imagine what nominee Romney would likely face from the Democrats in a national campaign.
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Perry. Show all posts
Monday, January 9, 2012
Monday, August 29, 2011
Perry's Extremism on Full Display
A few days on the campaign trail have served notice that Texas Governor Rick Perry is about as extreme a right winger as it is possible to be. Since he is the current leader for his party's nomination in the polls it also shows how far toward the nutty fringe a Republican has to go these days to win the GOP primary electorate. One would think that some of these positions ought to make it exceedingly difficult for him to win a general election should he be the Republican standard bearer in 2012, as I believe he is likely to be.
Perry shows his antipathy to modern science by characterizing evolution as, "just a theory with a lot of gaps in it," and pollution-caused global warming as a "hoax" ginned up by a worldwide conspiracy of meteorology nerds. Rejection of the fact and data-based universe is apparently an article of faith in Republican ranks these days. It's hard not to wonder what such a stance would have on America's ability to compete in global technology should this latter-day know-nothingism penetrate into the pinnacle of leadership of the nation itself. Either Perry does not believe in science when it conflicts with his prejudices or he is prepared to babble nonsense in order to tell the ignorant what they want to hear. Neither alternative provides much comfort to the prospect of a Perry presidency.
The Governor is also adept at reading things into the Constitution that are not there. He has written in his book "Fed Up," published in 2010, that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional--not just that he disagrees with them, but that the Framers in 1787 somehow banned these programs. To refer to these most popular of federal programs as "scams" and "Ponzi schemes" does take guts. One can only imagine the effect on the senior citizen vote after a few months of publicity of these views.
He repeats the conservative canard that the Constitution was written to "limit government," and protect "states rights" when any eighth-grader can tell you it was to increase federal power over the states after the weakness and disunity of the former Articles of Confederation. His statement, referring to Texas, that, "When we came into the union in 1845 one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that" has exposed either his revanchist Confederate sympathies or a willingness to play to a constituency disposed to dismember the United States--a rather blatant violation of the Presidential oath of office, by which he would, if elected, swear to defend the Constitution "against all enemies."
He has topped these antics off by threatening Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, (originally a Bush appointee, by the way) with accusations of treason and veiled intimations of violence "we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," if he should deign to differ with Perry on monetary policy. This bull in the china shop buffoonery is what apparently captures the imagination of Republican voters these days, as Perry stands at the head of the current opinion polls. It is not, however, what will win a majority of voting Americans in a national election.
Perry shows his antipathy to modern science by characterizing evolution as, "just a theory with a lot of gaps in it," and pollution-caused global warming as a "hoax" ginned up by a worldwide conspiracy of meteorology nerds. Rejection of the fact and data-based universe is apparently an article of faith in Republican ranks these days. It's hard not to wonder what such a stance would have on America's ability to compete in global technology should this latter-day know-nothingism penetrate into the pinnacle of leadership of the nation itself. Either Perry does not believe in science when it conflicts with his prejudices or he is prepared to babble nonsense in order to tell the ignorant what they want to hear. Neither alternative provides much comfort to the prospect of a Perry presidency.
The Governor is also adept at reading things into the Constitution that are not there. He has written in his book "Fed Up," published in 2010, that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional--not just that he disagrees with them, but that the Framers in 1787 somehow banned these programs. To refer to these most popular of federal programs as "scams" and "Ponzi schemes" does take guts. One can only imagine the effect on the senior citizen vote after a few months of publicity of these views.
He repeats the conservative canard that the Constitution was written to "limit government," and protect "states rights" when any eighth-grader can tell you it was to increase federal power over the states after the weakness and disunity of the former Articles of Confederation. His statement, referring to Texas, that, "When we came into the union in 1845 one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that" has exposed either his revanchist Confederate sympathies or a willingness to play to a constituency disposed to dismember the United States--a rather blatant violation of the Presidential oath of office, by which he would, if elected, swear to defend the Constitution "against all enemies."
He has topped these antics off by threatening Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, (originally a Bush appointee, by the way) with accusations of treason and veiled intimations of violence "we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," if he should deign to differ with Perry on monetary policy. This bull in the china shop buffoonery is what apparently captures the imagination of Republican voters these days, as Perry stands at the head of the current opinion polls. It is not, however, what will win a majority of voting Americans in a national election.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Perry's Entry is GOP Game Changer
The entry of Texas Governor Rick Perry into the Republican presidential field is a game changer. I rate him as odds on to capture the GOP nomination and face President Obama in 2012.
The dynamics of the Republican race are relatively simple. Mitt Romney is the early front runner. He appeals to the business community and the more moderate elements of the Republican coalition. The question to be settled is who will be the more conservative standard bearer to challenge him?
The Iowa Straw Poll, on the strength of some 4,800 votes, vaulted first-place finisher Rep. Michele Bachmann into contention as a prime challenger to Romney. Libertarian and isolationist Congressman Ron Paul finished second. Nobody else farther down the list, which included Tim Pawlenty who dropped out of the race based on a third-place finish, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or Newt Gingrich has any kind of realistic shot at the nomination.
So it will be Bachmann and Perry who battle it out for the anti-Romney mantle. Both are far right-wingers who appeal to both Tea Party fiscal zealots and evangelical social issues voters. In this contest Bachmann excels at firing up the base with red meat rhetoric. But she will, I believe, not be able to overcome Perry's edge in gubernatorial experience and the kind of country folksiness so valued as authenticity by Republican voters. And make no mistake, Perry is nearly every bit as conservative as Bachmann.
Once the primary season begins Bachmann will likely win the Iowa caucuses. Then Romney will probably take the ensuing New Hampshire primary. In a practical sense, both will need those victories to remain credible. But then Perry will take the South Carolina and Florida primaries on friendly Southern turf and be off to the races. Wins there will take the air out of Bachmann's campaign and leave Perry one on one against Romney. Perry will prevail because in the final analysis Romney is simply not conservative enough for today's Republican electorate. The party veers farther rightward every year and Romney is, in their mind, still tied to the moderate policies he agreed to as Massachusetts governor.
The dynamics of the Republican race are relatively simple. Mitt Romney is the early front runner. He appeals to the business community and the more moderate elements of the Republican coalition. The question to be settled is who will be the more conservative standard bearer to challenge him?
The Iowa Straw Poll, on the strength of some 4,800 votes, vaulted first-place finisher Rep. Michele Bachmann into contention as a prime challenger to Romney. Libertarian and isolationist Congressman Ron Paul finished second. Nobody else farther down the list, which included Tim Pawlenty who dropped out of the race based on a third-place finish, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or Newt Gingrich has any kind of realistic shot at the nomination.
So it will be Bachmann and Perry who battle it out for the anti-Romney mantle. Both are far right-wingers who appeal to both Tea Party fiscal zealots and evangelical social issues voters. In this contest Bachmann excels at firing up the base with red meat rhetoric. But she will, I believe, not be able to overcome Perry's edge in gubernatorial experience and the kind of country folksiness so valued as authenticity by Republican voters. And make no mistake, Perry is nearly every bit as conservative as Bachmann.
Once the primary season begins Bachmann will likely win the Iowa caucuses. Then Romney will probably take the ensuing New Hampshire primary. In a practical sense, both will need those victories to remain credible. But then Perry will take the South Carolina and Florida primaries on friendly Southern turf and be off to the races. Wins there will take the air out of Bachmann's campaign and leave Perry one on one against Romney. Perry will prevail because in the final analysis Romney is simply not conservative enough for today's Republican electorate. The party veers farther rightward every year and Romney is, in their mind, still tied to the moderate policies he agreed to as Massachusetts governor.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Rick Perry and the Faustian Bargain
I've been asked to comment on the issues raised by Texas Governor Rick Perry's statement last week about his state seceding from the Union. My basic reaction recalls an old analogy: when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. The Republican Party, by hitching its wagon to a Southern strategy, has morphed into a quasi-regional and sectarian party. It has reaped electoral advantage from that but has paid a great price, as has the country. This is what the one-time party of Lincoln has inevitably become after taking the path of common cause with that still only partially reconstructed region and its revanchist attitudes.
To begin with, Gov. Perry talked out of both sides of his mouth. While giving an interview after speaking at one of those "Tea Party" anti-tax rallies last week, Perry established his context and apparent ignorance of the outcome of the Civil War with, "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845 one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that." He then backtracked a bit before sending a tantalizing signal in southern code speak, "We have a great union and there's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that?" Rally goers listening to the Governor responded with enthusiastic chants of "Secede! Secede!" Click here to listen to the MSNBC audio on Talking Points Memo.
Only in that region of extreme "solutions" to any issue could such sentiments be voiced by the governor of a state. Only in that region could an American politician of stature intimate any sentiment but horror at the very thought of revisiting a dismemberment of the union for any reason. The violent and irretrievably selfish impulses implicit in Perry's construction fall on fertile ground only among the adherents of the imaginary realm romanticized in Gone With the Wind. Never mind that the other viewpoint just won an election by nine and a half million votes. If our opinions do not prevail, they glower, Washington is thumbing its nose at the American people and the nation itself must be sacrificed on the altar of our presumption.
Richard Nixon committed his campaign to a "Southern Strategy" in 1968. Ronald Reagan emphatically repeated it in 1980. The bargain was cemented in 1994 in congress by Newt Gingrich and his "Contract for America." Over the ensuing 12 years the GOP veered farther and farther to the extreme right, capturing overwhelming dominance in Old Dixie without completely losing its hold in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. But in the process, Old Dixie captured the party itself. The moderates were driven out of it. When difficulties mounted to a crescendo by 2006, these moderate areas finally turned on an ideology they had never fully bought into, and the Democrats regained the strong majorities they had enjoyed through most of the Twentieth Century.
Things have come full circle now. Fully relieved of their one-time reliance on a Democratic Solid South (1844-1964) it is the Democrats who are the national party of the future and big ideas and the Republicans who are the party of states rights and limited vision. Lincoln has long since stopped spinning in his grave. It is Jefferson Davis, Theodore Bilbo and George Wallace who are the soul mates of Rick Perry and the GOP of today.
To begin with, Gov. Perry talked out of both sides of his mouth. While giving an interview after speaking at one of those "Tea Party" anti-tax rallies last week, Perry established his context and apparent ignorance of the outcome of the Civil War with, "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845 one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that." He then backtracked a bit before sending a tantalizing signal in southern code speak, "We have a great union and there's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that?" Rally goers listening to the Governor responded with enthusiastic chants of "Secede! Secede!" Click here to listen to the MSNBC audio on Talking Points Memo.
Only in that region of extreme "solutions" to any issue could such sentiments be voiced by the governor of a state. Only in that region could an American politician of stature intimate any sentiment but horror at the very thought of revisiting a dismemberment of the union for any reason. The violent and irretrievably selfish impulses implicit in Perry's construction fall on fertile ground only among the adherents of the imaginary realm romanticized in Gone With the Wind. Never mind that the other viewpoint just won an election by nine and a half million votes. If our opinions do not prevail, they glower, Washington is thumbing its nose at the American people and the nation itself must be sacrificed on the altar of our presumption.
Richard Nixon committed his campaign to a "Southern Strategy" in 1968. Ronald Reagan emphatically repeated it in 1980. The bargain was cemented in 1994 in congress by Newt Gingrich and his "Contract for America." Over the ensuing 12 years the GOP veered farther and farther to the extreme right, capturing overwhelming dominance in Old Dixie without completely losing its hold in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. But in the process, Old Dixie captured the party itself. The moderates were driven out of it. When difficulties mounted to a crescendo by 2006, these moderate areas finally turned on an ideology they had never fully bought into, and the Democrats regained the strong majorities they had enjoyed through most of the Twentieth Century.
Things have come full circle now. Fully relieved of their one-time reliance on a Democratic Solid South (1844-1964) it is the Democrats who are the national party of the future and big ideas and the Republicans who are the party of states rights and limited vision. Lincoln has long since stopped spinning in his grave. It is Jefferson Davis, Theodore Bilbo and George Wallace who are the soul mates of Rick Perry and the GOP of today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)