The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

In interviews this week, more than a dozen governors, law­makers, major donors and strategists said they are studying recent debates and polls to determine whether Perry, the governor of Texas, or Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, would present the strongest challenge to President Obama. They signaled that endorsements and other measures of support could flow in coming weeks as Perry and Romney press their cases privately to potential backers.

They wouldn’t say it publicly, and I won’t name names, but as a general consensus, most of us in the cloakroom and around our caucus meetings believe it’s down to a two-man race,” said Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), who has endorsed Perry. “More and more Republicans are looking at electability.”

I have thought that Perry would win the nomination from the moment he got in, because too many Republicans can't stand Mitt Romney.

Cycloptichorn

Power has shifted to the South and West. The energy of the Republican Party has moved away from the coasts and the big cities. Power has also shifted away from the proverbial smoke-filled rooms to the grassroots. The forces that represented the establishment in the Republican Party - the big corporations and the banks - are much weaker. The forces that are strong today are Christian conservatives, libertarian activists and other more diverse, populist groups. These groups have always existed but before now they were directed by the coastal elites. Not anymore. The tea party represents the dramatic acceleration of these forces. That’s why all the Republican presidential candidates are trying to take up the mantle of the tea party.
These forces are elevating Rick Perry such that we may end up with a situation where all the energy, enthusiasm and numbers are behind him. It would not matter that the Republican establishment was behind Romney because that establishment no longer controls much. What matters is the entrepreneurial game of getting people and money. Perry seems to be doing pretty well at that.
If Rick Perry does emerge as the front-runner, it is not just the story of one guy doing well; it is the story of a very different Republican Party than the one we have been familiar with for the last 30 or 40 years.

A few posts ago you linked us to an article that reported that Republican "Governors, lawmakers, donors and strategists" have concluded that this is now a two man race (Romney and Perry) and they, the movers and shakers, need to line up behind the candidate more likely to defeat Obama.
I am not calling out the Repubs, but nowhere in the article was there any mention of the party supporters in all of the caucus and primary states. The image we get is of the proverbial "smoke filled room."

both-sides-suck thing talking here?

Le me ask - do you actually agree with Perry's policy positions? Or is it just your usual contrarianism, both-sides-suck thing talking here?

Posted at 01:20 PM ET, 09/14/2011
GOP should not fall into the trap of being proudly ignorant
By Jennifer Rubin

Republicans have sometimes mistaken anti-elitism with anti-smarts. Put differently, Republicans should not have contempt for the voters or for ideas, lest they be judged unworthy of serving in office. It’s one thing to heap scorn on liberal elites who parrot unsupportable leftist dogma or who show contempt for ordinary Americans’ values; it’s quite another to celebrate ignorance. We’ve had two rather appalling examples in 24 hours, which I would suggest, are perfect examples of what conservatives should reject.

After the Florida debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) on Fox passed on a comment from someone she purportedly spoke to after the debate who claimed that the HPV vaccine that Texas Gov. Rick Perry had attempted to make mandatory caused mental retardation. This is complete nonsense. Yuval Levin, a pro-life conservative thinker of the first order who helped craft President George W. Bush’s stem-cell policy, wrote this:

Quote:

There is no evidence to support any link between this (or any) vaccine and mental retardation. None. Baseless assertions to the contrary about various vaccines have for years been piling needless guilt upon the parents of children with autism and other disorders, and driving other parents away from vaccinating their children against diseases that could do them great harm. A presidential candidate should not be engaging in such harmful nonsense.

The rashness of Perry’s move to mandate the vaccine, and the at times excessive zeal of Merck’s campaign to see it mandated, have surely contributed to this frenzy. Some of us even saw it coming several years ago. But none of that excuses Bachmann’s reckless conspiracy mongering.

Bachmann was not exercising skepticism about a scientific theory. She wasn’t chiding cultural elitists who look down on ordinary Americans. She was spouting anti-scientific gibberish. It was good to see that strong conservative voices denounced this behavior.

Then today, Texas Gov. Rick Perry went to Liberty University. It was, at least in part, a celebration of ignorance. The Post’s reporter at the scene Phil Rucker tweeted some of the remarks. Jon Ward at Huffington Post likewise recorded some comments. Things started off on a poor note with Rev. Jerry Falwell Jr. praising Perry’s seccessionist remarks as “gutsy.” Are we to believe now that Perry was serious about secession? Then Perry, apparently deciding to make ads for the Obama campaign, came out with a series of “See how dumb I am?” one-liners. He observed that he needed to pull out a dictionary to see what “convocation” meant. The next knee-slapper: He didn’t have the grades to be a vet, so he became a pilot. And then the real howler: He was in the top 10 in a high school class of 13.

Yes, he was trying to be self-deprecating, but it’s disturbing to see that he thinks being a rotten student and a know-nothing gives one street cred in the GOP. Is it so important to defy the MSM by flaunting affection for anti-intellectualism? Just imagine if Sarah Palin had said all that — the conservative cheerleaders who gave up on her (but are still rooting for Perry) would roll their eyes in disgust.

Moreover, what Perry is doing here is telling moderate Republicans and those voters genuinely concerned about his electability to buzz off. He doesn’t need them, and he doesn’t intend to make it easy for them to vote for him. He’s telling them he is happily impervious to mainstream sensibilities. It’s the sort of thing that a Texas pol, not a presidential candidate, would do.

Now before every Perry backer pulls out a self-deprecating comment that George W. Bush made about his syntax or that Ronald Reagan made about his grades, they should stop and think. Does Perry have a gravitas problem? Has he counteracted it with any serious policy proposals? Has he shown himself to be knowledgeable and mature in the debates? Nope. He’s just reveling in the scorn because he has mistaken mainstream (and some conservative) media criticism for confirmation that he really is doing something right. But what if, for example, a really smart Republican with a great track record, lots of policy ideas and the ability to counteract the stereotype of Republicans ran? Oh, maybe there already is one or two in the race. Maybe there could be more, and perhaps conservatives would be relieved not to have to make excuses for candidates who think ignorance is virtue and intelligence is a vice.

For every strong moment, Perry has had two (at least) where he seems either taken aback by the level of vitriol directed his way by his rivals or simply uncertain of exactly how he should address some of his more problematic past positions.

From Social Security to the HPV vaccine to immigration, Perry has struggled to find answers that put those issues behind him.

And it doesn’t matter. Or at least it doesn’t matter yet.

There’s two reasons why Perry’s less-than-stellar performances in the two debates — the first in California last week, the second in Florida earlier this week — haven’t had all that much impact on his still-frontrunning campaign.

The first is that none of the controversies have really penetrated beyond the world of, for lack of a better term, people who watch and cover this stuff obsessively.

The average voter — even a Republican planning to vote in the primary process — is still only half-paying attention (if that) to the minute-by-minute developments of the race.

Might they have caught a few minutes of Monday night’s debate in between watching the Monday Night Football doubleheader? Sure.

But, the ratings bear out the fact that the debate was a sideshow as compared to football. The debate, which aired on CNN, had roughly 3.2 million viewers, roughly one-fifth of the 14.6 million people who watched the Patriots-Dolphins game and one-third of the 11.1 million took in the Broncos and Raiders matchup later in the evening.

The second reason why Perry’s debate performances haven’t had much impact on his standing in the race to date is that, to the extent he has taken on water, it’s been on attacks from his ideological right.

That’s a fight for another day, however. At the moment, Perry seems to be skating by with GOP voters despite not standing out (in a good way) in either of the first two chances he’s had to debate his opponents.

It’s a lucky turn for Perry but one that might not last.

JESUS!......the conclusion that Perry wins out of luck never goes away....at some point you have to put away your skepticism and say that a guy who is so luck for so long as Perry has been must be good as what he does...