The Des Moines Register poll covered Tuesday through Friday. The results:

Romney 24%

Paul 22%

Santorum 15%

Gingrich 12%

Perry 11%

Bachman 7%

According to the Register:  If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21%, pushing Paul to third, at 18%.

Perry spent millions of dollars on media in Iowa and has nothing to show for it. He ran anti-Santorum spots and they only increased Santorum’s percentage. Santorum’s success is almost entirely due to his endorsement by evangelicals. He currently stands fifth in the state, a point behind Gingrick. The three leaders are uncatchable.

Perry has said that he would continue in the race if he comes in as high as fourth in Iowa. He may achieve that, but it won’t be by much.

Emmett Tyrell, a conservative columnist for the Washington Examiner, ruminates today on the success and failure of his predictions for 2012. I know that he is a conservative columnist because one of his predictions was that liberalism would be dead. He also proclaimed the death of crony capitalism.

And now we get to the heart of the matter:

“So was I always right in 2011?” asks Tyrell. “Unfortunately, not at all. Those who noticed the optimistic tone of my pronouncements regarding Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s chances for the presidency in late spring and early summer must know I was too optimistic by half. In fact, I was dead wrong. Let me be man enough to admit it. Back then, I saw Perry declaring his candidacy by the end of August, and so far, so good. I said he would be very impressive, speaking authoritatively and sonorously on all the important issues of the day to us conservatives.

“By January 2012, he would have swept the field. Only a well-heeled Gov. Mitt Romney would be prepared to challenge him, and perhaps the indefatigable Rep. Ron Paul. It would be a pathetic sight, with a smiling, congenial Perry proceeding to the summer Republican convention and taking the nomination.

“Well, Perry did not sweep into 2012. He tripped repeatedly in the fall after a promising declaration of candidacy. He faltered in debate and had those embarrassing brain seizures in front of the cameras, where all could see. He was a solid conservative, but on some things he was too solid, and he was rarely well-informed.

“Frankly, I came to the conclusion that in the summer sometime he awoke and thought he should be president, so why not make a run for it? His state was rightly being boomed as the economy that works in contrast to California, the economy that had failed, that hated business, that was an economy without a purpose.

“Perry had been good for Texas and could be good for America. The 2012 election was going to be about the economy, and the governor of Texas was the man to take on Obama.

“Actually, he might well be a man to take on Obama, but he has shown himself not to be prepared for the race just yet. It is said of him that in Texas, he never won a debate and never lost a race.

“Yet he is beyond Texas now. Today he is campaigning for the presidency, and he entered the race as though it were a lark. He has shown the capacity to learn on the campaign trail, but I am not sure the trail is long enough. We shall soon see.”

* * * *

If it makes Mr. Tyrell feel any better, a bunch of us Texans were thinking the same thing, the difference being we were terrified that he might win. Still are. I even wrote a 7,000 word article explaining how and why he could do it.

As for liberalism being dead: It’s not possible. It’s like colors. You can’t have blue without yellow and red. If liberalism did not exist, conservatives would have to invent it. But you’re partly right. Liberalism doesn’t exist–in Texas, that is.

I’m on record as not being a fan of the Voter I.D. bill and I agree with DOJ that it is discriminatory and not only will it prevent people from voting but in fact is intended to prevent people from voting — most of whom are poor or members of ethnic minority groups. That said, I don’t see how DOJ’s “rejection” of the law is constitutionally proper. It violates separation of powers. The executive branch cannot strike down a state statute. Only the courts can do that. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s requirement of a photo identification to be constitutional, although the decision was only a plurality opinion. The main reason why Indiana’s law passed constitutional muster is that Indiana provides free photo I.D.s to its citizens. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 551 U.S. 181.

It seems to me that DOJ is really stretching the Voting Rights Act to include Voter I.D. laws. Surely DOJ should be required to provide proof that the result of such laws is discriminatory before rejecting them (which I don’t believe they have the authority to do anyway). As bad as the Texas Voter I.D. law is, and it is really restrictive, and deliberately so, my belief is that DOJ has no power to strike it down. This is a huge overreach by DOJ, and one that I am certain will be slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court, when and if the issue comes before it.

Readers may have heard that former Texas State Rep Glen Maxey has published an e-book about Rick Perry’s private life. I seldom agree with Mr. Perry about anything, but his campaign’s description of the book as “false internet garbage” seems spot on to me. The Daily Beast today has a story that features Jacob Bernstein’s interview with Maxey. Mr. Maxey does not exactly come across as Robert Caro when it comes to biography.

I am not going to waste a lot of time or space on this story. The problem with Mr. Perry has never been his private life. It is his public life and its unfortunate impact on Texas.

From the Daily Beast’s story:

Having not quite gotten the smoking gun, Maxey also relies heavily on innuendo to make his case. For example, what’s up with those teeny jogging shorts Perry’s always wearing? This Maxey finds very suspicious. He also hears the governor shaves his legs and arms! What’s up with that?

Unsurprisingly, Maxey can be a little naïve about why The Huffington Post spiked the story. He complains almost relentlessly about how much work went into it—at least two months and heaps of interviews with hundreds of people around the state capital—as if this alone should give HuffPo the impetus to publish his account. He doesn’t seem to understand what hearsay is, and when confronted about this, says simply, “I’m not a journalist.”

To link to the Daily Beast’s story, click HERE.

This didn’t get posted over the Christmas weekend:

Perry did not qualify for the Republican primary in Virginia. It’s pretty easy to qualify.  Candidates need 10,000 signatures of registered voters on petitions, and must also have 400 signatures from each of the state’s eleven congressional districts.

Every campaign needs to know the requirements for getting on the ballot. Each state has its own methodology. Most campaigns have a staffer whose job is to keep up with the dates and rules for getting on the ballot. Perry submitted more than 11,000 signatures, so the campaign obviously intended to compete in the state. But if they didn’t have enough signatures from the congressional districts, they would not qualify for the ballot. Obviously, somebody fouled up somewhere.

Newt Gingrich, who resides in Virginia, also did not qualify. Gingrich has said he will wage a write-in campaign, although state law prohibits write-in votes in primary elections. Perry has not indicated his intentions about a write-in campaign, but nothing about the Perry operation  to this point indicates that they are capable of mounting a successful write-in campaign. The failure to qualify for the ballot indicates what a slipshod operation the Perry campaign has been from the start. The only thing they have done well is raise money, but when they spent the money, they basically threw it away on some of the worst, most unpopular videos in the history of American political campaigns.

As most people who follow redistricting know by now, the D.C. district court ruled against the state and Attorney General Abbott, denying the state’s  motion for summary judgment and refusing to preclear several state maps. The D.C. Court has since issued its ruling in the case, explaining why it denied the state’s motion for summary judgment:

“Although Texas’s alleged failure to account for the significant increase of the Hispanic population in the State does not establish retrpgression, it is relevant to the Court’s evaluation of whether the Congressional Plan was enacted with discriminatory purpose. A redistricting plan that does not increase a minority group’s voting power, despite a significant increase in that group’s population, may provide significant circumstantial evidence that the plan was enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging that community’s right to vote.” (enphasis added)

The D.C. Court has recognized the elephant in the room, which is the growth in the Hispanic population. Abbott and the Legislature have acted as if it did not exist. The D.C. Court has framed the issue. The Supreme Court can’t ignore it. That doesn’t mean the plaintiffs are going to win, but it does mean that the issue is going to have to be addressed.

The eagerness with which the Supreme Court snapped up this case is not a good sign for the plaintiffs. The Roberts court showed itself to be a very activist Court in the Citizens’ United case, with little regard for the impact of its decisions on what might naively be called the common good. The Court favored the classes over the masses, to quote an old populist slogan. It has also grabbed other high profile cases, including the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare case. The Court has the chance to rewrite centuries of constitutional law, and I believe Roberts has a radical agenda that includes doing away with the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act and, quite possibly, the use of the Commerce Clause as the basis for government programs. This is going to be a momentous term for the Court, and I don’t think judicial restraint is going to be its hallmark. If the Texas Legislature is allowed to implement a map that does not increase minority voting opportunities despite an enormous increase in the number of minority voters, the Court will have legislated a significant degredation of the right to vote.

Here is the latest Iowa poll, from the Des Moines Register:

Paul 27.5%

Gingrich 25.3%

Romney 17.5%

Perry 11.2%

* * * *

Perry hit a high water mark of 16% in a previous poll, but since then he has fallen back. No recent poll has Perry higher than fourth place, which is not sufficient to give him momentum coming out Iowa, especially considering how much money Perry has been spending here, on everything from a heavy TV buy to a bus tour to direct mail aimed at evangelicals. (Kronberg had samples in the QR; the work was not impressive.)  To do better, Perry needs Romney’s support to collapse. Rick Santorum got the key evangelical endorsements, not Perry. Next up is New Hampshire, where Perry is flirting with 0%. RealClearPolitics‘ average of four recent polls has him at 1.8%. Having bet the farm on Iowa, he now must rely on South Carolina as his firewall–only the firewall doesn’t look very fire proof. Perry is running fifth in the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, with 5.8%.

So considering Perry’s poor showing, a question should be raised about whether Perry can even win the primary in Texas. In October, Azimuth polling, admittedly not one of the biggies in the business, did a poll in Texas that showed Herman Cain leading Perry. Here’s how the poll ranked the top five:

Cain 33%

Paul 19%

Perry 18%

Romney 7%

Gingrich 5%

Since this poll was taken, Cain has dropped out, Paul has moved up, and Gingrich has joined Romney in the top tier. I don’t think it’s a given that Perry will win the Texas primary. He  has inflicted a lot of damage on himself. There is precedent for a “favorite son” losing to an outsider: Lloyd Bentsen couldn’t prevent Jimmy Carter from winning the primary in 1976. Depending upon their ability to raise funds, Ron Paul could give Perry a run for his money, and so could Gingrich. And that would be the ultimate insult to the state’s longest serving governor.

The news that Rick Perry intends to pad his income by drawing a pension while serving as governor changes Texas politics. Before we learned about his double-dipping, and with his presidential bid looking bleak, it was possible to foresee the end of the Perry governorship, in January 2015. Perry would have to find a way to earn a living in the private sector–probably by making speeches and serving on corporate boards. By drawing his retirement pay, he can expand his income to more than $240,000 a year, plus Anita’s salary at the non-profit where she works (paid for primarily by the lobby) plus free luxury housing, free travel, free security, and all the other perks that come with the office.

Why did Perry decide to take the money, particularly at this critical moment of the campaign? He has to know how bad it looks to double dip. Even worse, it takes him off message. Perry has railed at the special privileges of members of Congress, federal judges, and federal bureaucrats. One possible reason: the very expensive spinal fusion operation last summer that used his own adult stem cells. When asked how Perry was going to pay for the operation, a spokesman responded, “Whatever is not covered by insurance, the Perrys will pay for.” Since so little is covered by insurance, the Perrys are on the hook for the bill. An extra $7,698 a month (pre-tax) will come in handy.

Ever since Perry announced for president, I have believed that the clock is ticking on his political career, and that the expiration of his term in January 2015 would be the crucial moment. Either he would have already decided to run again for a fourth full term by then, or he would have to go out into the world and find work. But double dipping enables him to extend his political career. He can stay in office and collect his pension and repeat the process indefinitely. Who is going to beat him? Certainly not a Democrat. He really could be governor for life.

From the Daily Beast:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, still looking to regain his traction after a series of mind-numbing debate performances (oh, and an awful job as governor), has let the world and Iowa know that he “wasn’t on his game” recently (make that the last four months) because of a serious back surgery he had undergone over the summer. The surgery had by his report wiped him out. “But no excuses,” he added, making as forceful an excuse as he could.

Finally, the truth is out. I don’t make a habit of tooting my own horn in this space, but–just this one time–I first raised the health issue as the reason for Perry’s poor debate performances back in October. I blogged about this after the one of the early debates, how Perry looked uncomfortable, twisting his torso and struggling with his posture and seeming to lose energy as the debate went on. I wrote that Perry was off his game and attributed his  problems to his back operation and noted that he had started wearing orthopedic shoes instead of boots. (My post was picked up the next day in the “Political Wire” blog.) What the Daily Beast article omits is that the surgery, a spinal fusion, was not a standard operation; it involved the application of Perry’s own adult stem cells to the affected area–a procedure that is not covered by insurance, nor is it approved by the FDA. It borders on quackery. The question of how Perry is going to pay for the operation has not been answered; a spokesman said at the time that the Perry’s would pay for whatever is not covered by insurance. Well, NOTHING is covered by insurance. So, who paid for the operation? Where are the medical bills? It had to be very expensive.

In November, the issue of Perry’s surgery came before the Texas Medical Board. From the Associated Press:

The experimental stem cell procedure that Texas Gov. Rick Perry underwent this summer could be restricted or even blocked under new rules being considered Friday by the state’s Medical Board.

Some top scientists are questioning the safety and wisdom of the procedure, and doctors say it may run up against federal rules. It also carries potential health threats, ranging from blood clots to increased cancer risk.

The Republican presidential candidate had stem cells taken from fat in his own body, which were then grown in a lab. They were injected into Perry’s back and his bloodstream during an operation in July to fuse part of his spine.

The Perry campaign has repeatedly denied that there is anything wrong with their candidate’s health. They weren’t telling the truth, and they only started telling the truth when Perry finally had a good debate performance in Iowa. No doubt the Perry campaign would like to go back and rewrite history, but it’s too late.

The Perry campaign has a huge ad blitz under way in Iowa, aimed at the state’s influential evangelical/social conservative community. The campaign has spent some $2 million, according to the Associated Press.

The spot was designed to be controversial. It stretches the facts on several points, and it is very aggressive in its attack on gays and on Obama, whom Perry accuses of conducting a “war on religion.” The rest is just a lot of pandering to the far right. (As always, he looks great on TV.)

The AP did an analysis of the Perry ad, in which it said:

Struggling for traction in the Republican contest, Perry is gambling that the religious conservatives who typically dominate Iowa’s kickoff caucuses will warm to his candidacy if he appeals to them with a socially conservative message. He’s also drawing a contrast with rival Mitt Romney – whose Mormon faith gives many evangelicals pause – and Newt Gingrich, who recently converted to Catholicism but has been divorced twice and has acknowledged infidelity in his first two marriages.

But this ad, which attacks President Barack Obama on gay rights and religion, is misleading and inaccurate.

Perry’s suggestion that Obama has led the way in banning prayer in public school is factually wrong.

The Supreme Court prohibited school prayer in two landmark decisions in 1962 and 1963, calling it an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The court has repeatedly reaffirmed restrictions on religious expression in public schools, including a decision banning the posting of the Ten Commandments in school and another prohibiting students from using a school loudspeaker to offer a prayer before football games.

Obama signed legislation earlier this year repealing the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prohibited gays from serving openly in the military. The legislation was passed by both the House and Senate with the support of several Republicans, and had the backing of several high-ranking military officials including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While many religious conservatives may not support gay rights, it’s a stretch to characterize the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as an Obama “war on religion.”

I agree with the AP that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which was backed by the military brass at the highest level and has even won over some initial detractors, is hardly the equivalent of a presidential war on religion, especially since it had to pass Congress, which, as you may have noticed, can hardly agree on anything these days. But Perry has little choice except to woo the evangelical community. Opponents have shot his claims of Texas exceptionalism full of holes; they have charged him with crony capitalism; and they have found him squishy on the issue of immigration. This ad may gain him support among evangelicals, but it certainly isn’t selling to the general public. As of this post, the ad had 3,499 “likes” as opposed to 159,086 “dislikes.” And a new Time/CNN/ORC poll shows Perry running fourth in Iowa, with 9% of the vote.