Just wondering…
…why the Perry campaign is silent today. Last week spokesman Mark Miner fired off releases on Tuesday (2), Wednesday (2), and Friday (1). Today, nada. OK, I’m probably making a mountain out of a molehill, but it has occurred to me that the last couple of weeks haven’t exactly been great for Perry, and maybe wiser heads inside the campaign have concluded that when you are on the defensive and in the center of a national media firestorm, it is not the best time to go on the attack. As I said, I’m just wondering, and what I am wondering is whether the Perry campaign is rethinking its hyperaggressive attack strategy.
The latest example of hyperaggression was Perry’s charge that Cameron Todd Willingham, whose 2004 execution for killing his three children in a fire that experts say was not arson has been the subject of national debate, is a “monster.” He was no angel, that’s for sure, but Perry overreached in an effort to sway the debate in his favor. Now he has placed the burden of proof on his shoulders to make his charge of “monster” stick.
The Chicago Tribune has been all over the Willingham case, and the Hutchison campaign, in its morning e-mail, seized on the paper’s most recent reporting.
Charge: On Thursday, officials in Corsicana, Texas, released a sworn affidavit from the brother of Willingham’s wife that he signed shortly before the execution. In it, he claims that Stacy Willingham told her family that her husband confessed to her before the execution.
Fact: In 2004, Stacy Willingham told the Tribune that Willingham never confessed. Earlier this year she told David Grann, a reporter for The New Yorker magazine, that she stood by her statements. She came to believe that Willingham was guilty after she reviewed the case herself.
In addition, on the same day that Stacy Willingham’s brother claimed she told the family that Willingham had confessed, she spoke to the local newspaper, saying that during her last meeting with him, he maintained his innocence.
She did not mention a confession.
Perry’s tendency to pour gasoline on the fire — a poor metaphor, I realize, given the nature of the crime Willingham committed — keeps getting him into trouble. It is part of an aggressive pattern that began when the campaign ambushed Hutchison in her initial campaign tour and continues in press releases and on campaign web sites like washingtonkay. It comes down to this: He isn’t acting gubernatorial. He isn’t acting like a nine-year incumbent. The Perry camp has a lot of very savvy folks who have run a lot of successful races, but this is the first time they have had to deal with a candidate who has lost his discipline.
Tagged: cameron willingham, mark miner, rick perry.
Jamie says:
Looks like 2 releases today from the Perry camp, by my count:
http://rickperry.org/release/family-research-council-action-pac-chairman-tony-perkins-endorses-gov-perry-re-election
http://rickperry.org/release/gov-perry-vote-%E2%80%9Cyes%E2%80%9D-propositions-4-and-11-strengthen-education-and-property-rights
Are the public releases they post on their website different from what they send to members of the press?
Reply »
wow says:
so you’re taking the actions of the Perry campaign (the last 24 hours) and assuming they’ve changed the whole game plan?
you couldn’t even wait 2 days to make up a trend out of thin air?
i expect more of the same from both camps until January
Reply »
General Sam Houston says:
In fact, the Perry campaign has been noticeably subdued for about four weeks now. The trend seemed to start when Perry was pummeled for making a joke in Houston about the recession.
Since then, mindless twitter activity — including tweets from “state employees” such as Diedre DeLisi — are way down in number. It appears Mrs. DeLisi has heeded Matt Mackoviak’s advice, namely to pay more attention to her job and the state’s highways, and less to political maneuvering for the gov.
And what’s this I hear about Dave Carney and Rob Johnson having, shall we say, heated differences of opinion? I guess that’s what happens when someone from New Hampshire shows up periodically at a struggling campaign and starts issuing new orders.
Reply »
brazoscowgirl says:
I don’t know why but I am actually thankful that live pigs are not being shipped to humor a sitting Governor.
He has done so much to not act professional what does it matter now?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, I disagree. The candidate is no more out of control than the consultants/spokespeople. They may get off on macho speak and trivial one-upsmanship, but only those that don’t need convincing (their supporters) are impressed. I’m beginning to think that all the consultants are just in this business for the feel-good effects of mental m@$turb@ti&n. And from the looks of it the candidates get off on it, too. But it’s just plain silly…and disgraceful when you consider that these are supposed to be our “leaders.”
Reply »
Pat says:
Wait just a dang minute.
–Rule of Perry #1: Its always about the politics.
–Rule of Perry #2: Phil Gramm said to always watch your right flank.
So Perry is embroiled in a media s***storm…that his base doesn’t care about! They love capital punishment. So Perry loses some independent voters and gives the appearance of being undisciplined. Doesn’t matter. He played to the base, and they’re the ones who vote.
Do we have any hard data correlating Republican support for the death penalty and Perry’s approval ratings among them since the Willingham scandal broke?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
The Perry camp may have polled this, but I doubt it. If they have any political instincts at all — and they do — they don’t have to take a poll to know that the continuing debate over the Willingham case is bad for Perry. Calling him a “monster” does not explain why he removed commissioners and appointed a political crony to oversee the investigation. The point that I think is most important is that Perry is making mistakes, and they are mistakes of arrogance, such as his “what recession?” remark, and his attack on Hutchison’s earmarks, including calling military spending pork. It is always dangerous to assume, as “Pat” has done here, that the base has a one-dimensional view of politics, and that as individuals they are not influenced by the public debate. Sure, they are for capital punishment, but they aren’t for cover-ups or for executing someone who may not have committed a crime. I think that the Perry campaign has been mesmerized by their own success in getting endorsements (who cares if Bill Bennett endorses Perry?), and by their belief that all they need to do is cast this race as Texas versus Washington. Eventually, this race is going to be about Texas, unless the Hutchison campaign is completely inept, a possibility that cannot be excluded.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 3:06 am
What’s with the quotes? “Pat” is a helluva good name.
Is Perry making mistakes? Eh. The real question is whether the acts in question actually matter to his constituency. I don’t think they do. I was assuming most ultra-conservatives’ fervence (use?) and passion for the issues often outweigh other considerations. Call it one-dimensional. I’d still like to see Mike Baselice’s numbers.
And I’d like Notre Dame to beat USC for once.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 8:02 am
“The real question is whether the acts in question actually matter to his constituency.” — Only if you think 39% will win again.
Anonymous says:
The real issue: use of political appointment powers to obstruct an investigation.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
“Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed?”
Irrational actions based on pride, ego and a feeling of invincibility might seem like a loss of discipline to us; the protagonist, oblivious to his pending fall, would disagree.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
I’m sure that hard-hitting story has cost Perry the Chicago vote. I wonder if Obammy was going to appoint him to the Federal bench or something?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Another worst post of the day award for Fiftycal
Reply »
Tamsterbath says:
I find it amazing that a someone who goes around bragging how “Pro-Life” he is, happily signs off on putting living breathing human beings to death. He is proud of it! And he is hiding what evidence was put in front of him to delay this execution. If there was 1% of doubt of his guilt out there, it should have been delayed.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
while you may find opposition to abortion and support of the death penalty an inherent contradiction, I can assure you those who hold both positions make an important distinction: an unborn child is by definition innocent, and has a right to life. A convicted murdered has shown no regard for innocent life, is not by definition innocent, and because we value life, is asked to pay the ultimate penalty: their own life.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 8:03 am
More like – it’s not me who’s on trial; it’s me (or 12 like me) who get to decide.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Let me guess – you’ve never been wrongfully accused of anything; you have 100% faith in prosecutors who would never stoop to convicting someone for the sake of, oh, let’s say, their win-loss record or their political futures; a jury of your peers will get it right 100% of the time (think O.J. Simpson in reverse); and the appellate process isn’t likely to overlook evidence of wrongful convictions. Yep, I’m for the death penalty!
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
I am just so fascinated to learn that Barry Switzer is hosting a fundraiser in Norman for Perry. That’s right. Barry Switzer. That stalwart of ethics and the only living person arrested for both insider trading and carrying a weapon through airport security.
Good to know that to Governor’s moral relativism still kicks in when money is involved.
Reply »
Lawyer at large says:
Way to jump on the generic news media bandwagon Mr. Burka. I’d hope that you would know better than to go this route as you’ve spent enough time around politicians and lawyers to understand that the decisions made by the court system are what condemned Mr. Willingham. The fact that Perry called him a monster seems to be spot on. If you abused your wife and children you’d be a monster as well.
The simple fact is the man was convicted in front of a jury of his peers and that verdict was affirmed on appeal. And now you and other media outlets hungry for a story want to take this decision out of the realm of the judicial system and bring it on the executive branch of the state and Perry? Lawyers everywhere are laughing at the ignorance constantly being displayed by media outlets such as yourself.
The lesson to be learned here folks is think for yourself and don’t just run with the crowd.
Reply »
David Siegel Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
And I’m sure you’d be satisfied to get the kind of defense that Willingham did. It’s not a fair game when only one side is trying.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 8:01 am
This lawyer is laughing at you and wondering where you bought your law degree.
Reply »
Lawyer at large Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Keep wondering “anon” it doesn’t change the facts. But what it does show is a sad attempt from a non-lawyer at misdirection.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Re Anonymous @ 8:01 a.m. –
They were giving them away that year.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, you need to correct this:
“…given the nature of the crime Willingham committed…”
Given the substantial doubt that’s been raised about the evidence used to convict Willingham, you can’t very well say that he committed the crime.
Reply »
David Siegel Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Or that there actually was a crime.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Willingham was convicted of capital murder for committing arson. There is clearly room for doubt, but the record says that he committed arson.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“The Perry camp has a lot of very savvy folks who have run a lot of successful races, but this is the first time they have had to deal with a candidate who has lost his discipline.”
What?! Isn’t Rob Johnson a former campaign manager to David Dewhurst? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more undisciplined candidate with the press.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Rob is new to the Perry campaign.
Reply »
Recall with me says:
By the way, isn’t it interesting that the same “expert” (Gerald Hurst) saying that it wasn’t arson in the Willingham case, is also the “expert” that rushed to the press after the Governors mansion fire and said that wasn’t arson either. Now I’m no mathematician but there’s definitely something that doesn’t add up here.
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/688968.html
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Anyone who reads the article cited by Recall With Me can see the arson expert was answering hypothetical questions from a reporter, and had not investigated or looked at the scene. He essentially said most fires are not caused by arson, and that it could be if someone really had it out for Perry.
Reply »
dallasite says:
I saw the youtube of Willingham’s defense lawyer’s interview on cnn anderson cooper. We’d all be on death row with that guy appointed to “defend” us.
Reply »
texun says:
What we have with the Willingham execution is Perry being Perry. Like W before him, he rarely attempts to dig into issues on substantive grounds, preferring to translate all of them into “Politics,” which he tends to do quite well.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“Perry. Like W”
nuff said
Reply »