Texas 2010: It’s all about 2012
Who is best situated to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012? Gallup (October 31-November) finds that 71% of Republicans would “seriously consider” supporting Huckabee, with Romney and Palin at 65% each. Other names who show up on GOP presidential polls include Pawlenty, Gingrich, Giuliani, Barbour, Jindal, and Jeb Bush, none of whom are within telescope range of the top trio. But the top threesome all came out of 2008 as damaged goods. Huckabee was primarily a regional candidate in ‘08 and had a hard time expanding his appeal beyond the Bible Belt. Romney didn’t connect well with voters, and Palin was too polarizing.
Not a single poll (on pollingreport.com) even listed a politician who I would argue has a good to chance to win the nomination. I believe this politician (a) has figured it out and (b) has decided to run.
It’s Rick Perry.
That would explain a lot of things — for starters, why he decided to seek four more years as governor, after he had told many of his supporters he wouldn’t (implicitly clearing the way for them to support Hutchison in 2010); and why he didn’t choose to take a victory lap and make easy money on the boards of companies that benefited from his governorship. He has to remain on the political stage in order to compete for the presidential nomination. A beatdown of Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican primary would elevate his standing as the GOP’s leading conservative figure, now that South Carolina’s Mark Sanford has been so generous as to commit political hari-kari and Sarah Palin, while popular, hasn’t gained in stature.
Perry’s consultant, Dave Carney, is from New Hampshire, and he understands national politics. Sometime in 2007, I suspect, Carney and Perry looked at the Republican field, and at the wreckage of the Bush presidency, and recognized that 2008 was destined to be a Democratic year. They saw no one in the GOP who was capable of defeating Clinton or Obama, the two prominent Democrats who were vying for their party’s nomination. At the same time, they realized that both Democrats had substantial negatives — Clinton because of her husband and her own stridency, and Obama because of his race. Either Clinton or Obama was going to be unpopular with older white males, the core constituency of the Republican party, and was at risk of being a one-term president. Whoever could grab that constituency could win the nomination.
Perry’s decision to face Texas voters was high-risk. If he lost his primary battle against Hutchison (and the first poll in the race showed her with a lead in the mid-twenties), he would be remembered in Texas history as the state’s longest-serving governor but one who left no legacy because he stayed too long. But luck — bad luck for America, good luck for Perry — proved to be on his side, as it has been throughout Perry’s career. The economy collapsed, Bush bailed out the banks, and all of a sudden a Republican civil war broke out between Main Street and Wall Street. I interviewed members of Perry’s inner circle around a year ago, and the strategy for defeating Hutchison was already in place: label her as the candidate of Washington values, position him as the candidate of Texas values. Another aspect of Perry’s good fortune is that his opponents always seem to be afflicted by brain seizures: Jim Hightower was overconfident and didn’t spend money in the closing days (agriculture commissioner, 1990), John Sharp pulled the hard-hitting ad that had him in the lead (lieutenant governor, 1998), and the current Hutchison campaign has been inept and messageless.
Here are the reasons why Perry is well placed to be a viable contender in 2012:
1. Unlike Huckabee, Romney, and Palin, he is still in office.
2. He is the longest-serving governor in Texas history.
3. He is governor of the biggest red state that sends the most delegates to the Republican convention.
4. He has the best conservative record of any contender: significant tort reform, a large property tax cut, refusal to raise taxes in the face of a $10 billion budget deficit (2003), declining to expand government by accepting strings-attached unemployment insurance stimulus funds, implementing efforts to enhance border security. During his tenure as governor, Texas has been active in passing social legislation, including a strong abortion bill in 2003 and a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. You can argue that the effect of the property tax cut was wiped out by rising appraisals, or that his border security efforts were all for show, but it adds up to a record that will be popular with Republican voters.
5. He has assiduously courted key figures in the Republican establishment, such as Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh (whom he made an honorary Texan), as well as other talk radio hosts.
6. The Murdoch news empire loves him. He is the beneficiary of puff pieces in the Wall Street Journal and softball questions on Fox News.
7. He has an extensive fundraising apparatus in Texas that is capable of raising enough money to make the race, and he is now in charge of finance for the Republican Governor’s Association, giving him access to the GOP’s big national donors.
8. He has not one but two strong messages. One is the familiar refrain that Washington is corrupt to the core and out of touch with Main Street. The second is the Texas economic miracle: that by following conservative fiscal policies, Texas has been able to survive the recession in better shape than most, if not all, other states. Low taxes, low spending, constitutionally mandated balanced budgets, saving for a rainy day, and business-friendly regulatory policies have made Texas the top state in job creation year after year. Perry can say to residents of the other states: Do what Texas did and you can enjoy economic growth too. It is a strong message in a recession.
9. He was quick to understand the significance of the tea party movement and attended many of the early gatherings. The tea party people are a natural Perry constituency: angry, unyielding folk who are eager to go where few in American politics are willing to venture: states rights and secession.
10. With rare exceptions (such as the HPV vaccine controversy), he almost never deviates from the conservative line. He is against the border fence, but he makes up for it with his emphasis on border security, even though the cameras and the deployment of Texas Rangers were mainly for show.
* * * *
I’m not saying that Rick Perry SHOULD be president. Heaven forbid. I’m saying that it is not hard to make a case that he CAN be elected president, that he has the necessary ingredients — the resume (grew up poor, farmed, served his country, married his childhood sweetheart, started out as a Democrat, switched parties as a matter of conscience), the record, the money, the conservative credentials — to make the race. Yes, I know, this is Rick Perry we are talking about. Governor 39%. Governor Goodhair. Forget all that. Familiarity breeds contempt. You have to look at Perry as he will present himself to the Republican electorate. He can make a compelling case for himself. I just made it for him.
Perry was a terrible public speaker early in his career, but he is very polished now. Whatever you may think about his hair, the camera loves him. He never takes a bad photo or looks out of sorts on TV. In those TV spots of him prowling the border in 06, he came across as the embodiment of the rugged individualist.
Of course, there is another side to the Perry record. Readers know that Texas’s public schools are chronically underfunded, that the state faces a $17 billion budget hole in 2011, that we lead the nation in the number of people who are uninsured, and so on. There is no need to chronicle the state’s deficiencies; we know what they are, and they will become part of the debate if Perry decides to run. As we are finding out in the governor’s race, though, Republican primary voters do not care about what the government is not doing.
The main argument that I have heard against Perry’s presidential aspirations is that the rest of the nation will not elect another Texas president any time soon. They don’t love us, that’s for sure, but presidential elections are about issues and principles, not geography, and Perry’s brand of unapologetic conservatism is a perfect fit for the Republican party in the tea-party era. Timing is everything in politics. And, right now, the timing is right for Perry.
Tagged: dave carney, kay bailey hutchison, rick perry.
Anonymous says:
Garbage. Not the analysis of what’s up and down for Perry, but the conclusion. Because no right-wing Republican is going to be elected President in 2012 – not Perry, not Palin, not Huckabee. The best they can hope for is a Romney or Pawlenty (latter yet to be tested). And your dismissal of the anti-Texan sentiment is way too dismissive. Perry looks, walks, and talks like GWB. Repubs may fall for the act, but the country as a whole will not.
Reply »
victoria_29 Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Your dead wrong. I have heard people from ALL OVER the country talking about missing GW since this wimp is now in office, the recent terrorist attack & his refusal to admit to it & slap in the face to the family has agitated this. Obviously you did not learn a thing from VA NJ or NY-if you think it was a loss for Conservatives you are a fool-in fact it is starting to look like Democrat will be gone by end of week. If Rick Perry decides to run-he will get the nomination. I do agree Palin can’t win nor can Huckabee, Romney is too much a RINO. Pawlenty might be good VP for Perry.
Reply »
Cow Droppings says:
I think if you are positioning for a 2012 presidential run you don’t risk running for a full third term, especially when you start out down 20 points as he was last December. You take the Pawlenty road of avoiding a defeat that can short-circuit your presidential candidacy. I think he just likes being governor.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I think he likes being governor too. But you know, and I know, that he and his inner circle have always been contemptuous of Hutchison. So what if he was 20 points behind? They believed in their anti-Washington strategy and they believed she wanted a coronation and was afraid of a campaign.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
that’s a great argument for ‘governor’ but for the life of me I don’t understand RP or his advisors believing that the middle of the road America will vote for another Texas cowboy for President?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Perry’s just playing the hand he’s been dealt – always with the goal of staying in public office and moving up.
He’s fortunate that the teabaggers are so riled up this time…otherwise, KBH would roll.
Cow Droppings Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
I don’t think the predominant attitude among perryistas is contempt, but confidence that KBH was more vulnerable than early poll numbers showed. They knew she would have contempt for him, that it is unthinkable for a Highland Park blueblood to lose to a country hick, and that she would play it safe with her lead, creating an opening. The reference to a coronation is not a statement about Perry campaign contempt for her, but perceived contempt on her part for him.
Reply »
Jackson Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Hutchison a “Highland Park blueblood?” Where do you get that, Cow Droppings?
Let’s see: Kay was born in Galveston and raised in La Marque, in the Valley. She didn’t move to Dallas until she married Ray Hutchison at the age of 35. Bluebloods don’t start in middle age.
And the Hutchison’s don’t live in — or even adjacent to — Highland Park. They live decidedly in Dallas, off of Midway Road and Northwest Highway.
Other than that, I guess you’re right….Not.
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I was going to make the same point, except that Jackson is off by around 300 miles. LaMarque (pronounced “La Markey” in some circles) was not a place for bluebloods when Hutchison was growing up. It was the last town on I-45 before you crossed the causeway to Galveston. When I would drive past it, there was no sign of a town from the freeway, just a few gas stations and apartments. It was where the refinery executives lived so they could put some distance between themselves and the stench of Texas City. These were not blueblood folks.
Glenn Smith says:
Frightening as this prospect is, I think Paul’s argument is well-reasoned. It needs to be taken seriously.
There’s one additional fact, though: a lot of the national press really doesn’t like Perry. They loved Bush in his first campaign. They loved Palin for an hour and a half. (She read one speech in a teleprompter and the nats acted like she’d brought perpetual peace to the mideast, cured cancer and put a chicken in every pot.).
Perry won’t have that advantage.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I’m not sure about listening to political punditry from Glenn Smith, he of the “the non-voters will elect Tony Sanchez” strategery. (Still wondering how Sanchez bought that hook, line and sinker… or more accurately, money, marbles and chalk.).
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I hate ad hominem attacks. Judge people’s arguments on the merits.
Reply »
Anonymous Liberal Lout says:
I agree with the above. Paul, you make a good case why Perry can carry the national conservative base. That might, but I’m not sure, extend to carrying the Republican primary. Nothing you’ve said above, however, translates into carrying a majority of US voters in sufficient states to win the electoral college.
Perry would likely lose the North East, Definitely the West Coast, and probably the increasingly moderate intermountain West. The biggest vicotry I think he could expect would be in the 280’s or less. Very little room for error or loss. Hell, I think he’d get his ass kicked in Iowa, and the other early primaries (though he would have the money to keep fighting till Super Tuesday-just wouldn’t have the momentum).
I don’t disagree with you that he’s currently running for President. I just disagree with you that he could win.
Reply »
victoria_29 Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Obviously you don’t recognize the anger that obama & his merry cast of pelosi, reid, franks, etc have created all over the country. VA & NJ was just a start, want to be how many seats Dems lose in 2010?
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
“There is no need to chronicle the state’s deficiencies; we know what they are…”
Yes, Paul, and we also know everything you wrote in this post, about why Perry is attractive to the current Republican Party base. And the cute dismissal of the puff pieces and softballs from the WSJ and Fox News are nothing compared to the way you grease the wheels for Perry with posts like this, then pat yourself on the back for later — in a post no one will pass around — chastising Perry.
This post, this blog post you wrote right now, is going to be passed around by the Perry campaign as proof to why he could/should be President. You are making the case for Perry right now. You are giving him third-party validation of everything he’s done here. Everything. When the Senior Executive Editor of one of the state’s most well-known publications, Texas Monthly, writes something like this, it only helps Perry.
Your throwaway lines about “the state’s deficiencies” doesn’t make up for the parlor massage you gave his political history in the rest of this post.
On Friday, the tea party rally at the Capitol had a person with a sign talking about how “blood will be shed” unless they stop President Obama and the efforts of the duly elected Democratic majority in Congress. Rick Perry had a team of volunteers right next to these people, eagerly signing them up for the campaign.
Do you think its your civic responsibility, as a journalist and as a citizen of Texas, to extensively chronicle this man’s “conservative” story without any similar chronicling of the “deficiencies” he has done and continues to do in this state? Not only with his policies, but with his politics? How can you think it’s okay to write the “Why Perry Could Be President” puff piece that will be passed around Republican political circles across the country without at least including the reasons why he’d be a disaster not only for the Republican Party, but for the nation as a whole?
You’ve been around too long, Paul, to not know the effect this blog post will have, and what the Perry campaign will do with it.
You should not have written this without balancing out the piece. I can handle your daily musings on small scale stuff, but when you write a long, developed post like this, you elevate the importance of what you’re writing. To do that, and to not create a sufficient balance, is irresponsible.
Reply »
anon Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 10:40 am
And, Phillip, just who the heck do you think you are to lecture on journalistic responsibility?
Your joke of a blog loves to string up Republicans for “cutting CHIP funding in 2003″ without ever pointing out that while on their way out the door Democrats left behind a huge budget shortfall in ‘03 and the alternative to cutting spending was to raise taxes. They made a decision in ‘03. You might not agree with it but your blog never created “sufficient balance” on the issue. Instead you try your best to make it sound like Republicans just want to see poor children die in the streets.
Want a more recent example? Your blog recently put up a post shaming the Texas Republicans for voting against the federal healthcare legislation without mentioning that your golden boy Chet Edwards (democrat) voted against it as well.
Frankly, your blog doesn’t bother me. I get the purpose – promote democrat candidates and democrat views through internet media. And that’s fine, until you get self-righteous about your place in the world, like you just did.
Until BOR starts taking a fair and balanced approach, you are in no position to critize another for writing a “puff piece”. I know you would like to, but you can’t have it both ways.
Jeeze, I can’t believe you actually made me stand up and defend Burka. Like I needed another reason to despise BOR.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I appreciate that BOR doesn’t bother you. I know it bothers many here who comment anonymously (something I never do) on BurkaBlog.
I hold Burka Blog and Texas Monthly to a higher standard than I do BOR. If I shouldn’t do that anymore, then that’s just an adjustment in my own expectations that I need to accept.
There are a difference between “big” posts and “daily” posts. I know that, from my own experience in writing blog posts, there’s a difference. This was a “big” post — and “big” posts deserve to have a fuller, fairer writing than this topic received.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Good job Phillip. How about writing another whiny screed about how Rep. Hopson was a bad man and fired you and used your research. Nothing like sour grapes to bring in readers.
Reply »
Hannah says:
I can buy Perry being the nominee, but he would not get elected. There will not be a far right president. They can’t get enough votes.
Keep in mind that Bush didn’t really campaign as a far right president (compassionate conservatism and all that).
All that being said, please get him out of office in Texas.
Reply »
linda says:
Scary thought. But so is Huckabee. And Palin. And so many others.
My biggest wish is that Senator Kay-I-can’t-take-a-firm-stand-on-much will file for Gov, run a rough campaign that takes a lot of cash from both candidates and Bill White runs for Gov. in November. I like Gilbert, but I’m not sure he can pull it off. Perry is surely running for King, but his companionship with donors/appointment/revolving door staff/cover-ups cannot be good for the state, and certainly not the country.
PS whatever happened about the Texas Observer’s quest for the videotapes from the Texas House back hallway? Didn’t the DPS ignore several official directives to release the tapes?
Reply »
Boxer Shorts w/ Starch says:
Phillip lighten up you’re engaged now you should not be so uptight. Paul writes one nice thing about Perry after months of trashing him and all things republican and you go bonkers. Burka uses his blog to drive comments and traffic to his site. He opines on matters he thinks are interesting. And once in an eon Paul like the preverbal broken clock is correct. Burka is not a Perry pasty like Slater and the folks up at the Perry Morning News in Dallas. They still publish a paper up there?
In fact this could have been written to give KBH camp a strong talking point to use to turnout democrats to vote for her in March. “Stop Perry from the Oval Office crossover and elect Kay!” the new battle cry from the Traven happy hour KBH staff sessions.
Perry is not going to run for National office, he is going to run for TX Gov., Win and have another four years to needle you Phillip. That’s what I think.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Paul is wrong much more than any “proverbial” clock. He got the Speaker’s race wrong, the ‘06 and ‘08 TX House races wrong, and thought Obama’s speech about race and culture in April 2008 was going to blow up in his face.
Now, I don’t blame him from being wrong. I’m wrong all the time. But I’m not Senior Executive Editor for Texas Monthly.
Also, if I thought KBH had any semblance of an ability to put anything constructive together, I’d be more hopeful about your suggestion. But no one has seen any evidence of that at all.
Reply »
eyeswideopen Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
No one reads your blog, so you find a need to come over here and join in??? I don’t venture in your direction much, and certainly don’t post an opinion, but each time I have been there, I don’t see a Paul Burka post there either. Suggest you stay home and work on providing a product that can compete with Paul’s site.
Reply »
anon says:
Don’t shoot the messenger, people. Hasn’t Perry already campaigned in NH, then on behalf of Giuliani?
If he couldn’t win the nomination, he’d be happy to be the VP nominee, I bet.
Reply »
GWBDFW says:
I think that the point above, regarding Bush 43’s popularity with the press, especially early on, is well reasoned. The main problem with Perry is that no one, not even his supporters, seem especially fond of him. I dont see him stirring up alot of grassroots support across the country.
Reply »
LegeBoy says:
Let’s hope that Perry IS the nominee in 2012. Other than Palin, I think he’s the easiest “contender” for Demos to beat in 2012.
Reply »
Garvin Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Palin/Perry! Perry/Palin! Fox will run the campaign like a reality show! Sarahs wardrobe expense will be topped by Rick’s barber bill! Limbaugh and Beck will drool and American voters will roll to the Dems.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Yah. Perry will be the “death” of the Repubican ticket in 12. With the obamacare TAX starting next year and 3 years of TAX before ANY health care starts, cap and tax looming, unemployment rising, a double dip recession or worse coming, I doubt that Obammy will get 40% of the vote. Again, timing is everything and in 3 years, it could easily be Perry’s time in the sun.
And what happened to the Kinky/Katz ticket? I’m sure that would be a WINNER for the dims next year.
Reply »
deshard Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Only a GOPer could take poll after poll that shows a solid majority of Americans in favor of a public option in health care reform and try to spin it into a negative.
Once the healthcare legislation is passed early next year his numbers will rise above the 54% they’re at now…he remains popular.
The economy is showing signs of recovery and we all knew that the unemployment rate would his double-digits this year no matter who won last November. And BTW– who was president the last time we saw these levels in ‘83? Ronald Reagan, who had been in office two years to Obama’s ten months when we hit 10+%.
When Obama took office the job losses for January topped 700k. We’re down to less than 200k in Oct. and if the losses are stopped and even an incremental gain is showed by late summer of next year, the GOPs delusions of a ‘94 repeat in the House will explode in their faces.
The only way a GOPer will win the White House is if they can get past their Ideological Inquisition and pick a candidate who’ll appeal to more than just the conservative base. Otherwise, if it’s Palin or Huckabee, or Pawlenty to a lesser degree, it will be a cakewalk for Obama.
As it looks right now, we’re in no danger of the GOP sorting its house out anytime soon.
Palin/Prejean in ‘12!
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Reagan lost something like 26 seats in his first mid-term election.
billrider says:
Paul,
I agree with Cow Droppings that you don’t run for Governor (again) when the initial polls show you so far down. He could have just used his time off to tour the country. Of course this might play with Perry’s over confidence.
Perry is more likely positioning himself to get the VP nod or cabinet post. He is already buddies with Palin and Barbour(and all of the other Govs) to help this venture. This also goes back to why he endorsed Rudy (back when he had a massive lead and before his campaign fell off the map)
And I won’t believe Perry is running for President either until he starts making trips to Iowa every other week.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Bill Rider, have you seen the recent POLLING numbers with Perry leading by TWELVE PERCENTAGE POINTS ?
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=309125
The Tea Party folks and segregationists are going to have their way and making sure Perry wins on March 2, 2010.
Look at how George Pataki managed to win 3 full terms in NY State in 1994, 1998 and 2002.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Briscoe Democrat –
I am appalled, and Rick Perry should be too, that you would brag that segregationists are going to make sure Perry wins the primary. You really should check with Mark Miner before you write such things. Where have you been that you think it is OK to tout your candidate’s support from segregationists? Your comment makes me sick.
Reply »
Jackson Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Briscoe Democrat –
I did see that poll showing Perry up by 12 points…the plus-minus on it was something over 5 percentage points.
That’s a joke poll.
Reply »
billrider Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Briscoe Democrat,
Not only is your segregationist comment moronic you need to look up the words “initial” and “recent.”
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Reply »
Huck Finn says:
Luckily the world is scheduled to end Dec. 12, 2012 so he will never actually take office.
Whatever it takes.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perry’s ALWAYS been running for President. I’m a bit surprised you hadn’t picked up on that before, Paul. But…GWB killed him. (At least there’s one thing we can be thankful to George for.)
Running to the far right may help Perry win the the GOP nomination if the Purity Squad continues to get its way. But that is only more assurance that Perry, like Huckabee, will be no more than a regional candidate, and the GOP as a whole will be no more than a Party of the Confederacy.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Agreed. The most shocking thing about your post, Paul, is that the idea of Perry running for Presdient seems novel to you.
Which side was Alaska on in the Civil War, by the way?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Doesn’t matter ’bout Alaska – they only have three electoral votes anyway.
Reply »
The People's Elbow says:
It will be a half century before America even contemplates electing a Republican from Texas as President.
Which certainly doesn’t mean Perry couldn’t win the nomination. In fact, I think he is particularly well suited in Iowa and South Carolina. If he simply finishes in the money in NH he could hold the momentum going into Super Tuesday.
I think it is certain that the 2012 Republican nominee will be extremely to the right. Perry fits that requirement better than Huck and Romney and doens’t have the baggage of Palin (yet).
Reply »
MattTX says:
Perry might be able to win a GOP primary, but Mr. 39% is not going to fly in the Philadelphia suburbs, the Denver suburbs, New Hampshire, or Minneapolis.
Ask yourself, what do all these places have in common? Hint – ask yourself where you have to do well in order to get elected President, and which parts of the country have shown that they are amenable to neo-secessionism.
Reply »
Buck says:
Huckabee is way ahead of Perry at this point.
There is no room for two prayerful Southerners.
You might as well speculate that Sarah Palin will move to Texas and establish her power base here (doesn’t a relative have a Texas ranch?)
Reply »
M. Gomez says:
Good story and right on the nail-head. How about “chronicling the state’s deficiencies” one more time just so I know what they are AND “help the KBH bunch” know what their message should be……again and again….etc. ‘Course repub politics ain’t what normal folks follow so maybe what should be done for Texas ain’t whats gonna be done to get him re-elected.
The very idea of this guy being Gov again is scary!!! Arn’t there ANY Democrats out there that can take this guy down?
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
M. Gomez, the Texas Democrats have NO chance in hell of knocking off Perry because he has a successful history of running NEGATIVE, volatile campaigns against opponents who seem too weak to stand up to him (see Sanchez, Hightower, Bell, Strayhorn, Sharp, etc.,)
Sorry folks including Burka, Perry will WIN the primary and the general election due to anti-DC sentiment and anti-Obama sentiment in 2010, making the state’s FOURTH governor to serve 3 terms and the first to serve 14 years until January 20, 2015.
I mean, my cousins who live in Louisiana had no problem of electing Edwin Edwards to the Louisiana Executive Mansion FOUR TIMES in 1972, 1975, 1983, and 1991, lasting 16 years in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Briscoe Democrat — I have cousins in Louisiana too, and I know that Edwin Edwards is not a good case study for anything. He was running against David Duke, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and one of those segregationists you were touting as good Republicans a day or two ago. People in Louisiana had bumper stickers on their cars that read, “Vote for the Crook. It’s important!” Just because Edwards served for life (in office and now in the pokey) doesn’t mean Perry will.
Reply »
GOP Realist says:
Phillip,
Give me a break. Anon @ 10:40 am is spot on. You are unabashedly biased in your approach to “journalism” @ Burnt Orange Report, so you have no place to talk about “balanced” journalism. This is a blog post, not an article. And it only codifies what everyone was already thinking. Maybe if you did a better job of chronicling Texas’ “deficiencies” as you see them, you could persuade the electorate to elect a Democrat to SOMETHING. Or maybe not.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I am biased. I support Democrats. I openly admit that, and no one who reads our site ever thinks anything differently. I also could have written my comment anonymously, but I don’t believe in doing that, either. I put my name next to things I write, and I stand by them.
This is an article. It is on a blog, but I guarantee you it will be e-mailed around as an authoritative article from one of Texas’ leading institutes of journalism.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Yeah, you like open debate except when you delete comments you don’t agree with on BOR
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perry/Palin in 2012. Please, oh please, oh please, oh please.
Reply »
asmith says:
MattTx hit it on the head.
I would add the suburbs of Columbus, OH to that list as well.
Perry looks good in a primary but I can’t see GWB 2.0 winning a general.
Reply »
Rog says:
So a governor touting secession is going to get the support of voters across the country? Hope not.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I think that another Bush …Jeb…would stand a better chance than King Perry in 2012.
I also don’t think that he is a shoo-in to pull a repeat next year. As Paul states, he ought to just go quietly into the night and start collecting from all the big companies who owe him so much.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
No Republican from Texas is going to be elected president until the nation’s collective memory of George W. Bush has been wiped.
Reply »
Janus says:
Paul,
Halloween was a week and a half ago and April 1st is months away.
What gives with the creepy spoof story?
Reply »
anonymous says:
Good. That will force all of my Northeast Texas Republican friends to realize how far they’ve gone by voting for Perry for President. Obamination is right!
Reply »
Get Centered says:
Most Beltway political reporters I know dismiss Perry as an empty suit — witness his “winning” Chris Cilliza’s poll for Most Overrated Governor. The only reason his name keeps bubbling up is because of the current crop’s deficiencies. Lots of Texas reporters talked up GWB too (as they stood to gain from his rise), but they seem far less enthused about a Perry national bid.
Reply »
Jordan says:
This is a great argument as to why he could win the GOP nomination for President if he is re-elected (*cringe*) as Governor of Texas. But, I agree with some other posters here that many of those things (including being from Texas) would kill his chances against Obama…even if Obama’s first term doesn’t go as well as many of us hoped it would.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yup…the country is clamoring for another Texan to lead them!
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
He certainly has hotdogged some issues that really don’t relate a lot to the Governor’s office, specifically the divestiture of Iran and support of Israel. Those actions suggest to me that he has national aspirations as well.
But if he was plotting that long ago (2007) why Giuliani? Why endorse someone that is the antithesis of everything you say you believe in? Twice divorced, pro-choice, pro-gay, and dysfunctional father.
Rick Perry is a man that has spent every day since his party change trying to prove to people that he is one of them and to forget his statewide co-chairmanship of Al Gore for President in 1988. So why endorse the liberal Rudy? Remember, Rudy endorsed Cuomo over his own party’s nominee (Pataki) in 1994
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
Having seen video of a recent Perry speech this morning, it is scary to reflect that he used to be even worse. Then he was boring. Now he is like a bad defense attorney, pacing back and forth before the jury with random, uncontrolled gestures only exceeded by Glenn Beck’s gyrations. Perhaps one of you “anonymous” posters on his payroll will man-up and explain to him that his gestures should match what he is saying, when he is saying it. The few times they did align, I had flashbacks to SNL’s motivational speaker where Chris Farley lived “in a van down by the river.”
Neither then nor now did he understand that brevity is his friend.
Reply »
goo says:
Show him the door, get him out of the Gov’s Mansion, and deport him to Alaska. Please, KBH Campaign – get the ball rolling and salvage any chance Texas has to get rid of Rick. Please.
Perry/Palin 2012 would be the biggest comedy the country has ever seen. Thankfully, the GOP is smart enough to not let that happen (I think).
Reply »
Aggie for Kay says:
I totally agree he is doing this to run for president…of Texas A&M…
Reply »
MonkeyMan says:
He’s still left no legacy. They say voters only remember what has happened in the last 2 weeks, but I have to think that it will be a long time before a Texan is able to make it to the White House, especially a Republican and/or one with a shared history with GWB. Evens R’s recognize the Bush tenure as a period defined by a lack of leadership. Every Texan on the national stage for at least the next generation will have to battle the negative perception that remains as a by-product of the Bush years.
Reply »
paulburka says:
I want to respond to Phillip Martin’s comment. He writes:
“This post, this blog post you wrote right now, is going to be passed around by the Perry campaign as proof to why he could/should be President. You are making the case for Perry right now. You are giving him third-party validation of everything he’s done here. Everything. When the Senior Executive Editor of one of the state’s most well-known publications, Texas Monthly, writes something like this, it only helps Perry.”
* * * *
I write what I write because I think readers will be interested. I don’t care whether it helps Rick Perry or hurts Rick Perry or is ignored by Rick Perry. If I think I have something to say on a subject that readers will be interested in, I am going to write that story and publish it as soon as I am finished writing. Unlike Phillip, I don’t for a moment think that my writing this story could help Rick Perry become president. My sole concern is the readers of Texas Monthly and of this blog. If I am all that stands between Perry and the Republican nomination, America must have a pretty feeble press corps.
I chose not to recite Texas’s shortcomings during the Perry years because, first, readers who keep up with Texas politics know them already, and, second, I believe in the one-subject rule for blog posts. If I had engaged in a lengthy colloquy about what is wrong with state government, I guarantee you I would have lost readers, and the force of the initial post would have drained away. I’ve been at this business a little longer than Phillip has, and I have developed a sense as an editor about when I am getting off the track and in danger of losing readers. Writing about battles that have been fought many times — CHIP, toll roads, school finance, and so on — was off message for this post. This was about Perry’s presidential prospects. If he wants to send it around the country, that’s up to him. Anybody who knows how to google can look up what I have had to say about him in the magazine and on the blog. Not much of it is flattering.
Let me restate for the record: I write for readers of Texas Monthly and of this blog, period. I have no interest in currying favor with politicians. I have no interest in advancing anybody’s career. Texas will endure.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Good response by Burka. Counting down the seconds until Phillip comes back with something whiny.
Reply »
Drought Conditions Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Get ‘im, Paul!
Sorry Phil, I don’t think you have a point.
More broadly, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Perry run for president. I’d be mildly surprised to see him get the nomination, but that’s mainly because I have no idea what the 2012 primary is going to look like. Strange goings on in the GOP; we’ll be able to get a better sense after 2010, I think, depending on how Crist, Kirk, et al do.
One thing I do know is that a Perry nomination will guarantee a second term for Obama. For all the reasons mentioned above. The media doesn’t love him like they love Obama and loved Bush in 2000, and he’s on record flirting with secession. That’s a disastrous combination; we’ll see that quote everywhere if he runs.
Reply »
Jed Merrill says:
As much as I love Texan independence and their willingness to secede at the drop of a hat, I don’t know if Gov. Perry’s recent rhetoric on this matter would play well to a national audience. He would certainly be better than Obama, but I think Romney is more prepared to lead a turnaround. America NEEDS a specialist in 2012.
One thing is certain–we don’t need Senators running anymore for a while. I don’t care if they are from Chicago/Kenya, New York or Arizona. I’ve had enough Executive (and Judicial) lawmaking for a few years. 2012 belongs to a Governor, whether Romney, Palin, Perry, or Huck.
Reply »
Robert says:
Why this: “I’m not saying that Rick Perry SHOULD be president. Heaven forbid.” We all know you’re a big Lib so why can’t you just write without such silly disclaimers.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I can’t stop you from commenting on this blog, but you have no idea what my personal political views are, and I am certainly not going to discuss them with someone who makes assertions he doesn’t know anything about.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Burka, Obama is already a ONE TERMER anyways because he’s already alienating the coalitions that put him in office last year, especially the INDEPENDENTS, who bailed on the Democrats and voted heavily for the Republicans as you saw what took place in Virginia and New Jersey, where McDonnell and Chrisite handily knocked off Deeds and Corzine due to Democratic fatigue following 8 years.
Perry is NOT running for President in 2012, you can bet the farm on that because my money is on him winning reelection to a 3rd full term in the Texas Governor’s Mansion and serving that new term from January 18, 2011 until January 20, 2015, Perry will wait for 2016 to roll around IF Obama manages to win reelection in ‘12.
On his previous statewide campaigns, he got LUCKY because Hightower was way too overconfident in the 1990 Agriculture Commissioner’s race, Sharp pulled the Texas Rangers ad against him in the nasty 1998 Lieutenant Governor’s race, Sanchez spent a wasteful $72 million bucks in the 2002 Governor’s race and now KBH is acting like a CRYBABY because her chances are getting slimmer and slimmer each and everyday.
Reply »
Drought Conditions Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Wrong, Briscoe. It remains to be seen how Obama is doing with your capitalized independents. Deeds was a terrible candidate and Corzine was more hated in NJ than Perry is in Texas.
I do think you make an interesting point, though about Perry waiting until 2016. If Perry’s reelected governor (which is contingent entirely on whether KBH can get it together and beat him–don’t see Gilbert/Schieffer/Kinky standing a chance), and Obama’s numbers stay above 50%, I think I can picture Perry holding out for 2016. We’ll have to see. I think he’d rather run in 2012, but he’s probably politically savvy enough to wait on that if the conditions aren’t right.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Were you in a coma for the last 8 years? We just had a Governor as president. How that working out for you?
Reply »
GWBDFW says:
There are plenty of conservatives who abhor the idea of Perry in the WH; his campaign will never get off the ground anyway. Despite lib paranoia, the social conservatives don’t have that much control of the GOP. Plus, if it appears Bush fatigue has worn off enough to give Perry a shot, then the same applies for Jeb, who can carry all three stool legs of the modern GOP
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
Plus, if it appears Bush fatigue has worn off enough to give Perry a shot, then the same applies for Jeb, who can carry all three stool legs of the modern GOP
What are the three stool legs of the modern GOP? God, gays and guns? Mooslims, tax cuts and more mooslims?
Reply »
GWBDFW says:
har har har…
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Rick Perry has been planning to run for President ever since that day in 1988 or 89 when Karl R. took him to the top of a mountain in the desert and whispered in his ear all the wonders that could be his. It is a sad fact that Rick did not tell him to “Be gone!”
Others, such as Bill Clinton and George W.H., began their races much earlier. Clinton was one of the many who looked into his mirror when he was about 14 and said to himself: “You would make a good President of the United States. In fact, you’d make the best President of the United States.”
George W. H. started at birth being told that the Presidency was his birthright. To bad little George W. thought the same, although they were probably telling that to Jeb instead of to him.
Once one of them starts thinking about being President they NEVER get over it ala–Harold Stassen and, probably, John Sharp.
We are all fortunate that most of them never make it.
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
Paul,
I appreciate your reply, but you’re either being humbly deflective or unfortunately short-sighted about the influence you have on this subject.
Pieces like this – pieces written by a respected journalist from a leading publication in Texas – are taken seriously at the national level. People in D.C. don’t follow your daily writings on BurkaBlog, the same as people here in Texas don’t follow all the D.C. press that Hutchison gets which no one down here ever notices or cares about. But when someone from D.C. does want to have a big picture look at political analysis, they will paint in broad strokes and look for people who write in broad strokes.
You are one of those broad-stroke painters, and this post will be used to prop up future broad-stroke political analysis on the state and national level about Perry’s potential prospects for President.
Given that, I think this subject matter is much too serious for a casual blog post. Are you the only one in the press corps standing between you and a Perry Presidential nomination? Of course not. And in 2011, when the Regular Session ends and Rick Perry decides to run for President, I sure hope you write a major piece titled, “Why Rick Perry Should Not be President.” But until then, pieces like this are what light the “Perry for President” fire.
If you want to stick to the single subject rule of how this post is just about Perry’s Presidential prospects, then do it. But don’t stick to a single-subject-positive-only. Talk about the pluses and the minuses.
Talk about how the National ID for Republicans is sinking, and why or why not Perry’s politics can hurt or help Republicans address their problem with attracting independent and swing voters.
Talk about how Rick Perry’s candidacy plays within what former Virginia Republican Tom Davis wrote about following last week’s elections when he said:
Talk about how Perry’s economic talking points fare when economist Ray Perryman says that the United States is about to bounce out of the recession at the same time Texas is heading for a massive budget shortfall.
Talk about how the growth of third party movement — specifically the Tea Party — in areas both locally here in Texas and somewhere like Florida — could affect Perry as he straddles the line between the base (which he needs to be nominated) and the middle (which he needs to win, and which Sarah Palin could never find).
All you wrote about was, more or less, the Rick Perry press points for why he could be President. And I fully believe you were doing it purely as a thoughtful exercise in political analysis, but the fact is — as you’ve stated, and which I fully recognize — you’ve been doing this much too long to not know better.
A balanced piece that actually addressed some or all of these relevant points to your single-subject post would have been one thing. But you went completely on the Perry side, dismissing for reasons of space (one of the most ludicrous excuses, considering this is the internet and your readers will always read lengthy posts) why you chose to explore this subject so briefly.
I think this should have been a major, balanced article in the magazine, or at least a more developed piece for this blog. Daily musings are one thing, and we’re all used to that. But this post was more than a musing, and given that it was, it deserved to have the full story told.
Reply »
billrider Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Phillip,
You are really missing the point of Paul’s post.
Also, stop using the comment page as a secondary blog post for BOR.
Reply »
Hutto the Hippo Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Phillip,
Dude, chill out. Burka is merely stating the obvious–that Perry is the best chance to get the R nomination, by default not by his sterling credentials. There’s nobody else out there. And Burka isn’t saying Perry will win the Presidency. In fact, if there’s anything that gives Obama a second term, it’s another R nominee who’s a Texas cowboy with even fewer credentials and more extreme views than Bush 43.
Reply »
Ray Bailey says:
Hey! What about someone talking about Kay for President (oh, crap, i just spit out my scotch laughing). No, seriously…hold on…my belly hurts from laughing. Kay for Pre…i can’t type. Kay for…..oh, my god, i cant believe i am typing that. holy cow. that is funny. kay for preside…hahahahaha i almost made it that time. Why is she not mentioned? Paul, why Perry and not Kay for Pres…oh, my god, i cant get that out again. She is funny and I am going to have to have another scotch before she gets home…oh, crap, i think she’s here
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Isn’t Dave Carney the New Hampshire guy that was publicly guaranteeing Craddick would be re-elected Speaker up until the minute Straus laid out 76+ pledges? I’m pretty sure he was.
Reply »
eyeswideopen says:
Mr. Martin, I find Paul to be objective. I find you to be a subjective, self promoter. Please go away. If and when I think that your opinions warrant reading, I will try and find your website.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Phillip, I am sympathetic to your causes, but you are doing yourself no favors here. It strikes me that this is a conversation you should have had with Paul over coffee or lunch. Energy and enthusiasm are great…anger and attacks only serve to prop up the opposition and makes you look as wingnutty as them.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Just how great is the Texas economy under our wonderful Governor Perry? Texas is second only to California in federal stimulus receipts (which at least in theory now, Perry would have us reject), and we’re still sucking wind big time. Quite the leader, that guy. Definitely Presidential material.
Reply »
asmith says:
Jackson,
Have you been to Midway and NW Highway lately? Close enough to Highland Park living.
Reply »
Senator Scrooge says:
When is the last time a man was elected president who wears his college ring?
Reply »
from the rafters says:
I’m perpetually surprised that the Dems don’t yank BOR’s funding & force the “writers” to seek employment in Lon Burnam’s state office.
The ridiculous musings of 20-something college liberals are self-marginalizing for their party at best. Every two years, TDP sits at their election watch party and wonders what went wrong–sure that what the BOR kids predicted was supposed to be happen. It’s like having a ditzy cheerleader for the Baylor football team: they’re welcome to sit around and make far-fetched words of encouragement, but in the end the team has lost, and they’ve done nothing to help out…
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Wait a minute – BOR has funding???
Also, the only cheerleaders you’ll find right now are in the Republican primary race for Governor.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
BOR doesn’t sell ads or ask people to donate money? I must have missed something Dear Baby Phillip. Now go have mama change your diapers and quit crying like a baby on this blog. Even my progressive friends think you are making a fool out of yourself in this whole thread.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Phillip … I applaud your moxie, but hope you have learned something from your inability to sit back, watch and learn … or at least post under a pseudonym. I am too old to follow this same advice. I now wear a soapbox like you might a skateboard.
As Oscar Wilde once said, “In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.”
Mary says:
Jackson, I have to ask why you think La Marque is in the Valley.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Call it what is – or at least what Kay’s announcer did: La Markee.
Reply »
Nostradamus says:
Kay doesn’t run.
Staubach runs and beats Perry.
Staubach wins General.
Staubach becomes frontrunner as R nominee against Obama.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Nostradamus,
Get a grip brother.
Kay will LOSE to Perry in the primary.
Perry crushes Schieffer in the general (62-36).
Perry serves the full 4 years and leaves on January 20, 2015 after 14 years in the Governor’s Mansion.
Obama wins reelection in 2012 against Palin or Romney.
Perry runs for the Presidency in 2016.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
Staubach becomes frontrunner as R nominee against Obama.
They settle the contest on the basketball court when Obama is the first to spell “horse.”
Reply »
too much credit Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
dude, Obama can’t spell “horse”
does that mean he’ll lose that decision?
Reply »
Calculatin' Coke says:
I would have thought Huckabeast to be the 08 nominee. But CATO and Club for Growth deep-sixed him. Perry would not have that problem.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Calculatin’ Coke:
Huckabee didn’t have a chance of winning the GOP nod last year because McCain already had it wrapped up after winning Florida last January.
Romney imploded because of his flip-flops under his disastrous governorship in MA, I even heard the real reason he didn’t seek reelection in 2006 was because of his horrible approval ratings and knowing he was going to lose BIG.
Giuliani ignored Iowa and New Hampshire too early, and was too busy focusing on one state, Florida.
It didn’t help the GOP that Bush Jr., was very unpopular last year, which killed their chances of keeping the White House no matter how HORRIBLE the Democratic nominee was (Obama or Hillary).
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Burka, I’ve heard there was some deal between Briscoe and Bullock on the governorship.
The pan was for Briscoe to win a 3rd term in 1978, serving 10 years and retire in 1982, making way for Bullock, but John Hill ruined those plans and we all know how the rest of the story went.
Is it true that Bullock HATED Mark White’s guts ?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Bullock disliked most of the politcians he had to work with, Ann Richards included. Very few Democrats liked Hill; the rap on him was he asked for favors but seldom returned them. I was never close to Bullock; in fact, I avoided him whenever possible. I am not a Bullock fan. I must say, though, that when I went to a party in his old neighborhood and parked in front of his former home, I was a little uncomfortable about doing so. My wife thought it was silly. “He’s been dead for years,” she said. “So you say,” I answered.
Reply »
Calculatin' Coke says:
After Iowa, Club for Growth preempted Huckabee from consolidating the tax and social wings of the party. The tax wing did not like McCain, either. But imagine a party of economic populists & social conservatives, in Texas or in the United States: The Warren Chisum Party.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Whenever talk about Roger “The Dodger” Staubach running for public office I always remember what Sen. Lloyd Bentsen said when there was talk that Staubach would run against him.
To paraphrase, Bentsen said he was not worried because of two things Texas voters would know in advance of the race.
He, Bentsen, had not had more than seven brain concussions; and
Lloyd Bentsen “calls his own plays”.
Roger’s time, if there ever was one, was long, long ago.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
As a Bullock-x I can say that Bullock definitely did not like Mark White. He never helped him in any of his campaigns, and was not very nice to John Hill either putting out some stuff about the cost of Hill’s plan, etc. (I was a Hill supporter then.) Later when White ran on his own, Tony Proffitt was the head of Democrats for Clements. Whether there was some sort of “agreement” between Bullock and Briscoe is unlikely. What is more likely is that Bullock had his own plans to run for governor and did whatever he could to help make that possible–which it eventually was not.
Reply »
harley says:
Great exchanges, Burka, the sage is correct with one exception – Rick Perry is running to be God but will settle for the stop loss of governor.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Teachers elected Mark White,1978, and then voted against him in 82 because he didn’t follow though on what he had promised to education.
I doubt will see another U.S. President from Texas in the near future from either party.
It continues to amaze me that Texas which has such a large population and could be a leader in national politics has lost it’s appeal because of partisan politics. We have everything here: water, natural gas, solar power, oil, refineries, wind, and an independent streak we should be using to the benefit of our citizens.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 8:29 am
I think you are confused here. White beat Clements in 1982 and was defeated for reelection by Clements in 1986. In 1978 Clements became the first GOP governor since Reconstruction when he beat John Hill.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Texian, I think had Briscoe won the Democratic primary in ‘78, he would have easily destroyed Clements in the general.
Reply »
Anastasia says:
Hooray, Kenneth Franks! Texas should be a leader, but for Gramm and Fannie/Freddie and Enron. Delay and money laundering. Hutchison and her weakness on every issue. Cornyn. And Bush and Rove who were failures on everything but the war on terror. I am a 4x GOP primary voter, but the current DC leadership from our state has failed us time and time again. That is why we are below California, Florida, Mass, NY, IL, PA and others on the political power map.
Reply »
Anastasia says:
Paul, Kenneth’s post has me wondering why we are not a leader in the nation politically? What are your thoughts?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
We are not a leader politically because Texas’s leading politicians have no interest in governing, either at the state or national level. The Texas Republican Party is consumed by ideology.
Reply »
Texian Politico says:
Off topic, but the special congressional race in New York from last Tuesday isn’t over yet and its getting closer even though the Conservative conceded. The state hasn’t certified the vote yet and the margin is now down to about 3,000 votes from the previous 5,000+. Over 10,000 absentee ballots are still uncounted. Owens should still hold on, but it could be close. If Hoffman gets the most votes Owens will have to be removed from his seat even though he was sworn in and voted on Saturday night.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/its_not_over_recanvassing_shows_ny23_race.html
Reply »
Peggy Venable says:
You’ve got it wrong. First, Obama’s race has nothing to do with his popularity or lack thereof. He won being Black, he can lose because of his socialist policies and reckless spending. We are leaving our children a legacy of debt and less freedom and fewer choices.
Second, I don’t see Gov Perry wanting to run for President. If called, he may serve – that is yet to be determined.
Finally, thanks for acknowleding just how well the State of Texas is doing relative to other states. We are kicking butt!
Reply »
anon says:
Peggy, starting two wars and cutting taxes at the same time (never done before in US history) is reckless spending. For anyone to pretend President Geo W Bush was fiscally responsible is a joke.
Reply »