The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Two Nationally Known GOP Insiders’

Posted on | October 25, 2011 | 12 Comments

Thus does Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post describe Nelson Warfield and Curt Anderson, who have been brought aboard Team Perry in a campaign overhaul. Another money quote:

Perry’s original staff seemed not to appreciate that running for president was a fundamentally different task than running for reelection in a deep red state.

No duh. I noticed Rubin’s item because she cited my mockery of Anderson’s faux-populist rhetoric in August. Monday’s headlines about the attempt to restart the Perry bandwagon:

Perry shuffles campaign team
— Texas Monthly

Rick Perry ads start Tuesday in Iowa
— Politico

You could read those articles, or you could look at the latest polls:

Iowa …………………. Perry 6% (6th Place)
New Hampshire … Perry 2% (7th Place)
South Carolina ….. Perry 12% (3rd Place)
Florida ……………… Perry 3% (4th Place)
Nevada ……………… Perry 5% (5th Place)

Keep in mind that on Sept. 13, Perry led the Real Clear Politics national poll average with 31.8% — a 12-point lead over Mitt Romney. Can the Perry bubble be re-inflated? I dunno. You can buy a lot with $15 million, and even the MSM are finally noticing that Herman Cain’s campaign lacks anything remotely resembling an effective “ground game” in the early states. (But don’t get me started on that.)

So let’s suppose a mini-revival for Perry. Can he recover from single-digit poll numbers in so many early states? I don’t say that’s impossible, but I remind you of my Aug. 9 warning:

What I fear will happen is that Perry will spend several months sucking up media oxygen and burning through GOP donor cash, only to collapse early next year. This will have the effect of suffocating other conservative candidates, and thereby lead to … Romney 2012.

“Howdy. Thank you, Erick.”

Category: Election 2012, Rick Perry

Comments

12 Responses to “‘Two Nationally Known GOP Insiders’”

  1. smitty
    October 25th, 2011 @ 9:05 am

    Well, @rsmccain, Perry has @MelissaTweets as a supporter, which is nice.

  2. ThePaganTemple
    October 25th, 2011 @ 9:23 am

    Perry would be the perfect candidate if he could just learn to think on his feet like during a debate, or when he’s unexpectedly cornered or confronted. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s a skill that can be learned at his age, its something that comes naturally. You either have it or you don’t. It has to be honed over time. But the next time he’s in a debate, watch him carefully, and listen. Invariably, at some point he’ll draw a blank, he won’t be able to think of the word he’s trying to say, even though it will be on the tip of his tongue, and knowing he’s pressed for time he’ll just draw the first word out that approximates what he’s trying to say. He did that in the last debate, the one on CNN. And that was his best performance so far.

  3. Anonymous
    October 25th, 2011 @ 9:49 am

    The essential flaw of the Perry campaign, from the outset, has been arrogance. The way they bigfooted all over the Ames Straw Poll? Yeah. That’s what I’m talking about.

  4. Joe
    October 25th, 2011 @ 9:54 am

    Perry’s horses are long out of the barn and across the prairie.  What’s to rehash?  Can he recover?  Maybe if everything goes his way and he does not screw things up.  I do not see that happening. 

    and even the MSM are finally noticing that Herman Cain’s campaign lacks anything remotely resembling an effective “ground game” in the early states. (But don’t get me started on that.)

    This is the more topical issue.  Can Cain pull this out and what does he need to do?   I sense a degree of…frustration with you and the current Team Cain. 

  5. ThePaganTemple
    October 25th, 2011 @ 10:39 am

    Yeah, I think he did that purposely, just to gauge how much popular support he really had by how many votes his none-effort in the Ames Straw Poll garnered, and he almost caused Bachmann to lose to Paul. As it stands, he’s the main reason her campaign fell flat.

    But as far as the arrogance quotient goes, they’re all arrogant to a degree. You won’t find many Type B personality presidents, and what ones there are were probably not the most effective ones. Also, he’s under the influence of people like Charlie Crist, which should have set off alarms from the start.

  6. Joe
    October 25th, 2011 @ 1:26 pm

    These are the people who gave us John McCain in 2008. These are the people who stood by and let the left savage Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. These are the people who carped that, had it not been for the TEA Party, the GOP might have control of the Senate — and who today blame the TEA Party for giving us a “weak Republican field”. These are the people who told us that Huntsman and Pawlenty and Daniels were all top-tier candidates. These are the people who argued that Cain should have been booted from the stage after his first couple debates. These are the people who insisted we treat Obama with kid gloves, who called us Visigoths for noting the facts about his past and rise, who chided us for our descriptions while working overtime to keep alive the myth of Obama as a mere misguided moderate, even as the evidence piled up that he is, in fact, precisely the man any fair look at his history would predict he’d be. These are the people who invoke Reagan for convenience, yet insist that the era of Reagan is over — and that conservatives had better embrace big government and an “active Executive” lest they find themselves a regional Party.

    Jeff Makes the Case for Saying F it, go Outlaw (Third Party).  If the GOP trys to stick us with Romney.   

  7. Anonymous
    October 25th, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

    You mention he has 15 million in his campaign fund but I also hear much reference to 55 million in a super PAC. With that kind of money he’ll be around for a while.

  8. Anonymous
    October 25th, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

    Cain and his team appear to have made the calculation that he can do well perhaps even win in Iowa without the the massive small unit actions that has traditionally been required to win there. Even if he had enough money there isn’t time to build that organization. How well does he need to do in Iowa for that calculation to have been correct?

  9. Anonymous
    October 25th, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

    I don’t think Perry’s entry had any effect on the results of the straw poll in Iowa, however it did step all over the post poll coverage. That she barely bested Ron Paul had as much to do with how little momentum she got from it.

  10. Jorge Emilio Emrys Landivar
    October 25th, 2011 @ 2:43 pm

    “What I fear will happen is that Perry will spend several months sucking up media oxygen and burning through GOP donor cash, only to collapse early next year. This will have the effect of suffocating other conservative candidates, and thereby lead to … Romney 2012.”

    That explains the rumor that has been circulating that Romney helped finance his entry.

  11. Adjoran
    October 25th, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

    You mean Warfield and Anderson?  Or have someone else in mind?  Or just a nameless “other”?

    Goldstein may be off his meds again, but how exactly could the GOP “stick us with Romney”?  Aren’t virtually ALL our delegates elected by primary or caucus?  We don’t have the reserved “Super-Delegate” slots like the Democrats.

    So are you saying if we don’t like the democratic outcome of our party’s nominating process, which was known well ahead of time and is free and open and even lets Huntsman and Santorum in debates, then we should pick up our toys and run away?

    Anyone who does that is voting with their feet for Barack Hussein Obama.  PERIOD.

  12. Adjoran
    October 25th, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

    Perry’s biggest problem, I still maintain, was the ridiculous hype his candidacy was given before he entered the race.  Conservatives unfamiliar with him were led to believe he was basically a Reaganesque figure, big state Governor with conservative principles but mass appeal whose strong voice would lead us out of the wilderness, yadda, yadda, yadda.

    But he ain’t and never will be.  When Reagan was asked a tough question, his disarming charm and good-natured bemusement deflected the brunt of it before he even said a word in response.  His face showed the calm confidence of a leader.  Ask Perry a tough question, even one he should be ready for, and it is just like ThePaganTemple noted above:  the deer-in-the-headlights look.  Even if it’s only for a second, it doesn’t inspire confidence.

    Perry might have just jumped in and defined himself and built support from the ground up, but he and his team chose to enter with the mantle of Reagan, raising expectations beyond what the candidate could possibly achieve.