Rick Perry: By The Numbers

In fairness, she also gave everyone a lot more to work with.

And when she made being a "soccer mom" one of the cornerstones of her appeal, and made her husband her trusted and some say only adviser, well, the media would not be doing its job if it just took that at face value.

I think a lot of what you talk about, however, came from places like Daily Kos more than places like the New York Times.

As I have reminded people a lot of times, the banner headline in the NYT the day after her NYC speech: "A Star Is Born."

 

You are completely accurate, vis-a-vis Perry and his chances.

He can make (mostly) factual claims that sound very good in one-liners, then the Democrats will have to run around throwing out all the "yeah, but...but...buts" that is illustrated by Birdscribe's link above. And come next November, when the recession remains in full bloom, millions of voters will be too tired and too scared to want to listen to all the "yeah, but...but...buts."

 

Agree.

Perry's message is simple and makes for a perfect soundbite.

Knocking it down takes time, and people need to have an attention span.

 

Huntsman didn't have any difficulty putting Perry's candidacy in perspective during his appearance on This Week.

 

Ross Douthat today wrote that Texas actually has done more with less than other states:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opinion/messing-with-texas.html?_r=1&hp#&wtoeid=growl1_r1_v3


But he doubts that Perry deserves much of the credit:


The question is whether Perry himself deserves any of the credit. Here his critics become much more persuasive. When Perry became governor, taxes were already low, regulations were light, and test scores were on their way up. He didn’t create the zoning rules that keep Texas real estate affordable, or the strict lending requirements that minimized the state’s housing bubble. Over all, the Texas model looks like something he inherited rather than a system he built.

This means that unlike many of his fellow Republican governors, from Mitch Daniels to Chris Christie to Scott Walker — or a Democratic governor like Andrew Cuomo, for that matter — Perry can’t claim to have battled entrenched interest groups, or stemmed a flood tide of red ink. Instead, many of his policy forays have been boondoggles or train wrecks, from the failed attempt to build a $175 billion Trans-Texas Corridor (the kind of project conservatives would mock mercilessly if a Democrat proposed it) to an ill-designed 2006 tax reform that’s undercut the state’s finances.

Then again, Douthat is a New York Times op-ed attack dog for the Democrat Party, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

Aside from Democrats and the press, no one cares what Jon Huntsman says or is paying attention to him.

He's polling below Cain & Gingrich, and is tied with Santorum at 1%.

His press to poll numbers ratio is off the charts.

He has no chance to win the nomination -- not now and not in '16.

The only reason anyone has paid any attention to him is because he's criticized fellow Republicans.

 

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might believe Huntsman is in the race for one purpose:

 

It's too bad for the GOP (and good for the Democrats) that it seems bent on having a presidential candidate from the extreme right. Huntsman's one of the very few potential candidates that would have much of a chance in a general election. Anyway, I'm rooting for Bachmann, just for the entertainment value.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/pondering-perrys-electability/

 

Presuming Perry is a general election candidate, there will be plenty of time and attention to knock him down.

As evidenced by the Ross Douthat piece posted above, and George W. Bush's people coming out and talking about what an idiot Rick Perry is, all the Fox noise about Paul Ryan in the days following Perry opening his mouth for national consumption, Obama won't have to say a word -- yet -- to have people tearing apart Perry's "accomplishments" and hypocrisy. The primary candidates are trying to focus on Obama, but at a certain point they will have to rip into each other to make it to the general.

 

At a certain point, the Republican party is going to have to take back itself from its most extreme elements before electoral disaster hits. The obvious lesson, of course, is George McGovern in 1972.

The Republicans are coming off of a successful midterm, are practically setting the agenda in Washington, and are running against a sitting president not many people are terribly happy with at the moment. And yet, there is still a palpable desperation from the (Fox) powers-that-be over their presidential candidates losing in November 2012. That's some serious snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Someone explain the Huntsman love to me.

One of Romney's biggest "issues" is his Mormonism, right? (Yes, he has others: "flip-flopper", "Obaney Care", etc.)

Hutsman is also Mormon.

I keep hearing the religious South won't vote for a moderate and/or a Mormon like Romney, so he can't win.

But Huntsman would somehow be our savior?