ConservativeHome's The Republican

Rick Perry, languishing in the single digits, still gets frontrunner treatment because of money and his non-Romney persona

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

For someone languishing in single digits in the polls, Rick Perry still seems like a frontrunner. Unlike those (Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul) polling at the same levels, you’d think from the media’s coverage of Perry’s every speech and every move that he, Romney and Cain are neck-in-neck.

In the latest Des Moines register poll Perry’s support stood at 7%, tied with Newt Gingrich and well behind Cain’s 23% and Romney’s 22%. And in last week’s YouGov/Economist poll Perry tied Ron Paul at 9%, with Cain out front at 28% and Romney at 24%.

Yet Perry remains a presence in the media. For instance, he factors prominently in this WSJ article on presidential candidates’ economic plans, while Jon Huntsman – who rolled out a plan early on that won a lot of praise (including from WSJ’s editorial board) – isn’t even mentioned. Over the weekend, Perry’s Fox appearance got a disproportionate amount of coverage given his low poll numbers, and today he appears prominently atop the New York times politics page. While Herman Cain has been a dominant presence given his frontrunner status and will only stay in the news more because of the sexual harassment allegations that Politico wrote about last night, Perry remains nearly an equal force.

An obvious explanation for this is money. He outraised Romney in the previous quarter, and his ad buys are garnering attention (he has a new ad out in Iowa today).

But I suspect another reason is that to most observers, he still remains the most likely non-Romney candidate to win the nomination. Why?

To the point above, it’s going to take money and organization to be an effective non-Romney. Perry has that. Herman Cain is trying to grow that, but he’s still far behind.

Perhaps more importantly, Perry’s “non-Romneyism” is clear and unequivocal. Cain’s is not. While Perry has stumbled to make himself clear in public forums and debates, his clarity on the issues is pretty straightforward. He has been unapologetic about his stance on educating the children of illegals (even if he apologized for his choice of words), bold about his flat tax even as conservatives have criticized it, unrepentant about calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and so on. Cain, on the other hand, is articulate but has been conceptually unclear on a number of things except his 9-9-9 plan – which in itself is a muddled policy because it’s only a transition to a goal of a national sales tax. On the border, abortion, and foreign policy, for instance, Cain has said things he later has had to try to clarify – often in ways that don’t make the matter much clearer at all.

Trademark Romneyism is a lack of clarity on the issues. Erick Erickson captures the sentiment many conservatives feel when he describes Romney as the “magically malleable man of mystery.” To be non-Romney is to be clear on the issues, especially in ways that set you apart from Romney's latest iteration of beliefs and policies. Perry, for all of his verbal clumsiness, has managed to carve out distinctions between himself and Romney in ways that Cain hasn’t. This benefits Perry in terms of coverage. The question, of course, is how much it will benefit him in the polls. Cain, after all, has spent virtually no time in Iowa and yet has managed to capture voters’ imagination. Can he keep this up (the new harassment allegations notwithstanding) while trailing Perry’s fundraising and amidst his consistent policy foibles? I think not, but so far, the 2012 race has been full of surprises.

Rick Perry should overcome his "faith problem" by giving a big speech on religion and the public square

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Let’s be clear about one thing in the whole Pastor Jeffress controversy that swirled around Rick Perry this past week: calls for him to condemn Jeffress’s comments seemed to come with greater intensity from mainstream outlets that were a bit quieter back in Barack Obama’s Jeremiah Wright days.

That said, Rick Perry has a bit of a problem in the affair that he should just end by giving a speech on faith in the public square, his understanding of it, and why Jeffress is perversely off base.

By not speaking out clearly and forcefully on the whole matter, Perry has let the Jeffress issue linger. And now that’s created a bigger problem: via Kathryn Jean Lopez, we learn that Catholic League president Bill Donahue has pointed out that Jeffress also has said that:

The Roman Catholic Church was the outgrowth of a “corruption” called the “Babylonian mystery.” He continued, “Much of what you see in the Catholic Church today doesn’t come from God’s word. It comes from that cult-like pagan religion. Isn’t that the genius of Satan?

Jeffress hasn’t just created a Mormon problem for Perry, he’s created a Catholic problem, which is a much bigger deal.

And as if this hasn’t made faith an issue that’s complicated enough for Perry, his wife Anita spoke emotionally today when she said that he had:

been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today. We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think, they look at him because of his faith. He is the only true conservative - well, there are some true conservatives. And they're there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.

It’s hard not to feel deep sympathy with what Anita Perry is saying. These have to be trying times for her and her husband. Rick Perry has been brutalized – in the polls and public opinion. But most of this has come on account of his poor debate performances than because of his faith. Perry has been incredibly open about his faith, and his prayer rally before he launched his campaign – though sneered at by elites – did him no harm whatsoever. He polled well with independents shortly thereafter and launched a much-anticipated campaign that saw him skyrocket in the polls.

Faith didn’t become a problematic issue until the whole Jeffress mess.

Given what Jeffress has said about the Catholic Church, and given how the Perrys apparently feel about the role that faith is playing in the public treatment of Rick Perry, it would be good if the Texas Governor would give a speech about religion in the public square. He could, like George W. Bush, talk personally about how his faith has changed him and guided him. It would also give him an opportunity to speak out against those who use religion as a weapon of division and hate. And he could talk about how religion keeps families together, inspires people to live well and be productive, and is a force for good in America.

It could also serve the purpose of bringing energy back into his campaign.

Perry's straight talk appeals to ordinary voters, but it won't be enough to compensate for voter dissatisfaction

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Following on this post, here’s Rick Perry in the Time feature out on him today:

There may be someone who is an established Republican who circulates in the cocktail circuit that would find some of my rhetoric to be inflammatory or what have you, but I'm really talking to the American citizen out there. I think American citizens are just tired of this political correctness and politicians who are tiptoeing around important issues. They want a decisive leader. I'm comfortable that the rhetoric I have used was both descriptive and spot on

It’s a common tendency among bloggers and pundits to try to draw conclusions about what Perry’s style and recent debate performance will ultimately do to his campaign. But the reality is that no one knows for sure yet. Once he starts talking more specifically about policy, continues the public debate both on stages and in the airwaves, voters will react in ways we cannot entirely predict.

That said, Katrina Trinko points to a new Bloomberg poll this morning to give Perry and his supporters some pause. It's not just the pundits who have trained a sharper eye on the Texas governor. Voters might be doing the same. Tough talk may not be enough to paper over confusing statements about important issues (whether a conservative should mandate HPV drugs, how to handle Afghanistan) or his tendency to communicate style and principle rather than ideas. Perry’s lead (note: it’s still a lead) over Romney has shrunk this week.

Trinko also points out that Perry’s entrance into the debate has not made the electorate content about the 2012 field. There’s still a big appetite for a new candidate:

Don’t hold your breath for the draft Chris Christie/Paul Ryan/Sarah Palin efforts to end: Forty-seven percent still hope that another candidate will jump into the race, compared to 42 percent who are “mostly happy” with the current field.

Perry's Social Security strategy has been good for America...but he needs policy specifics soon

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

My Indianapolis Star column today argues that all the fuss about Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” charges against Social Security have focused too much on the comparison between the two “schemes” and missed the larger point. The larger point is that Perry’s insistence that the New Deal program is ripping off younger workers like never before is a good thing for the 2012 campaign and America.

I claim that Perry is doing three things on this front:

1. He’s arguing from principle – namely that the program is deeply troubled and deserves tough talk.
2. He’s making a shrewd political calculation – namely Americans actually agree with him on the general point that the program is in deep trouble, and so charges that he’s scaring people aren’t as effective as his opponents think.
3. He’s embarking on a gamble – namely that Americans, for all their agreement with him, get more nervous when talking about actual fixes, and that his tough talk can wake them up to considering those fixes.

The whole column is here.

Perry’s tough talking may ultimately get him in trouble, especially if he doesn’t follow with policy specifics soon. But the post-debate commentary has too quickly begun to question – even write off – the Texas Governor as a viable candidate. He has a grasp of where ordinary voters stands on things right now, and he’s connecting with them.

His biggest challenge right now is how to move from high marks he receives for his leadership and style to convincing voters he’s got the solutions in mind that the country needs. The CNN poll that came out early this week in anticipation of the debate showed that Perry’s lead was much greater on questions of leadership than it was on policy substance.

Perry leads Romney in Florida...in a poll taken after Monday's debate

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Via Ed Morrissey, this news: after Perry’s much-maligned performance in Monday night’s debate, he has taken the lead over Romney in Florida in a new poll. Perry took 29% over Romney’s 20%. The poll was conducted on Tuesday, after the debate, among likely primary voters.

This is especially interesting:

Perry wins two-thirds of the 18-29YO vote, with Ron Paul coming in second at 12.9% and Gingrich third at 9.9%.  Romney and Bachmann, along with all of the other candidates, don’t get a single vote in this category.  Perry leads in all age demographics except the 65+, perhaps a result of the Social Security debate — but he still comes in second with 22.6% of the vote to Romney’s 30.9%.  Among white voters, Perry leads 26/21, but he takes nearly half of the Hispanic vote with 48%.  Bachmann comes in second in this demo with 23.9%, followed by Romney at 12.7%.  Perry leads among men and women, but does much better with men (35/19), barely edging Romney with the latter (22/20).  Bachmann, surprisingly, finishes behind Gingrich with both genders as she does overall.

There are likely multiple factors driving the 18-29 year old demographic, but one likely explanation is that Perry’s tough talk on how Social Security is a rip-off for them has gotten through. That he does more poorly among seniors after his tough talk is unsurprising, and even though Romney once called Social Security “a tremendous fraud,” he has pandered back to the middle on the issue by insisting that Perry is trying to “scare seniors.”

In defense of Rick Perry's "Ponzi scheme" comments

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Rick Perry’s comments over the weekend that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie” have drawn predictable fire.

It seems like it’s taking the media awhile to recogize that Rick Perry employs a verbal art called "hyperbole" rather comfortably. 

The funny thing about the ordeal is that the Ponzi scheme expression isn’t really all that hyperbolic, at least not when you pay attention to what Perry said:

It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie…It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can’t do that to them.

First of all, aside from the point about the hyperbolic arts, we all ought to thank a candidate who talks about the inherent unfairness of Social Security for the young, rather than the usual approach of reassuring seniors that everything will be okay. On this front, Perry's being bold and accurate.

And with regard to the the Ponzi analogy, he is certainly speaking hyperbolically (a "monstrous lie" is a bit over the top), but his point isn’t all that far off the mark. You know those statements you get from the Social Security Administration that make it look like you’re paying into an account? They aren’t too different than the statements an “investor” into a Ponzi scheme gets who thinks his money is truly invested when it’s being used to fund the returns for some earlier investor.

The Wikipedia page on Ponzi schemes details three ways the schemes can break down. Here’s the second one:

Since the scheme requires a continual stream of investments to fund higher returns, once investment slows down, the scheme will begin to collapse under its own weight as the promoter starts having problems paying the promised returns (the higher the returns, the greater the risk of the Ponzi scheme collapsing). Such liquidity crises often trigger panics, as more people start asking for their money, similar to a bank run.

We could tweak this a bit, and it would sound like Wikipedia entry on Social Security in a couple of decades:

Since Social Security the scheme requires a continual stream of investments of worker’s payroll taxes to fund benefits for seniors higher returns, once investment tax revenue slows down as there are fewer workers per retiree, the scheme program will begin to collapse under its own weight as the government promoter starts having problems paying the promised benefits returns (the higher the benefits returns, the greater the risk of the program Ponzi scheme collapsing). Such liquidity crises often trigger panics (and sometimes riots), as more people start asking for their where the money they thought they were paying into the program has gone.

I'm pretty sure most non-hyperbolic, sober-minded assessments of Social Security's underlying problems sound something like that.

If Perry's so scary to independents, why is he doing so well among them?

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Peggy Noonan is the latest to issue Rick Perry a warning that he needs to watch his bravado lest it turn voters away. In her words, "His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged."

Jonah Goldberg expresses a related sentiment, namely that conservatives like Perry reflect an "identity-politics problem" that is starting to afflict conservatism. Overt cultural distinctives such as Perry's become the subjects we defend rather than they things candidates say they're going to do, and so we find ourselves defending their characteristics rather than their ideas.

Both writers may be right in the long run. Perry's gun-slinging Texas Christian federalism might start to wear on people. It's too early to say.

But right now, it doesn't seem to be wearing on anyone too much except for elites.

Let's not forget that just this week:

• Perry polled ahead of Obama among independents and nearly on par with Romney.

• As many registered voters (and not just Republicans) said in a Pew poll there was a chance they'd vote for Perry, while many more said there was "no chance" they would vote for Jon Huntsman - whom the media loves to portray as the Republican adult in the room. See below.

The media is determined to portray Perry a certain way, and Perry has certainly contributed to the profile they want to pin on him with his unwise Bernanke comment. But he's clearly getting through to voters who aren't "chesty, quick-draw machismo" types.

Perry's leading with just about everyone - including the college-educated

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Yesterday's Gallup poll included several interesting insights into the Rick Perry juggernaut:

• He leads Perry 33-16 among conservatives, which isn't terribly surprising, but trails him only by 4 points, 21-17, among liberal/moderates - which is more suprising.
• He leads Bachmann among women 28-10.
• He leads Bachmann among weekly churchgoers by a big margin, 34-9, and yet he also leads among the non-religious over Romney, 24-18.
• He leads among every age group except for 18-29 year olds, which Ron Paul dominates.

But I missed what Ron Brownstein drew attention to this morning, namely:

Among Republican voters with at least a four-year college degree, Perry has rocketed to the top with 33.4%, dwarfing Romney's 21 percent, Paul's 10 percent, and Bachmann's 9 percent.

You wouldn't guess most of these numbers given the media obsession with Perry (climate change skeptic, religious nut, etc.), but the reality is that he's got a broad appeal among different groups that no candidate to date has matched.

We'll see how that continues after the September 7 debate, the first time America will see him toe to toe with the others. But his appeal will likely continue at least until them at these high levels. Why? Because so far, every attempt to attack him or portray him in an unflattering way has only strengthened his appeal.

Four days into his campaign Perry already holds a double-digit lead over Romney, Bachmann

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With Perry in, Pawlenty out and Bachmann taking the Ames title, it's been a whirlwind week in the race for the Republican nomination, and with momentum only expected to grow, GOP voters are wasting little time when it comes to reaffirming their allegiances.

According to the latest analysis from Rasmussen Reports, despite being just days into his campaign, Rick Perry has already managed to accrue a double digit lead over his closest opponents - a significant jump in support which Scott Rasmussen attributes to "entering the race at precisely the right time."  Overall: 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who was a close second to Bachmann on Saturday, has the support of nine percent (9%) of Likely Primary Voters, followed by Georgia businessman Herman Cain at six percent (6%) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with five percent (5%). Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, and ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each get one percent (1%) support, while Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter comes in statistically at zero.

Sixteen percent (16%) of primary voters remain undecided.

With five GOP debates scheduled this fall, the first for Perry since officially announcing his presidential campaign, it will be interesting to see how voters' views will continue to fluctuate as candidates seek to set themselves apart from the rest of the competition.

The full analysis from Rasmussen's latest poll is available to view here.

Messin' with Texas: The more critics try to assail Rick Perry's economic record, the better Perry looks

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

We knew it would happen. The moment Rick Perry entered the race, his economic record in Texas would be scrutinzed by those looking to throw water on the numbers. Numbers like creating 37% of the nation’s jobs since the recession.

So far, the critics are losing this debate. Those who hope for an Obama re-election should probably focus on other parts of Perry’s persona and background. Paint him as a creature from the Texas cultural backwaters, but stay away from his economic record. First of all, doing so invites some pretty strong rebuttals, and second, talking about the economy ultimately reminds everyone how lousy the Obama economy is.

Paul Krugman, Exhibit A, was the loudest early critic who’s received the most attention. He called the Texas miracle “a myth” and basically said that the economy grew because the population was growing. That he didn’t even stop for a nanosecond to consider that people might be moving to Texas because of the economy was an early sign that he had an agenda. He also highlighted the growth in low-wage jobs in Texas.

Some other skeptical takes have been a bit more balanced, criticizing Perry, among other things, for taking more stimulus money than others (Texas is the 2^nd biggest state of course, so getting more money in absolute terms isn’t too surprising).

The rebuttals began almost simultaneously. Two in particular are worth mentioning.

Kevin Williamson’s entire response is worth reading. It’s filled with good observations and numbers. Very simply, though, he points out that:

People are moving from the collapsing states into the expanding states because there is work to be had, and opportunity.

In other words, people aren’t just moving to Texas because they, well, decided to move to Texas. Population grows as opportunity increases. Krugman the Nobeal laureate pretty much missed this point.

And with regard to all those low wage jobs, Williamson writes:

The fact that a large number of workers make minimum wage, combined with a young and immigrant-heavy population and millions of new jobs, may very well mean that teens and others who otherwise would not be working at all have found employment. That is a sign of economic strength, not of stagnation. New York and Massachusetts would be better off with millions of new minimum-wage workers — if that meant millions fewer unemployed people.

The other rebuttal worth reading is at Political Math.

It’s a long post that, like Williamson’s, is worth reading in full. But I’ll just leave you with this chart, which counters the claim that Texas’s unemployment numbers are too high to be called a success (a claim Krugman also makes):

Political Math points out that unemployment numbers don’t account for people moving in or out of states. Some states with lower unemployment numbers benefit because many people have left the state, while others, like Texas, get dinged because so many people move into the state. So Political Math looks at how current employment in states appears compared to the population at the beginning of the recession.

Texas looks pretty good. Say what you want, but the more we dig into the Lone Star State’s track record, the smaller the critics look.

All in all, going after Perry’s economic record is tricky business for the left. Every time they bring it up, they deflect light onto Obama’s economic record. The line “well, Perry’s record isn’t nearly as good as people say” still has the word “good” in it. No description of the Obama economy, even from among his most ardent supporters, has “good” in it.

The person who stands the most to gain from skepticism over Perry’s economic record is Mitt Romney, not Obama. But I don’t expect to see him quoting Krugman anytime soon.