Is it time for Romney to start attacking Perry?
posted at 9:09 pm on August 26, 2011 by Allahpundit
Short answer: Yes. It’ll be traffic gold. Long answer: Er, attack him how? What exactly is Team Mitt’s argument for why Romney’s a superior nominee to Perry?
David Brooks wonders:
Two lines of attack are pretty obvious.
First, Romney could accuse Perry of being the latest iteration of Tom DeLay Republicanism. On the one hand, he is ideologically slippery. The man who sounds so right wing today was the Texas chairman of the Al Gore for President campaign in 1988. The man who now vows to appoint only anti-abortion officials to relevant administration jobs endorsed Rudy Giuliani four short years ago. On the other hand, he is unwavering in his commitment to the government-cash nexus. Even this week — amid much attention to his pay-to-play proclivities — Perry named two big donors to powerful state jobs.
The second line of attack is to shift what the campaign is about. If voters think Nancy Pelosi is the biggest threat to their children’s prosperity, they will hire Perry. If they think competition from Chinese and Indian workers is the biggest threat, they will hire Romney. He’s just more credible as someone who can manage economic problems, build human capital and nurture an innovation-based global economy.
No one’s going to care about Perry’s “Tom DeLay Republicanism.” Reagan was a Democrat in his earlier years and the pay-to-play accusations will be buzzsawed by the public’s cynical assumption that all politicians operate that way. Tea partiers may not like establishment cronyism but I’d bet cash money that they prefer it, however grudgingly, to RomneyCare. As for Brooks’s second argument, it speaks to an important flaw in Romney’s message: He’s set himself up as “the economy candidate,” but … what is it, exactly, that entitles him to that label? What gives a former executive at Bain Capital some special insight into the U.S. economy? The answer, I guess, is that private-sector experience inculcates a keen sense of how too much regulation can create perverse incentives, but (a) building a “fairer” regulatory climate is also part of Perry’s core message in explaining Texas’s economic success and (b) the last president to be closely identified in the public’s imagination with sustained economic boom times is Bill Clinton, who was himself a careerist politician, not a private-sector guru. When push comes to shove, any economic line of attack that Romney makes against Perry can be swatted away effortlessly by pointing to job creation in Texas. I don’t see any way around that.
Ed Kilgore doesn’t see any way around it either which is why he’s imagining other, non-economic lines of attack — most daringly involving Romney challenging the passages in Perry’s book about Social Security and Medicare. Perry knows he’s vulnerable there, which is why his team has started to walk some of those comments back. But even if Romney went for the throat, it’d be hugely risky for him to be perceived as Mediscaring in the primary at a moment when conservatives are trying to alert the public to the need for entitlement reform in solving the debt crisis. He’d have to be careful, insisting a la Paul Ryan that he supports entitlement reform not just as a budget-balancing measure but because it’s the only way to save those programs; once he laid down that baseline, he could attack Perry as a radical who secretly doesn’t want to save Medicare and Social Security. But even then, the sight of Romney shifting from his 2011 economic-centric message to his 2008 “any weapon to hand” message would rekindle the image of him as saying whatever he needs to in order to get elected. In the end, I think Ross Douthat’s right. Romney’s best shot is probably to keep lying low and hope that either a scandal explodes in Perry’s face and/or that Palin gets in and knocks the tea-party legs out from under him. It’s Perry’s race to lose and he could still lose it, with Romney the likely beneficiary. It’s just that there’s not much Mitt can do to make that happen. That’s what it means to be a weak “frontrunner.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
We know.
ddrintn on August 26, 2011 at 10:24 PM
Rick Perry.
Knucklehead on August 26, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Good one. He was just proving what a gracious gentleman he was.
Southernblogger on August 26, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Hi Knuck, Kat, AG, Carbon, and any other ‘friendly’(Perry supporter, Palin supporter, or other) that I missed.
annoyinglittletwerp on August 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM
Oh, cut it out with that stupid condescending line. The bill is amnesty at the state level, and you know it.
ddrintn on August 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM
So he didn’t ask Palin to come campaign for him? He just awkwardly accepted her invitation not wanting to be rude?
Kataklysmic on August 26, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Hey ALT!
Kataklysmic on August 26, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Hey ALT!
Kataklysmic on August 26, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Hiya, Sweet thing!
*blows kiss*
Gotta go practice my cantor(If Lanceman is around NOT Eric Cantor) music.
BRB.
annoyinglittletwerp on August 26, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Well, we sure as @#$% aren’t giving them in-state tuition rates. The other part is making its way through the courts [thanks urkel, we really appreciate your support in keeping the border secure].
OK, turning your other part of the question around, if the kid finds out he’s in the country illegally, why does that qualify him for in-state tuition? The least it should do if you don’t have the b@lls to deport is qualify them for out-of-state rates.
AZfederalist on August 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Hey.
Knucklehead on August 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM
If the Feds aren’t doing their job, why don’t we create more incentives for illegal immigration, like offering in-state tuition breaks to attract more illegals and worsen the problem? Let’s create laws specifically designed to benefit illegal immigrants. Let’s make ourselves complicit in their lawbreaking. That’s a great idea!
steebo77 on August 26, 2011 at 10:34 PM
I don’t know what the arrangement was but obviously Palin is popular with conservatives and would not hurt him by any means. Are you suggesting he could not have won without her???
Southernblogger on August 26, 2011 at 10:35 PM
Hey.
Knucklehead on August 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM
I’m back. Splurged on a Casio Piano keyboard. Just being able to plunk out my notes help s a lot.
annoyinglittletwerp on August 26, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Add Susanna Martinez, elected Governor of New Mexico. Palin campaigned for her in the primary.
SheetAnchor on August 26, 2011 at 10:48 PM
Perry is a great guy and he probably could have won without Palin. However, let’s not foget that Glenn Beck, someone you don’t care for, helped torpedo Medina’s candidacy by pushing her on the 911 truther issue to the point that she discredited herself. Prior to that, her traction had been hurting Perry.
Kataklysmic on August 26, 2011 at 10:56 PM
So, the RINO columnist gives the RINO presidential candidate a few pointers, so what? I don’t think Romney needs any pointers from David Brooks, who couldn’t even recognize how inexperienced Obama was and what a disaster he would be as President. HIs 20/20 hindsight understands now, but it doesn’t recommend him to be picking any Republican candidates.
Republicans ran the media candidate the last time, this time I sincerely hope it will be a conservative candidate. Of course, I’m still hoping for Palin, who will really make David Brooks apoplectic, along with the rest of the RINO’s. It’s going to be fun.
Vote Republican and only be called a racist one more time.
bflat879 on August 26, 2011 at 11:25 PM
David Brooks:
The Fredo Corleone of Conservatism.
Hat tip to
for the concept.
LegendHasIt on August 27, 2011 at 12:51 AM
Allah…you just love to run Mitt bashing articles to up your posts…which I am falling for now :o), However, Mitt does not need to challenge Perry at all. Ross Douthat (sp) has it pegged that the first primary is 4 months away and so let Perry say whatever he wants out on the campaign trail. He is actually cutting into Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, etc. support and so I expect to see some political shots taken at Perry at the next upcoming debates both in SC on the 5th and then the one out in Reagan country.
Also I am sick of hearing everyone talking about Mitt’s flips…Listen to what he has said and he has not been flipping all around as you like to bleat like sheep from what the MSM keep telling you. Mitt is a strong candidate and the only one that can beat Obama. Perry’s weaknesses on immigration are going to arise here very soon and we’ll see if you all are fair in calling him a flip flopper like he is doing now on his SS and Medicare and Gardasil and…on and on…yeah, who is the flip flopper. Let’s be fair Tea Partiers of which I wholeheartedly agree with you BUT to beat Obama we need to have a well rounded candidate that can pull both conservatives and our wobbly moderates.
Live from Afghanistan!
g2825m on August 27, 2011 at 3:38 AM
“if the Feds aren’t doing their job, why don’t we create more incentives for illegal immigration, like offering in-state tuition breaks to attract more illegals and worsen the problem? Let’s create laws specifically designed to benefit illegal immigrants. Let’s make ourselves complicit in their lawbreaking. That’s a great idea!”
Steebo, you can also add Sanctuary cities to your list above! Here is a blatant avoidance of law by our “supposed” elected leaders. That’s like a store owner allowing people he likes steal products out the back door while all the local customers have to pay for theirs at the front counter.
I see a huge momentum coming in this country where we throw out both R’s and D’s if they do not return our country back to its original intent of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness (not the guarantee or equality guaranteed). Let’s elect those that will enforce our laws on the books and roll back Obama’s country-killing regulations and fire all his Czars.
g2825m on August 27, 2011 at 4:14 AM
Here’s to hoping Romney takes campaign advice from Brooks…”Now, about that crease”…
Gohawgs on August 27, 2011 at 4:51 AM
This really overly simplifies Romney’s business experience. Bain and Company was a management consulting firm and there (and at the Olympics) he excelled as a turnaround specialist. His work at Bain Capital involved venture capital (like Staples) and eventually moved into leveraged buyouts where they invested and provided management direction to struggling companies. He will credibly argue that he has the skills and experience to turn the economy around.
Buy Danish on August 27, 2011 at 5:58 AM
Brooks…Oh, brother…
Gohawgs on August 27, 2011 at 6:46 AM
The answer to ‘too much regulation’ is not to build a ‘fairer’ regulatory climate.
It is not to go just after the regulations but to get rid of any body that feels that it can create such crippling regulations IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Anyone who argues about ‘fairness’ is arguing on Progressive turf and needs to step away from those grounds and do this thing known in the business world as ‘get back to basics’. That means talking about what IS the proper role of the US federal government in the economy if it HAS ONE AT ALL.
For Romney, the businessman-economic candidate, he can talk about the dot-com and internet bubbles that allowed Clinton to gain such a great reputation and that the main source of those bubbles was the opening up of the government and academia oriented technology sectors to unbridled, unregulated growth. And that the internet’s own, internal institutions have done a fine job without government oversight and the explosive growth and bubble is inherent in any economic scenario in which those with the most concern in properly running such things is in the hands of those who have a vested interest in them: users and those companies needing to keep their users by providing an understood playing field that favors no large company over smaller as the concept of an IP address is neutral to size.
He can then argue that any time we take federal regulations away there will be such explosive growth until the users of the American economy (which is to say its people) and their lower-level bodies seeking to ensure that the rights and interests of the people and the States are dealt with in an open environment in which large size has no place in the drafting of ways to operate are secure from federal oversight save those areas in which a group of States ask for the federal government to allow them to operate for regional issues together for those limited regional issues.
Then, as any capitalist that has had to re-organize businesses, he can then lay out the top 5 non-essential drags to the economy in the regulatory area. Pick ‘em, name ‘em and say that any core function that allows such abuse of the economy is no good, at all, to the economy. We all know the litany of EPA, FDA, Interior, Energy, Labor, Energy, and so many more that we put together as an anti-growth regulatory system just here on Hot Air using our common knowledge of how these organizations operate.
How about getting a candidate who is willing to rollback negative organizations instead of making them ‘fairer’, huh?
Why can’t Romney, the business candidate, or indeed any candidate, esouse such things? Even Perry won’t go this far… yet must say that when released of government oversight you will get explosive growth in those areas, like in airlines or the telephone system that was at the heart of the dot com bubble that allowed Clinton to shine so much and which whe now take FOR GRANTED.
Wouldn’t that be spooky? A businessman making the case that he understands what happens when you remove regulations, that you get natural, explosive growth until the system begins to regulate itself in the interests of all players on an open playing field tilted to no one due to size.
I would love to hear that from Mr. Business-candidate-of-the-establishment.
It’s that ‘establishment’ part that won’t let him do that as the vested interests that are seeking to keep an advantage via government talk about ‘fairness’ and not about open playing fields that are level to big and small alike, and that big players can fall when a small one finds a new niche that cannot be exploited by old, big players but by new, small and nimble ones.
He could outflank the entire field by acting like a damned businessman.
Why hasn’t he done that? He is supposed to be the turn-around artist, yet he can’t say what needs to be done even when it is a glaring spotlight in his face. Spooky, isn’t it? That he didn’t make that case in the 2008 Primaries and isn’t doing it NOW.
ajacksonian on August 27, 2011 at 6:48 AM
So David Brooks the preferred genius of the NYT tell the world’s biggest flip-flopper to accuse the man (the left fears most) of doing what he himself does better than anyone.
Isn’t it just like a liberal to know that tactic well, because it has their stamp on it. They own it-this accuse the good guys of doing the exact wrong that they do all the time.
Gee, those psychiatrists might do well dropping their attachment to pedophilia as normal and start working on projection as a highly contagious leftist desease.
Don L on August 27, 2011 at 8:09 AM
We wont’ choose who best attacks a Republican, but who best attacks the dems.
right2bright on August 27, 2011 at 10:15 AM
I happened to catch part of Mitt’s speech in NH on C-Span. I continued watching–it was that good. He seems to have a little fire in the belly this time, and his family story is pretty darn interesting and inspiring.
All I want is someone to beat Obama and turn off the money spigot. Mitt, it could be you.
PattyJ on August 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM
It is Perry’s to lose…
right2bright on August 27, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Mitt can only hope that the orher candidates in the race go after Perry for his 2007 temporary lurch into big governmemt actions. He can’t go after Perry on something like Gardasil with the mandates on the public Commonwealrh Care has.
jon1979 on August 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM
If he doesn’t attack him, I can imagine the base reaction: Oh, so Little Lord Fauntleroy thinks he’s too good to get his dainty rich boy girlie hands dirty. So yes, attack him. ‘Cause Rick has pretty hair, too, and, who knows, maybe when the claws come out he won’t want to get it mussed either.
Seth Halpern on August 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Agree, although it would be great fun if Romney started having unnamed aides stating Governor Rick Perry is not a serious person.
I do wonder if Palin jumps in does she take votes away from Perry or Bachmann or both? All the Frums and Brooks, would start waxing nostalgic for Perry LOL! That would leave Mitt Romney a 3rd weak way to stay in the mix. If he’s hell bent on staying in the contention, he’s got to inspire voters. Off hand that means attacking Obama’s so called green jobs agenda. Now Romney weakened his ability to attack Obama on Green Jobs because of his AGW position. Romney could use better advisers, that could see past the current trends, and project some political scenarios weeks, and months in advance. But they are behaving reactionary, and not forward leaning. Romney has been running his general campaign during the primary, that’s just dumb, it’s why Perry over took him out of the chute.
If the goal is to be last man standing – that man/woman needs to be seen as “Strong” not just a survivor, to challenge Obama in the general. The optics of a Republican surviving the Republican primary, but not triumphantly winning is not going to inspire voters.
Dr Evil on August 27, 2011 at 10:46 AM
I think it is time for Romney to start attacking Brooks. With a baseball bat
Would you want Brooks explaining you to the world?
The only saving part of the deal is that the average voter doesn’t know Brooks from a hog jowl
entagor on August 27, 2011 at 10:59 AM
I meant purdy har.
Seth Halpern on August 27, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Realclearpolitics on August 27th, 2007:
Giuliani – 28%
Thompson – 17%
Romney – 13%
McCain – 11%
Huckabee – 3%
Present day polls show Perry leading in the national polls, but look at what leading in the polls meant for Giuliani. Nothing.
Frank T.J Mackey on August 27, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I think Romney knows how stupid Rick Perry is, and is waiting for the first debate for him to expose himself.
wheelgun on August 27, 2011 at 12:28 PM
It’s past time for Romney to drop out of the race. Only the fact that he’s been at the top of the polls until now has kept him in. ;-)
It’s time for him to throw his support behind Perry as a candidate with spine to hoe very very VERY difficult row ahead. Who, for instance, is more likely to work to reverse Obamacare or the deadly Federal immigration policies, the guy who just sent a bill to the Feds for illegals or Romneycare Romney? Whatever you think of Perry, you know he’s going to shake things up. Mitt? Not so much.
Then it’s time for Romney to take up a trade of some kind, or some hobby besides running for president every four years.
curved space on August 27, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Bain Capital where Romney gets a lot of advisors were fined back in June for shorting stock and then buying it back.
When you click on search for Bain Capitol, their dealings overseas are being looked at as well as Romney’s time at Bain where he made some really dumb decision. Even though Romney has the stock from Bain Capital in a blind trust, the operator of the trust gets daily updates on what Bain is doing. That along with hiring advisors from Bain makes you wonder how blind the trust really is.
Maybe if Romney goes on the attack, the ads showing him taking a Government bailout to save Bain will air that didn’t air in 1994.
PhiKapMom on August 27, 2011 at 3:42 PM
I’m not going to get all rah-rah about that. It’s a PR move in an election campaign designed to blunt one of Perry’s weaknesses, which is immigration policy.
I wish I could be so sure. I’m not.
ddrintn on August 27, 2011 at 3:49 PM
No rah rah requested. The question is Who is more likely? As with poker, in politics you can only play the percentages and try and sniff out the bluffs.
curved space on August 27, 2011 at 4:00 PM
Actually, it’s about time for conservatives to be honest with themselves and stop applying double standards. If someone is an evangelical, he/she can do no wrong by the Tea Party. If not, they willingly sign on to every criticism, whether it makes sense or not.
The rush to support Perry worries me because it reminds me so much of the way Obama was embraced by people who didn’t much care to know about his history or his qualifications.
If Perry had gotten his way, every school girl in Texas would have been vaccinated for HPV and the state would have launched his version of a huge stimulus bill to build highways. The fact that he didn’t always get his way probably has a lot to do with why Texas’ economy is doing so well.
If you’re impressed by his record as a pilot, remember that our last nominee was a jet jockey who also claims to be a Reagan Republican. His folksy charm is the mirror image of Bill Clinton’s, and he does remind me of Tom Delay. I agree with Brooks on this one.
flataffect on August 27, 2011 at 4:00 PM
Based on what I’ve seen so far, there’s no way of knowing beyond hype that Perry is any more of a reformer than Romney is, the one signal exception being that tort reform passed in TX. But that’s no guarantee that it would be a priority for a President Perry.
ddrintn on August 27, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2