Plenty of cash for Pro-Perry Super-PAC
posted at 2:05 pm on September 6, 2011 by Tina Korbe
Rick Perry’s GOP competitors are pounding him right and left, but I have a sneaking suspicion he’ll weather the storm — and not just because he has an outsized personality and a jobs record to make CEOs salivate. No, he won’t be at the mercy of his would-be rivals’ less-than-impressive, almost-laugh-out-loud-obvious ads for another reason entirely: Money. What makes campaigns go round.
Make Us Great Again, a pro-Rick Perry super PAC, has plenty of money to spare — and a strategy to ensure not a dollar goes to waste. “Plans for major ad blitzes to the tune of $45 million through the end of March and an additional $10 million after that”? I like the sound of it — provided Perry and Romney, at least, don’t weaken each other so severely as to render the other truly vulnerable in the general.
Although … if you recall, the 2008 Democratic primary was pretty bitter (I know a gal who almost didn’t give herself a chance to fall in love with her now-husband because she worked for Hillary’s campaign and he worked for Barack’s). That acerbic slog didn’t stand between O and the presidency. So, go to it, Make Us Great Again. NBC’s Michael Isikoff with more:
The new super PAC backing Rick Perry has drawn up plans to spend $55 million as part of an ambitious campaign strategy aimed at blowing away the Texas governor’s rivals in early primary states and securing him the Republican nomination by next spring, according to internal committee documents obtained by NBC News. …
They also show that the strategists behind the new Perry super PAC, led by a longtime Perry confidant and backed with infusions of cash from major Perry donors, are preparing to mount a full service political operation — complete with TV advertising, direct mail and social media outreach.
If it realizes its goals, the super PAC — which calls itself “Make Us Great Again” — will likely eclipse the financial operations of Perry’s official presidential campaign committee, according to some Republican consultants. …
The Make Us Great Again strategy, according to the Power Point presentation, is predicated on winning at least two of the first three GOP contests — in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. It notes that in every GOP primary battle since 1980, the winner of two of these three contests has gone on to win the nomination. …
[T]he strategy calls for spending $20 million on the three major early states (as well as Florida and Nevada), according to another slide of the Power Point presentation. This would be followed by a[nother] phase of the strategy — dubbed “Nomination Push” — during which the group would spend another $20 million on 20 states that form the next wave of contests through March 24. These states, which Make Us Great Again strategists view as decisive, include most key Southern battlegrounds — including Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Virginia — where Perry will be expected to have a major home turf advantage.
The final phase of the strategy — dubbed “Finish” — calls for spending only $10 million after March 25 — a sign that the super PAC architects expect the nomination battle to be essentially over by then.
Importantly, though, Make Us Great Again spokesman Jason Miller says the documents obtained by NBC News are already outdated. “As the dynamics of this primary have changed, so have our targeting and spending,” Miller wrote to Isikoff in an e-mail, although he declined to elaborate. Does that mean Make Us Great Again plans to spend more than $55 million? Less? Sounds like the PAC will spend whatever it takes to defend Perry from damaging attacks and to forward a few of their own. In the meantime, the fact that Make Us Great Again is so not hurting for cash suggests an impressive level of commitment from his backers.
Related Posts:
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
Unexpectedly!
Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM
How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.
Good job, Preznit Smart Power.
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Whats the difference….h clinton……
crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM
“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack
Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.
Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Samantha Powers takes a bow !
Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM
One stupid step for Obama…
One giant leap for Jihad.
coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.
Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.
And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…
JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.
R2P = R2FU
PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Because Chaos is Progressive…
Lean Forward!
workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM
So this was another war for oil,right?
docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?
1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.
rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Legacy baby
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Hmmm, looks about right.
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM
And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”
Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.
This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…
For what?
Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?
Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?
Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?
Talk about a deficit of political capitol.
BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Arab Spring!
myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Apparently the resignation was withdrawn.
YiZhangZhe on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM
A really well done piece:
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM
What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.
breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM
I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.
I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.
And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.
gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,
narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM