Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over For Rick Perry

After turning in two consecutive embarrassingly poor performances in the GOP presidential nominee debates, in which, at times, Rick Perry seemed to have trouble completing a sentence or formulating a simple thought, Perry aggressively attacked his primary rival Mitt Romney. Although he stumbled and strayed a couple of times on questions regarding fixing the economy and foreign aid, Perry avoided further embarrassment of another Sarah Palin-like performance. Perry, a Tea Party favorite, managed to complete at least half of his sentences and stayed on a couple of his main talking points for the most part. Given his previous debate performances and plummeting poll numbers, which hover around 12-13% compared to Romney at roughly 25%, this one will be remembered for Perry's desperate attempt to re-make himself as a relevant candidate and his belligerent, attempted bullying tone toward Romney.

Perry appeared to be more enthusiastic and focused than the previous debates, at least on Romney's immigration record. Perry said, "Mitt, you lose all of your standing from my perspective because you hired illegals in your home. And you knew for — about it for a year.” Perhaps, because Perry's advisers prevailed upon him the urgency of making significant changes in his debating tactics or Perry finally realized he desperately needed to try to re-establish himself as a top-tier presidential candidate, Perry did not relent in his personal attack on Romney. Perry practically glared at Romney and said, "And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you’re strong on immigration is, on its face, the height of hypocrisy.” In turn, Romney denied he had ever knowingly hired undocumented immigrants and when he learned of this fact, reportedly fired the landscaping company that employed them. Then, in his usual condescending tone, Romney landed a devastating verbal punch when he remarked, "This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick and I understand that, so you're going to get testy." Perry's gaze towards Romney was fearsome. Perry's repeated frontal assault on Romney's immigration record of knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants did some damage to Romney, but I doubt it will be significant enough to overcome his conspicuous flaws. Although Perry may have fared slightly better in this debate than the last two debacles, which isn't really saying that much, his recent performance only postpones his inevitable defeat to Mitt Romney.

Based on Perry's feistiness in his latest debate, which some may interpret as him simply asserting himself, Perry supporters may believe once again they have reason to be optimistic for his chances to be the Republican presidential nominee. They shouldn't. Their optimism, while well-intentioned, is misguided. Of course, Perry needed to do something to enhance his badly tarnished image and regain some credibility, especially in exhibiting a generalized knowledge of some of the issues. Too often during the debates, Perry appeared lackadaisical, visibly uncomfortable, completely unprepared, and almost disinterested. It was as if Perry felt he did not want to be present during these debates or, worst yet, arrogantly believed he could just show up, repeat the same tired, old Republican Party and Tea Party mantra of "Smaller goverment and less taxes," and and the whole country would be enthralled with the Texas governor. Unfortunately for Perry, I believe he reminded the U.S. audience of a dumber, less interested former Texas governor named George W. Bush.

Perry's dramatic drop in national popularity, reflected by a large majority of the national polls, seemed to him have awakened the missionary zeal in this former boy scout. Granted, poll numbers are inherently problematic and somewhat unreliable in accurately prognosticating the outcome of any political election and debates do not necessarily decide a clear-cut winner, but Perry's atrocious debate performances, with the possible exception of the last one, have negatively influenced voters and non-voters perception of him. In fact, Perry's debate performances belies, perhaps, deeper and intransigent problems for himself and his party.

First of all, Perry's lack of preparation for the debate reflected an arrogance and disrespect to not just the other candidates, which I suspect does not bother him in the least, but also to his supporters. More importantly, Perry has presently failed miserably to impress potential voters who are not familiar with him and his platform. In fact, if anything, Perry has driven most of these potential voters away, at least temporarily, and to the Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul camp. Maybe Perry or his campaign staff, headed Rob Johnson, miscalculated on what it actually takes to run an election outside of his home state of Texas. This is puzzling because Perry's policy and strategy director, Deirdre Delisi, served as George W. Bush's policy director during his presidential campaign and obviously has the experience on how to run a successful national campaign. Perry's camp, including Perry himself, was probably more guilty of hubris than anything else. It is not as if the decision to enter the presidential race was a last minute decision. What else could explain such embarrassing outings in the debates? It appears Perry has forgotten he's not in Texas anymore.

Perhaps, due to Perry's poll numbers, which peaked at 31.8% on September 13, 2011 and have languished in the low teens for the last two weeks, his campaign staff felt the need to change strategy tactics and go extremely negative before the first primary by launching a reportedly 20 million negative ad assault on Romney. In this month's Texas Monthly magazine, senior executive editor, Paul Burka, questioned the wisdom of Perry going negative so early in his campaign. Burka writes,

This is vintage Perry. He always seeks to be the aggressor. But I wonder if this is a good decision by the Perry camp. To be running a negative ad about a primary opponent at this stage of the game–at least three months before the first primary voter casts a ballot–looks more like desperation than a well reasoned gambit. A negative ad is only effective if the candidate airing the ad has a positive image. The Perry campaign is launching this ad at a time when Perry has been in decline in most polls. I don’t think it’s going to help him (Burka, p.1)

Although practically every candidate runs negative ads against their opponents, Perry's tactic of going negative so early does not reflect nor inspire confidence and competency, but instead, reveals insecurity and desperation in a candidate. Most voters, especially the undecided and independents, will interpret Perry's attempted bullying for what it is. This tactic will eventually backfire for Perry.

Secondly, the pressing question of Perry's intelligence, or lack thereof, has suddenly become a subject of scrutiny and genuine concern by the media and the American electorate. While intelligence is not a litmus test to be President of the U.S. or to hold any political office for that matter, as evidenced by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, but politicians have to appear to be somewhat competent, principled, or have a likable personality to compensate. President Reagan compensated for his transparent lack of intelligence, gradual descent into senility while still in office, and disinterest in the details of major issues and policies with boundless optimism in America's future and projecting an image of a principled, sincere man. Some of Reagan's greatest strengths were his easy-going, friendly demeanor that played well with America. Although Perry shares a lack of intelligence and firm grasp or genuine interest on most major issues and policies, he does not possess any of Reagan's inherent gifts of likability and optimism. Perry's overly aggressive personality and inability to clearly articulate his positions on the issues and criticisms of his political opponents combined with his lack of intelligence is too much too overcome to win a national election. Perry also reminds too many voters of former President George W. Bush, which does not help his cause.

Perry's overt stupidity and its possible problem in his campaign was addressed by Jonathan Martin in a August 29, 2011 Politico article entitled, "Is Perry Dumb?." Martin writes,

Doubts about Perry’s intellect have hounded him since he was first elected as a state legislator nearly three decades ago. In Austin, he’s been derided as a right-place, right-time pol who looks the part but isn’t so deep — “Gov. Goodhair.” Now, with the chatter picking back up among his enemies and taking flight in elite Republican circles, the rap threatens to follow him to the national stage (Martin, p.1).

Although most of Perry's supporters readily concede his strength does not lie in his knowledge or attention to details regarding of policies, it is in his requited love and devotion to the business community, which also serve as big donors that finance his campaign. In describing Perry's personality and skill as a politician, Martin quotes Democratic Texas state Rep. Mike Villarreal, "This like judging [baseball star] David Ortiz as a failed athlete because he’s never scored a touchdown. “He’s a focused, committed and skilled political animal. He wins elections. Do not underestimate him." Perry's tenacity, bullying style, and access to donors with deep pockets will make him competitive for a while against Romney, but it will not be enough for him to win the Republican nomination.

Lastly, Perry's proclivity for making shockingly misinformed statements, like the one regarding Social Security as a Ponzi scheme has made senior citizens and middle-aged people genuinely nervous about their future. Perry was quoted in saying, "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." Perry's characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme has not just frightened Americans, but as caused a rift among Republicans. Seeing this as an opportunity to attract the senior citizen crowd, undecided voters, or simply concerned Americans, Romney has repeatedly pressed Perry on his position. Although Perry has softened his language to a small degree regarding this subject, he has steadfastly stood by his words and position. Of course, Perry received support from fellow Republican Senator Jim DeMint, another Tea Party favorite. DeMint said, "He wasn’t saying discontinue it, he was saying fix the financial part of it. That was clear to me what he was saying — that it’s set up in a way to fail financially we need to fix that part of it. I heard the media act like he wants to get rid of Social Security.”
The primary question Perry has avoided in answering is, how or why would he want to fix a program that he himself described as inherently fraudulent? Perry's position on this matter places Republicans and Tea Party candidates who support it in the unenviable position of trying to defend it.

A couple of years ago, before his mostly Christian, self-righteous, and virulently anti-Obama crowd, Perry said in regard to the government's interference in the lives of U.S. citizens, "There's a lot of different scenarios. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." Although Perry did not mention the word 'secession', the implied suggestion was unmistakable. In fact, after this particular public appearance, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that." If Texas would never consider seceding from the rest of the country, why did Perry raise the subject? It was obviously his view he tried to portray as the citizens of Texas. This is not new to politics, though.

Of course, Perry is incorrect in alluding that Texas has the legal right to secede from the Union, but that is not surprising. Perry's reputation for misspeaking and distorting facts rivals that of former President George W. Bush. Given this country's greatest tragedy, the Civil War, which was born out of attempted secession, Perry should have exercised better judgement instead of shamelessly pandering for votes. What do you expect from someone who is, "... like Bush only without the brains.”

Perry's challenge to Romney, which will eventually lead to a bitter defeat, will severely damage Romney's chances against Obama. Perry's supporters should place flowers at the tombstone of his Republican Presidential nomination and place their support behind Romney if they want any chance to defeat Obama in 2012. To quote Willie Nelson, "Call it a night, the party's over, and tomorrow starts, the same old thing again."