Back in the middle of August, just after Rick Perry tossed his cowboy hat into the ring, anonymous White House and Obama campaign aides were quoted saying that they welcomed the Texas governor into the race because they assumed that, given his radical positions, he would be easier to beat. As Reuters' Eric Johnson put it at the time, "senior activists and influential Chicagoans close to the president say Perry's more polarizing views make him a bigger target for the Democrat in a general election." Said a former White House aide involved with the campaign: "I was praying Perry would get in the race."
And that is certainly the conventional wisdom. After all, the man does have more than his share of extreme positions. To wit (or is it nitwit?):
We know he believes, depending on which day it is, that Social Security is "set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme," and a "monstrous lie."
We know he believes that the use of conventional monetary policy tools by the Fed is "almost treasonous," and that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke would be treated "pretty ugly down in Texas."
We know he believes evolution is merely "a theory that is out there," and derides worries about climate change, saying climates have "been changing ever since the earth was formed." (When pressed on when, exactly, that occurred, he only says that the planet is "pretty old".)
We know that when asked about his thoughts on the death penalty and his state's frequent use of it, he replied, "I've never struggled with that at all." And we know that this means he apparently doesn't care very much about his role in executing Cameron Todd Willingham, who evidence suggests was likely innocent.
We know all that. So surely someone with a history of radical statements like these could never get elected president. Americans would simply never put someone like that in the White House, right?
That would be like the country electing someone who had once said that "the entire graduated income tax structure was created by Karl Marx," and that it "has no justification in getting government revenue."
Or someone who had once said that "fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."
Or someone who had supported the idea of making Social Security voluntary, which would, of course, kill Social Security as we know it.
But, in fact, we did put in the White House a man who said all these things. Ronald Reagan. In 1980, Reagan, the source of all these quotes, beat incumbent president Jimmy Carter 489 electoral votes to 49.
As laid out in Ted Kennedy's speech that year at the Democratic National Convention, Reagan had also claimed that "80 percent of pollution comes from plants and trees," and that "unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders."
What Reagan's election shows, and the lesson it holds for those espousing the conventional wisdom on Rick Perry's electability, is that, especially in times of fear and uncertainty, people don't always vote on the logical consequences a candidate's statements would have on policy -- and on their lives.
If those guiding the Obama campaign think that Rick Perry's history of "polarizing views" is going to be their ace in the hole, they may be in for a rude awakening. And it's America that will wake up to the consequences. Instead of praying for Perry to enter the race, they should be praying for the White House to figure out how to create jobs and grow the economy.
Right now, the unemployment rate is 9.1 percent. In November 1980, it was 7.5 percent. And Ronald Reagan's history of polarizing views turned out not to matter very much.
Yes, as the debt ceiling fight showed, Obama is likely to keep on winning the "Who Is The Most Reasonable Person In The Room?" contest. But that's not the same thing as winning the election. Most people thought Jimmy Carter was more reasonable than Ronald Reagan, too. And the Carter campaign had initially preferred to run against the more polarizing Reagan rather than the more moderate George H.W. Bush.
When people feel powerless and fearful, they want a leader who speaks a language of strength and reassurance. After all, voters, including those mythical swing-vote independents, want the same thing everyone does: jobs and a strong economy. And in the absence of jobs and a strong economy, they at least want someone who speaks boldly about his plans to turn things around. It's not about the left or the right or the center. And it's not about being smart or being reasonable. It's less about the brain and more about the lizard brain.
Nicholas Confessore recently reported that the Obama campaign is having trouble wooing back many of its small dollar contributors from 2008. One of them is Edward Blair, a 65-year-old lawyer in North Carolina, who makes an appearance in a 2012 Obama campaign video. "I certainly respect him, and I trust him," said Blair, "but I am disappointed, and I'm bewildered." And this is from someone in a 2012 Obama campaign video.
At a fundraiser last weekend in San Jose, the president quoted "my friend Joe Biden," who says, "don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative."
Well, as they say, be careful what you wish for.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh: The Death Penalty is Political Sport at Its Most Barbarous
Robert P. Jones, Ph.D.: Rick Perry and the Perils of Sectarian Religion in 2012
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
We have to make sure, though, that this time, we make efficient use of the Internet -- as Arianna has already started to do -- to make sure the rest of the world knows what a disaster he is, that the rest of the voting public understands that a vote for Perry is a vote for death, disease, depression and disaster in general.
standard's Reagan was liberal. A Republican from hollywood. If he had Perry's views back then
he would not of been elected. Perry is a true conservative, with value's to match. Privatize
everything, continue and expand tax breaks, end the EPA, end minimum wage. No plan for
jobs, No plan for health care. oh yes and Social Security is a ponzi scheme . Don't forget
he is supported financially by the Koch brothers. A couple of shady billionaires, who are under
investigation by the justice dept. for fraud, theft, and deceptive business ventures. Even
dealing behind the governments back , with Iran.
When the times are bad, as they have been for the last couple of years, and candidates make good commercials (such as plentiful jobs), you get elected.
The problem with Obama is that he spent way too much time trying to get that elusive bipartisanship.
Now, all the Republican Tea Party has to do is run out the clock. Yes, they'll look bad, but Obama looks worse.
Pointing to Congress and whining that they are not doing anything is not going to work. After all, if you cannot get this Congress to do anything, why should anyone bother electing you?
Perry wins this going away. He has hedged his bets carefully.
He has opposed scientific positions, and no one really cares about climate change when it is a job that you are trading off. At the same time he has not alienated the Latino vote, by embracing a solution for illegal immigration in Texas.
So he has enough Tea Party cred with God, guns and abortion to tide him over to the general election, and then everyone votes for him from the conservatives. The independents will break for him given the economy
I am still shaking my head over that one: I can't believe he really did not realize how such words could do him no good, and do him a lot of harm.
My picks if I had the choice for everybody:
Bernie Sanders as president
Colin Powell as Secretary of State
Mike Mullen as Secretary of Defense
Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of Treasury
Hell, I'll reach across the aisle with more than just Powell (and possibly Mullen, nobody really knows) with appointments below cabinet-level:
Ron Paul as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration
Wayne LaPierre as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
They're getting more and more radical - and prosing more and more preposterous, unworkable policies - because they think it will pay off in votes at the next election. They don't care about the country - just power.
Perry has soem of qualities of Reagan seeming to be strong decisive leader, so bottom line i could see him getting elected.
However, Ariana is right, there is a possibility that a real extremist could win.
Meeting extremism with moderation is the worst possible thing we could do. No more compromise with socialist, no more go along to get along with those who wish to destroy the American way of lfe. I don't care who it is - Perry, Bachman - but whoever it should be an unapologetic fiscal and social conservative who will get in the face of the leftists and call them what they are.
If Obama had ran as a Republican, you would have voted for him. You are only concerned with labels.
As Herman Cain so wisely said, this country needs to regain a sense of humor.
When you get past all of his words and rhetoric, and cut out any apologizing for his circumstances - just taking into account his actions only - a different picture of him begins to emerge.
Considering the most i've heard in defense of him is that he favors taxing the rich more and helping the poor (which is plenty fine), a good question to ask is: How exactly will that fix the major problems we have now?
Considering that one of the most pressing problems we have is the financial institutions destructive gambling and undue influence on Washington (much more so than the rich's tax rates); what has he done about that?
That's just one in a long list of topics that the president seems to be strangely silent on.
If anyone has any information proving that he has tackled some of those type of problems, feel free to tell me.
I'm not going to give the list, but they did a lot to advance the lives of every consumer, students needing loans, people with credit cards and those investing on Wall Street. You need actual filibuster-proof majorities to do any more when you have one party bent on obstruction as well as a willingness to destroy the full faith and credit in the USA to make their case.
Is oh so
Very...
Bush on steroids