SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home GOP Elites Can’t Decide Between Perry and Romney. And...

THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN SEPTEMBER 29, 2011

GOP Elites Can’t Decide Between Perry and Romney. And It’s Hurting Both of Them.

BY ED KILGORE

Until just last week, things were looking up for Republicans, with Obama’s approval ratings sinking and the GOP nomination process settling down to a choice between two potentially formidable candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. But after the demolition derby of “P5”—the series of candidate events in Orlando including a candidates’ debate, a state straw poll, and several speaking opportunities—fear and panic have gripped elite GOP circles. Indeed, what’s been revealed is that the two front-runners are locked in an increasingly savage competition that exposes both of their vulnerabilities. Perry, the red-hot bullet in many recent polls, stumbled his way through Orlando and left in considerable disarray. The long-awaited Florida straw poll turned into a rout for former pizza magnate Herman Cain. And time is truly running out for any last-minute establishment savior to enter the race, while the possibility most mentioned, Chris Christie—who left the door to a late run open just a bit after his Ronald Reagan Library speech this week—has his own baggage to handle, including heterodox positions and his own recent assessment that he is not ready to serve as president. 

These current events leave GOP elites in quite a bind: Do they hope Perry recovers his debating mojo in the next candidate forum, on October 11 in New Hampshire, and resumes his earlier march through Iowa and South Carolina to the nomination? Or should they instead conclude that Romney was right in gambling that conservative activists would eventually tire of complaining about the Massachusetts health plan or his increasingly distant record of flip-flops on abortion and gay rights? In either case, they’ve got to decide fast, as a protracted fight will surely hurt the eventual nominee down the road while diverting attention and resources from the cause of defeating Barack Obama.

The Perry-Romney decision is a tough call for Republicans, to be sure. Misgivings about Romney are deep-seated, and transcend any particular issue. Elites will not soon forget his disastrous Iowa loss in 2008 to the lightly-regarded, underfunded Mike Huckabee, or the suspicion that Romney’s Mormon faith will act as a permanent millstone on his ability to attract conservative evangelical voters. And it’s hard to overcome the nagging conviction that today’s GOP base is not in the mood to nominate anyone who is considered moderate, or who evokes anything other than horror and post-election Canadian travel plans among Democrats. Michele Bachmann perhaps captured this conservative zeitgeist best during the Orlando debate, when she described Obama as a sure loser and suggested Republicans could go ideologically hog wild without fear of any consequences.  

But elite reactions to Perry’s Sunshine State meltdown were authentically shrill. Most significant, perhaps, was that of RedState’s Erick Erickson, who provided the venue for the Texan’s carnivorous presidential announcement speech in August:

Rick Perry stands on the precipice. He is about to fall off … . [A]nother performance like last night could push him off the edge of support among people who want an anti-Romney alternative, but who really want to beat Barack Obama even more.

And Michelle Malkin, another conservative opinion-leader who could never be described as a Romney-loving squish, observed: “Perry said he’s in favor of making English the official language of the U.S. Perhaps he should concentrate on mastering it before the next debate.”

What most fed the harsh judgments of Perry in Florida is that he stumbled at moments when he should have been thoroughly scripted and rehearsed: his incoherent effort to blast Romney as a flip-flopper, and his halting, defensive efforts to defend himself on Social Security and immigration. On this last subject, he managed to make his terrible positioning worse by suggesting that critics of the Texas DREAM Act were heartless, if not bigoted—the kind of talk considered offensively slanderous in Tea Party circles. If he’s this bad on the predictable stuff, what would happen to him in a debate with Barack Obama? Elites are prone to worry about this kind of thing. They also might well worry about whether the powerful Perry campaign organization, led by the supposed strategic genius Dave Carney, is in fact built on feet of clay. After hyping the Florida Straw Poll for weeks as a major milestone of the 2012 race, Perry skipped town before the final speeches and was absolutely demolished by Herman Cain. When you are outworked by a candidate who was earlier written off for the languorous pace of his appearances in Iowa, your campaign is no juggernaut. 

To be sure, while there are reasons for GOP elites to worry about both of the front-runners, there is also no guarantee that either will self-destruct. CNN’s first national poll, taken after the week of Florida events, shows relatively little movement other than a mini-surge for debate stars Cain and Gingrich and serious declines in support for Bachmann and Paul. And before long, the “invisible primary” dominated by elites will give way to the actual caucuses and primaries where voters—albeit activist-dominated base voters—begin to take over. But until a clear consensus emerges, insiders will be forced to watch in horror as Team Romney derides Perry as unelectable, and as Team Perry attacks Romney as an “Obama-Lite” RINO, with both sides hemorrhaging money and Democrats taking careful notes. 

Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 26 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

26 comments

Yep, two candidates slugging it out to the very end certainly hurts the winner's chance of winning the general election. President McCain is surely happy that the Democrats did that in 2008. What's more, articles arguing that everything that goes on now is absolutely crucial is the online version of the 24-hour news cycle: keep feeding the audience's appetite for speculation, now matter how groundless.

- Thunderroad

September 29, 2011 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perry, Romney, whoever. Anybody is better than the utter failure in the White House now. Obama's farrago of Marxism, anti-white racism, corruption and crony capitalism is utterly repugnant to everybody but the hard core hate America left.

- bulbman1066

September 29, 2011 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

**"...until a clear consensus emerges, insiders will be forced to watch in horror as Team Romney derides Perry as unelectable, and as Team Perry attacks Romney as an 'Obama-Lite' RINO, with both sides hemorrhaging money and..."** ... watching Gary Johnson's rise to the Republican nomination! He doesn't need money. His side hemorrhages hopes & dreams, and he has plenty to spare. Gary Johnson campaigns on an endless platform of charisma.

- Konstantin

September 29, 2011 at 1:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's really hurting Republicans is that a third of them refuse to vote for anyone who strays outside Tea Party orthodoxy (including Rick Perry). Another third are traditional Republicans who want to see at least some effort at a policy dog and pony show, and are baffled that anyone even listens to the rantings of the Tea Party purists. Ultimately the Republican party has spent the last 30 years being the party of spend and borrow, they have completely failed to enact any serious fiscal policies and the bill is now due. Facing the tough choices that GW Bush has forced on the country the only solution they can come up with is to give up - give up on Medicare, give up on Social Security, give up on infrastructure, give up on education. Republicans are doomed in 2012 because they have become the most negative and impotent political party in the history of the US.

- Attrill

September 29, 2011 at 4:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I just posted on another article: All of these discussions are just the public frustrations of a base looking for a new Reagan to put the pieces of the Republican Party together again. Social con? Check. Crony capitalist for rich people? Check. Small government con who magically preserves socialism for everyone currently over 55? Check. Hard-money "libertarian"? Check. Republicans are slowly discovering that it is impossible for a politician to meet these requirements, but telling those who do to start saving up for 2016. Note, however, that Herman Cain meets all requirements. Only possible because he's not a politician.

- chaitless

September 29, 2011 at 8:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hurting them with the base, perhaps. But what hurts them with the base more than likely helps them with everybody else. I suspect that polling data would show that support of base and support of everybody else move in opposite directions. Finding the sweet spot between the two camps is the trick. There's nothing new or insightful about this observation, but don't assume that both Perry and Romney are simply off their game when performing "poorly" in the minds of the base.

- rayward

September 29, 2011 at 8:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bulbman, sinking as always to the occasion. What a useless bunch of nonsense you contribute to this august publication, bulb, you hateful ass.

- Tristan

September 29, 2011 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is what happens when a group gets too radical. It's the same reason fundamentalist churches frequently splinter and factionalize, the same reason the black-helicopter-watching militia crowd usually come to hate each other in the end and the same reason that Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists and all the other -ists could never join to form a cohesive Communist Party. As with Democrats, they have different constituencies but the difference is that the Republican voters believe so fervently in their own beliefs that anyone who doesn't believe in one of them, including someone who is much more on their side than not, is the enemy. I'm hopeful that their continual retrenchments into ever-more reactionary ideas and policies will continue and the factionalization increase. It's inevitable if they continue down this path.

- tealeaves

September 29, 2011 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My take-away from watching/listening to Romney's closing P5 speech was "Obama". Anyway, Kilgore should just copy Nate Silver's 538 blog - the most significant nugget from the three 'post-P5-game show debate' polls is that Romney is standing still, and the anyone-but-Romney polling is now more fluid with Cain and Gingrich gaining. Whatever will Obama do if he has to run against Herman Cain - call Cain a racist? Excuse me while I look for the video of Cain challenging Clinton in 1994 town hall on health care/insurance. (per Henninger in today's WSJ). Obama should retire to a gated golf community. Senator McCaskill would make a stronger Dem nominee in 2012.

- K2K

September 29, 2011 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thunderroad, I am sorry but Romney-Perry is not in any way analogous to Obama-Clinton. And McCain had a stalking horse in Huckabee until pretty late, which gave networks an excuse to follow the McCain campaign longer than they had to. Romney really is the Tin man of the election. I have no idea wha is at his core.

- blackton

September 29, 2011 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whatever will Obama do if he has to run against Herman Cain - call Cain a racist?" I dunno, maybe dance for joy? He would crush Cain completely. A helluva lot of white Republicans would never vote for a black and no blacks would ever vote for Cain. His 9-9-9 plan is crackpottery. In fact, it is not even 9-9-9 but more like 9-9-9-15-6-3 (adding in Social security and state income and sales taxes, and this is ignoring other taxes and fees). It would destroy the poor and Middle class in America. Under Cain I would pay a 41% effective tax rate (and don't give me bullshit that Social Security is anything other than employer and employee contribution together since they are both lumped in under my ss number) And this is ignoring how a 9% sales tax would destroy businesses along the borders, I would move nearby Canada and then do all my shopping in Canada and save the 9% So please, please, please nominate Cain.

- blackton

September 29, 2011 at 12:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh wait, I made a little mistake, I forgot to add in property taxes as well, and lets not forget my co-pay for my health insurance. Cain is a buffoon.

- blackton

September 29, 2011 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bulbman, the hardcore hate America left seems to be about half the country ... nice country we live in, where half the people living in it hate it.

- NR409654

September 29, 2011 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"They also might well worry about whether the powerful Perry campaign organization... is in fact built on feet of clay. " Built on feet of clay? What a mixed metaphor, Ed. Either you build on clay (or build on sand, which is the correct Biblical allusion), or have feet of clay.

- zardoz67

September 29, 2011 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, you insane bigot, please provide one example wherein Obama has accused an opponent of racism. Just one. In spite of being constantly attacked by insane racists, such as yourself, Obama cannot, and would not make such a public statement, because of the childish outburst of whining that would result from the insane racists, again, such as you. Now, you may be confused, and may mistake an accusation of racism made by supporters of Obama as an accusation made by Obama himself. That you would frequently hear such accusations made is understandable, being as you are an insane racist.

- bunthorne

September 29, 2011 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't agree on the particulars from my good friend bulbman, but either Perry or Romney would be preferable to the Current Occupant. Both are flawed candidates, but both seem capable of a modicum of leadership, a quality sadly lacking thus far in The One. As a FL voter, I look forward to a spirited primary debate next year between Rick, Mitt, et al.

- butchie b

September 29, 2011 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sadly lacking? -- Affordable Care Act -- Student Loan Reform -- Dodd-Frank -- Stimulus may not have been ideal but without it . . . -- Given the intractability of the GOP, the tax cut extensions deal was the best possible -- Bin Laden RIP -- Libya (from behind is still leading) -- Iran (stuff going on even though it's not in the news) -- Drones wiping out Al-Qaeda leadership And that's not even a complete four years.

- ironyroad

September 29, 2011 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bulbman: I'd point out the -- shall we say -- "difficulty" for anyone to be both a Marxist and a crony capitalist, but since the noisiest members of your team have managed to spin a worldview out of both Ayn Rand and Jesus, it might not be worth it. My compliments to Butchie B for providing an example of how to make a similar argument without sounding unhinged.

- frippo

September 29, 2011 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I’m convinced Bulbman is a TNR plant designed to disgust and / or stimulate discussion for an otherwise thoughtful readership. Who, with those kind of political / philosophical beliefs, would spend time writing meaningless missives for an audience that SHOULD BE completely dismissive of blathering, unformulated thoughts. I have a passing interest in Fox, from time to time, but no matter how eloquently I could formulate a position, I’d never be able to change thought processes – let alone behavior – with that crowd. Forget the inherently 40 percent antagonistic; work to convince the 15-20 percent still on the fence.

- OkiSaru

September 29, 2011 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romney's got a second chance, an opening, with Perry's catastrophic "pro-immigrant" amateur night meltdown. Christ, it even sunk the Liberal Democrats in the UK and this is the post-scientific method Republican party!

- IggyPop

September 29, 2011 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A minor point perhaps, but repeal of DADT is prolly worth a mention. In any case, Irony's checks in the "done" column for BHO aren't negligible. If, for instance, the ACA is not a major achievement, why the hell are people like Bulbman so eager, so determined, so hell-bent, to see it erased? I understand he & those of his ilk don't like it - but if it were not a significant milestone on the road of progress, it could be easily ignored.

- Haole45

September 29, 2011 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, forgot nixing DADT -- sorry.

- ironyroad

September 30, 2011 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Late to this forum, but...thunderroad's right about the basic thesis of this argument: a protracted battle isn't necessarily bad. In fact, I'd expect it to be a positive for both candidates, as it allows them to sharpen their performance (Perry's in debates, Romney in connecting with people) and strengthen their ideological weak points (Perry will soften his SS and immigration stances, and Romney hasn't even been significantly challenged on health care). And it'd be positive for the GOP, by focusing the electorate's attention on conservative ideas.

- polcereal

September 30, 2011 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have trouble seeing that the Republican elites would have much trouble choosing between Romney and Perry. Romney is smart and well educated enough to believe in evolution, not that this is an important point itself, but shows a degree of sophistication in general would appeal to the country club and-up-type of Republican. I have trouble anyone outside of the Tea Party could be happy voting for a candidate who does not even know that his own state, Texas, does not teach both evolution and intelligent design, and who casually mentions the possibility of succession from the Union. And say what you want about 1st Amendment rights and concealed carry, I don't think a bright guy carries a .38 automatic without a safety in his pants while jogging. The country club crowd can identify with Romney, not Perry.

- Vekert

September 30, 2011 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many times I have posted pro-American, pro-Israel, centrist remarks, most of which would not have been out of line with the Democratic Party prior to its turn to the radical left in the late sixties. Not once have I received a considered, reasoned reply. That's because liberalism today is an irrational quasi-religious cult in which reason has little place. After decades of being a liberal I awoke to reality: liberalism is intellectually and morally vacuous. Liberals think they they are so hip and enlightened. They really aren't. All they have to offer is shallow, dishonest middlebrow tripe.

- bulbman1066

October 2, 2011 at 2:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You almost never receive a "considered, reasoned reply" because your posts are personally abusive and ugly, denigrating other people's values, patriotism, and humanity. Example at hand: above. How do you expect to be treated in a decent way when in two sentences you manage to describe any and all interloctors on TNR as "intellectually and morally vacuous," "shallow" and "dishonest"? Speaking just for myself, I am none of those things and don't appreciate the slur.

- ironyroad

October 3, 2011 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close