“Real Americans” don’t secede from the Union. They take away the civil rights of the un-Americans – stop them from voting, criminalize all kinds of un-American acts so they can slap them in jail or execute them if possible, and TAKE AMERICA BACK!
Meh, Perry’s succession talk was pretty stupid, but its not like anyone thought he was seriously musing succeeding from the Union. It’ll hurt him a little, but he’ll brush it off as hyperbole and get over it pretty easily. Its not like he started shelling federal forts.
I’d be pretty surprised if he ran though, up until last week he was pretty unambiguous about not running.
It seems to me a pretty basic lesson from Politics 101 that you don’t talk about things like secession unless you really mean it, and if you do talk about it, you should fully expect your opponents to blast you on it as if you actually did mean it.
But I don’t think most voters will think he really meant it. So blasted or not I doubt it will make a difference. Or at least it might hurt, but no more then other current politicians have been hurt by saying dumb things in front of the camera. Obama claiming Hillary voters are “bitter” or Palin saying she can see Russia from her house.
I’d bet Romney wishes he could trade a few minutes musing about succession in front of a camera for having passed Romneycare.
He can’t just say he was joking, and he can’t just say he said it to satisfy the nutcases. Either claim would piss off his base – you know, the nutcases.
Wow, that’s not complete fantasy. I’m imagining that the questions, as usual, will just be a variation of “Mr. Perry. As Governor, what was your favorite parade?”
-Joe
“Governor Perry, how do you keep your hair looking so good?”
Well it is now, at least for me. If he doesn’t have enough integrity or balls to stand for what he believes then I have no use for him. He is a major league flip-flopper much like McCain was.
With this field so far, including Perry, Obama will win in a landslide unless the economy goes back into the toilet, which is looking quite possible right now.
He won’t run. He has too much unchecked power in Texas that he would have to give up. I also can’t imagine that he would want to release his detailed financial information. He also has zero personality and that would not resonate with voters.
Partisanship aside, I think the bottom line is that the Republicans really don’t have a candidate who is a credibly better option that Obama. They really don’t have anything solid to attack him on. He’s had no scandals, no major mistakes, has had some success stabilizing the disastrous economic situation he inherited. On national security (an area the GOP usually tries to claim for itself), he’s been stellar. He drew down in Iraq, stepped up drone attacks in Afghanistan, killed bin Laden (and killed him in a very satisfying way), he handled that Somali pirate situation perfectly, etc. They can’t call him a pussy on national security.
He really doesn’t have a vulnerability. The best they can do is to keep trying to portray his package of modest health care reforms (mostly just consumer protections from insurance companies) as “socialist.”
At the end of the day, there’s no real reason to replace him. It’s 2016 that will be the Republicans next best opening. I don’t see any obvious successor to Obama in the Dems field.
I dunno. I get the impression he would like a big army to play with.
Is the financial information a big problem for him?
Wait, don’t Republicans keep assuring us that the fact that Texas is a hellhole doesn’t reflect badly on its governors, since after all, it’s really mostly just a figurehead position without any real power?
It would give everyone a good idea of where his money comes from (outside of his offical paycheck) and I don’t think either he or his financial supporters want that.
Another big issue is that Texas is $25 Billion in the hole due to policies implemented by him during his administration. He would atually have to answer questions about that if he ran for prez.
He also would not debate anyone in the last goobernatorial (sp?) 
election and I do not see him debating anyone at anytime in the future–he does not like to answer questions.
Well, sure. But they also assure us that the POTUS has no real influence on the economy. That would be before and after insisting that everything bad that happens to the economy is due to a bad Democrat in the big chair and that everything good that happens to the economy is due to a Republican president.
Clear?
-Joe
You’re way off on all of this. The Texas governor position is relatively weak. He has been releasing his financial disclosures for over a decade. The guy is a career politician; he’s used to releasing his financials. Finally, he doesn’t suffer from a lack of personality; he suffers from being a buffoon.
No.
He shouldn’t. You should be so lucky as for the GOP to nominate a Texas governor in 2012.
No kidding. Perry would stand absolutely no chance on the big stage. He just comes across as too dumb. He really would do a terrible job in the debates, and he is a worse public speaker than G.W. Bush. He could possibly be an asset as a VP candidate since his exposure would be much more limited, but he would be so incredibly outclassed by even someone like Sarah Palin in a debate. He’s really not even that popular in Texas. If the governor’s election had been in 2008 instead of 2010, Bill White probably would have beaten him. The timing of the healthcare insurance legislation just destroyed any Democrats’ chance.
Quoth LonghornDave:
So what you’re saying is, it’s not really a job that would qualify one for being President?