The Blog of No

I’ve decided that I am going to support Rick Perry for President of the United States.

Some regular readers here and on Twitter (mostly on Twitter; this blog is like an Alaskan mining town – rich in resources but scantly populated) may have noticed that I’ve resisted making a decision about lending my active support to a candidate this cycle. There are a few reasons for this. 

In 2008, I was very excited about Fred Thompson. We know how that turned out. I learned then that what looks good on paper doesn’t always work in the real world. The human factor will throw you every time.

Another key lesson is that what sounds good to the ear doesn’t always mean, well, anything once the brain gets a chance to sort through it. Witness Barack Obama, who managed to coast to the Presidency on nothing more substantive than amorphous hope and change. He let the voters fill in the blanks, and they did.

Finally, I think it’s because I’ve become convinced of the stakes that I want our candidate to be capable of not just beating Obama, but arresting our downward momentum.

The eventual candidate must be bold, because only bold action will reverse the damage done by years of Obama’s mismanagement. The candidate must be willing to combat the mentality that the government exists to work for you, to provide for you, to do those things you can do for yourself. He has to go into this with his eyes open to the enormous debt we’ve incurred under both Republican and Democratic presidents. He has to understand that the best people to solve the problems facing this economy are individuals empowered to act. This candidate will need to be appealing, personable, and mindful of the will of the people who consent to be governed.

Having watched, and weighed, and - most importantly – mocked him, I think Rick Perry is that man.

Let me briefly go through the rest of the candidates, and explain why I do not support them.

Please Don't Hate Me!

• Bachmann – Scrappy, resilient, a real fighter for fiscal and social conservatism. But her experience in Congress does not lend itself to the sort of executive leadership the Presidency requires. Nor do I think her personal appeal is sufficient to overcome the scorn and derision she’ll face as a female social conservative. Petty, but there it is.
• Huntsman – Here’s one of those “looks good on paper” types. He has shown himself to be articulate and intelligent. He is a conservative. But if you can’t connect with the base, you can’t get elected. He turns people off.  The perception that the media was actively promoting him in the beginning probably did the most to hurt him.
• Santorum – He’s just out of step with the times. I don’t mean about social issues – that’s his strength. Would he actually shrink government? I don’t think so. I want him as the Health & Human Services Secretary. Imagine the good he might do. But the writing is on the wall for his Presidential aspirations. Let’s mention this, too: he can be a whiner.
• Paul – Regardless of how right he is about some aspects of the economy and the Constitutional role of the government, Paul is a neo-isolationist. America can’t simply ignore potential threats until the enemy is capable of action. By then, it’s too late. America has to be proactive, and Ron Paul seems fundamentally reactive in nature. That’s death. As a doctor, Paul should know that sometimes the treatment for a disease has to be gradual or you will shock the system badly. Paul is a zealot, and we don’t elect those. Also, he looks like a child wearing his father’s suit and he apparently refuses to consult a tailor.
• Cain – Cain’s appealing personality and support for tax reform (despite an unrealistic plan) cannot overcome his dismal command of the facts and the terrible way his campaign has dealt with frontrunner status and its attendant scandals. If a campaign is a micro-governance, Cain has shown he does not pick the right people to advise him. Added to that, his very public and very confusing statements on abortion and collective bargaining show incompetence or unpreparedness. I prefer Herman Cain, private citizen.
• Gingrich – Yes, America will vote on personal baggage. Yes, they will bristle when Newt is inevitably portrayed as talking down to them. Yes, his record of leadership will come under intense scrutiny. To be completely truthful, I am conflicted here. What if a “First-Rate Madness” style Presidency is what we need? Maybe it is, but Newt isn’t the man to achieve it. Do we play it safe or go for broke? I allow that men of good will can disagree on whether Gingrich could win. I have made my choice.
• Romney – We’re told Mitt is inevitable. We’re told he’s the best chance we have to defeat Obama. We’re told a lot of things about Mitt Romney, some of them contradictory and some of those contradictions come from Romney himself. I’ve been struggling with whether I wanted to take the calculated risk of a Romney candidacy. Do I trust Mitt to follow through on his campaign rhetoric? Do I really think he will have appeal beyond a certain core audience? Will he be able to work with Congress, or will he falter at a key moment? And, fairly or not, Romneycare is a millstone around his neck. Obama merely needs to point to Romney in debate and give homage to R-Care as groundwork for the Affordable Care Act. It’s a short jump from there to painting Republicans as hypocritical for opposing Obama’s signature, massively unpopular legislation. The federalism argument might work in a country that cared. At the last, would President Romney shrink government?

There are several reasons to support any of these candidates. There are many to oppose them and doubtless I’ve only captured a few. If you’re reading this, I trust you would agree that 1000 words is preferable to 5000 in this format, by this writer…

I will write a post explaining why I have chosen to overlook Perry’s shortcomings, which are not inconsiderable. What I’ve attempted to do is show that I’ve actually thought about this. My hope is that as primary season hits, we can choose sides and argue our points productively.