This is not surprising. Surveying the current field, I think Perry would instantly become the favorite both to win and to beat Obama.
He certainly sounds like a candidate here:
“Tricia [Dewhurst’s wife] and I have prayed about it. I’m not here to be making any announcement; I’d rather be doing that in a couple of weeks,” Dewhurst said. “I love Texas … and for anyone going to Washington, it’s a hardship. But I just think there seems to be a lack of understanding in Washington as to how to balance budgets and treat people fairly and be civil and address entitlements.”
Dewhurst entering the race would be bad news for all the declared candidates, but probably worse for Tom Leppert than anyone else, since Dewhurst almost automatically locks up the “establishment /business” candidate slot in a runoff (or possibly wins the primary outright, if he’s willing to carpet-bomb the race with money). His jumping in might also prod State Sen. Dan Patrick to jump in as well, since there’s no love lost between the two.
While hardly a disinterested observer, Karl Rove is far from an untutored one, and he offers up some compelling reasons why Obama will lose in 2012. Four, to be precise:
The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He’s defending unpopular policies. And he’s made bad strategic decisions.
The second point is the one he offers the most meat in terms of polling analysis. And the fourth is Obama’s decision to abandon Presidential distance and starting campaiging for reelection early.
Read the whole thing.
The big news around Austin is that it actually rained last night, meaning our trees and lawns won’t die, fall over and blow away like so many tumbleweeds. At least not this week.
The Ted Cruz winning streak continues, with two more key endorsements, namely Peggy Venable, Texas State Director for Americans for Prosperity, and Ernie Angelo, former RNC Committeeman.
Cruz has easily lapped his opponents in the endorsement race. Other than Roger Williams’ endorsement by former President George H. W. Bush, and the departed Michael Williams’ endorsement by Jim DeMint, I can’t think of a single high-profile endorsement for any other candidate. I don’t think Tom Leppert’s handful of pastors really counts (though getting a max donation from Roger Staubach certainly didn’t hurt).
Key endorsements aren’t worth as much winning the fundraising race, but they’re not chopped liver either. The fact that the Cruz campaign has rolled these out at a regular rate of a couple every week suggests to me that he has a fair number in his pocket, and wants to pace them out.
Saturday Rick Perry gave his speech to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, and he’s getting lots of rave reviews, further fueling speculation that he’ll make a Presidential run:
You can judge the speech for yourself:
You can see why liberals, in their frustration and inability to lay a glove on him, call him “Governor Goodhair”: He looks a lot younger than his actual age of 61.
Other Perry news (several from Iconoclast’s weekend roundup:
“Former Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams announced Friday night that he will run for the new U.S. House District 33 — which stretches from Arlington to Parker County — instead of the U.S. Senate.”
This move has been in the works for a couple of weeks now, but it’s good to see it made official. (Though he still needs to update his web page.)
Washington Post writer Aaron Blake pays serious attention to Ted Cruz, and his role as Tea Party favorite. It’s a decent write-up for an out-of-state MSM outlet playing catch-up, but there are several statements about which I have at least some minor quibbles.
For example, take this sentence
That’s because he’s emerging as a potential top-tier candidate in the Lone Star state race, posing a real tea party threat to better-funded candidates in what should be one of the most expensive primary races in the country.
There’s two things wrong with that sentence:
Likewise his suggestion that Leppert is one of the “big boys” (outside of Dallas, his profile is no bigger than Cruz’s) seems misguided.
Then there’s this:
Dewhurst is the prohibitive favorite if he gets in, and Leppert has made a big splash early with his fundraising. But many conservatives aren’t waiting for Dewhurst—choosing instead to rally around Cruz.
I think “prohibitive favorite” overstates the case a bit (I would use “formidable”), but the idea that conservatives have ever “waited” on Dewhurst is off-base.
As so many other Republican politicians do, Dewhurst occupies that vast gray area between a RINO (think Arlen Specter before he went The Full Benedict) and a real movement conservative. The phrase “a self-described ‘George Bush Republican'” appears, unsourced, in his Wikipedia entry (and thus is automatically suspect), and sums up the feelings of many conservatives towards Dewhurst. He ran as a conservative, and mostly governed as a conservative, but every now and then he would go off on Big Government tangents that would infuriate proponents of limited government. Despite this, outside the state, Dewhurst is regarded as something of an “arch-conservative” for shepherding through the (constitutionally-required) 2003 redistricting.
I wouldn’t go so far as to compare him to Charlie Crist (as some have), but there’s been real dissatisfaction with Dewhurst among movement conservatives, and it came to the fore with this year’s legislative sessions, where, despite having controlling majorities in both House and Senate, conservative Republicans found their agenda being thwarted in many ways great and small by Dewhurst in the Senate and Speaker Joe Straus in the House. Hence state senator (and possible U.S. Senate candidate) Dan Patrick’s lashing out at Dewhurst for thwarting his anti-TSA goping bill. Dewhurst managed to get the big things done (i.e., getting a budget passed without a tax hike), but there’s a sense among conservatives that he could have gotten a lot more conservative bills passed if he really wanted to, and that he “left money on the table” in the game of legislative poker by compromising when he didn’t have to
So it’s not at all surprising that Dewhurst is viewed as a stanch conservative when viewed from inside the Beltway; by Washington, D.C. standards he is. But there’s a widespread sense among Texas conservatives that they should be able to elect a full-bore movement conservative to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison, and that David Dewhurst isn’t that guy. There was a good deal of debate over whether Ted Cruz or Michael Williams was the preferred choice; with Williams getting out of the race to run for a House seat, the issue has been resolved in Cruz’s favor, as indicated by his impressive array of endorsements.
Still, those quibbles aside, the WaPo piece is a pretty solid look at Cruz, and is well worth reading for those following the Texas Senate Race.
(In the future, Brooks might want to run this sort of piece by Jennifer Rubin, who has a lot better grasp of the nuances of conservative politics than most MSM observers.)
Here in Austin it’s suppose to hit 103º for the rest of the week. Insert your own “hot news” related pun here.
Some links: