Palinize Rick Perry
Sarah Palin burst onto the national scene to great acclaim when she was selected as the running mate for GOP nominee John McCain. Immediately thereafter, she was subject to perhaps the greatest coordinated attack on a Republican by the media and Democrats (with the eager assistance of members of her own party) ever seen on the national stage. This outrageous onslaught gave rise to the new phrase: to “Palinize” your opponent.
We’ve already covered the first wave of opposition research which has been unleashed on Rick Perry. But this is far from your run-of-the-mill vetting of a national candidate:
With exactly that mission in mind, an editor of a major newspaper told me: “We plan to declare war on Rick Perry and do all in our power to crush him.”
But that’s pretty much to be expected from a media deeply in the tank for Barack Obama. At least Perry will be able to count on the backing of Establishment Republicans if he manages to win the nomination, right?
Erick Erickson, in an excellent horse race summation in Red State, nails the answer:
“So you have these guys … trying to settle every score they can with Perry and his consultant, Dave Carney. … Because so much of the consultant class will be shut out of the White House should Rick Perry win, their livelihoods depend on Rick Perry losing either now or in November.
And frankly, for a few in the GOP consultant class, they’ll gladly see Perry lose in November just to ensure they are not shut out of a Republican White House. For all the talk of Perry being an establishment guy, the establishment hates his guts as much as the left does . . .”
The parallels to the attacks on Palin are unmistakable. The Obama campaign has already begun reaching beyond the standard digging into an opponent’s record and well into desperation territory by trying to solicit attacks on Perry from anyone willing to say anything bad about him. The New Republic, former home of the world’s most famous amateur obstretician, has already headlined their opening anti-Perry salvo “Rick Perry: The God-Fearing, Know-Nothing, Pistol-Packing Embodiment of Liberals’ Worst Nightmares.” Chris Matthews made fun of the way he looks and dresses. A Ron Paul supporter has taken out a full-page ad looking for prostitutes and others – both men and women – who have any information about sexual misconduct by Perry. And Perry’s campaign is still only two weeks old.
But Rick Perry may be able to succeed where Palin could not. Here’s why:
- Rick Perry isn’t Sarah Palin. The sad truth is that female candidates for higher office face a double standard:
A woman can either be a prude or promiscuous. Too pretty or too masculine. A shrew or a doormat. As women try to tip-toe somewhere in the middle, we find that one small move can send us plunging straight into one of the extremes.
It’s not fair, but men in public life are given far more latitude than women are. Statements, behaviors or policy positions that would immediately end a woman’s political future can often be survived by a man who said, did or believed the same things.
- Rick Perry isn’t John McCain. From the beginning, it was clear that McCain was more interested in garnering post-election headlines like this than he was about conducting the kind of serious, hard-hitting campaign designed to expose his opponent’s weaknesses – of which there were (and are) legion from which to choose. Only when Palin entered the race was there any attempt to do so. For her efforts to bring attention to those obvious weaknesses, she was rewarded with contempt from McCain’s staff and an accusation that she was “going rogue.” Even one of Perry’s most vociferous critics and himself the champion of the cheap shot) acknowledges that Perry “has the most important quality of all: the willingness to do whatever it takes.”
Under Politics, Presidential Politics, US Politics
Tags: 2008 Election, 2012 Election, Democrats, Republicans, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin
