Republican Perkins, who a dozen
years ago served in the state Legislature and was out of the running for defeat
Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu in her
first reelection attempt, last week with seemingly little provocation or cause opined
that Cassidy, running this time against Landrieu and increasingly
perceived as gaining the upper hand over her, could not defeat her. Indeed,
he argued that “I think his problem is his record. He’s been pretty weak on the
issues. If the Republicans want to win, they actually need to find a stronger
candidate.”
Perkins does not see himself as
that candidate, but declined to endorse as a better candidate either of the two
Republican alternatives presently announced, state Rep. Paul Hollis and military retiree Rob Maness. He did not preclude running
for the Sixth or for the Senate in 2016, if in the latter case Sen. David Vitter will have won the
governor’s race in 2015 and therefore have vacated the latter spot.
But his claim that Cassidy has
been too “weak” as a conservative on issues appears to grasp onto the counterfactual,
false narrative that Cassidy is not a solid conservative. By voting record,
Cassidy certainly has been, with a more conservative lifetime average than the
typical extant GOP member of the House, and that 87/100 (American Conservative
Union) average in absolute terms doesn’t stray much from conservative
perfection. If Perkins considers this “weak,” then he has an extremely exacting
litmus test that would declare a large number of federal elected Republicans
with solid conservative voting records as insufficient.
Even more curious is his
contention that Cassidy comes up short in “strength.” The best single indicator
of candidate strength is the amount of money they raise, because most donors
are rational decision-makers with their resources. While some may give to
low-quality candidates because of ideological purity or other idiosyncratic
qualities, most giving comes from donors who believe the candidate has a pretty
good chance of winning, so that they are not throwing away money on a losing
cause.
By this metric, Cassidy has
positioned himself as one of the GOP’s top candidates this year. He now has gone
over the $5 million mark in money raised through the end of the year, but using
the official statistics through the end of the third
quarter, 2013, he ranked fourth overall of all Republicans running, behind
only a largely self-funded candidate who is an underdog in Massachusetts, and
two Senate party leaders. Keep in mind that Vitter when he ran initially in
2004 gathered $7.7 million for this office, and won without a runoff. By these
metrics, it’s inconceivable to argue Cassidy is not a quality candidate who can
win – even as the consensus grows he is no worse than on equal terms at this
point with Landrieu in electability.
But almost beyond understanding
is why Perkins would volunteer views of questionable validity in the first
place, if he continues contemplate making a run at federal office of his own.
By essentially saying he would not support Cassidy, he’s guaranteed no support
from him if he wanted to run as his successor in the district, nor in 2016 from
at this point the better-than-even-money other senator from the state. Nor does
the rendering of an opinion about Cassidy’s presumed shortcomings likely to
endear those now volunteering for and giving to Cassidy the same for a future
Perkins candidacy.
In an odd, symmetrical twist,
this echoes the unforced
error made only weeks ago by a Sixth District candidate, Republican state
Sen. Dan Claitor, referring to Perkins
himself. At the formal launch of his campaign, Claitor said one reason he was
running was to prevent the likes of Perkins from becoming that representative. As
Perkins is closely identified as a social conservative and commutes to
Washington in his job leading such an organization, for that reason some social
conservatives immediately soured on Claitor, joined by elites who think a
candidate who immediately sets out to alienate voters probably isn’t a winner
and therefore isn’t worth their time and efforts.
Now it’s Perkins deliberately
antagonizing potential supporters and also creating the impression that he’s
not the sharpest political tool in the shed. This might involve, as in the case
of Claitor, a strategy of posturing that assumes the benefits of assuming the
position exceed any costs. In Perkins’ case, it may be to assign oneself a
label of being a reliable ultra-conservative with an eye on a future campaign.
However, that assumes that there’s
a winnable campaign on the horizon. For the current Senate contest, his chances
of winning there are virtually zero, given the consolidation of support around
Cassidy that leaves a putative Perkins candidacy with the same probability of
victory as that of Hollis or Maness. And the train is leaving the station for
the Sixth District as well, with Claitor already actively pursuing that and
another candidate, Republican businessman Paul
Dietzel, already doing
well in raising funds and picking up endorsements.
If Vitter triumphs at the state
level, perhaps running as his replacement is Perkins’ best shot of all of
these – and that Perkins supports Vitter’s new quest and
therefore may expect reciprocation adds fuel to this fire. But if Vitter doesn’t, it’s all for naught, and even if he does, there’s
sure to be stiff competition from individuals who hang around the state
consistently and/or who have held or who are in high-profile political offices and/or
who have just as good, if not better (as Perkins largely has become identified
with social issues given the nature of his job) conservative credentials. If
that’s what these comments were all about, with so many uncertainties
abounding, it seems like an awfully high risk, low potential payoff tactic.
Unless Perkins isn’t thinking
about running for any office at all, but instead searches for attention and
relevance. He testifies that individuals in which he seems to store some faith clamor
for him to run for office. By throwing out unsolicited comments about hot
contests in the state, as if he’s a future candidate for something, he provides
reinforcement to them that they should continue to invest importance in him. It
also draws his media attention, spreading the perception that he is a political
player.
Supporting this interpretation is
that if he were serious contemplating a return to elective office, he would not
have so freely voiced his opinion about something to which he had no obvious
connection, other having been a vanquished past Landrieu opponent. Someone
cannily plotting a comeback would avoid trying to alienate any potential
supporters over an action that carries little if any political gain. But if
there’s no intent to reenter elective office, any cost disappears, making this
not a case of foot-in-mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment