Who Do They Hit

It is axiomatic in the current state of American politics that the potential candidate who offers the most concern becomes the focus of the true-believers trash machine. If you fear their potential you muster all of your minions to denigrate them, build a campaign of innuendo, and reinforce a stereotype of incompetence or unsuitability.

Prime example of the practice has been the almost manic attacks on Sarah Palin. I honestly don't pine for a Palin run for President. I think her contribution is strictly on the red meat front. She commands an audience of conservatives. She speaks in language and with an intensity that the common man can understand. She activates the base and when she endorses a candidate they generally win the election. But, I don't think she's got the chops for the Big One. Sort of like Obama in that regard, isn't she?

But, here's one that fascinates me:

Perry Ponders Prez Potential

He's just won his third full term as governor. The state of Texas has done demonstrably better than the rest of the nation during the current economic hard times with lower unemployment, a number one ranked business environment and a rapidly growing population. We just gained four more Congressional seats. The state has a per capita state/local tax burden that puts us consistently in the 43-46th position among the fifty states. We've got a balanced budget amendment and although we are currently grappling with shortfalls for the next biennial budget, we are nowhere near the collapse and bankruptcy of the blue states of the union. And, Perry is unabashedly conservative both fiscally and socially.

Among the milquetoast and re-hashed candidate field of the GOP so far, I honestly think Perry could have some appeal. So apparently do the libs who have fired up the Letters to Editors machine already:

Re: "Perry for president? The governor says he's not interested in a run, but it's something he needs to consider, says Mark Davis," Wednesday Viewpoints.
Seeing the headline "Perry for president," I didn't know whether to laugh or curse.
After reading the column, I did both. How ironic it would be to have someone run for the highest office in the land who has in the past voiced the possibility of his state's secession from the U.S. Yes, I know that utterance was mainly tongue-in-cheek, and the guv was clearly playing to the tea party crazies, but it was still shameful.
As a 58-year-old native Texan, I have voted in the past for both Republicans and Democrats for state office, but never for Rick Perry. He is simply an opportunist, a scoundrel and, most of all, an embarrassment to this great state. 

See how that works? Obviously the writer is unaware of Texas history in which the original agreement to join the Union provided for Texas secession. (That would undoubtedly be held unconstitutional, but still was there.) The writer says he is unaffiliated, but that seem seems unlikely based on the "tea party crazies" comment as well as an unawareness of the essential ideological difference between the parties.

But, most importantly, the attack says nothing concrete and is purely ad hominem.

If past history is any indicator, that means to me that the DNC talking points to all activists has placed Guv Rick on the threat list.