Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rick Perry not suspending campaign, going to South Carolina (Reader poll added)

Rick Perry not suspending campaign, going to South Carolina (Reader poll added)

After his announcement last night that he was returning to reassess his campaign, everyone assumed Rick Perry was going to suspend his campaign.

Apparently that is not the case, as Perry just announced via Twitter that he is heading for South Carolina:

This has to be the best news Mitt Romney has received in a long time, as it ensures the not-Romney not-Paul vote is split at least three ways.

Reader poll:  Did Rick Perry make the right decision?  (poll open until 9 p.m. Eastern tonight:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


VetHusbandFather | January 4, 2012 at 11:42 am

Wrong decision, unless he wants to help Romney. I think the ‘marathon’ reference was a poor choice too. I feel like he’s just trying to ‘survive’ and not in it to win.

720 minutes of reassessment, not accounting for sleep. Glad to see he gave it so much depth-of-thought.

soopermexican | January 4, 2012 at 12:18 pm

He did the right thing for his campaign. Although it was a really hard defeat, the volatility of the primary season shows he could still come back. I don’t know if it was the best for the entire GOP. I wish he had left and endorsed Newt… It was definitely a poor decision to “re-assess” and then stay in. It makes him look weak and capricious. Either leave quick, or just stay in. Don’t vacillate…

I’m glad he’s staying in. (If that is indeed what he has decided and that tweet wasn’t a mistake.) I want either Gingrich or Perry so the longer they both stay in the happier I am because it means I might actually get to vote for one of my picks in the Michigan primary. So, I’m happy for purely selfish reasons.

Is it good for the GOP in general and for our chances of not being stuck with Romney? I have no idea. I’ve read pros and cons and there are plenty of theories and strategies floating around so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

I think Perry is the most improved candidate, so I am delighted the voters of South Carolina will get to choose him as well as the other non-Romneys. I think the winner of the South Carolina primary will be the ultimate winner and the GOP 2012 candidate. I want the fullest choice possible for those voters.

I like Perry, next to Gingrich he’s my candidate. I would like them both to stay in until it becomes clear that they can’t compete.

I’m glad that Perry has decided to stay in. Of all the not-Romneys, I believe he is the one that is best positioned to go the distance against the Taxachusetts RINO machine.

workingclass artist | January 4, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Newt will go after Mitt in NH. Mitt will go after Santorum in NH. Paul will go after all three in NH.

Perry will campaign on the ground in SC & campaign on Jobs, the Texas Economic Model & Anti-DC States Rights.

Perry can always improve his debating skills but Romney can’t improve the governing record he runs away from.

workingclass artist | January 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Romney is upset to lose Bachmann…Great “Fake” by Gov. Perry last night.

I somehow posted this under the wrong post (wish I could go back and erase them):

Good news for Romney. The not-Romney vote will still be split between Newt, Perry, and Santorum. Who knows if Huntsman will help or hurt Romney, but those of us who are hoping beyond all odds for a brokered election or a February entry would be apt to cheer Huntsman on. If he can keep Romney from a blowout win in NH, it would do irreparable damage to his inevitability narrative.

Thank you Iowa!

With Me…Me…Mechele Bachmann booted, we finally get rid of most of the slander being tossed at candidates we might actually want (Santorum, Newt and Perry) which she refused to toss at Romney in her sad attempt to get his VP nod.

Now we get a pissed off Newt (yay!) and nothing to lose Perry (yay!) who will both be motivated to bring down the unwanted Establishment hack Romney who everyone has been trying to force us to accept.

Mittens might take NH (come-on Huntsman! You can steal his votes!!! We’re behind you 100%) but after that he will be hard pressed to hold off 3 candidates as one deflating that “inevitable/electable” Insider-balloon he has been riding for 4 years.

So now I just hope Santorum, Perry and Newt all get together and do a semi-“choose one of us/we endorse eachother” type campaign which highlights the lunatic Paul and Democrat Romeny options as being exactly what no one wants or needs.

    Mutnodjmet in reply to Darkstar58. | January 4, 2012 at 2:14 pm


    logos in reply to Darkstar58. | January 4, 2012 at 2:21 pm


    Aarradin in reply to Darkstar58. | January 4, 2012 at 4:16 pm


    Then, there’s the Bachmann voters, where do they go?

    Romney would have preferred they keep voting for Bachmann, since with her out of the race nearly all of them will vote for someone other than Romney. They won’t go to Huntsman, of course, so her dropping out means her base will split between Santorum, Perry and Gingrich (probably in that order).


Splitting the Not-Romney vote this early in the game is not helping Romney one bit.

Eventually they will all head to the last not-Romney person on the ballot, and will be doing so in the near winner-takes-all states.

For Mitt, Perry staying in does one thing and one thing only – it ensures he is going to get attacked from a full 4 sides. All of Rick, Newt, Perry and Paul will be more desperately highlighting his Big-Government Rino/Blue-dog Democrat record, and that does not help Mitt at all.

theduchessofkitty | January 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm

You might understand by now that Iowa hasn’t always decided the eventual GOP nominee. Remember who won the IA caucus in ’08? Come’ on, show of hands…

Perry did the right thing by staying. But he must, Must, MUST focus on NH. It is a Big Mistake to focus on SC and not on NH. Fred Thompson counted on SC, and look what it did to him. Giuliani counted on FL, and look what it did to him. Huntsman ignored IA altogether. He will pay for it in NH and SC.

Every state counts, after all.

    Yes all states do count,But…..Perry will not win in NH,at least not in the primary. IF ,big If, he pulls off a miracle and takes the nomination he will need to campaign in all of the states.Right now he’s barely hanging on.Look he is the most conservative running. He has the rcord to prove it. Santorum backed Romney in 2008. They are very alike.The Tea Party should be backing Perry 100%. I can’t understand why they aren’t. They risk losing everything they’ve gained.

      retire05 in reply to pamiam. | January 4, 2012 at 3:48 pm

      Anyone who thinks that NH holds that much importance, must live in NH.

      Iowa was a proportial caucus with 6 delegates going to each of the three top tier, Romney, Santorum and Paul. The other 10 delegates were split proportionally.

      New Hampshire has a total of 12 delegats, to be awarded proportionally. Romney has to have a 95% win to take them all.

      Now, South Carolina is a different ball game. With 25 delegates, it is a winner-take-all primary. The winner there can do two things; take all 25 delegates AND put Romney in second place with only 15+ delegates. Even so, the winner in SC could be totally wiped out by Florida, also a winner-take-all primary with 50 delegates.

      The party ain’t over by a long shot. Heck, the invitations are just now being sent out.

        Aarradin in reply to retire05. | January 4, 2012 at 4:52 pm

        Like Iowa, NH is more important for momentum than for actual number of delegates.

        For Perry skipping NH probably won’t matter much, but going to NH could hurt. Romney has a HUGE lead in NH, there isn’t much time left, and Perry isn’t likely to gain much/any ground even if he goes there. If he goes to NH and still loses horribly (which he would), it hurts him. If he skips it, he’ll lose and can point out that he didn’t really try there.

        Giulani made very little effort anywhere prior to FL. Very risky, and failed miserably. Iowa, NH, SC – you can skip one of the three and be ok, Giulani proved you can’t skip them all.

        markn in reply to retire05. | January 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        Sorry, but that’s ill-informed: both SC and FL are proportional. There are no winner-take-all primaries (by rule) until April. That will likely keep the contest close until quite late. By design, it puts a damper on the power of being the frontrunner. The rule was put in place to help prevent a too-early decision.

          retire05 in reply to markn. | January 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm

          Sorry, you’re dead wrong. The Green Papers has a list of every state and the information on the primaries, including delegates and if they are proportional or winner-take-all. This year, both Florida and SC are winner-take-all.

          markn in reply to markn. | January 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm

          My apologies — some other blogs have this wrong, but a check of recent news releases verify your statement. It’s odd that the same set of GOP rules the Powerline post quotes talks about not having *any* state delegate-selecting event prior to February 1.

          retire05 in reply to markn. | January 4, 2012 at 10:15 pm

          markn, your gracious apology is accepted.

          As to Powerline, stopped reading it a long time ago. Same with LGF.

          valleyforge in reply to markn. | January 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm

          South Carolina is not WTA. It allocates delegates to the winner of each congressional district. Florida is WTA state-wide.

        valleyforge in reply to retire05. | January 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm

        NH is proportional but there is a 15% threshold. Perry is polling at 0-2% right now.

        Iowa is not proportional. The votes reported Tuesday was a beauty contest. No national delegates will be selected until June and they will not be bound by the caucus poll.

    workingclass artist in reply to theduchessofkitty. | January 4, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Fred Thompson didn’t have Rick Perry’s record in Texas.

Its the right decision for Perry. Maybe not the best decision for Conservatives that want to eliminate Romney.

Four years ago, Romney failed to win a single state in the South. Perry, as TX Governor, is likely to do pretty well – he should do better in the South than he did in Iowa. Perry knows this full well. The primary season has been remarkably fluid so far, a lot can happen between now and South Carolina. For starters, the pile-on against Romney, which has been notably absent so far, is about to begin in earnest.

Santorum is widely reported to have no campaign, and no money, outside of Iowa. Certainly, tieing Romney will get him some of both but he’ll be playing catch-up everywhere. Also, he hasn’t yet been vetted – and has some big negatives that can be hammered.

Point being: the “not-Romney” race is down to Newt and Perry, and its a toss up (well, Newt’s a bit ahead at the moment, but not by far). With about 75% of the Republican Party still firmly in the “not-Romney” camp, its entirely possible the eventual nominee will be either Gingrich or Perry.

Perry just had to stop over in Texas to get his guns. (read that on several boards today; not an original)

One good thing about Perry staying in is that he gets under Romney’s skin. I think Romney can handle Newt’s criticism because he views Newt as somewhat of an equal. But Perry’s criticism seems to really anger him, as if he can’t believe someone he finds inferior to him is questioning him. He reminds me of Obama in that regard.

Splitting the “not-Romney” vote three ways absolutely does help Romney –early or not. If Perry and Bachman were not in the Iowan primary what do you think the results vis-a-vis Santorum verses Romney would have been and what would that have done to help derail the so-called “inevitability” of Romney as the nominee? Perry would have done the whole party a favor by going back to full-time Governorship. The primary process should narrow down candidates, not provide limited plurality victory after limited plurality victory for one candidate or another. Having said that, staying in the race for the second primary is not a bad campaign decision but hopefully the field will be narrowed again after NH.

1. Staying in keeps Perry available in case antiRomney sentiment boils over or the GOP establishment decides they’ll lose more than they’ll gain by nominating him.

2. If Obama is reelected, staying in makes Perry the probable GOP front-runner in 2016.

3. After a rocky start, Perry seems to be getting his sea legs on the national stage. Staying in the race gives him more time to practice, and more exposure in the big spotlight.

Poll needs a “Hell Yes!” option.

Only players who can challenge Romney at this stage are Gingrich and Perry, and of the two I vastly prefer Perry.

He probably looked at the field and realized that he is the only one with a chance to beat Romney.

And that he and Huntsman are the only ones besides Romney with the requisite experience to do the job. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum has ever demonstrated the ability to manage a large operation. No, the HoR is not a large operation run by the Speaker, he just manages the legislation.

[…] thoughts about the Iowa caucus. The best news is that Bachmann is out. Hillbuzz offers a fresher perspective on why Perry has […]

Glad that a conservative Governor is still in the race, with a governing record for him to compare against Gov. Romney. Also was glad he went back to Texas and didn’t confer with all his staff (Texas circle and Presidential Campaign circle) before he tweeted this morning. Hopefully he will reassess his inner circle of advisors (leave some in Texas) as he prepares for debate in New Hampshire.

The electric green shoelaces are cool.

I am very glad that Perry did not let the Iowan ethanol-subsidy addicts determine his fate. I still think he is the most Conservative candidate and the Governor with the best jobs record to go up against Obama. It will be interesting to see if the MSM turn up the heat on Santorum. Let the vetting begin. If Santorum plummets like all the front-runners have(apart from Romney who wasn’t attacked), then Perry presents a good fall-back position for Conservatives. I still think Perry is the best choice for President.
On a separate note, kudos to Newt for taking off the gloves on Romney, about time.