The 2016 National-Security Candidate . . . Rick Perry?
In 2012, then–Texas governor Rick Perry ran for president as a "states' rights stalwart," a vocal proponent of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution pledging, "I'll work every day to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can." Undoubtedly, that emphasis has a strong appeal in conservative circles; just as obviously, it didn't get Perry where he wanted to go. As the now-former-governor rolls out his nascent campaign for this cycle, expect him to emphasize a different side of him: Air Force veteran and national-security policy thinker: Perry is arguably the only viable GOP presidential candidate in the field with military experience, depending upon whether South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham or former U.N. ambassador John Bolton are considered serious contenders. He served in the Air Force from 1972 to 1977, a unique qualification he's likely to emphasize in his White House bid. In fact, his political-action committee, RickPAC, is already touting him as "Former Texas Governor and U.S. Air Force veteran Rick Perry." "I never served in Vietnam, after receiving my commission in 1972, but I remember cadets who did, and I still remember the faces of those who would never come home," Perry said. "When it comes to our foreign policy, we can never forget the toll war takes on our warriors." Here's an obviously impressed Larry Kudlow: The Perry story usually revolves around the Texas economic-growth miracle. But the military service? The captain's rank? The piloting of strategic-airlift planes? That's hardly known. And in his 14 years as governor of the Lone Star state, plenty of national-security issues (and border-security issues) came across his desk. Perry spoke last week at a small dinner in New York City. Few there knew Perry had worn the Air Force uniform, much less that he held the rank of captain. But as he addressed the 50 or so at the dinner, it showed. It showed in his ramrod-straight posture. It showed when he described his tough foreign-policy views and opposition to Obama's national-security policies. And it was unmistakable when he so easily discussed the constant need for "a show of force." In 2012, Ben Smith was at Politico and declared that the Washington Post's Jen Rubin was "Rick Perry's worst nightmare," writing of her "brutal treatment" of the Texas governor. Here's Jen Rubin Monday: At the Citadel today former Texas governor Rick Perry will deliver a speech worthy of a commander in chief. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) can be more poetic and stirring, but no other 2016 hopeful displays the sense of command and steely strength as well as Perry. Perhaps it is his military training, to which he refers in the speech, or perhaps it is his adulation of what philosophers call "manly virtues" — courage, confidence, honor, self-sacrifice — that make him unique among the 2016 contenders. The result is a sobering description of our national security challenges and a powerful argument for his candidacy, in a race which increasingly focuses on national security. . . . The country does not need the empty bombast and slick self-promotion of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) or the neo-isolationism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It certainly does not need an incompetent and finger-in-the-wind pol like Hillary Clinton. Rubio must show more grit, former Florida governor Jeb Bush must show more clarity and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker must project a greater sense of command of the issues and confidence. One can nevertheless see them rising to the challenge. For now, however, Perry is setting the bar high — in rhetoric, in knowledge and in vision. Schumer: Congress Has the Right to Disapprove Any Agreement with Iran Speaking of national security, Senate minority-leader-in-waiting Chuck Schumer could be a more interesting guy to lead the Democrats than we thought: Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of Capitol Hill's most influential voices in the Iran nuclear debate, is strongly endorsing passage of a law opposed by President Barack Obama that would give Congress an avenue to reject the White House-brokered framework unveiled last week. The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting illustrate the enormity of the task ahead for President Barack Obama and his team: While there's no guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement with Iran, there's an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress should at least have the ability to do so. "This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur," Schumer said in an emailed statement to POLITICO. Schumer had quietly signed on to a bill allowing congressional review of the Iran deal two weeks ago, but made little fanfare of his co-sponsorship. In a brief statement on Friday, he said only that he'd review the agreement. Now that the outlines of an agreement are known, Schumer's emphatic statement that Congress has an important role becomes more significant, signaling to fellow Democrats that it's safe to jump on board the review bill. Harry Reid would never have done this. Sure, Reid publicly disagreed with Obama here and there, like on earmarks, and his staff did plenty of finger-pointing at the president after the disastrous 2014 midterms. But those were small compared to this, a giant "peace in our time" deal that Obama thinks will be his foreign-policy legacy. If the Senate has a chance to vote on the Iran deal, then there is a good chance the Senate will reject it. Former MSNBC Host Finally Gets Hillary Clinton to Pay Her to Do What MSNBC Paid Her to Do Before In a normal world, it would be a little surprising to see a former host of a program on MSNBC sign on to become a "strategic communications adviser" for Hillary Clinton. But this is not a normal world. "Karen Finney, a former director of communications for the Democratic National Committee, hosted 'Disrupt' on weekends for MSNBC for a year from 2013-2014, but the show was canceled. She remained with the network as a contributor up until November 2014." After MSNBC, she moved on to Media Matters. Back in mid-March, Meet the Press host Chuck Todd had to awkwardly allude to the fact that his in-studio analyst, sitting there because of her expertise and familiarity with Hillary Clinton . . . was close to formally going back on the payroll: CHUCK TODD: You know, you may end up working for her campaign, probably full disclose, we don't know. I mean, a lot of Democrats may end up working for her campaign. KAREN FINNEY: Trying to get me in trouble here. On that program, Finney discussed Hillary Clinton's press conference on her personal e-mail system: "For all of those who criticized how slow she was, I think she also deserves credit that she went out there and did it . . ." "I think she's being held to a different standard. I would argue Jeb Bush has a lot of problems with his e-mails . . ." "She's the only former secretary of State who has turned over 55,000 pages. Colin Powell hasn't turned over anything, Madeleine Albright hasn't turned over anything . . ." "There was a CNN poll that actually said people see Hillary Clinton as change. So I think she actually can be part of that argument . . ." Look, no one books Finney as a guest expecting her to criticize Hillary Clinton. But how often does someone get booked as a guest to analyze a figure who they're about to join as a paid staffer? Was Finney at some stage of the interview or hiring process with Hillary Clinton's nascent campaign in mid-March? Initial casual conversations? Did she tell Todd this? Did Meet the Press viewers deserve to know? Or is it that this is all moot, because producers, hosts, and viewers have been conditioned to view Finney as a spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton all the time, whether she's collecting an official paycheck or not? ADDENDA: As Instapundit would say, "Heh": "Leading Conservatives Call on Apple to Pull Out of Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran Until They Stop Torturing Their Gay Citizens." Our Eliana Johnson lets Rand Paul know what kind of welcome is waiting for him after today: "The media treats him better than they treat other Republicans," says a top Republican operative. "He gets a free ride, but that free ride is about to end, because now he's going to be in the crossfire." The media haven't dwelled on Paul's fringier views, particularly on foreign policy, the operative says, because Paul is an interesting and colorful politician who has been a vocal critic of the George W. Bush administration's muscular foreign policy. "They felt the same way about Huntsman," the operative says, referring to former Utah governor and China ambassador Jon Huntsman, whose middle-of-the-road views attracted some attention when he ran for president in 2012. If the media haven't obsessed over Paul's more colorful statements or his more controversial positions, the gloves are bound to come off within the Republican party. | 
Comments
Post a Comment