GOP's Texas bully

Now that he’s declared his candidacy, odds are Republicans will nominate Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president. They won’t be able to help themselves. If Hollywood put out a casting call for an anti-Obama, Perry would get the role. Democrats have been chortling about running against yet another swaggering Texas governor. Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum explains why Perry can’t win:

"He's too Texan...Even in the Republican Party, not everyone is from the South and not everyone is bowled over by a Texas drawl. Perry is, by a fair amount, more Texan than George W. Bush, and an awful lot of people are still suffering from Bush fatigue."

I think this is wrong. The cowboy archetype runs so deep in American culture that even George W. Bush couldn’t ruin it. Besides, the Connecticut rancher was a trust fund poser who rode bicycles, not horses. Deep down, everybody knew that. Now that he’s no longer president, Republicans no longer have to pretend they believe the brush-cutting charade.

I don't see Perry even winning the nomination. He's too much of too many things. He's too openly religious, he's too openly macho, and he's too right-wing. He is the one early primary voters might prefer, but he is not electable.

Perry’s sectarian religiosity and loose talk about Texas seceding might not play among Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania voters whose ancestors fought to save the union. Calling Social Security an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme would doom most candidates, although it’s the kind of big talk that thrills them down at the Tea Party corral.

Exactly. The tea party might love him, but the rest of the Republican party want to defeat Obama, and Perry can not do it. Except for the fringe, people generally do not look at Social Security as expendable.

Another piece in Salon discusses Perry's electability.

The Clinton '92 story speaks to the preeminent role that the economy plays in presidential races. One of the reasons Clinton was able to rebound so easily from his spring nadir was that voters were unsually restive and eager to throw out the incumbent, George H.W. Bush. Thus, they were inclined to give the challenger the benefit of the doubt, and Clinton was able to earn it. Could Perry, despite his early stumbles, do the same thing under similar conditions in 2012? Sure.

even if concerns about his electability are unfounded, that won't stop Republican Party leaders from worrying -- and, if they feel the need, working hard to prevent him from winning their nomination. That's what we've started to see this week, with influential, opinion-shaping voices on the right weighing in to express concerns about Perry's campaign trail antics -- and to call for new candidates to enter the race. Clearly, the "elites" of the Republican Party, who play a vital role in crafting the talking points that shape mass GOP opinion, are fearful that Perry might be a general election liability. And if he keeps behaving as he has these past few days, their concerns will only grow -- as will the number of GOP elites willing to express them publicly.

Just how influential are/will Perry's big-money backers?