Article VI Blog

In the scrum, I asked if he’d expressed these concerns to Perry. “No. He is not aware of my views on Mormonism,” he said, “nor am I aware of his.”

Well, that certainly seems to put more distance between Perry and Jeffress than anything Perry said.  With these new facts, the picture that is emerging is one in which Jeffress did not so much slip his leash as he did his muzzle, to continue with the analogy from last night.

Let’s reset just a little.  If Team Perry was unaware of who Jeffress was and what he stood for on this issue, then I think it fair to say that Team Perry is as ill-prepared for the campaign as Perry himself is for the debates.  If they knew about Jeffress, but felt powerless to influence the FRC as to who was going to make the introduction, then they are clueless about a whole lot more than just one person.  In either case, do you want this group of people running the country?  If this is how they handle a PAC during the campaign, how are they going to do with negotiations on trade policy or terrorism?

So the picture that is emerging needs a little refinement.  Reintroducing a couple of more facts, not directly related to this event.  The grand search for the “not Romney” concluded just this week with not-running announcements from Chris Christie and Sarah Palin.  Perry, despite his far less than spectacular debate performances, is now the only viable “not Romney” in the campaign.  Perry, after his dismal debates, needs to re-consolidate the “not Romney” forces, and the VVS is one of the bigger gatherings of the “not Romney” crowd.  Not to mention the fact that despite the protestations of my co-bloggers, anti-Mormon sentiment is strong amongst the “not Romney” group.  (Yes, if Romney is the nominee, they’ll come around, but this is now.)  So, Perry had an opportunity this weekend.

An introduction by Jeffress would, provided Jeffress played it cool, serve as a “dog whistle” to the anti-Mormon subset of the “not Romney” bloc.

The problem with that idea is that Jeffress, and anybody that knows about him knows this, is about as subtle as a nuclear weapon.  Jeffress probably thought he was being subtle when he said in the introduction, “Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person, or one who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?” (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.  Know what I mean mate?)  Of course, that statement was red meat to a press that had showed up looking for anti-Mormon stuff.  It was the VVS just before Iowa last time where the Huckabee support began to coalesce.  Jeffress probably also thinks that his denial of having exchanged views with Perry builds sufficient distance – not too bright this guy.

But you have to ask yourself why is Jeffress distancing himself from Perry more than Perry is distancing himself from Jeffress?  It seems to me the answer is that Perry really needs the dog whistle Jeffress represents, he just does not need the overt anti-Mormon stuff.  That puts him in a pretty tight spot at the moment.

So, what are we left with – an attempt by the Perry campaign to appeal to the anti-Mormon vote that has backfired – an awful, unconscionable appeal poorly executed.  Either that or more ill-prepared flat-footedness by Team Perry.  Neither option instills much confidence.

Can Perry rescue this?  Yep.  Romney speaks to the VVS just about the time this post goes up.  If Perry stuck his head in and shook hands in front of that crowd, this incident is done.  If Perry apologizes to Romney at the next debate, this incident ends.   But don’t look for either.  I said a long time ago, Perry does not strike me as someone that likes to lose.  The MSM is almost done with this story now and will be for certain unless Romney does something to reignite it in his address, and that is highly unlikely.  The MSM wants a feud, and Perry has his dog whistle, even if clumsily executed.  My guess is Perry just guaranteed a win in Iowa.

What’s sad is that if Romney is the nominee, and that continues to be the most likely outcome, this weakens the party.  It will be that much harder for the “not Romney” crowd to come around in the general having been energized in this fashion.  Against a stronger incumbent, or if the Dems wise up and try to primary Obama, something like this could even be fatal to the party’s chances.

This maneuver is both morally repugnant and politically unwise.  Bad combination.

Post-Script a few moments later: Way to go Bill Bennett!

Bennett responded today by exhorting the crowd, “Do not give voice to bigotry.”  Furthermore, Bennett addressed his comments to Jeffress directly, saying. “You did Perry no good, sir,” and accused him of stepping on the other candidates as well.