At least that’s what Slate has to say. Their argument hinges on immigration, and the Latino vote:
Part of that is the Latino vote. Not only did Perry have a somewhat more moderate stance on immigration than Mitt Romney, he had it for the politically savvy reason that Romney’s view was heartless. In Perry’s eyes, Latinos–even immigrant Latinos and even undocumented immigrant Latinos–are human beings whose welfare is worthy of consideration. Not coincidentally, the Texas GOP has a much healthier relationship with its state’s Hispanic population than you see in the Arizona GOP. Romney went the Arizona route to his detriment.
If you want to sell a conservative policy agenda, Texas really is a smart place to point to show it in action. Texas has exactly the problem you’d think a very conservative state would have–a stingy safety net, meaning low living standards for poor Texans. But in exchange it really does have very rapid employment and population growth. Texas’ public school funding is very stingy, but its students results are somewhat above average–a great example of how efficiency matters to public service delivery. The basic infrastructure in Texas is solid. Texas even includes every liberal’s favorite city, Austin. Agglomerate a bunch of liberals in Texas together in one town, but still subject to the same Texas public policies, and liberals like the results. Its a good message.
So does that mean that Chuck Norris would have to settle for vice-president?
And what’s going on in the photo for this post?