As Rick Perry’s campaign begins, the supposed feud between the current Texas Governor and former President George W. Bush has become a commonly accepted piece of knowledge. But a closer look suggests that any such conflict is confined to the aides and advisers of the two men – not to their larger political organizations. When it comes to donors in particular, the Bush and Perry networks have extensive overlap.
It has been said that Perry will struggle among Bush donors because of bad blood that goes back to when Bush and Perry were running for governor and lieutenant-governor. “Perry can’t count on Bush’s money network because of strained relations between the two political camps,” wrote the Dallas Morning News, quoting an anonymous source close to Perry.
Not so, says Barry D. Wynn, the former Chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and a top fundraiser for President Bush. “I see a lot of overlap between the Bush and Perry [campaign donors]. Clearly, the most overlap of any of the other campaigns,” Wynn told FrumForum.
Wynn was in Austin last month during a widely publicized meeting of potential Perry donors. “I went down to Austin, and did see some of the [donors] meeting there,” said Wynn. “The people that I met were pretty much all in the Bush camp when he ran for president twice, even going back to his father.”
Gregory Slayton, whom President Bush appointed as ambassador to Luxembourg from 2005 to 2009, told Politico last week that he was leaving the Pawlenty campaign for Governor Perry’s, and was taking former Bush donors with him:
Slayton, a Bush ranger who raised for McCain in 2008, told POLITICO on Thursday that he plans to back Perry — and that he’s taking about 100 friends and allies across the country with him to support the Texas governor. The group includes several other Bush rangers, Slayton said.
Wynn told FrumForum that he was likely to support Governor Perry after Labor Day (he has promised to stay neutral until then). Asked to explain Governor Perry’s appeal from the mind of a Bush donor, he said that although the two men have different upbringings, their appeals are similar. “Stylistically, these guys are very, very different… a cotton farmer from West Texas, and an Andover, Yale, Harvard fellow… [but] the foundation of Bush’s support was pro-business folks, geared towards economic development… it seems to be Perry’s campaign too,” he said.
Others put it differently. “At some level, it’s good business for anyone in the private sector to support candidates that are running for federal office. In a lot of cases, they don’t feel that they need to choose to be in one camp or another – they can be in both,” said Matt Mackowiak, an Austin and Washington, D.C. based political strategist.
Many donors just don’t have anything invested in the feud, said former top Bush aide Mark McKinnon. “I think some donors gave to Bush because they were friends of his or the family. I think most donors gave to him because they thought he would win the nomination. Perry may not get the former, but he’ll get the latter,” he told FrumForum. “Perry is not going to have any trouble raising money.”
The alleged bad blood between Governor Perry and former President Bush dates back to the 1998 when Bush was running for governor and Perry was running for lieutenant-governor.
“Bush had token opposition and wanted to get a really big win, and also wanted to win a majority of Hispanics. Rove’s team didn’t want to go negative at the end, because that would suppress Hispanic turnout in places where Bush was going to get some crossover votes,” explained Mackowiak, a Republican strategist who previously worked for Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.“There was a difference in the strategy, of what the Lieutenant Governor campaign wanted, and what the Governor’s team wanted.” Perry was in a much closer race than Bush, and ended up going negative on their Democratic opponent despite the wishes of Karl Rove and the Bush camp. And so a legendary feud was born.
But with Bush in retirement – and Perry seizing the spotlight – the old conflicts mean little to donors and activists who see in Perry a new opportunity to regain influence within the national government.
