Rick Perry, in happier days. (Associated Press) 
 
 Rick Perry is not running for a fourth term as governor of Texas. 
 
 He announced this news Monday, showed a video of his accomplishments as governor, quoted Ecclesiastes, and sampled all the trademark Rick Perry behaviors we have come to know and love (well, short of forcing everyone to pray for rain, then dragging them into a special session to pass anti-abortion legislation the people of Texas did not want). 
 
 The looming end of his term (just 18 months away) frees his schedule up considerably. It gives him time to do such exciting things as learn the names of all the departments of government that he disapproves of, drive a car threateningly past Ben Bernanke’s house late at night, and serenade strangers in the restroom with “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad,” as, apparently, is his wont. 
 
 And, of course, think about a presidential run in 2016. 
 
 So-called insiders are already pointing out why it would be a bad idea for him to run. They say reasonable-sounding things, like, “Are you kidding me? Rick Perry?” 
 
 Sure, he fizzled in 2012, a year when a piece of damp cardboard led the field for a full 6 weeks after someone pointed out it was not Mitt Romney. So how could he expect to prevail against people such as Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, who not only are actual live humans but also possess the significant advantages of not being Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain or The Individual Under Donald Trump’s Hair? He couldn’t beat Rick Santorum, and you couldn’t even Google Rick Santorum! 
 
 But these so-called insiders are full of sour grapes. Two years is plenty of time to figure out things like: “When is election day?” “What is foreign policy?” “Should you put aviation assets in the ground?” and “How do you make an attack on an opponent during a debate that sounds marginally more threatening than being savaged by a drunk teddy bear?” (“Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of — against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before — he was before the social programs from the standpoint of — he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against first — Roe v. Wade?”) 
 
 But forget the naysayers. 
 
 He still might not be able to alter the past, or the name of his ranch, and he may not be able to evolve any of his positions, since he doesn’t believe in evolution (“It’s a theory that’s out there,” he said in 2011), but — well, my first reason for a second Perry campaign is also the simplest: How much worse could it possibly be? 
 
 He’s already shouted “Live free or die! Victory or death! Bring it!” in a slurred, bizarre fashion at a New Hampshire dinner. He’s already said “Oops!” in a major national debate. He’s done everything short of pulling an Anthony Weiner on Twitter, and — if New York polls are any indication — that’s not something the voters of America are bothered by. 
 
 This brings me to my second reason: second chances. We are, apparently, very much fans of second chances these days. Eliot Spitzer is running for comptroller in New York City. Anthony Weiner is running for mayor — and leading, even though we have all seen his lurking trouser weasel. Mark Sanford is once more a member of Congress. Comebacks are everywhere, like kudzu or 2016 speculation. 
 
 Sure, when people talk about second chances, they usually mean comebacks after some sort of sexual misconduct. Have an affair? Get back in that political saddle and ride away! We don’t care what you do in the bedroom, unless the bedroom is where you take in-kind bribes from sinister corporations. Sometimes not even then. Of course there are second acts in American lives. F. Scott Fitzgerald had too much to drink and didn’t know what he was talking about. If Rick Perry trains hard, running up flights of stairs while reciting the names of government departments, familiarizing himself with human words and behaviors, maybe he can do for people who have said idiotic things on the national stage what Mark Sanford has done for people who are, well, Mark Sanford. This is America, where you can put anything in your mouth except your foot. And maybe even that. 
 
 I can’t remember the third reason. ||||| He's amiable, decent-looking, and right-wing enough to suit the modern Republican Party, but he is also a bit of an idiot and nothing about him appeals to anyone outside his state. Republicans aren't interested in him anymore, even in Texas. Public Policy Polling (a liberal shop, but still) has Hillary Clinton beating Perry 50 to 42 in a potential presidential contest. A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll showed Texas Republicans preferring Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul over their finally outgoing governor. And if they don't want him there's no reason to suggest Republicans anywhere else will want him. "Vote for your dumb right-wing dad" won't work any better in 2016 than it did in 2012. 
 
 Still, Perry's decision to join Texas Republicans in provoking a big fight over abortion access does make a bit of sense in this light: He, I guess, wants to be 2016's Rick Santorum, the choice of the fundamentalist set who don't necessarily like the recent rhetorical ascendency of pseudo-moderation and pseudo-libertarianism in the GOP. Rick Santorum still might want to be the Rick Santorum of 2016, of course, but he also might be too busy making Christian movies. (Though none of the major 2016 Republican front-runners, with the possible exception of Jeb Bush, are remotely "moderate" on abortion access, it should be pointed out.) ||||| Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had a little fun at Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s expense. 
 
 Speaking to Eric Bolling on Fox News about Perry’s announcement he will not seek a fourth term, Paul cracked a joke alluding to a stumble Perry made during a 2012 primary debate. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Rick Perry: 'I will not seek reelection' 
 
 “If Governor Perry decides to run for president, I think there would be three good reasons why he could be president: Texas is a big successful state, he’s a long term governor and… I can’t remember the other one,” Paul said on Monday night, laughing. 
 
 (PHOTOS: Rick Perry's career) 
 
 In one of the most memorable moments of the GOP primary last year, Perry could not remember the third government agency he would eliminate if elected president. 
 
 On Monday, Perry announced he would not seek a fourth term as governor, prompting many to speculate he will run for president in 2016. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Rick Perry won't run again in Texas) 
 
 CORRECTION: A previous version of this story said Sen. Rand Paul spoke to Sean Hannity. Paul spoke to Fox News’s Eric Bolling who was guest hosting Hannity’s show. ||||| An excellent example of the parchment-dry, utterly poker-faced genre of comedy that my friend Steven R. Weisman, a former Times man of note, calls New York Times humor: 
 
 That “cavernous heavy equipment dealership” bit is a marvellous visual touch, don’t you think? 
 
 And so, we bid farewell to Rick Perry, the perfectly coiffed, ruggedly handsome, pistol-packin’, varmint-shootin’, three-term governor of the great state of Texas? 
 
 Uh, no. We’ll probably be seeing him more of him than ever. It’s pretty clear that, far from retiring from public life, he’s just clearing the decks for another attempted conquest of the Presidency. 
 
 He’d probably have no trouble winning another term in Austin, but why bother? He has nothing to prove in that department. He’s been governor of Texas longer than anybody since Sam Houston, including Sam Houston. 
 
 Being governor of Texas is a notoriously undemanding job. Even George W. Bush made a reasonably O.K. go of it. Nevertheless, getting out from under its burdens, light though they may be, will free up a lot of Perry’s time for him to study up on things like how many Justices there are on the Supreme Court, what century the American Revolution took place in (hint: not the sixteenth), and, of course, which Cabinet departments he wants to abolish. 
 
 Perry put forth a good many bad ideas during his disastrously meteorite-like Presidential run last year, and there is no reason to expect he will put forth better ones next time. His parting gift to Texas, which turns out to be the opening shot in his 2016 White House bid, was calling a special legislative session, now underway, to pass the punitive, probably unconstitutional, and (in most of the country) electorally suicidal abortion law that was temporarily stymied by State Senator Wendy Davis’s eleventh-hour filibuster last month. 
 
 But, lest we forget, Perry did put forth one transcendently good idea last time: a constitutional amendment getting rid of lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Under Perry’s proposal, on which I ladled praise at the time, Justices would serve eighteen-year terms, staggered so that a new Justice would be appointed every two years. 
 
 The salutary effects of this reform would be legion. For a full (but entertaining!) explanation of why this is a truly great idea, you know where to go. 
 
 It is important to give credit where credit is due, even when the credit belongs to Governor Rick Perry. 
 
 Photograph by Eric Gay/AP.
– Rick Perry is done in Texas, which will give him time to do all kinds of exciting things, like "learn the names of all the departments of government that he disapproves of," and, of course, run for president, writes Alexandra Petri at the Washington Post. And Petri thinks he should go for it. "Sure, he fizzled in 2012, a year when a piece of damp cardboard led the field for a full six weeks after someone pointed out it was not Mitt Romney," but hey, there are three good reasons: It's not like it could get any worse than last time. Americans believe in second chances. "I can't remember the third reason." In what can't be a good sign for Perry, Rand Paul used the same joke last night, Politico notes. Alex Pareene at Salon doesn't like his chances, either. "'Vote for your dumb right-wing dad' won't work any better in 2016 than it did in 2012," he reasons. And while Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker is also pretty sure he's toast—and deservedly so—he does point out that Perry had one "transcendentally good idea" during his "disastrously meteorite-like" presidential run, namely a constitutional amendment getting rid of lifetime Supreme Court appointments in favor of 18-year terms.