Posted on 09/08/2011 5:39:28 PM PDT by The Bronze Titan
I have decided to post this as my own article, because everyone in the media (and blogosphere) is so focused with the "horse-race" aspect of this campaign, and the "gotcha" sound bites, that a critical moment with insightful importance during last night's debate has been shockingly overlooked (and/or ignored).
It is critical, because it relates directly to the national security and foreign policy thinking and requisite aptitude of a top-tier candidate for President of the United States.
The critical moment occurs when the questioner, in turning to Perry, diverts the debate towards a "national security" issue. At this point, I am attentive to hear what the candidate has to say national security-wise relative to the question being asked.
Simply speaking, during a debate you want to gleam some aspect of the candidate's foreign policy thinking, and how he/she would react as President relative to the issue being raised. Essentially, the question is an "opening" being provided by the questioner to the candidate for the candidate to expound on their national security / foreign policy thinking. You can either respond directly to the question at hand, or divert your response to a more pronounced aspect of your foreign policy.
What Perry does (AND doesn't do) is quite breathtaking, to the point of being scary, since it covers a huge issue in our nation's foreign policy. The question relates directly to something he wrote about in his book ("adventurism").
Perry's total lack of a coherent response to the question on such a (supposedly) important foreign policy pronouncement in his book, considering that the issue involves when to send our men/women into battle, betrays his shockingly inept ability and readiness to explain his thinking in matters of national security.
It was an odd and strange response to a very important question. Seemingly reluctant in wanting to answer the question by making a weird turn to deflect the subject matter, all the while quickly closing on the same subject matter,.
==========================================
HARRIS: Governor Perry, as we approach the 9/11 anniversary, I'd like to stick with national security for a moment. You recently said, quote, "I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism." Looking back, do you think President George W. Bush was too quick to launch military intervention without thinking through the risks?
PERRY: I was making a comment about a philosophy; I don't think America needs to be in the business of adventurism.
But let me just say something about the president of the United States. And I know he's -- he's taken lots of slings and arrows here today. But one thing that I want to say that he did do that I agree with is that he maintained the -- the chase and -- and we took out a very bad man in the form of bin Laden, and I -- and I tip my hat to him.
I give more props to those Navy SEALs that did the job, but -- and the other thing this president's done, he has proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again. And I might add that he kept Gitmo open against the will of his base, and I'm glad he did that. America's safer for it.
==========================================
Here is the video of the entire debate, with a reference to the question and the response segment at the 1:17:52 time mark.
I have provided the transcript of this exchange below, and link to the entire debate transcript here.
(better viewing the video segment, since it captures the essence of how this was phrased and how it was responded to)
Here is the transcript page on the Perry comment: Page 19
I never thought I would say this, but...
I will be truthful and upfront with you, I am not avoiding you, so I will give it to you the way I see it.
There is an overwhelming lack-of-confidence that I have from the list of declared candidates, at this time, that I am unable to declare my support for any specific candidate.
This lack of confidence stems from a combination of several important points:
#1. CANDIDATE PHILOSOPHY - Hold a broad spectrum of conservative principles (I know you can't expect 100%)
#2. CANDIDATE RECORD - Experience and accomplishments to demonstrate and back up your stated philosophy (not just words, rhetoric, and campaign speeches)
#3. CANDIDATE RELIABILITY - How trustworthy and reliable will the candidate be to support and act on those issues they are campaigning on (dependent #2 above).
#4. CANDIDATE BACKING - Who/What is behind the candidate (show me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are - money talks)
All of the above, to me, are the most important determinants in sizing up the eventual candidate that I will support.
I sense that some might view this (and the media fosters this) as game, a race, to pick the "nicest" looking horse that might win the race, so you can then feel that you rooted for the "winner" at the end. To me, and most I feel, it's a bit more important than that.
he’s never “DONE” until the election is complete and all the fake Obama votes are thrown out
Ultimately, I agree, that will be the only choice we have!
But, it’s the “primaries” now and not the “general election” - so to put the “general election” litmus test question now, is being premature and a bit defensive that gives the impression of not wanting to analyze and examine closely any of these current candidates.
No one is perfect, but that doesn’t mean that important examinations need to be covered up for the sake of “party unity”.
Why have debates, articles, or discussion?
Why don’t we just let each candidate just open up a website, put whatever information they want to support themselves and their candidacy, and have a vote in 30 days?
Yup. Looka to be the case.
I’ve seen this type of thing before. I don’t get it. Do people think because they waste hours of their time posting lots of (not that stinging) criticism...that it will EVER sway even a single voter?
I get that we all like to put our two cents in and pass along info that will inspire the readers to do a bit of their own research and hopefully come out on the “right” side....But the OP is an example of making a mountain out of a mole hill. I read the entire thread....and the only thing the OP accomplished was to get out MORE POSITIVE info about Perry. That’s pretty funny.
Get ready to be called a “troll” for daring to question Tricky Ricky about ANYTHING.
Is Perry ready to be President? The New World Order Bilderbergers think so.
Like (as in I like your comment), not Mr. Perry! J.S.
Perrybots? Maybe I'm missing this....Will keep my eyes open. Are they anything like the Paulestinians? Now THAT is a group that is devoted! (Credit for the term goes to Michael Medved...pretty funny nickname and gets them riled up.)
They’re just as bad as the Romneybots were before Zotted by JimRom. -J.S.
I find this entire thread kind of interesting. Most here are just open to the entire lineup of candidates, as it's early...but the OP, and a few others are acting like we've been hypnotized by Perry and need to be deprogrammed.
Odd.
I'm beginning to think there is more to this than I originally thought. Interesting.
Perry did fine the other night. Not great, not horrible, but fine for a first debate. Romney did well too. I don't think anybody looked bad or foolish. Any of these are better than Barry.
I'm curious about the anti Perry stuff trying to be stirred up. My first guess is that it's from the people that want Palin to run. They see Perry as her stiffest competition.
I REALLY like Palin. I don't want her running for POTUS, because I don't think she has a chance of winning the general election. That said, I've noticed a lot of drama with some of her more fervent supporters. Maybe the OP falls into this category. We'll see.
Welcome to the jungle. Wear a helmet.
I just don’t understand the “spell” people have fallen under with the Perry admiration- I mean if you have kept up on his recored he’s not really a conservative- and there are better candidates
J.S.
Most interesting. Thanks for posting this link.
I’m starting to pay more attention, now that the debates are moving things forward. I usually am turned off by anyone who “falls in love” with a politician. Look what this got the U.S. into when the dopes developed a crush on “the smartest guy in the world”.
I haven’t seen much fawning over Perry, but then again, I haven’t been looking. I did notice he jumped to the top of the heap immediately. That probably sets a lot of people off. There are months and months ahead of us...I’m going to see what plays out in the debates.
I am unable to declare my support for any specific candidate.
I think we share the same core principles.
I just hope you don't sit out when/if your primary candidate doesn't win the nomination.
Newt said it best, "All of us up here agree Obamah is taking the country in the wrong direct and must be defeated!"
...or something like that.
Even with Perry's negatives, that I acknowledge, he's a Trillion Percent better than Obamah.
He is george bush 2 on this... no fence.. he likes the illegals in texas ...
SS is only a ponzi scheme because both democrats and republicans gladly stole the money deposited for retirement and spent it on pork and unnecessary wars.. if those funds had been properly invested instead of having useless USA IOUs replace the funds.. there would be money to cover the current recipients.. ..
I will not vote the presidential line if it is Perry or Romney
No fence ....no secure border..whos kidding who? we build fences for border security in Iraq ..but not in America..
No fence no secure border ...
“subsidize college educations for anchor babies of illegals at Texas universities”
*****
I believe the concept of anchor babies should be abolished. But that’s going to happen at the federal level if at all.
As for anchor babies attending Texas universities, think about that for a moment. A kid is born and raised in Texas as a Texan. That child is a U.S. citizen under current law.
It’s hard to argue that a lifelong Texan raised as a Texan should be punished for his parents breaking the law. Want to deport the parents? That’s fine. But the 18-year-old kid is a native Texan.
I used to live in Texas. I know that Hispanic Texans fought for Texas independence. I would love to see a nation in which all who loved individual freedom and religious liberty were welcome. I really wish that the respect I saw between Anglo and Hispanic Texans could become a model for this country. I would like to see it extended to black Americans. I just don’t see that happening as long as we are being inundated by people whose only interest is short-term employment.
“I just don’t see that happening as long as we are being inundated by people whose only interest is short-term employment.”
***
Agree 100%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.