Posted on 10/01/2011 3:28:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If Texas Gov. Rick Perry isn’t the un-Romney that the Republican base craves, who, oh who, will it be?
If Perry cedes the un-Romney label – and the nomination – you can carbon-date the moment when his campaign’s decomposition began: Sept. 22, 2011, between 9-11 p.m. EDT. That’s when the Texas governor stumbled through one of the worst debate performances in memory.
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called Perry’s flubs close to “disqualifying.” Red State blogger Erick Erickson said he was a “train wreck.” The New York Post’s John Podhoretz deemed Perry’s performance: “Awful. Just awful.” Brit Hume of Fox News went the gross-out route, saying Perry “really did throw up all over himself.” And those are his friends speaking.
Talk of Perry’s debate fiasco jumped from the tiny world of political insiders into the mainstream of late-night television comedy, generating ridicule, including an appearance on David Letterman’s Top 10 list.
Yet even before the latest debate, Perry was fodder for jokes. Watching him over the past three weeks, party operatives in Washington had begun either praying for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to enter the race or reconciling themselves to the view that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the best the party can muster in 2012.
Perry didn’t just insert his foot in his mouth; he inserted a wedge between his candidacy and the Republican base. Defending his policy of allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend state colleges at the cheaper, in-state tuition rate, Perry sounded as if he thought his party is still home to George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatives.
“If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said.
Republican pollster Frank Luntz said Republicans he assembled for a focus group responded so viscerally to Perry’s immigration talk that they couldn’t turn their dials to negative fast enough.
Iowa kingmaker Bob Vander Plaats, who helped former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee win the Iowa Republican caucuses last time around, said he was sure Perry would take the opportunity to clarify his stance at an appearance the next day before the Florida Conservative Political Action Convention.
Perry didn’t. As a result, Vander Plaats told Time, a lot of conservatives who once ran toward Perry are now “running to somebody else.”
As if to confirm Vander Plaats’ assessment, the Florida CPAC straw poll last weekend was won by pizza entrepreneur Herman Cain, who received 37 percent of the 2,600 votes cast by party activists. Perry, who was expected to win or at least make a strong showing, had 15 percent; Romney received 14 percent.
Immigration is not an issue Perry can finesse; if he holds to his position on in-state tuition, he will alienate much of the Republican base. If he retreats, he opens himself up to charges that he lacks conviction.
A pattern may already be established. At the last debate, Perry tried to wiggle away from his claim that Social Security is “unconstitutional.” Romney, the flip-flop king, gleefully clobbered the Texan for shifting his views.
Perry’s vulnerabilities extend beyond the border he so regularly invokes. When the debate turned to foreign policy, Perry looked far out at sea. Responding to a predictable question about the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call – in this scenario the Taliban had gained control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons – Perry was positively Palinesque.
He began by mumbling about a terrorist group in Afghanistan, mentioned building a “relationship in the region” and then said something about selling more arms to India. By the time Perry’s meandering had concluded, he found himself 3,000 miles east of Islamabad – in Taiwan.
After three debates in which parts of the country not named Texas have been exposed to him, Perry’s appeal has diminished and the quality of his performance has declined. The debates have revealed that Perry is neither consistently conservative enough to satisfy the tea party activists driving the nomination from below, nor sufficiently presidential to mollify the establishment hovering nervously above. And his mind is a muddle.
Yet there is no one waiting in the wings. Those begging Christie to jump in will almost certainly be disappointed – in part because Christie is self-aware and observant enough to know that his path to the nomination would probably prove no easier than Perry’s.
Sarah Palin? It’s not clear that even the base is interested in her.
Still, there must be an un-Romney. Until Republicans find one, Romney remains the only electable Republican in sight.
Guess she got digs in at all the pigs, then.
“What that tells me is that a desperate obama is going to throw Biden under the bus and put Hillary on the ticket for 2012.”
I’d agree, but I think they know Hillary as VP won’t cut it...and she hasn’t persevered through all this just for the VP job. She’s just biding her time.
As to Perry being the best, I don’t see how. Hillary will clean his clock in the debates, and even Obama will roll over him. Perry simply isn’t up to the top job, at least this time around. He hasn’t even though about national politics until just now (other than when they directly affected Texas), and other than coddling Mexico, he’s NEVER thought about foreign policy.
“Yes, he has governed the most conservative state in the nation...but as a MODERATE, and border-line liberal when it comes to immigration. That’s why we’re so mad at him...I’ve been here in Texas and he hasn’t lifted a finger on immigration (i.e., E-Verify, Sanctuary Cities, and lots more)...and has just made things worse (Dream Act).”
Everyone complains about the rinos from Maine and MA but if the red state Republicans can’t lead by example, how can we expect Republicans from blue states to be any better?
“Everyone complains about the rinos from Maine and MA but if the red state Republicans can’t lead by example, how can we expect Republicans from blue states to be any better?”
Agreed - that’s what’s been the most disappointing here. We have a real fruitcake as governor, and we can’t find a way to get rid of him.
uh, what record is that? Oh, you mean the legislation for instate tuition for children of illegals passed in 2001 with a veto proof majority. Some children of illegals are actually legal. They do have to pay their tuition themselves and must meat other requirements. Only 4 total NO votes from the TX Legislature. Passed in 2001. Doesn’t support building a fence on the border. Perry does support it in urban areas, just not in rural areas. Ranchers does not want their stock cut off from water. There is 1200 miles of border. Perry has requested aviation, drones and boots on the ground. Denied by Obama. TX catches illegals and ICE turns them loose. Obama is not deporting them. This is a Federal responsibility and Obama is not meeting it. Perry signed a voter ID bill and has teams on the border trying to catch criminal illegals. He has been doing this a long time. There are several millions of legal hispanics voters in TX and other states. Who do you think they will vote for in the Republican race? Perry most likely, the way the others have savaged Perry, I doubt they will get very many votes.
“Agreed - that’s what’s been the most disappointing here. We have a real fruitcake as governor, and we can’t find a way to get rid of him.”
you could’ve had Kay Bailey...
In NY, our problem wasn’t that Paladino was a rino. He was very very conservative but unfortunately, he was just crazy.
“you could’ve had Kay Bailey...”
And that was our problem. There are some really, really, GOOD CONSERVATIVES here in Texas, but instead we get Perry, who’s just conservative enough to hang on to office...FOR A DECADE.
What a nightmare.
While it's true that the nation has elected incoherent Texans to the White House, Perry alone has come up with THE dumbest non-sequiturs. Debate Perry looked and sounded ill-prepared, uncertain, dull, vacuous and embarrassingly out of his depth.Besides 'incoherent Texans' let's not forget an incoherent, inexperienced, and *tired* POTUS from Massachusetts, JFK, who met with Nikita Khrushchev on June 4, 1961 in Vienna regarding Berlin, East Germany and -- a possible War over the issue. (oh goody)
We now know that Khrushchev owned the *tired* and inexperienced Kennedy. And after that Summit Meeting JFK admitted: "He beat the hell out of me" and told NYT reporter James ‘Scotty’ Reston it was the "worst thing in my life. He savaged me.".
We also now know that it was solely due to JFK's lousy, lackluster, and *tired* performance (aka; Speaking) in that Summit Meeting that Khrushchev was emboldened, and thought Kennedy was a push-over. And as such, the USSR could put Nuclear Missiles in Cuba without a peep from the USA. And THAT almost led to a 'nuclear confrontation' and most of us now here would have been D-E-A-D.
Fast forward to today and we now have the Perrydactyls scolding us that Perry's debating skills are irrelevant and so is the way he speaks (aka: Speech Patterns). Well excuse me for not buying that, as we know from the above snippet of history that the way a POTUS communicates with heads of foreign countries, along with his body language while doing so, is far from 'irrelevant'.
During the Cold War we basically had to only worry about one 'enemy', the USSR and its Soviet Bloc. Today we have numerous Rogue States and Terrorist Groups all over the globe just waiting for another weak moment, or... a weak POTUS, to land another blow to us on our soil. With their goal to make 9-11-01 look like a Girl Scout Bake Sale.
Therefore, the last thing we, the USA needs, is a POTUS who cannot get his point and/or position across correctly and coherently the first time he says something -- as there may not be a second chance. And right now Perry looks like a potentially weak and/or incoherent POTUS.
And that we just cannot afford.
That is all.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
Perry is a weak and incoherent candidate........definitely not ready for the world stage.
The only place he seems to be able to communicate is Mexico.....but that’s because Mexico uses the Freebie Dialect.
I support Rick Perry; he is now my first choice; the more trashing of him the less likely I am to support the garbage man's choice. He is a former Air Force pilot and the best of the current crop of those running for President. Obama must be defeated. I have given up on Bachmann because of her sleazy attack ads; Romney is toast. Gingrich and Cain are the only gentlemen left. Well Santorum is okay except he would lose.
Your over the top rhetoric/comments come across as anti-Hispanic bigotry; you may play well to a certain audience but lots of conservatives are not heathen bigots and it does not resonate; ... just sayin'
Rick Perry is the ONLY candidate who has dealt with the Border as a governor in a state with an enormous border.
I want someone who will deal realistically with the immigration issue.
” Therefore, the last thing we, the USA needs, is a POTUS who cannot get his point and/or position across correctly and coherently the first time he says something — as there may not be a second chance.”
Truth to tell, he WON’T get a second chance!
I agree with you; and after today’s nonsense I’m crossing Herman Cain off my list of an acceptable candidate. He now reminds me of a cross between Ross Perot and Colin Powell. If Perry or Palin are nominated I expect him to backtrack and back Obama.
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.