Posted on 09/13/2011 9:30:24 AM PDT by shield
They say it ain’t over ’til it’s over or the fat lady sings at least a dozen times, finally making all the high notes in Aida and La Traviata in succession. Nevertheless — after only his second debate — things do look pretty good for Rick Perry.
And consider before this Tampa debate he was already twelve points ahead of nearest rival Mitt Romney, according to its sponsor’s (CNN) own poll.
So it’s no surprise that most of Monday’s affair — which mostly reprised the same questions from last week’s Reagan Library debate (this all could get pretty tedious fast) — was a game of “Everybody on Rick” with the Texas governor, perhaps in deference to his state’s proximity to Mexico, as the designated piñata.
Well, not quite everybody. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain declined to attack Perry. (I will try to explain that later.) But Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and, of course, Romney did their best to slam Perry at every opportunity, sometimes remembering, seemingly as an afterthought, to throw in an unkind word for Barack Obama, as if the Texas governor and the not the president was the incumbent.
The five, however, did their Perry dissing in different ways. The first three — Huntsman, Bachmann and Santorum — I would classify as the soreheads. They are all doing miserably in the polls. Huntsman and Santorum always were. They are both currently at 2%, tied with a generic “Someone else” and 2 points behind “None/No one.” (No surprise here with Santorum who, when last facing the electorate, lost reelection in his home state of Pennsylvania by 18 points.) Who, besides their wives, really knows why they are running?
Bachmann, too, once flying high, has herself sunk to a mere 4% (tied with “None/No one”) since Perry entered the race. No wonder she’s sore at the Texan. She took after him, as did Santorum, during the Monday debate because some years ago Perry evidently tried by fiat to have high school girls vaccinated against cancer of the cervix. Perry admitted this approach was a mistake and this whole thing had apparently been rehashed ad infinitum by Kay Bailey Hutchison in her recent, ill-fated run against Perry for the Texas gubernatorial nomination, but never mind. To Bachmann and Santorum this attempt to prevent cancer, whether ill-founded or not, was a form of child molestation or something. The more they went on about this, the more rabid, and frankly scary, they sounded.
But they never sounded quite so nutsy as Huntsman when he accused Perry of “treason” for not building a border fence. Either the Utah governor is suffering from a cognitive disorder or, more likely, he deliberately misunderstood Perry’s position on the border. But he certainly seemed over-heated. Of course, what Huntsman was really trying to do was define Perry as the dangerous one because he had used the word treason in association with Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. But the word flew back in his face.
All of this was — I would guess almost deliberately — grist for Perry’s mill. Which leads me to the man who is putatively the Texas governor’s great rival — Mitt Romney. My advice to Mitt is that he start rereading his Mark Twain. Ironically, it is the New England governor who is being played for the rube here. He allowed himself to be drawn into the most obvious of traps by again accusing Perry of being excessive in his use of the term “Ponzi scheme” with respect to Social Security. It would “scare” seniors.
What a setup that was. It took Perry about thirty seconds to explain that in no way would his plans to reform Social Security affect those currently or soon receiving it. Romney was left to explain his years of attacks on Social Security in which he called the program, well, close to a “Ponzi scheme.” In fact, the brouhaha about the subject since last week’s debate has led to numerous identifications of interesting people who have called SS a PS in the past. My favorite is Paul Samuelson, the very liberal Nobel Prize-winning author of my freshman economics textbook.
I will put aside Ron Paul, except to say that he was roundly (and quite properly) booed for his bizarre ahistorical assertions that jihad is our fault, and skip on to the aforementioned Gingrich and Cain. They didn’t attack Perry because, in part at least, I think they suspect he is going to win and are acting accordingly. Gingrich is not particularly vice-presidential material but he would make a highly qualified secretary of State (a more interesting job than Fox news commentator, I would imagine). Cain supposedly has his eye on the Senate from Georgia. Although he might not need it, an assist from a President Perry would be extremely helpful.
All politics is local, as they say. Stay tuned.
I can think of a whole array of things he could have said. Actually, I thought that was about the most stupid question ask. What a juvenile childish question. None of those candidates have even thought that far into the future. Cain probably had the most original answer to that question. I can't even remember what Newt's answer was.
If we could just combine the morality of Santorum with the genius of Newt, with the hair of Romney, we’d have our candidate.
There is nothing I like about Santorum...the guy just rubs lots of folks the wrong way.
Yeah, I guess I overlook Huntsman because he so clearly doesn't appeal to anyone.
I agree about the crowd & Social Security. But the problem is whether an answer acceptable to last night's debate audience will fly with other voters during a presidential election.
Romney gets that. That's why he talked about scaring old people every chance he got. If Perry's the nominee, Obama will lift Romney's tactics vs. Perry on that issue.
There was no coy posturing or indecision. She knows what she is going to do, has probably known for 6 months, and will tell us in the time frame she originally specified. This announcing earlier and earlier for President has gotten almost as stale as people calling out Palin for not announcing early.
“Not quite the firebrand that Sarah would be.
We’ll know what she’s decided by Oct 1”
I agree! I can hardley wait to see the fallout from when she throws her hat into the ring....... Lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth on these threads by the resident crony capitalist supporters.
Yep. Popcorn time for sure......Make mine “Jolly Time!”
“If she can’t make up her mind whether or not she wants this job, she’s not decisive enough to lead the country.”
Oh she knows all right. She just hasn’t told YOU.
Sarah gave a timeline for announcing her candidacy. What you call “teasing” is her holding to her stated timeline despite the prompting of the media and impatient/insistant spoiled childeren (many with an alternate agenda.) I would suggest Patience, but that wouldn’t fit your agenda now would it?
Didn’t she tell Greta last night that she had not yet made a decision?
I didn’t see it. Is that your contention?
Sarah told Greta...what she was doing today is what she liked doing. She was having lots of fun doing what she is doing now. Sounds like she has the best of both worlds. A Mom with her family, then a speaker for Americans.
As someone on FR said last night, “Perry should ditch the brown suit”. Asap.
“Didn’t she tell Greta last night that she had not yet made a decision?”
Sarah will announce when she announces, Her timeline is Sept. Though the first few weeks of October would still give her time to file at the earliest states primary.
That said, she will not pre-announce anywhere. The “I haven’t made a decision yet” is boilerplate to handle the inquiring minds who just don’t get that she’ll announce when she announces.
Don’t like that? lolololololol Sarah made the decision in 2009. Guess what it is?
“Of all the candidates there I thought he did the worst.”
Worse that Ron “We deserved 9/11” Paul?
Ah, you beat me to it.
Secretary of Commerce, then? Or maybe Transportation?
And what is my agenda??? Dude, we need to pick the BEST person to beat 0. Republicans should NOT be fighting with Republicans, nor should the candidates be tearing each other down. Stop with the idiotic conspiracy theories (my agenda??). I’m allowed to say it does not look good for Gov Palin to be dicking around while serious candidates put themselves on the line by debating. Maybe she should read Free Republica and grab a clue.
Perry did very poorly in both Debates. He’s a great speaker and a terrible debater. With all the baggage (SS is a Ponzi Scheme, In-State tuition for Illegal Immigrants, The Guardasil debacle and pay-off, The Great Texas Land Grab knowns as the Trans-Texas Corridor, Supporting Hillary Care, and all the skeletons that have yet to surface.....) and the fact that Obama will mop the floor with Perry in the Debates..... WE NEED TO START LOOKING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN IN NOVEMBER 2012; for real.
Most Americans aren't political junkies, there are ONLY two issues for them jobs and the economy. Perry has provided that even in Obama's Depression for the rest of the USA. All the other are non issues to the majority of Americans. GO PERRY GO!!!!!!!
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.