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.
What I see NO one has mentioned is how almost every debater up there sounded like Perry from his first debate. Several of them even used the exact words Perry used in his first debate. Cain even referenced Galveston counties opting out of SS. I thought it was just too funny. Newt was the only one who kept to his ways not trying to be Rick Perry.
Ok, settle down Mr. Hysterical. I guess I missed the part where he explained 9-9-9 at the debate.
"What was driving me was obviously making a difference about young people's lives," Perry said. "Cervical cancer is a horrible way to die."
Bachmann and Santorum got so worked up they were making it sound like Perry was a horrible man for caring about young girls health, that cervical cancer wasn't so bad, and everyone who wanted it had a right to get it, and how dare Perry interfere, or some such argle bargle. Bachmann and Santorum oozed desperation.
Perry won, plain and simple. Romney had to be the one to knock him down, not some single digit also rans like Santorum and Bachmann. Romney couldn't do it.
I don't want another hack politician who needs to be "advised" on how to speak. I want someone who entered politics solely to advance the conservative cause and save this republic. That absolutely rules out this Texas hack who supported Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, forced immunization against sexually transmitted disease, and taxpayer subsidies for illegal aliens.
Oh, that is good.
WELCOME TO FR!!!
You forgot to factor in the future jobs for family and friends and the seat on the board of directors at Merck.
I have seen Perry in two debates now, and as a supporter, I have to say he has not shown himself to be an outstanding debater. His delivery is weak, for one thing.
I think he’s, so far, disappointed a lot of supporters and potential supporters. I hope he gets better.
I think Perry’s reply that he will be bringing his wife, a classy lady, with him to D.C. probably resonated with a lot of female voters — considering who we have now.
I have to agree also. I hated the Gardasil debacle myself. I hated the TTCorridor. I get it, however, in SOME cases on the illegals who now have insurmountable reams of the redtape to become legal, yet have family and decent jobs here and want to go to college. Our federal system needs to return to the Ellis Island model, with proper order to the numbers, the process and strict assimilation requirements. The borders are the job of the nation and not just the border states alone! This is a federal racket by Marxists to endear themselves to illegals for votes and no accountability. The gun runner drug thing is a very big deal. Illegals sucking on our system in outrageous numbers with no return is an abomination. That is no investment, it’s national suicide.
Rick will likely sharpen his detail on self defense, or else. Otherwise, Romney is a promise and not a threat.
I didn’t think Perry did well. He did seem unprepared at times. Especially on the Gardisil thing. A few times he repeated the phrase “It’s a states-rights issue” without making an argument, as if that phrase would absolve everything. Also, his anti-fence and pro-benefits for illegals position did not endear him to me. The candidate field seems weak.
In the words of John McEnroe, You have got to be kidding me.
I predict Perry will go down in the polls after last nights debate. Did you forget he got boooed at one point?
Perry has never done particularly well in debates, IMO. I remember when there were three candidates for governor last time around here in Texas: Perry, Kay Bailey and the woman libertarian whose name escapes me. In a 3-way debate, the libertarian seemed the most effective to me. However, she later made a statement that implied she was a "9/11 truther"; and that was the end of her (why do the Pauinistas keep doing that?)
Of course, in the end, Perry won re-election handily, in spite of his debate handicap.
Now he needs to define better what he means with the Ponzi scheme & S.S. (and he is correct). He needs to tell the people just how Galveston (in his own state), opted out of the system and is making it work for them.
Stop playing into Romneys game plan, and allowing himself to be labeled as destroying S.S. for the old people. I am old and I am not afraid, and none of my friends are either. But we are all concerned for our grandchildren,and think they should be given a chance to invest where they want to.
Perry needs to continue hitting Mitt with his Romneycare, being the MODEL for Obamacare, and is a mandate on the people of Mass. In my opinion the state healthcare mandate is also unconstitutional.
Perry, hone your skills, you are great when delivering the one line barbs, such as to MITT last night, "You were doing fine, until you mentioned POKER". I'm sure that was not lost on a lot of Christians who are opposed to gambling.
Your one mistake last night, "if you think I can be bought for $5000.00 your mistaken". Rick, Rick, Rick that was just bad, not what you meant, but it came out as YOU COULD BE BOUGHT if the price was right. DON'T DO THAT AGAIN, YOU HEAR? JMO, not worth much
NO...first off there were two football games last night...only political junkies watched it. Perry’s numbers will remain the same...the one whose numbers will tank are Bachmann.
>>> “ But, the Perry Staff needs to hire a Debate Coach for Rick pretty damn quick. “ <<<<
Absolutely correct. Rick can DO this thing, but marginal self defense with no preparation for fast fire detail can be a chink in the armor. I have heard him speak in smaller informal venues where his capabilities shone on some of these controversial issues, but the debate format was so hyper and kinetic that it hurt the entire field last night in various ways. Actually, it hurt the party with Independents, I’m afraid. We aren’t called the Stupid Party for nothing. As long as we consent to the abusive formats designed only for shallowness and combat we can not go forward exhibiting a position of strength and confidence that voters are crying out for us to give them.
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.