Posted on 09/14/2011 6:07:46 AM PDT by shield
There were two questions going into Monday's GOP presidential debate, which was sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express. First, who would emerge as the victor in the battle between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, the two Republican front-runners, over Social Security. Second, which candidates would elbow their way into the conversation?
Perry Wins Battle Against Romney
After Perry characterized Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme" in a debate last week in California at the Reagan Library, Romney tried to pounce on those comments by accusing Perry of trying to kill Social Security. Romney tried to depict Perry as a candidate Democrats could frame as being out of the mainstream, which, according to Romney, would obliterate Republicans in a general election.
On Monday, Perry responded by saying it was a "slam dunk" for "seniors on Social Security and those moving toward it," that the "program will be there for them."
Calling for the system to be reformed, Perry said politicians have not had "the courage to look people in the eye" and tell them that "this is a broken system."
Romney cited heavily from Perry's book, Fed Up, and accused Perry of implying that Social Security was unconstitutional and a failure. At one point, when Romney and Perry were arguing over what the other had written about Social Security in their respective books, they argued over what Perry meant when he accused Romney of saying "it" was criminal. Romney said "it" was criminal for Congress to rob the Social Security trust fund. In making his point, though, Romney looked like a wonkish Al Gore debating against George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential debates, and Perry came away looking more steady than Romney.
Further, in a CNN/Opinion Research Poll that was released on Monday, Perry led the field in the category that asked those polled about a candidate's conviction.
Like with his comments on Social Security, when Perry did not back down from his earlier comments in which he called Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's potential actions to be "almost treasonous," he both appealed to the base and showed a firm resolve, qualities Romney has had trouble with.
"If you are allowing the Fed to be used for political purposes, then it is almost treasonous," Perry said again.
Against Romney, Perry came across as a leader and an executive who had conviction while Romney came across as a politician intent on racking up debating points as if they were Olympic medals.
He’s not running...Perry is and Romney is...so you have two choices...since, you’ve got it in for Perry....then it’s Ted Kennedy...oppsss...I mean Mittens.
My post #15 was “just the facts”, like ‘em or not.
Yours reminds me of the old saying, “Falsehood travels the world before truth even gets its boots on”.
I posted his own words from the debate. He shot himself in the foot with that comment.
I sympathize with your ignorance of the situation. Your number is legion. Even many Texans are unaware. But truth is truth, and I stated it in post #15.
The act gives illegals in-state tuition. That is something Perry should have vetoed. Financially it isn’t a big deal, but the symbolism is completely wrong. I also think that you are wrong - the comment by Perry was a snarky way of smearing those who oppose the Texas Dream Act.
I’ve defended Perry on a number of threads, but instead of being stupid over Gardasil, Bachmann should have pushed Perry to state exactly what he will do to close the border and what he will do with illegals already here. That is what we need to know.
BTW, I live in Texas and have voted for Perry.
I agree. The comments were a mistake. Perry has done some good things on illegal immigration in TX, but the Dream Act should have been vetoed and his comment in the debate was a smear.
This i san area in which Perry as done some good things and some not so good things. He needs to make clear what he will do to secure the border and what he will do with the illegals here.
I don’t know if what he said was good or not, maybe not.
But what I do get tired of seeing all over the internet are Hispanic names used in a deragatory way to smear people. Gorge Bush, Ricardo Perry. Yes they may be smearing the people, but there is no need to do it with Hispanic names.
Having 4 adopted grandkids who are Hispanic, I just don’t like it.
Just my two cents.
I meant Jorge Bush.
“It amazes me the Freepers would settle so soon and so shallowly, for the media’s and elitist choice, when, in truth, they do not “know” this candidate.”
As a Texan, I know Perry. He has made mistakes. But his basic philosophy is conservative. As to his once being a democrat...the entire state of Texas was totally democrat historically. But it was an HST, Zell Miller democrat mentality. When the democratic party went far left...Texans began to wake up.
Perry will do a good job. Although I respect Bachman, she is too frantic and evangelical for me. Romney is the RINO, Huntsman is the epitome of the hollow ‘artificial’ man, Newt is brilliant but too flawed. Now Mr. Cain is fantastic, I wish he had a chance. Santorum and Paul...no way!
Only 4 legislators voted against the bill. Perry's veto would've been overturned, resulting in an epic fail (x2).
“It they are really running with a “servant’s heart” it shouldn’t make much difference to them whether it is them or someone who shares their beliefs.”
Then why doesn’t Perry drop out? He is NOT as conservative as either Bachmann or Santorum. We need a REAL conservative. Perry has many flaws in his record. He is the one that should bow out gracefully. Then the field can focus on taking out Romney.
Sadly, the only “adult” currently in this race is Newt.
Despite whatever mistakes Perry has made in the past or will make in the future, most average conservatives prefer him to Romney by a huge margin. For one thing, Perry just looks tougher than all the other candidates. He looks like he means business. Pawlenty, for example, didn’t look or sound very macho. Romney looks and sounds like just another slick eastern pol. Don’t get me wrong, I like Perry for his record, but looking tougher and talking tougher than the rest of the field doesn’t hurt.
Cain would be the perfect VP. No more Biden bloopers...we might miss that! LOL!
Rubio would mean an effort to get the hispanic vote...and Rubio is really great. But, I think Cain would make the better choice as there are a lot of Texas hispanics who already like Perry.
If Perry gets the nomination, can we influence him to choose Cain for VP?
Perry is a gruff Texas Aggie. In the days when Perry was an Aggie, folks had a lot of respect for the type of men they were. Today, not so much. There is a whole array of reasons I support Perry. Most of what we see posted here are non issues for the average American.
I am going to be contacting the Perry campaign here in Texas...and point out to them Rubio would be a real mess since he does not fit the requirements of the Founders Intent on Natural Born Citizen.
I will encourage him to pick Cain as his VP....people love Cain. I don't think I've read one negative against Cain except he can't win.
I’m from Wisconsin and have viewed Pawlenty since he became governor of Minnesota the state next door. I looked at him and thought he could only have been elected in Minnesota, because tough doesn’t go over well there since that idiot Jesse Ventura, who only got 33% of the vote, was elected. Images matter, and Pawlenty’s image was not one of strength. However, Perry’s image conveys that visceral emotion of toughness. I certainly wouldn’t vote for any pol who doesn’t have the right conservative policies, but looking the part, like Reagan, doesn’t hurt a bit.
Yes, today image does matter. IF we’d have the president’s of the past run today...none of them would’ve been elected especially Abe Lincoln.
EXCELLENT POINT. It also underscores what is wrong with the Rs in the legislature. Nevertheless, I believe vetoing the bill would have been the better course, even with an override.
What Perry said was wrong. You can find it on YouTube.
I sympathize with the rest of your comment to a degree, but the point of “Jorge”, etc. is to emphasize the fact that a candidate is selling us out to illegals and their hispanic supporters, who are legion.
All of my sons, by the way, speak and read Spanish very fluently.
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.