Posted on 10/27/2011 12:15:56 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Rick Perry, who made clear during his Bill O'Reilly interview last night that he finds the debate formats geared toward promoting a fight, is going to the No. 9 one after that - but is a question mark for some of the glut of face-offs after that.
Perry spokesman Mark Miner said the issue is using time wisely, and noted their campaign is not alone in that.
"I think all the campaigns are expressing frustration right now," Miner told POLITICO. "We said we would do Michigan but the primaries are around the corner and you have to use your time accordingly."
Charles does say many things.
But he’s not responsible for Perry’s fifth place. Perry is responsible for his fifth place.
And I think Charles is being fair on this one point.
Perry has been floundering, answering questions as if it’s the first he’s heard those questions and throwing Hail Mary’s, hoping for a touch down.
He should be doing better than that.
The thing about the flat tax, IMHO, is that it’s not Perry’s vision and passion. He threw it in there because Cain was gaining traction with 999. That’s it.
So when it comes time to implement it, he’s not going to be a serious leader. Congress is going to be able to make a boondoggle out of it and he won’t stop it.
I believe that, because if he believed in it, it certainly would have appeared earlier in his campaign.
A flat tax is a great idea. Make the first 15,000 dollars tax free and have deductions for charity and business expenditures and it’s a beautiful tax.
It could pull some businesses away from China and back to America.
Sounds like there are a lot of debates so the candidates don’t get handshake time with the public like the one opposing candidate who doesn’t have to debate.
It would certainly do that.
Right....... /s
Which plan looks "thrown in there?"
OR
This is pretty dumb. I’d say the last debates are far more important than the early ones.
Why doesn’t he just put Anita up on stage to debate? She is the one that wants to go to DC.
Personally I'm disgusted in the way the Republicans have allowed themselves to be manipulated in these debates. CNN...MSNBC...Politico...why are these debates being sponsored by the liberal media? And why do the "moderators" have to be anchorpeople from these liberal media outlets?
When the Democrats are looking to take back the White House, do they put their candidates on FoxNews and have their debates moderated by conservatives?
I feel that the debates are necessary. They are the only medium in which I've been able to take a good look at the candidates and see how quickly they think on their feet and how prepared they are for the office they seek. However, the structure of the debates need to be changed to allow for longer and more substantive answers.
Also, can we please dispense with the "gotcha" man-on-the-street questions from gay soldiers and sad-sack moms on welfare. The Republicans should choose moderators that are in tune with conservative values that will ask intelligent questions on topics that the American people want to hear about.
Why not have folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Mark Steyn moderate the debates? Or Sarah Palin, since she doesn't want to run herself this year. Rush Limbaugh for example commands a radio audience of 40 million people. One can only imagine how many people will tune into a debate moderated by him. Certainly more than some dweeb from MSNBC.
My take is he’ll be in all the debates and is setting himself up to do well just by showing up.
No general election debates at all were held for the elections of 1964, 1968 and 1972, although intra-party debates were held during the primaries between Democrats Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and between Democrats George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey in 1972."....
He knows Texas through and through, but he never gave much thought in regards to national issues or international issues and his provincialism is hurting him.
Wasn't Krauthammer recently ga-ga over Chris Christie, whose bredth of experience is one year as NJ governor, and a background as a Federal attorney?
Perry's problem has been he only knows Texas politics and how National Politics affects Texas.
Let's be real, when Perry first came out he shot to the top as a tough talking Texas governor. He held it for a month and people expected him to bring that to the debates. When he bombed in the Florida debate, people became afraid he would bomb nationally and began looking elsewhere. His "don't have a heart" comment hurt him too as did Romney's bs claim about instate tuition.
It's been a month since his implosion, the lines have stabilized with Cain and Romney at around 25% and Newt and Perry around 10%.
Now Perry has come out with tax and jobs plans and he is starting to spend his 15 million.
In 1 month I expect polls to be very different.
Are you calling the Governor of Texas a coward?
Maybe, but do you ever see Christie becoming tongue-tied, sounding like Porkie Pig, over relatively elementary questions?
No, lawyers are usually quit glib.
I like Perry. I think he would be a very good president, but he deserves a slap for not doing proper preparation.
He's a former federal prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani. They're talkers, debaters, persuaders -- have natural strength in that area.
I don’t think he was planning on running. He says he wasn’t, and I take him at his word. Cain has clearly been planning to run for at least a couple years, and Romney has been running nonstop for 5 years. But I think Perry’s book shows he has given thought to a wide variety of issues.
I don’t know if Perry can make a comeback. He has money, organiztion, good ideas and effective media. But he has a tough row to hoe. I also like Newt, and he might have a surge.
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.