Posted on 10/28/2011 12:07:40 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Everyone knows why Texas Gov. Rick Perry wants to skip some of the coming Republican presidential debates. He's a lousy debater, and the biggest single factor in his fall from front-runner to back-in-the-pack has been his poor performance in a number of high-profile debates.
That said, Perry has a point when he suggests there are just too many debates scheduled in the rapidly dwindling number of days before voters go to the polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other key primary states.
There are at least a dozen GOP debates scheduled between Nov. 9 and the Florida primary on Jan. 31. A few more are in the works but not yet confirmed. Given that there will be breaks in the debating for Thanksgiving and Christmas -- nobody expects voters to pay attention then -- that's a lot of debates in very little time.
For example, there will be three debates in the six-day period between Nov. 9 and 15. The first will be a CNBC debate focused on the economy at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich. Then there will be a CBS News debate at Wofford College in Spartanburg, S.C., followed by a foreign policy debate put on by the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Without wishing to offend any of the sponsors, it's reasonable to ask whether all those debates, especially the ones in Michigan and Washington, are absolutely essential.
After the Thanksgiving break, there's a CNN debate in Phoenix on Dec. 1. Is that essential? And then there are three debates in Iowa between Dec. 10 and 19.
Of course, it's important to have debates in Iowa, but is it necessary to have three in such a short period of time? Wouldn't two be fine?
Until a few weeks ago, there seemed to be lots of time for debating. The Iowa caucuses were set for Feb. 6, with the other contests after that. Then Florida upended the Republican schedule, setting its primary Jan. 31 and forcing the early contests to move to earlier dates. The Iowa caucuses will now be Jan. 3. More than a month of campaign time has been lost; debates that were in the planning stages have been squeezed into a smaller period of time.
The sheer number of debates raises the question of diminishing returns. The early debates helped introduce the candidates to the Republican primary electorate. Later debates will help voters in critical states make their final decisions. But the next few debates, while they might be the occasion for a major gaffe or gotcha, have little purpose.
What would the candidates do if they weren't debating so much? They'd campaign more. That's obviously what Perry wants to do. Compare his weak performance on the debate stage with his mastery of hands-on, one-on-one campaigning, and its easy to understand why.
But fewer debates would probably benefit the other candidates, too. Voters in the early states really do pay close personal attention to candidates, and word gets around if a candidate does well on the stump. Of course, for that to happen, the candidate has to actually be on the stump.
Perry opened the subject Tuesday night when he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly that it might have been a mistake for him to take part in the debates. "These debates are set up for nothing more than to tear down the candidates," Perry said. "So, you know, if there was a mistake made, it was probably ever doing one of the [debates] when all they are interested in is stirring it up between the candidates instead of really talking about the issues that are important to the American people. ..."
Ray Sullivan, Perry's spokesman, says Perry has committed to the Nov. 9 debate in Michigan and has not said no to any debate. (Perry has participated in all five debates since he entered the race.) But Sullivan says Perry will consider future debates on a case-by-base basis. "The schedule makes it extremely difficult for candidates to do important retail voter-contact campaigning in the early states," Sullivan says.
The strongest case against Perry's fewer-debates position is that the Republican nominee will have to take on Barack Obama in two or three super-high-stakes debates in October 2012. The party needs to know whether its candidate can hold his own. But voters will know that by the end of the primary season anyway. And being a good campaigner is important, too. Fewer debates would let the GOP candidates do more of that.
The Perry Plan: Energizing American Jobs and Security
*************************************************
[snip] “Dynamic Tax Score for RickPerry.org, Inc. Proposal:
Based on the higher GDP estimates forecast by the dynamic scoring exercise, the Perry proposal will not only lead to an increase in overall economic activity and jobs, but will also lead to higher federal revenues in the long term. In fact, the analysis suggests that revenues could be as much as $406.8 billion higher than under the static model by 2020, and could be as high as 19.5 percent of GDP. The dynamic score of the proposal suggests that lower flatter taxes could generate both more revenue than the current tax code, and significantly more economic growth over time. With increasing demands on the Federal government from growing entitlements, higher pension expenses and interest on the debt, it will be necessary to increase the size of the economy – and the tax base – in order to generate significantly higher revenues. Table 7 shows how the Perry proposals would do this over a seven year period.’ [snip] Tax Proposal Score PDF
Setting up the GOP candidates like ten-pins for state-controlled media to level makes zero sense.
Corrected the title for ya.
Debates should be specials ,not weekly TV show
It’s like being waterboarded by Obama’s state media.
No, Perry is drowning in the debates.
What a coward.
Poor Herman Cain just doesn’t realize how badly he’s losing. /s
Perry is right about the ridiculous amount of debates, but being that he is the one bailing on them will set up the meme that he is weak. If he was solid in a couple of these debates and then did this he would be a national hero.
Should he get the nomination, he’s still going to have to debate Obozo. Sure, he could duck those too but the Dems will have a field day if he does that. So if he’s not a good debater now, how will he handle the situation when it comes time to debate Obozo?
Another SORE Loserman
Of all the candidates, he’s the only one I hear whining about it.
Isn't that the point? Sink or swim. Those who can, do. Those who can't, don't.
Way too many debates..
Pulling out Perry looks like a chicken. Yes he needs more practice. Made a mistake getting in too late. Cain isn’t going to cut either. People thought BHO was too inexperienced in 2008. Caine is even more so. His polling numbers will begin to collapse soon as many people see the flaws in 999 and his lack of campaign organization in the crucial early primary and caucus states. Perry is the only one strong enough and credible enough to take on Romney. Bachmann is yesterday’s news. Paul is a cantankerous crusty curmudgeon, Santorum’s massive blowout in PA in 2006 does not inspire confidence in his electability, Newt is carrying more personal baggage than a 747 and has heretofore run a sloppy and disorganized campaign, Johnson and Roemer are going nowhere. It is Romney versus Perry. As usual the conservatives are divided giving Romney the edge.
Other candidates have risen from the debates. Only person to lose is Perry.
If he can’t handle the heat now, he won’t be able to handle the heat later.
The opposition is not going to disappear. Time to stand up and take them on.
The others need the free exposure.
Mitt knows he’s protected by the MSM running the circuses.
But it's a vetting process. What happens if they coast through then later lock up on Katie Communist?
If you would, please make a list showing who has risen due to the debates in the order you think they've benefited and why.
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.