Posted on 11/10/2011 7:14:00 PM PST by OneVike
As I watched the debate Wednesday night between the eight Republican presidential primary opponents, I was overall pleased, both by the way the candidates handled themselves and by the answers they gave to the myriad of economic questions they were asked. It was a debate that I personally think all Republicans won, and while many like myself may think that Perry is finished, the ultimate loser was CNBC. CNBC lost because they could not make the Republican candidates act like a bunch of toddlers fighting over the only toy in the room. The moderators tried their best to get any of the candidates to admit that taxes must be raised to save the economy, but to no avail. All the candidates agreed that raising taxes would be the worst move a president could do. Instead they all called for taxes to be cut, spending to be reduced, and various agencies to be eliminated along with repealing Obamacare.
The moderators also tried to get Cain to stumble in defending himself over the sexual harassment charges against him. That made the audience erupt in boos, expressing their disdain for the question. After Cain answered the question, the moderators tried to lure Romney into the trap of attacking Cain when he was asked if he would hire a man with accusations hanging over his head like Cain. Again the audience booed the question, but Romney would have none of it as he refused to even consider the question. Finally the moderator decided to get back to the economic questions and the charges against Cain were not brought up again.
As for the soundbite or incident the MSM is always looking for so they can ignore talking about the substance of the debate, Perry was gracious enough to give them one. Now as much as I would like to say that the soundbite the MSM is using of Perry is irrelevant to the overall primary race, this time the soundbite is very relevant. The stumble by Perry will go down in history as the final shot that sunk his presidential bid. What makes it so devastating is the fact that he forgot a major part of his economic plan that he was hoping would revive his already faltering campaign. Perry forgot one of the federal agencies he would cut if elected president. While answering a question about the federal tax code, Perry announced that he would eliminate three agencies. What follows is a truncated transcript of the exchange between Perry and the moderator, John Harwood. Below that I have the video clip of Perry's flub
"It's three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education and ..."
Perry's brain must have just shutdown, just like many of us who know what an answer is when taking a test because we studied long and hard, when it came time to answer the question however it can elude us as it did him. We have all been there, but we are not running for president with the world watching and waiting to hear what we would do to fix the economy. Well, Perry paused uncomfortably for much too long of a time. before Mitt Romney chimed in to help jar his memory by offering,
"The EPA?"
To which Perry responded in a jokingly manner,
"There you go,"
But then admitted that was not the agency he wanted to eliminate.
The moderator, John Harwood, jumped in and asked condescendingly,
"Seriously? The EPA is the agency you would...?"
To which Perry chimed in laughingly as was many members of the audience and the other candidates by now,
"No sir,"
Harwood persisted as he said,
"But you can't name the third one?"
Perry tried once again,
"Education, commerce and the third ... "
As he tried to remember the third one he checked his notes, but eventually he had to admit hat he forgot what the third agency was. He ended his answer period for the question on the tax code with,
"I can't. Oops."
This exchange lasted but about 53 seconds, but it must have been the longest minute in Perry's political life. Later when the moderator returned to him with another question, Perry interjected the agency he would eliminate, before going on to answer the current question he told the moderator,
"By the way, it was the Department of Energy I was reaching for there,"
Look, as much as I personally think this should not be a bad thing for Perry, it is. It is because he is already slipping in the polls due to his other bad debate performances. With Gingrich rising in the polls and Cain remaining on top even with the sexual harassment charges against him. Perry could not afford to have another bad debate performance. Republican voters are looking for a person that will meet Obama face to face and destroy him in a debate. Not some guy we think is nice, and sharp looking, but will then fold under the pressure when the MSM starts their anal exam after every debate between Obama and the Republican challenger.
For me, I think Gingrich won this debate like he has won each and every one he has been in. Romney came in a strong second with Herman Cain and Ron Paul right on his heals. As for Huntsman, Bachmann, and Santorum they were maybe tied for fourth in my opinion. Maybe it's because I can no longer take them as serious candidates due to the fact that they are not going to win. However, Rick Perry admitted it himself that he stepped in it, and again he has shown that he cannot debate. So can Perry clean his mess up or not? The way I see it, unless a miracle happens where all of a sudden he becomes the reincarnation of the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, he is finished. I think it's time to put a fork in him and If he was your choice, then I think you should start looking for a different conservative to support before Romney takes it all.
Another thing about Perry. Like Bush before him, everyone is under the impression that he has been able to accomplish a lot of good things for Texas. However when you consider the power structure in Texas you need to understand that the Texas governors office does not carry a lot of power. The reason for this is based upon the historical fact that following the American Revolution, the memories of colonial abuses led many states to significantly limit the powers of their governors. After the Civil War, the Southern states were ruled with an iron hand during Reconstruction. The result ended up that most former confederate states weakened the governors power even more. Today, the governors office in Texas is actually one of the weakest is in the nation.
Now the Texas governor does have veto power, but the way they get things accomplished in Texas is to have a agreement before the bill is ever sent to the governor to sign. It works well when you take into consideration the way the governor can usually work with his opponents across the isle, something George Bush realized he could not do in DC. So like his predecessors, Perry is not used to forcing the legislature to follow his lead. Usually the leading in Texas comes from the state legislature. So don't expect to find a strong willed individual coming from the governors office in Texas, because Texas has a governor whose role, by constitutional design, is to be a relatively feeble public servant.
When George Bush went to Washington he learned quickly that he could not work with the Democrats like he could in Texas, so when he lost congress, he caved in and signed everything they sent to his desk. Mark my words, if Rick Perry becomes president he will be another Bush, and that is not what we need in the oval office. We have a lot of problems to fix, and unless we get a strong personality that can overpower his opponents, America will continue to suffer economically. Think about it, do you really want a man who cannot stand up to the pressure of a debate to be going up against the Democrats and the MSM when it comes time to cut taxes, fix Social Security, or eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy as he claims he will do?
Let me add one more point and then I will never mention Perry's bad moment at last night's debate again. I have yet to decide who my candidate is, if Perry survives this and becomes the nominee I will wholeheartedly support him against Obama. As I will with any candidate, other than Romney. For now though, I am of the opinion that Perry is finished. He has after all been his worse enemy and if he does lose as I think he will, he has no one but himself to blame.
(This article has been posted in full, so there
is no need to visit my site, unless you wish
to watch the video clip of Perry suffering a
brain freeze moment. However if you wish to
visit my site it would be much appreciated.)
----------- GATE -----------
No.
No.
Some of you may obviously disagree with me on this, but I find it very difficult to see how Rick Perry can recover from his self inflicted wounds when he has yet to prove he can debate with the big boys. Personally I like Rick, but as much as I tried to jump on his bandwagon he has consistently failed to give me a reason to support him.
I will readily admit that I have already donated to Herman Cain, but as of yet I am still not in his camp beyond being pissed at the MSM, and the left so much that I sent him what cash I have saved for the candidate that I felt deserved it the most. I am leaning towards Cain, but Gingrich is really doing a yo-mans job of wooing me in a big way also.
As for Perry, I already had other issues with him, a few of which I mention in this article. So if you are a Perry supporter, after reading my opinion article, please give me a reason why I should still consider him as a viable candidate. Also I need convincing that he can ever recover from his self inflicted wounds.
• Send FReep Mail to OneVike to be
[ADDED] or [REMOVED]
from my article and video Ping List •
There is a way he could play this but it would take a very focused and powerful campaign around it. He would have to play the ‘non-professional politician’ angle and paint his opponents as ‘slick’, coached salesman, while he is plain spoken and real.
The challenge with this is: 1. Having that message get out without looking like you are reacting to gaffes. 2. Overcoming that he is a career politician and is viewed as such. 3. Cain is seen as the one outside the political sphere so that role is taken.
How many times can Perry shoot himself in the foot before he cannot run for president?
Having to effectively debate the Obamunist in the next election cycle is critical, and the best debater among this field is Gingrich.
That doesn’t mean, however, that Perry wouldn’t be a great president. But you have to get there first.
You got to love Herman Cain who says “Oh my!” while Perry is stammering.
Perry is one of the bravest presidential candidates to come along in decades. Using the Walter Modale campaign model is not for the faint of heart.
This gaff is hardly why he’s done for. It’s simply the final straw.
How many times can Perry shoot himself in the foot before he cannot run for president?Good question. If he keeps surviving I am going to begin asking why Sarah bailed.
Compared to the Muslim in there now, even Huntsman would be a good one.
The other way I can think of if I were advising would be to somehow play up that gaffes like he has, is a reflection of honesty versus scripted answers. Someone who speaks from the heart.
I’m not sure that will fly now, but it is hard to think of other ways to play it.
Of course, the other way to handle it is to somehow make the next dozen showing so dynamic and with some soundbites that overwhelm past errors. A few memorable lines could replace the media’s stock footage for him. (Think of Reagan’s ‘won’t hold youth against him..’ quote.. something like that..)
This gaff is hardly why he’s done for. It’s simply the final straw.I never meant to imply that this gaff is what has done him in. Like you I meant to convey that it could be the final nail in his coffin.
(Think of Reagan’s ‘won’t hold youth against him..’ quote.. something like that..)Maybe a quip like,
Chico’s a great town!
Perry has enough money to stick around, and he’s still in double digits in a few polls. It’s nowhere near time for the final nail in his political coffin.
True, but don’t you think he would be better off saving his money and maybe dropping out before he destroys his future potential? The he would be able to support another candidate to ensure a true conservative wins? Then maybe he can ride the coattails to DC as a VP, and then maybe a run in 2020?
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.
