Posted on 09/07/2011 10:58:58 PM PDT by free me
Texas Gov. Rick Perry needed to show in tonight’s debate that he is presidential, substantive and ready for prime time. While he made no major gaffes, he certainly did not stand out in the crowd. He took hits on his views on Social Security and on mandatory HPV testing, and unsurprisingly did not have convincing comebacks. At times — on foreign policy and on global warming — he seemed to search for words. He will need to lose the frozen grin as well. His best moment came near the end of the debate when he gave a measured, tough-minded defense of Texas’s high rate of executions, explaining the circumstances under which you will pay “the ultimate penalty” in Texas.
Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann turned in solid performances. Nevertheless, it was largely a Romney vs. Perry affair.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The danger with Social Security is the fear it could create among retirees and baby boomers close to retirement could turn into votes against Perry.
Most people don’t follow politics like we do. Many rely on MSM and you can bet MSM will distort it. If you follow cable ratings, CNN always spikes for the six month period before an election. A Gallup survey last fall indicates that 57% of Americans partially or totally distrust the media. Those most likely to trust the media are liberals and the poorly educated.
You may have had a pre-loaded outcome already established before the debates even started. You have an image of Perry that is etched into glass and no additional input will change it.
Not faulting you, I am the same way with other candiates myself. Like Newt and Romney. Newt is that embarrasing Uncle who shows up at the family reunion drunk and loud, and who occasionally says something that makes sense, but later makes a complete ass of himself when he pukes in the coleslaw.
You then called me a liar when I hadn't lied.
Now you call me stupid.
And you say I can never have an honest discussion?
I don't know if you have a drinking problem or what but you have serious issues.
Bye.
Jenifer Rubins = ROMNEYBOT.......Get it?
It remains to be seen.
Perry’s take on global warming is exactly right. The science is not settled. We simply do not know the mechanism for climate change. Certainly the huge changes of the past 1000 years were not effected by human activity. Not 800 years ago, Southern California was a barren desert much like Nevada and there was no snow cover at all for the mountaiins. At the very same time, Europe was warmer than its is today. Then withoin a hundred years the climate in both places changed. The climate in S. California became cooler and wetter and that of Europe did also. The little ice age is wellknow to European hiustory. Then in the 18th century it began to warm again. It is well known that London today does not experience the winters that Dickens describes.
Perry made one gaffe: Under debate about forced Gardasil inoculation being an encroachment on Freedom and parental rights, Perry said emphatically that he will always err on the side of safety.
He chooses [supposed] Safety over Freedom. That is a gaffe.
You’re right about Social Security, but if Governor Perry wants to call it a Ponzi scheme, he needs to explain why in a few short sentences and follow up with what he plans to do about it. Social Security isn’t called the third rail of politics for nothing. I’m not saying Perry should back off, but he better come up with a way to seize the debate.
I also think conservatives aren’t going to buy his secure the border first and then we can talk about what to do about the illegals who are here. No. We want to talk about the illegals now. He better be ready to explain exactly what he plans to do if and when the borders are secure. That topic isn’t off limits simply because he says the border has to be secured first.
You forgot to mention her husband’s practice of curing gays through prayer.
Under debate about forced Gardasil inoculation being an encroachment on Freedom and parental rights, Perry said emphatically that he will always err on the side of safety.
Rick Perry needs to speak faster and finish his sentences. His stopping in the middle of a sentence and then starting a new sentence made him look unprepared and unsure. He needs to practice with a speech coach.
Also, he needs to stop coloring his hair and get a new style. He must go to the same barber as Sean Hannity.
I didn’t watch it but all due respect, his state is/has been burning so if he really did appear not on target - there is good reason. What other candidate is governing right now and what other candidate was really on the hot seat to prove himself as much as him? Even though I didn’t watch, I’ll give him a pass and a plus for showing up.
Did any of the candidates give a flip TX is burning? They are American citizens - and they want their votes and be their president.
Bumping both of your posts.
Yuck!
That is a total misrepresentation of what was actually said.
Perry said that Guardasil would save lives by preventing cancer and he was for that. (The so-called "safety" issue)
Perry also said that parents had a right to op out. (The totally separate "Freedom and parental rights" issue)
Both issues were addressed. You chose to stress one issue and falsify the other.
Oh Obama’s toast. As much as I don’t think Rick would tell you he had a great night there is one thing that is clear and that is a few of those folks can beat him. IF they attack him. Forget civility with Obama he hasn’t earned it.
Caught the replay. My 2 cents:
* Panel as a whole sounded good
* Winner: Romney. Sorry, I know he’s despised here, but he’s manifestly the best at this. Unflappable.
* Loser: Ron Paul. Goes off the rails completely with the border fence and trashes Reagan’s legacy. Why Ron?
* Thumbs up: Perry - proves he’s a better communicator than Bush (thank God), takes plenty of jabs, but does reasonably well despite (slightly disconcerting) slow/halting pace of speaking and clunky overreliance on notes. Gives refreshingly honest assessment of Social Security, despite the obvious political risk (which I trust (hope) is principled candor and not political naiveté).
*Thumbs down: John Hunstman - liberal car salesman routine with smarmy view of conservatives/man of the world routine becomes even more grating. Bachmann - Couldn’t breakout and was marginalized; $2 gas claim still absurd. Gingrich - Tough guy routine losing its spontaneity; ignored for most of the debate. Cain - Likeable and good slogans, but appears to be lacking in substance. Santorum - irrelevant.
Just my opinion.
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.