Posted on 10/30/2011 12:21:46 PM PDT by smoothsailing
October 30, 2011
These days, no news is good news for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. In the first two months of his presidential campaign, Perry's media appearances have been associated with blunders, a big reason why he quickly tumbled from frontrunner status to the back of the pack in polls. But in an extended interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace this morning in Austin, Perry was able to stay completely on message and was unrattled by critical questions about his campaign and policy proposals.
“I’ve laid out a plan, and I’ve got the record and courage to put that in place,” Perry told Wallace, getting at the heart of the case for his candidacy. The clear message was that his new tax and spending plan was superior to Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan while his record as a conservative governor in Texas and willingness to stick to his principles makes him a better choice than Mitt Romney.
“I have been a consistent conservative," Perry said. "I have always been in favor of the Second Amendment, protecting the Second Amendment, I’ve always been pro-life. I’ve always been a fiscal conservative. And Mitt’s been on both sides of those issues. He’s been for a ban on guns in Massachusetts. He’s been for pro-abortion. He’s been for supporting gay rights and now, he’s on the other side of those issues.”
When Perry released his plan this week, one question was whether he'd be able to defend it in interviews and debates. At least this morning, he was able to deflect Wallace's challenges to it, at least in a way that would reassure conservative primary voters.
For instance, when asked if his plan would blow a hole in the federal budget given that it would slash revenues, Perry talked about the economic growth that would help generate revenue and the spending cuts that would accompany lower taxes.
When Wallace followed up by asking the usual trap question for Republicans about what specific area they would cut, Perry noted that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., had released a plan detailing $9 trillion in possible cuts, and then explained a specific education reform that would save $25 billion.
Policy analysts would quibble -- it would have been better had he spoken about how to reform Medicare, which is the biggest problem facing our nation's long-term budget outlook. But the point is, agree or disagree, he did provide cogent answers to questions about his plan.
This leaves us with the following questions about his candidacy: can Perry replicate this performance in the coming months, most importantly, in upcoming debates? And even if he does drastically improve as a candidate, has he already dug himself too deep of a hole to recover? A Des Moines Register poll taken this morning shows Cain at 23 percent, Romney at 22 percent and Perry in fifth place with just 7 percent.
Rick Perry is far from flawlessly conservative. Yet if conservatives insist on the perfect being the enemy of the good, Zero will be re-elected next year.
Perry's tax and economic reform proposal is far, far better (and better thought out) than Cain's 9-9-9, which keeps changing and necessitates a national sales tax. His mechanism for reducing the federal government to Constitutional levels is the best one for doing so - the 10th Amendment. He will revive the economy far, far more than Romney would by getting the government more out of the way, and by drilling, baby, drilling. (Remember that Romney's a Warmist who loves renewable energy scams.)
One of these days, conservatives are going to have to figure out that we're not to going to get better than Perry. And that he really is our best chance to rescue our economy, indeed our country.
To see why - or at least to consider this as a possibility - read the transcript of Perry's interview with John Harwood of CNBC on Tuesday (10/25). (A caveat: this is an unedited computer-generated transcription of Perry's answers with lots of mistakes and glitches, which were left in - one suspects to make Perry not as fluent as you could see on television).
What really turned me on, frankly, was his absolute refusal to be intimidated by envy-mongering. Harwood starts right off the bat with this, saying that his tax plan would be a huge tax cut for the wealthy, that "those at the top, it is hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars for them." Perry immediately responds:
"But I don't care about that. What I care about is them having the dollars to invest in their companies. To go out and maybe start a business because they got the confidence again 'cause they actually get to keep more of what they work for."
OMG. That's the ballgame. The entire argument of the Left is an envy-trip. What America needs more than any other one single thing is a president who says to the Dems, the Enemedia, Academia, their acolytes, the entire dog's breakfast of the Left, "I don't care about your envy!
Harwood can't get over this, so later he asks a gotcha, "Do you fundamentally believe we should not have a progressive tax system in the country?" Perry straight out answers, "I do." Harwood is shocked. "But the idea of taking-- of having-- higher rates-- of various kinds for people who earn more are [sic] not right?" Again, Perry says straight, "I don't agree with that."
I encourage you to read the whole thing. Try this on:
"I don't think this president understands basic economics. Not economics that work. He may understand some theory that someone in Princeton sat and dreamed up, but it's not working.
"This President would be wise if he addressed the economy in the way that we know it works. You give incentives to job creators. Lower the tax burden, lower the regulatory climate, and this President would be stunned I'm sure. But America's economy would take off and take off quickly.
"That's what we need in a president that respects how this country got to the point of being the greatest economy in the world. And it was done simply by giving the incentive to job creators so they knew they could keep more of what they work for."
No teleprompter here, ad lib. You really think Zero could take him in a one-on-one debate? And look how he took care of the "birther" thing:
"I don't have a clue about where the President (was born) and what his birth certificate says. But it's also a great distraction. I'm not distracted by it. If those of you in the media want to talk about it that's fine, but I hope what you'll really get focused on is how are we going to get this country back on track.
"Because if we don't, America's next generation is not going to have as good a future as what we had, and that's what I'm concerned about. I know how to do that. And you do it by giving a flat tax. You get these regulations pulled off of businesses, and you allow entrepreneurs the confidence that they can go risk their capital."
You can't get a better answer than that. Birtherism is a distraction for exactly the reasons Perry says.
You should see what Wheeler said about Cain as follows...Cain doesn't know what he is doing. Cain's smokin' ad was a bizarre-o video ad of his chief of staff Mark Block, ending with this slow creepy smile of Cain's. Some folks love it for blowing smoke in his opponent's faces, but really, this is not an ad of a serious candidate for President of the United States. It reinforces the view that what Cain is really running for is Romney's running mate.
“When Perry apologizes, I’ll listen. Until then, he’s still nothing more than a walking gaffe-machine who crumbles under pressure (debates.)”
Don’t hold your breath. He STILL has not apologized for Gardicil. He only said that he should have forced the vaccine by going through the state legislature, not by Executive Order.
In other words, he STILL has NO PROBLEM with injecting little girls so that they could have wild and crazy sex in their teen years...by MANDATE...he just attempted it the wrong way.
He will do fine one-on-one as I’ve seen him in the past with a smaller group, as he does with these interviews.
Obama is not the greatest debater either. I remember distinctly that I felt Obama’s debates with McCain were either won by McCain or a draw. I’m not voting for the best debater but the best president.
“I’d happily accept his apology if in face he made a sincere one.”
He did apologize for that. Sorry I’m not going to dig it up.
Pandering? Have you even bothered to listen to the interview? Paying instate tuition is not welfare, it’s not even cheap. They have to apply for citizenship, they have to PAY the tuition, and it’s not that big a deal. It’s a LOT cheaper then the welfare or the jail costs if they were tossed out on the streets. After all, Texas can’t toss them anyplace else because federal law prohibits it. You have half educated kids because SCOTUS requires states to provide both education and medical care to illegals. Do you toss them on the streets and let the smarter kids get jobs with the cartels and gangs or do you allow them to go to college paying an instate tuition (again NOT FREE) and possibly become something that will add to this country.
Perry said two things. First, he said he shouldn't have forced it through EO and rather should've worked with the State legislature to get it passed. That was during the second debate.
During the third debate, he also admitted he should've made the program an opt-in rather than making it an opt-out thereby not circumventing parental rights.
I'm not a Perry fan, but facts are facts that he admitted he went about this the wrong way and that if he had to do it over again he'd have done things much differently.
I'll give him a mulligan on that one.
Don't expect me to take your word for it. I watched the interview this morning waiting/hoping he'd finally apologize. Nada. Zip, zilch, zero.
“Obama is not the greatest debater either. I remember distinctly that I felt Obama’s debates with McCain were either won by McCain or a draw. I’m not voting for the best debater but the best president.”
I don’t remember McCain winning any of the debates...he seemed mostly star-struck and was determined not to stop Obama’s rise to the top.
Anyway, I think just about any Republican can defeat Obama...providing it’s one-on-one. However, I’m not all that sure we’ll be seeing Obama on the ticket - since Hillary can distance herself from all of his garbage (even it is no different than what she would have done anyway)...and have at least a 10 point edge over Obama (against any Republican) to start with.
Also, there is a really good chance that a SERIOUS Third Party candidate will run to Perry’s right if he somehow ends up on the ticket, as Perry has a habit of moving left, once he gets the votes he needs...so big opening for Tancredo or someone like him, who’s tough on illegal immigration.
Your candidate is done, you all just don't realize it yet.
Oh my!
Flawless! Especially when he talked about Herman Cain’s “VAT Tax”.
“Perry said two things. First, he said he shouldn’t have forced it through EO and rather should’ve worked with the State legislature to get it passed. That was during the second debate.
During the third debate, he also admitted he should’ve made the program an opt-in rather than making it an opt-out thereby not circumventing parental rights.”
I hadn’t heard that, so I take you at your word...but it is interesting that it took him two debates to get it right. I just wonder if his ‘heart’ really believes that, or if he instead feels that he must ‘pander’ to the base (by his definition).
99.999999999% of which are news articles "quoting" Perry. One link of which contains a Newsmax video where Perry "apologizes."
Please, if Rick Perry was to make a genuine, sincere apology he'd take 30 seconds to do it during a debate (of which he will no longer participate) or do it in a credible news outlet where he has a much larger audience like he had with Fox News this morning.
Any serious thinking person cannot compare the blown opportunity Perry had this morning to do so on Fox with a nationwide audience versus a Newsmax video that's gotten little if any play outside of Newsmax's own website.
The fact that Perry won't address the issue "face to face" with the American people speaks volumes.
I may be heartless in Rick Perry's eyes, he's GUT-LESS in mine until he mans up and apologizes the way he should.
The press will damn with faint praise, just as they created the false impression about future debates and the birthers by repeatedly asking him questions, ignored when he said the question was a distraction and returned to his energy, tax and economic plans.
Notice that Governor Rick Perry stands on his own ideas and record and sells his plans for the Nation.
He’s adamant that his goal is not to give Washington and Congress every thing they want to spend. His goal is to let us keep our money and rebuild our economy.
He goes after Obama and spending, he points out that Romney has proven himself a RINO. He does not feel the need to “compete” with conservatives.
He will win on his own record, his proven consistent philosophy and merit, not by destroying good men and women who would be his allies in any other contest.
What a cute little catch phrase.
Please tell me how someone who cannot debate can sell their ideas?
Especially when it comes to those who are not particularly open to them.
And before you get your tail feathers in a ruffle, I would gladly give my vote to Perry over obama, he is simply not won my support at this point, but please answer my question.
“... Perry had to put out his “Drunk Man” video ...”
I resemble that speech, having made a few in my career.
;o)
I live in Arizona, we pretty much respect the Texas position and are fully aware that many of the states have the same issue without requiring that the students apply for citizenship. BTW, you DO know that there is a certain number of spots for Mexican citizens to apply for legal immigrant status, you ARE aware of that aren’t you?
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.