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.
Look, we have to coalesce behind someone other than Romney. That someone has to beat Obama. Therefore, to get what we want, a conservative in the White House, we need someone who is bright, funny, and can think quickly on his feet. We need to get behind Cain! Perry cannot debate Obama. He really can’t even debate Mitt.
I'd like to see that documentation to see the context.
Wallace pushed hard on the phony issue of "income equality" too, his DNC pals will be pleased.
He asked leading question which presupposed absolutely everything the federal gov't does has a dependent class that cannot survive without it.
Journalist's questions should not encode predicates that assume the political opposition's talking-points to be axiomatic. That's not journalism.
Some apologie...
"“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word [heartless] and it was inappropriate. In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”"
He did not open Texas to educating illegals, the Supreme Court forced Texas to educate illegals and the Feds refuse to deport them.
Because the feds ignore those families, even ignore the invaders crossing the border with children in tow, and force us to educate and feed them in our schools on the free lunch and breakfast program who stick out because they are the ones without a Social Security number, we have some that live here over 3 years and graduate with grades sufficient to get them accepted to college.
We had to decide as a state what to do with these proven achievers. The Legislature decided to allow them to pay the in state tuition, overwhelmingly passed the law in 2001, again in 2005 and refused to consider it in 2011.
The funny thing is, LOTS of people have made drunk speeches. You go to a fundraiser, you mingle with the crowd for a couple of hours, have a few drinks, then stand up at the podium and give your speech. That is absolutely fine in a closed room.
But it’s pretty sad that in today’s technology world, there are cameras everywhere, and everything we do is on tape. We’re all human, and I certainly couldn’t stand up to the constant scrutiny that these candidates are subject to. Whether he was drunk or not doesn’t even matter, because he was in a room full of people that he was mingling with, having a good time, probably appropriate to the situation... Putting it on tape for the world to see, and take out of context, is unfortunate.
The tape was edited too, so there may have been long periods of the speech where he did not appear to be impaired. I didn’t watch the full speech, so I don’t know. But like everything else for all candidates, these are just snapshots. And we have to be careful not to do what the MSM does and take everything out of context.
“Notice that Governor Rick Perry stands on his own ideas and record and sells his plans for the Nation.”
Then he SHOULDN’T be apologizing for his ‘heartless’ comment.
The reason that it KILLED HIS RUN is because he’s had a DECADE in office to figure out Illegal immigration, and he simply keeps GETTING IT WRONG, right through this weekend (again). Apologies only make sense if it’s a one-time event, and not well thought out. But Perry’s been governor for 10 years, and even without using the term ‘heartless’, he’s STILL defending the right of CRIMINALS to use my tax money to go to college.
Apology NOT ACCEPTED. It’s not much different than locking your girlfriend in the basement when you’re mad at her. Do it for 10 minutes, while you’re steamed up, you might get off with an apology (although I would tell her to run for the hills), but do it for 10 YEARS...and you’re looking at spending the rest of your life in jail. Apologies have their place...but NOT in every case.
...which, again, is exactly why this stance has cost him the nomination. And it’s not just a few of us saying it, it is also the Texas TEA PARTY saying it.
Ok, I'm going to dare ask this question: what makes you, or anyone, believe Cain can debate Obama?
How many times has Cain had to "clarify remarks"--even on abortion--and yet, somehow, he gets a pass while Perry was savaged, labeled and dismissed.
It's looking to me like Cain is no more prepared, on a deep level, to discuss the issues than Perry.
His answer to 999 criticism is "you haven't read the plan" or "the study is wrong." I've read the plan, I even like the plan, but you cannot defend the plan or sell the plan simply by dismissing questions, concerns or critiques! That won't fly far.
He had a golden opportunity to show he's getting deeper into policy, deeper into thinking about the issues ahead, building his personal knowledge, when he participated in the College Board candidate forum. Cain was, once again, long on generalities, short on specifics. Of the four (Bachmann, Cain, Newt, Santorum), Cain was clearly the lightweight thinker on education policy.
We do not need the candidate equivalent of "pass this bill to learn what's in it." Unless he gets serious, that's exactly what we'll get from Cain.
“That is an old leftist/lib trick — to keep the issue going. How many apologies did George Allen make for his ONE ‘macaca’ comment? At least 3 or 4. And those who would not accept #1 would not accept #2 or #3 or #4 either.”
I guess the question is whether Allen used that term one-time, or made a habit of it in the past. If one-time, I would agree. If he does it all the time, and knows what it means (i.e., Perry on coddling illegals), then Allen deserved to lose.
“For a few moments, Perry had Romney red-faced, sputtering and spewing incoherently for a bit at the last debate. So did Santorum. Those exchanges revealed a Romney weakness — he cannot handle direct verbal assaults very well. “
Then why is Perry now chickening out...he cannot have it both ways.
That was a fair, logical assessment. I agree with what you posted.
If Perry can debate Cain start there. Romney kicked Perry’s ass. Perry is not confrontational and it shows. We are talking about the Presidency here.
FRiend, I hope you see the contradiction in those words.
Having to clarify means you're getting savaged....through the back door.
Wow, comparing an exception for paying in state tuition with locking a woman up for 10 years!
Who is your State Senator and State Rep? What have you done about their vote on in state tuition. Did you tell them to support Birdwell this year?
I’m a member of the Texas Hill Country Patriots Tea Party. Attended the first San Antonio Tea Party event in 2009. The “Texas Tea Party” is not a homogenous group.
Well said!
“Ok, I’m going to dare ask this question: what makes you, or anyone, believe Cain can debate Obama?
How many times has Cain had to “clarify remarks”—even on abortion—and yet, somehow, he gets a pass while Perry was savaged, labeled and dismissed. “
Well, we’ll find out in a week. Because UNLIKE another candidate, Cain is not running away from debates and will be debating the person who is pretty much considered the most experienced, and best, debater in the Republican field.
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.