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.
“hic”
Nice touch.
Man oh Man, Perry just knocked it right out of the park conservatively speaking when Chris Wallace kept harping about the perceived problem with the federal government having less money to spend with Perry’s flat tax plan, and Perry looked him in the eye and said (something to the effect) that “IT’S TIME WE STOPPED SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL ANYWAY - LET’S BALANCE THE BUDGET AND MAKE SPENDING CUTS”.
And Perry NEVER backed down on that either.
Perry had another homerun with some RBIs when Chris Wallace tried to hedge him into a corner saying the higher earners would have more tax savings than the middle class and lower income workers with Perry’s flat tax plan, and Perry stuck it to him but good saying he (Perry) was NOT going to get into class warfare, that while everyone would be better off, (he acknowledged) the upper income earners, the investors in our society and the makers of our jobs, would be better off and comfortable in their abilities to start investing more in our society and start creating more jobs. Perry would not budge on that principle no matter how much Chris Wallace tried to play the class warfare card on him. Perry fundamentally and expressly emphasized that he was NOT playing into class warfare and was NOT going to apologize for that”
I doubt Perry is pandering to hispanics. He’s offering, children of illegal parents, who brought their children here, which the kids had no say so of staying in Mexico or coming to America. If the children finish high school, they are then eligible to attend a university, technical or training school, as a resident, if they qualify. The children of illegal parents wil pay in state tuition just any other student must. Simple. I’d rather see these students offer something to TX rather live on the dole all of their lives like some Americans are doing. At least the young people will be putting tax money in the till rather than taking money out.
LOL ;)
Exactly. Gov. Perry is not ready. I doubt he ever will be.
“Wow, comparing an exception for paying in state tuition with locking a woman up for 10 years!”
It’s called an ANALOGY. I realize you Perry ding-dongs don’t understand the English language well. So I’ll translate for you (care of Google):
“Se llama una analogía. Me doy cuenta de que Perry ding-dong no entienden el idioma Inglés también. Así que voy a traducir para usted (el cuidado de Google)”
I get caught up sometimes just like the next guy. But I do try to be fair, and I do try not to bash OUR candidates, and I am not trying to sway anyone’s opinion (yet).
But at some point, I will. At some point, if we don't coalesce around a particular Not-Romney candidate, then we'll be stuck with Romney.
If 75% of the GOP doesn't want Romney, but if we split the vote like this:
Romney 24%
Cain 22%
Perry 20%
Gingrich 13%
Paul 10%
Bachmann 5%
Santorum 2%
Others 4%
Then we're stuck with the one person that MOST of us don't want.
So at some point, a good number of us are going to have to give up our vote for “our guy/gal” and give our vote to the Not-Romney who stands a better chance of winning.
I would ask all the fans of the lower tier candidates to really take a long hard look at the facts, and the reality that your candidate can not win. So you can make a choice to split the vote — in which case we are all stuck with Romney — or give your vote to someone who CAN win, so that we can (a) put up someone besides Romney, and (b) beat Obama.
And the sooner the lower tier fans make this choice, the better for the GOP and for America. We need to coalesce around a Not-Romney candidate as soon as we can. (And by that, I mean as soon as we have all vetted each of the candidates.)
It would be a shame to go into Iowa with a vote that is this split. In fact, it would be pathetic.
I'm reminded of that scene with the old newspaper man in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence. Something to the effect of the role of the press being to "...build them up, then tear them back down".
“Ok BobL, since you are so worked up over the in-state issue, what have you done to get Texas’ in-state tuition repealed in those 10 years? “
Right now, I’m the damn best that I can to make sure we don’t nominate another Illegal-coddling Bush-43, although others don’t seem to have a problem with that. WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER AMNESTY PUSH.
With the issue now KNOWN to Texans, I cannot, for the life of me, see it surviving another legislative session. So, in a way, Perry will have to get the credit for ultimately killing this crap.
Yeah that is the most important subject facing the country (super extreme sarcasm).
There are 61,000,000+ references on Google saying the United States Government caused 9-11.
There's another 1,050,000+ links saying we never landed on the moon and it was all a US Government hoax.
None of those links are credible or reliable either.
I guess in your world we're to base what happened or did not happen on the number of occurances of a Google search. Therefore the U.S. caused 9-11 and we never landed on the moon either. Using your logic, that's about right now isn't it?
When you live by the Google search, you die by the Google search.
Fact is, Rick Perry has yet to apologize despite your best (lame) attempts to use a Google search result to say that he did.
Hogwash. I pointed out where and how Rick Perry had a golden opportunity to set the record straight and put this behind him before it comes back to bite him in a Primary or a General Election.
Now, if I were as you say never going to accept his apology anyway, why would I have done that? Two reasons:
First, we can't afford a weak candidate in the General election. If Perry makes it that far, this will certainly, absolutely come back to bite him. I've a less than zero interest in seeing any Republican candidate go down over something this stupid, your candidate included.
Second, you can easily go back and search for any post I made when Rick Perry announced he was running. I cheered. I cheered when he said he'd fire Ben Bernake; I cheered again when he said the Fed Chair would get treated "pretty ugly" down in Texas. Here I thought was finaly someone that knew how to take on Obama on Obama's own terms in a flat out street fight, and win. Perry's said some things that made me cheer, others that have had me shaking my head in disbelief.
The second point is to show you that you don't know jack-diddly-squat about me or what I would/wouldn't accept. All you know how to do is call someone a "liberal" or accuse them of using "leftist liberal tricks" when you think they don't support (or want to support) the candidate you do.
If the best you have is name calling, I'm done discussing this with you. Frankly, if you're indicative of Perry's type of supporters, I don't want anything to do with the guy. Your behavior is none better than the OWS folks or a typical Obama supporter who claims "racism!" every time someone disagrees with him.
In the future, when someone offers up CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and raises the alarm on something your candidate needs to address and fix so he can "move on" and put an issue behind him, you carefully consider what it is they have to say before going off half-cocked making accusations of which you know nothing about.
Have a nice life.
Now if only Rick Perry would've explained his position as clearly and concisely as you did above, I doubt there'd be an issue. (Note to Perry campaign: Hire TILLACUM as your Campaign Spokesperson.)
How do you know a candidate is a pataetic loser? When he is so bad that his fans celebrate on the few occasions when he doesn’t screw up.
OH unconservative, come off of it. You’re just here to stir the pot with dissennsion. You have preferred NOT to listen what Gov Perry actually said, you prefer to listen to the distortions of msnbc hacks.
Same here, it's why I usually don't post on these threads. So much suspicion and posters ready to attack for nonsense.
No matter what you say or how you say it you get attacked for having an underlying motive or some such, it's impossible to have a legitimate fair conversation.
Who needs it?
Oh well, we've a ways to go and many things will change. I'm in the wait and see how it all pans out mode....like I have anything to say about it anyway.
Suggest you read #91.
Illegal immigration? Well, that is just heartless.
Illegal immigration? Well, that is just heartless.
Ain't that the truth! How dare anyone inject logic and reason into these threads. Oh the humanity!
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.