Skip to comments.Rick Perry's Strategic Debate Blunders
Posted on 09/09/2011 2:26:35 PM PDT by kevinaw2
It has taken me a couple days to fully compose my thoughts on Wednesday's GOP debate on MSNBC. Like most, I was looking forward to seeing Rick Perry perform on stage for the first time. I like Rick Perry and would gladly support him, but he made two obvious blunders as far as I can see. One can be fixed, the other is his to own. I was and am still hoping that Governor Perry can improve himself as I am no great fan of Mitt Romney. While I prefer Rick Perry on the substance of the issues he failed to demonstrate a level of political acumen I believe is essential to success and to that end an ability to advance conservative principles. The video to watch is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mewFjbmmyc&feature=related
As we all know,the part considered controversial is Governor Perry's "Doubling Down" on his labeling Social Security a "Ponzi Scheme". Rick Perry is substantively correct about the soundness regarding the financing of Social Security. He deserves credit for bringing the issue to public attention. It is a genuine profile in courage, given the historic demagoguery of liberals whenever the subject is raised. Members in both parties and across the ideological divide acknowledge the numbers don't add up for Social Security and it needs to be corrected. Reforming Social Security will be complex and require extraordinary political skills to get it done.
Rick Perry's insistence on describing it as a "Ponzi Scheme" is a near fatal if not fatal error in judgement both politically and as a matter of public policy. Rick Perry is not off base in his analogy. The current fiscal structure of Social Security has a parallel with a Ponzi Scheme. There is however a fundamental distinction. First and foremost a Ponzi Scheme is a criminal endeavor intent on defrauding its investors. By contrast Social Security is a fully transparent public program freely supported by the American people with their tax dollars for over seventy years. And it has been repeatedly endorsed with results at the ballot box. A free choice by definition is not the same as being victimized by a fraudulent scheme.
The other issue I have is the politics and policy implications of his statement. In the aftermath of the debate are we discussing the long term viability of Social Security as currently structured? NO! Instead, we are debating whether or not it's a Ponzi Scheme. Issues are often reduced to cliches or hyperbole by politicians and on most issues it is acceptable because most issues are transitory and have no long term relevance except in the moment. But Social Security is not the flavor of the week as issues go, it is a perennial issue that has been debated for generations and any modifications have long term ramifications for American society. On matters of such consequence Rick Perry was ill advised to use hyperbole to illustrate his point. Furthermore, it emboldens left wing demagogues who believe that raising taxes on everyone else is the proper remedy. If we are going to have a vast public debate on Social Security it must be on the merits.
The other portion of the exchange that bothers me is the one that can be fixed. On the morning of the debate, Karl Rove stated that it was "TOXIC" to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. Dick Cheney also declared it to be inaccurate. As conservatives we have had many issues with big government policies and excess spending during the Bush years, a fact that is all too often ignored. We tend to view the Karl Rove's of the GOP as "establishment", and therefore not purely conservative, more interested in power than governing on principle. This is a valid criticism on many occasions, but I must point this out. Whatever one thinks of Rove or the "Bushies", we must have everybody on board in the effort to defeat Barack Obama. Don't let the numbers give you false hope. He can still win.
Rick Perry chose to "slap down" Rove and by inference could be accused of calling Cheney a liar in his response. Political junkies might find it entertaining but it must be said that if Rick Perry is our nominee, he as is true of all such nominees is confronted with the William Wallace moment from "Braveheart". Near the end of the movie, Wallace has been beaten, he's on the run and he agrees to a meeting, a meeting that leads to his betrayal and execution. He turns to his friends and says "We need the nobles". He was right. Fortunately this is 21st Century America and not 14th Century Scotland, but my point is that we will need the Karl Rove's committed in this fight, otherwise he'll spend the money elsewhere and we're going to NEED THE MONEY.
When Karl Rove said it was "Toxic" prior to the debate, he was giving Perry political advice disguised as analysis. Perry misinterpreted the remarks and was critical in kind. Rove is correct on the politics. Perry is wrong. Perry could have used his ill advised remarks in his book as an impetus to debate the genuine flaws in Social Security and walked back his talk of "Ponzi Scheme" at the same time. He could have suggested his remarks were intended to shine a spotlight on the the present state of the entitlement. Had he said anything to that effect we would be debating the formula for Social Security as opposed to the politics of Ponzi Scheme labeling.
In taking a shot at Rove he perpetuated another underlying narrative. It is quite evident that talk of a feud between the Perry and Bush people is very real. And in this respect Perry again dropped the ball. Prior to the debate, anyone affiliated with the Bush Administration have repeatedly been quizzed about this "feud". Dana Perino was pressed hard by Megyn Kelly, but only had nice things to say about Perry. JEB BUSH on "HANNITY", also debunked the notion of a feud. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have both denied there was a rift. The Bush supporters, recognizing the real possibility of Perry as GOP standard bearer were clearly not being forthright, but towed the line rather than undermine Perry publicly as the potential nominee. Did Perry or his people not notice this? Do you think contributors to Bush didn't notice? The Bush supporters and the former President himself understand the politics of the nominee distancing themselves from Bush. They won't take it personally. In fact they have been extending olive branches. If Rick Perry is the nominee, he's going to want the former Bush contributors on his side. Whatever his problems with the "Bushies", this is the big leagues man, swallow your pride and play ball, because we all need to get with the program. The title of the program reads: "WE MUST DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA". Anything else is unacceptable.
I want to support Governor Perry and I would be quite annoyed if Romney is the nominee, but how can we defeat Barack Obama if we insist on alienating important people necessary to the cause of victory? The next debate is on CNN on Monday. I hope Perry is better prepared, because I WANT to support him because he is correct on the substance and in concert with my core beliefs and principles. But political skill and temperment are essential qualities in a candidate and as President. For quite a while it has been suggested that Perry is the perfect nominee because he unites every faction of the party. His debate performance has put the lie to that expectation. He has the correct principles, but his presentation is hurting the cause.
Oh, that’s nothing. Perry has a birther problem. He’s not a
“Natural Born Republican” and so is ineligible.
Requirements to be a Natural Born Republican:
1. Both parents must have been lifelong Republicans.
2. Subject must be a lifelong Republican.
3. Subject must have never so much as talked to a Democrat.
Well, there you have it, he’s out.
You mean like Ronald Reagan? Because Reagan described himself as a "liberal New Deal Democrat" who voted 4 times for FDR and once for Truman before he became a conservative in the early 1950's. Perry, as a Democrat, was described by his peers as one of the most conservative members of the Texas House of Representatives.
You need to get new talking points - this one has been debunked over and over again - you just look silly repeating it.
You can opt out the same way you can opt out of income tax. Don’t make income. You do have to buy healthcare soon, though. I keep wondering how they are going to fine the homeless for not buying.
Social Security has been an income tax since LBJ and the Democrats stole the trust fund in 1968, IIRC. We have coming whatever the govt decides to give us, from something to nothing. They can adjust the payments however they see fit. We have no money in accounts to claim.
None of this is new. SS is a welfare redistribution scheme. I know people who have paid in next to nothing and are getting $600 a month at 62. If those people were being paid out of their money that was paid in, they’d be getting about $30 a month.
He sure did...25 years ago when Gore was pro-life.
I live in TX. Perry has done some things I oppose, but on the whole he is pretty good and seems to be trendingin the right direct. The essay is R Establishment CW. Calling Perry a liberal D in R clothing shows you are completely uninformed or a troll.
The focus should be to defeat Obama. If Perry is the person who can defeat Obama, he needs support.
No it isn’t a welfare program. That’s what the PTSB are trying to convince you it is. SS is a Trust Fund, paid INTO by the people who should be the only recipients.
Government leaders stole the money from the Trust and added in others who did NOT pay into the system.
Stop blaming Seniors. They are the victims of this crime. It is the corrupt politicians who caused this problem. Theft, pure and simple.
Welfare is money taken from Taxpayers that largely supports people who have not paid anything into the system. It was meant to be a bridge to get one from point A to point B. Instead it has turned into a career in itself.
We might ask the politicians why we give automatic welfare, to legal immigrants for a year after they emigrate here. Why do they get zoning exemptions that citizens are not entitled to; why do they get no interest business loans that citizens are not given? And lets not even begin to count the abuse on taxpayers from illegal immigrants.
If you can’t see where the blame truly lies, you are being naive. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, politicians are successfully shifting the blame onto the recipients who are the actual victims of their out of control spending, using the Trust as a slush fund when the money was not theirs to spend. We’ve been robbed.
I have paid into that system virtually all of my working life. I look forward to collecting it. If you think I’ll consider myself to be a welfare leech, you have another think coming.
Consider that the politicians are making SS an issue. Why? Why are they not looking to cut massive foreign aid? Why are they not looking to cut out illegals from all of our bankrupt social services? They are not entitled to any of our tax money. Did you notice that politicians are always calling for citizens to “sacrifice” but never looking at our largess to the world? Why is that? Why do we give money to special interest groups? Why are there special offices for special groups in our own capitol building? Why are citizens themselves never a special interest group?
There are plenty of places to cut. Lets start with the politicians. Take away their gold plated health coverage and put them on medicare and Obamacare, cut their wages, cut their perks. Why do we need to buy them a new car of their choosing every year? Why do they need to go on taxpayer funded vaca...er, fact finding tours?
It is a shell game alright, one that hides the true issues.
My comments are as follows: he is pretty much correct on the politics and how Perry could have done better. But he spent a whole article making much too big a deal about it. What I saw in the debates is that Perry is more honest than slick. He tells it like it is. This can get him into trouble and he would be wise to watch his mouth. That’s on the negative side. However on the positive side there are millions of Americans that will flock to someone who tells the truth even if it is not that smooth. I think the independents and conservatives will flock to him, the liberals and media will hound him and ultimately Perry will prevail.
Sorry but those two statements of yours are intellectually incoherent.
According to you, Perry is right about SS but it is a "fatal error" for him to be right about SS.
Sorry I think it is pretty clear you have never supported Perry and are mmerely failing around trying to fain support for Perry in the vain hope it will give your incoherence rambling a fake gloss of intellectual credibility.
Tearing down everyone else does NOT magically give your candidate of choice some sort of political help.
As a veteran of 30+ years of GOP politics, who will very probably be a delegate to his State's convention next year, I suggest you try telling me why I should support YOUR candidate of choice rather then trash talking other candidates.
Payroll taxes could then be co-mingled with the general fund and payments made to whoever had the political pull. It became a vote buying scheme.
It is funded not by your contributions but by your children's and that makes it a transfer program.
Everyone says, "I want what I've paid into it. I've got it coming." The truth it is just like any other tax that you've paid. It's gone. There is nothing there. Everyone pays income taxes, capital gains taxes, sales taxes, etc. Do you get any of that back? Do you ever expect to? Why would you expect to get payroll taxes back? Just because a politician promised?
What I see is my retired neighbors using their Social Security checks to fuel up their $150k motor homes so they can snowbird to Arizona every year. In fact they are fueling up their rolling palace with taxes collected from some poor working shlub that has to get up every morning at 5AM and shuffle off to some miserable job to feed his family, and he knows he'll never see any Social Security.
Social Security was created so seniors didn't have to live in poverty, not so they could live in luxury at their grandchildren's expense.
I've got no problem with keeping seniors in their homes they've lived in 50 years and eating decent food. I would prefer if it could be done privately because that would be more efficient, but the truth is the truth.
Social Security is built out of politicians' lies.
I see Dr. Paul’s supports are still pedaling his talking points to trash Governor Perry. Lies as usual.
He is a liberal Democrat in Republican clothing ...he supported Al Gore.. thats about all we need to know
It really doesn’t take much to satisfy your quest for knowledge assuming you were searching to begin with.
Yes it is scary listening to Perry using strong language and inflammatory words like Ponzi Scheme, because we fear it will hurt his chances to win. But this language is necessary to seperate him from the pack, and to show true fiscal conservatives that Perry is the strong leader we have been looking for. Under Perry's strong leadership, the Tea Party will take control of the Republican Party in a few months. Then the government in Nov. 2012. These are tough times, in tough times people look for a strong leader. Rick Perry is it.
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.