Replies

I just like to point out how the best conservative we had to beat Romney this time around was dismissed for positions that were later completely acceptable in the final guys in the race, and in Goode now.

You make a good point about that, but in the end it was Perry's inability to communicate effectively enough at a national level that did the most damage to him. I supported Perry and tried to stick with him as long as possible. Perry has an almost perfect resume and on paper was clearly the best candidate, but I think we have to be fair and admit that his own poor debate and communication skills are probably what ultimately did him in.

I would add another factor that many people don't like hearing. Palin. I really believe that, at least on forums such as this one, large numbers of devoted Palin supporters were so convinced she was running that they thought they were helping clear the way for her by working to undermine any serious threat to her candidacy. For quite awhile, Perry was perceived as, potentially, one of her main conservative rivals. I think Palin's waiting till so late in the game to declare she wasn't running ended up hurting all the conservative candidates to some degree. It simply made it harder for conservative primary voters to focus on the actual candidates because so many were pining for the one that wasn't going to run. I believe this was far more damaging than most people think.

A no-name candidate with no money and no constituency, I doubt he will even be a blip on the radar for this election. Still a good guy, and I wish he had focused on things he could win here in Virginia, like the Senate seat.

As I'm from Virginia I know who Goode is. While he may be a good guy, he is not a very significant political figure statewide and is unlikely to have any impact even here in the Commonwealth. Like you said, "a no-name candidate with no money and no constituency" isn't likely to be so much as a blip on the radar.

"You make a good point about that, but in the end it was Perry's inability to communicate effectively enough at a national level that did the most damage to him. I supported Perry and tried to stick with him as long as possible. Perry has an almost perfect resume and on paper was clearly the best candidate, but I think we have to be fair and admit that his own poor debate and communication skills are probably what ultimately did him in. "

No, they weren't, and quite frankly I get weary of rebutting this. His back surgery was what did him in. The early debates were horrific, and with each one, I would be on the edge of my seat, nervous, wondering when the screwup would come. But by the time he healed, toward the end, his performances were excellent, and I was completely relaxed because I knew he'd do a great job. Rick Perry does not have poor debate skills, and he most certainly doesn't have poor communication skills.