Posted on 10/26/2011 7:27:45 PM PDT by Brookhaven
The Washington Post ran a story today about a group of Ohio voters here. While the story centered around Herman Cain, there was a section buried deep in the story that offered an amazing insight into Rick Perry's current problems.
At one point, Hart asked the participants to think back to fifth grade and the types of students they had encountered. From a list that included descriptions such as “teacher’s pet,” “loner,” “hard worker,” “nerd” and “know it all,” Hart asked them to write down which most applied to Cain, to Romney, to Perry and to Obama.The majority described Cain as the classmate who was the “hard worker,” with others saying he was the “all-American kid” or “the kid everyone respects.”
In contrast, Perry left this group cold. If he is the person many GOP strategists believed was destined to challenge Romney for the nomination, no one had given that memo to these Ohioans.
In the fifth-grade exercise, eight of the 12 wrote down “bully” as the kind of kid he reminded them of. When the discussion turned to other attributes, he was described as the kind of neighbor others would not want to mess with, or someone who would build a fence around his property, or someone who would be in everybody else’s business.
“He wouldn’t be on the casserole committee,” said Sydney Mathis, a Democrat.
“Annoying,” said Lisa Cedrone, an independent voter who supported Obama in 2008 and is undecided today.
I've believed Perry's problems were all about how he tripped up early—a couple of verbal gaffes and some poor debate performances. I also thought he could get back in the race by refining his message and showing up well in the debates. Now, I'm not so sure.
Erick Erickson has said many times on his radio show that the most likeable candidate always wins. I'm not sure if I buy that, but I am sure the reverse is true: the most disliked candidate never wins. Given the above statements by Ohio voters, Rick Perry's problems have nothing to do with his policy positions or debate performances, and everything to do with how voters perceive him personally.
PS
Yes, I know I could have used another word here, but no other seemed to get the job done. Language is a toolbox. Sometimes you need to use a paint brush to apply just the right shade of meaning, and sometimes you need a big hammer to make your point.
Now, why. Well, the essence of charisma is a sense of totally authentic conviction, without any internal ambivalence or conflict. I give you Ronald Reagan as an example of a man with deep convictions and without self-doubt, and you see the result. Herman Cain has some of it, which is why he thrives, despite rookie stumbles and fumbles--he comes across as real.
Perry comes across as studied--forming his own positions as he goes along. And the people sense it. Example: if he is so shot with the flat tax, why didn't he introduce it months ago? Answer: because he really doesn't give a shit, but realized that if he didn't come up with something, Cain and even Romney would steal the issue. So he heaved one up. Sorry, no sale.
Perry has LOTS of charisma. He just needs to show it with one-on-one interviews. All we’ve seen is the debate format, which is not his strong point.
If the folks think Obama will eat him alive in debate he will not be supported by the majority of conservatives. That is the truth.
So if Perry got the nomination what does he do when it’s time to debate Obama?
He’d send a teleprompter to the debate. ;) Seriously, Rick Perry would do fine up against Zero in a so-called debate.
You’re preaching to the choir, FRiend. :) I have no problem with Texans exercising states’ rights under the 10th.
That throat is just asking for it.
On the other hand, if were choosing which candidate's SUPPORTERS are best described as "@ssholes"... Perrybots win by a wide margin. Even the delusional "Ron Paul rLOVEution!!!" internet spammers are mild in comparison. Plus you know what you'll get from them... "say no to endless war, vote for liberty, only Ron Paul understands the constitution, everyone else in a neo-con..." blah blah blah. But the Perrybots come up with new BS every week.
Well Billboy, I’ll never change your mind on Perry. You’ve already staked your claim somewhere else. I read your signature tag line there. I get it. Does that make me an asshole?
‘So...You hired a dick to find an asshole.’
—Barfly
Generally, this has been my experience with Perry supporters:
1) Perry supporters come up with some new spin-of-the-week why Perry is such a great tea party conservative (stuff like "Al Gore was more conservative than most Republicans when Perry endorsed him")
2) I respond that latest virtue being touted about Perry is untrue.
3) Perry supporters call me a liar.
4) I post irrefutable evidence that their claim is untrue (in the aforementioned example, proof of Al Gore's far left voting record in 1988)
5) Perry supporters respond by calling me a "HATER"/"BIGOT"/"PURIST" ... (e.g. "You just HATE bible beliving Christians, don't you?! Well, nobody's PERFECT! You anti-immigrant BIGOTS never give up!)
6) Return to step #1 the next week.
His "tea party" persona didn't emerge until the tea party emerged. Perry identified with it, and joined the fray. I don't think it was insincere. It was a good fit. Perry's attraction to the tea party was what most of us saw: The violation of the will of the people with that Obamacare push-through. Perry had to deal with the extra costs, and etc. of this overreach. And the tea parties gave Perry a great forum for his excellent speeches.
I don't think Al Gore was more conservative, and I imagine Perry was holding his nose in 1988 when he endorsed him. I don't think that the Republican party was a great vehicle for an upstart west Texan politician to begin a political career in 1984. I published this about the Al Gore issue. (Opens in new window)
The immigration issue was handled badly. But then again, there are a ton of people with agendas to not have Perry succeed. I fear that Romney will be forgiven for giving health insurance to illegals, and Perry will continue to be punished. It's too bad, because no one running for POTUS 2012 understands the intricacies of border security more than Perry.
If you watched what he did in Texas, you know he's pretty serious about slashing spending and implementing his against-the-Washington-grain revenue 'de-enhancement' that his flat tax will cause. And that's the agenda of many who opposed Perry: They have to stop Perry before he really does what he says he'll do. He will be their undoing. Perry is running against the Establishment without the right (the guys who should be supporting him) having his back. He's got a long row to hoe.
You ain't a liar. Change your mind, dammit!
The problem with you Perry supporters remains this: What you want to see and hope to see where he is concerned doesn’t correspond with what is the reality and what he is. Too much bending, excusing, rationalizing, historical revisionism and plain outright lying comes with having to place him within the realm of Conservatism or the Tea Party.
What the rest of us see is an opportunist who has been a mediocre Governor who has stayed in office far beyond a reasonable amount of time (I don’t care who you are, but running for reelection to a chief executive position that will take you to 14 consecutive years in office is outrageous — nobody should serve more than 8, and in some cases, going past 6 even for the best leaders isn’t good). I consider him one of the luckiest individuals in TX politics, but that merely means he happened to get into certain jobs because exclusively of timing. A big problem for him is that he is utterly incompetent at debating. He was terrified of facing his Democrat opponent in 2010, but only because (again) of the timing could he get away with dodging. As a Presidential candidate, you can’t do that.
Yet another problem is that he is far too typical of so many politicians in that he is a terrible panderer. I recall then-former Governor Lamar! Alexander in his first Senate run over 20 years after he had last been a party nominee making all these shameless promises and panderings to “be Conservative” and it all rung so very hollow (as his years in the Senate have proven to be). He throws out ridiculous red meat statements thinking that will get the Tea Party to love him (from nonsense like secession or even the birth certificate question). It looks weak and very desperate. This is all just the tip of the iceberg which has been covered ad infinitum.
BTW, the “lead RINO” Slick Willard is not exempt from those criticisms, but I wrote scores of pieces on him and his psychological motivations during the last go around. Willard is almost coldly soulless, but I don’t wish to dwell on him.
Lastly, what irks me is an oft-made talking point from the Perry camp which I’ve refuted just as many times, and it has to do with political affiliation. Having studied the rise of the GOP in the South in the modern era, it is laughably ridiculous to make the claim that a politician starting out in 1984 couldn’t hope to rise to a position of prominence as a Republican. West Texas elected a Republican to Congress (in the modern era) in 1950 and again in 1962, 1966 and effectively ever after. You might’ve had a point making such a claim a half-century ago, but it defies the imagination to say that in 1984. What Perry supporters are loathe to admit is that he didn’t want to serve or run as a Republican, he was a loyal Democrat and wished to remain as such, and only after seeing that remaining one would halt an advancement statewide, did he switch (and at Karl Rove’s urging, that paragon of Conservatism).
You see, it’s all these little things that add up to why we don’t find him particularly palatable. It’s not just him, of course, but a whole plethora of politicians that now are undeniably establishment in nature who may talk a good game but aren’t really going to make the kinds of necessary and drastic changes that must be made if our country is to be saved. Perry just doesn’t believe in them deep down, as frankly he has never moved very far afield from that Carter Democrat that he was, the same one who could endorse Gore or Giuliani for President.
We’ve waited too long for the changes to be made. We waited for Bush, Sr. to do it and he failed, Clinton wouldn’t, Dubya didn’t and Zero won’t. Replacing one big government party politician with a different letter of the party alphabet won’t work anymore. We’ve got to look elsewhere, and that’s why we’re going with Cain. If he fails us, we go on to the next, but I can only judge by the person running and that they’re not going to miraculously do a 180 from what they’ve done for their entire political career. It just will never pass the smell test.
Still supporting Mitt Romney-THE Backstabbing A-Hole?
I don’t see your logic he can’t debate fellow candidates, but he would be more than able to handle Obama? Where’s the logic in that? He did worse when he went in to a debate with gloves off and with Obama the gloves would surely be off.
bump!
Rick went to Anita and complained, “Voters think I’m an a-hole.
Anita was not sympathetic.
She said, “That sounds familiar. When I told my Dad I was gonna marry you, he replied, ‘You gonna marry that a-hole?’”
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.