Skip to comments.Last night's big winnner? Easy -- Rick Perry
Posted on 08/12/2011 1:07:19 PM PDT by smoothsailing
August 12, 2011
The big winner in last night's GOP debate was Rick Perry. This is for the simple reason that no one else won. The race from this point forward is Rick Perry and the Eight Dwarves.
The exchange between Pawlenty and Bachmann was spirited, and there was nothing inappropriate about it. Politics ain't beanbag, as Lincoln famously observed. It's a contact sport, and part of what you must do in the primary season is distinguish yourself from your competitors. You have to throw some elbows to do that.
Pawlenty was hurt by the exchange, because he took a swing at a girl. No matter how much progress we think we've made on gender equality, there is still something deep inside us that says men should use their strength to protect women, not attack them, and Pawlenty put on the full-court press last night.
But Ms. Bachmann chose to get into the ring, and can't complain if punches are thrown, nor should anyone complain on her behalf. That's one of the reasons to question whether it's a good idea for women to get involved in the rough and tumble of politics. I hate to see a woman attacked like Bachmann was last night, but she made herself vulnerable to it by throwing her hat into the ring.
What has been done to Sarah Palin and what is being done to Michele Bachmann the grotesque beating they have taken from the hostiles on the left (I'm not talking about Pawlenty here) is a travesty and a shameful embarrassment to any culture which claims to have an enlightened view of the treatment of women.
But this is what conservative women who enter politics are choosing to accept. It is not right, but it is inevitable, since too many on the left are consumed with bitterness and hatred toward conservatives in general and conservative women in particular. They are enslaved to a driving, brooding passion to destroy, and the more attractive the conservative woman is, the more it feeds their blood lust. As captives to this dark, driving vitriol, they can't help themselves. It will take the power of God to set them free from their own bondage to this mindless anger and rage. This means that a woman must count the cost, as Jesus taught, before jumping into the fray.
Part of the problem here is that when a women mixes it up in the political arena, and gets punched, she must punch back. The danger to the woman here is that every time she punches back, which she must do, she hardens a little bit of her soul and sacrifices a little bit of her femininity. I'm not sure that's a good trade. But each woman needs to make that choice for herself. No one else can or should make that decision for her.
Quick hits on the rest of the debate:
Romney came across as plastic. He completed his abject flip-flop on marriage, going from being the man who imposed same-sex marriage on America by executive fiat in 2004 to a man who now supports a federal marriage amendment to undo what he himself did in Massachusetts. He has a real credibility problem on social issues.
He defended RomneyCare despite the fact that it served as the blueprint for ObamaCare. He said the first thing he would do as president would be to give a waiver from ObamaCare to all 50 states, which obviously then includes Massachusetts. So once again, he'd use the power of his office as president to undo what he did as a governor. All in all, not a sterling record of consistency and believability.
Ron Paul's policies would be a positive menace to our national security. He is clueless about the danger Islam poses to the West, and doesn't even mind if Iran nukes up. And he is one with Obama in blaming us for Iran's hatred.
In Paul's confused thinking, whatever the CIA did to Iran in 19531953! explains and justifies their lasting and eternal hatred of our country. That's no different than urging us to maintain an abiding hatred of Japan because of what they did to us in 1941. It's ridiculous.This is absurd and dangerous to an alarming degree. It's hard to see how a man this out of touch with reality regarding Islam can be trusted with the power of the Oval Office.
Plus he wants to Mirandize foreign Muslims who kill us, even though they have no constitutional or Geneva Convention rights whatsoever.
Newt and Herman both gave disappointing responses when pressed on their views on Islam. Both had taken strong and correct positions in the past, and both got squishy and squirrelly last night. Grassroots Americans are aware of the threat Islam poses to the West (when Herman said sharia law does not belong in American courts, he got spontaneous applause), and are looking for a leader who understands that. It increasingly looks like neither Newt nor Herman will fill the bill.
Newt got testy when Chris Wallace exposed his flip-flop on Libya, and tried to justify his contradictory positions with an answer nobody could follow. Romney was exposed as a flip-flopper on Afghanistan. Romney continues to appear to be disconcertingly inconsistent and unpredictable, not good qualities in a chief executive.
Paul did remind us that liberty comes from the Creator. But his understanding of liberty includes the liberty to snort cocaine, shoot up heroin, and indulge in prostitution and sodomy. That's not liberty, that's bondage. His views promote license, not liberty.
Santorum was the strongest on the platform on the pro-life issue. He rightly would make no exceptions even for rape, since in America we don't punish a child for the sins of his father. He's absolutely correct.
Huntsman made himself a non-factor by admitting he has no economic plan on his website, which should have been his first order of business. He also indicated he'd be for amnesty once the border is secure, a position anathema to most conservatives. Romney repeated the canard that we are a "nation of immigrants." We're not. Eighty-five percent us were born here.
Huntsman also argued that he as governor has the best record in the field on jobs. He loses that argument once Perry gets in the race tomorrow.
Bottom line: the race is Rick Perry's to lose.
Excerpt from Perry Presidential announcement speech-Source
This is exactly what I thought after watching that debate. Perry won, because everyone already in the race looked SO BAD.
Rick Perry is the Ronald Reagan of 2012.
Last week some pundit said Ubama was.
The standard gets lower and lower.
I watched that whole thing last night. I came away thinking what a waste of time it had been. Perry did win, so did Palin. Just by not showing up.
Its hard to tell with all the panties flying through the air.
Lincoln would have NO idea what a beanbag was. He never said any such thing.
Even as recent as last night I didn't think Palin was running, but today... I think she just might be... in which case like you said she and Perry were the big winners.
I’m interesting in Perry. This is what I see the left saying so far:
1) He had bad grades.
2) His job creation is all low-wage jobs.
3) Conservatives in Texas have bad things to say about him.
It would help his case if HE bothered to get his facts correct.
Lincoln would have NO idea what a beanbag was. He never said any such thing.
I’m not going to get caught up in this ‘Perry Fever’ yet.
If recent history teaches us anything it is two things.
1. Listen and study a candidate a great deal before endorsing it. (OBAMA)
2. Don’t pay heed to this ‘Heir Apparent’ nonsense. (Hillary)
My two cents on the debate...Ron Paul looked like the kook he is; spouted nonsense. He’s toast.
I thought Michele looked OK. The rest, not so much.
Ron Paul doesn’t even need to show up at debates. They could just put together a montage of his past debate showings and play them every time a question is directed to him.
Childish, ignorant and superficial are the nicest things that can be said about this article
If that truly is part of his speech tomorrow, it’s excellent! This is so exciting! This is the candidate we’ve been waiting for!
“FREEDOM, PROSPERITY, RESPONSIBILITY: RICK PERRY 2012!”
That's the best approach, IMO.
Perry could well fall flat on his face in a week. Personally, I don't expect that to happen, but you never know. Remember Fred Thompson? He's doing reverse mortgage ads on TV these days.
I was not impressed by the Rep’s. If I had to vote for any last night, it would have been Newt. I am looking forward to Palin or Perry to see the contrast.
“Bad grades” don’t bother me one whit, considering the trashing of America by all the Ivy League types that weasel their way into national politics. Palin/Perry or Perry/Rubio for the GOP national ticket.
Change you will get if they became President.
Gingrich, Cain, Santorum - War with Iran
Bachmann - default on debt
Romney & Huntsman - Elect me an find out
Paul - Pull out of wars & audit Federal Reserve
Pawlenty - Just a governor
No Shows - Palin and Perry
What a an insult to Mr Reagan.
Any respect I had for Ron Paul's expertise on finance vanished with his idiotic rants on foreign policy.
Who wrote this article? Dana Carvey’s church lady from SNL? He’s going to have to get over his queasiness about women mixing it up in the arena. I just wish all the candidates could fight like a girl.
I thought the debate was terrible...except for all the others. Could it have been better, yes. Worse? Wait for the general, then it will be back to brainless soundbites.
Finally, we had halfway intelligent questions being asked rather than the moronic CNN/PBS-type “moderators” going on and on with gays and abortion.
I’d say Rick Perry did best, but so did Michelle Bachman and so did Herman Cain. Let’s try to keep in mind how much better this was than what usually passes for a campaign debate.
As for Ron Paul, boy! He really let his freak flag fly! I agree with whoever said he is Dennis Kucinich’s crazy uncle. I like what he has to say about the Fed but his sanity ends at the water’s edge, and let’s not even get into drugs and marriage.
When asked at the state fair who she would support if Perry and Romney were the last two standing, she replied, "I don't see that happening."
Check out her writing on her t-shirt.
And they're both Peter-principle ruling-class swells striving to rise above their level of incompetence.
I've posted some mild but factual criticisms of his Bush like stance on open borders and ties to the Chamber of Commerce/Cheap Labor lobby and been accused of being an Obama plant.
For the record, I do not hate Rick Perry and I do not hate Mitt Romney. I see either as a vast improvement over what we have in the white house now, but another Bush-like mediocre president who would merely slow our march toward socialism, rather than reverse it.
Perry is Romney without the enthusiasm for socialized medicine. Romney is Perry without the enthusiasm for open borders.
There were beanbags in Lincoln's time and long before, it's in all the history books!
"Politics ain't beanbag, as Lincoln famously observed."
I don't know if Lincoln said that, but he could have. I think the writer was just making an attempt at humor.
However, we do know that Lincoln said; "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to beanbags" and "A beanbag divided against itself can not stand".
And it’s certainly good that not the many share that wrong opinion.
So you read the article from the Dallas Morning News, a totally commie rag that more than likely took some of her statements and put them together to say what they wanted her to say?
Sarah Palin holds her cards very close to her chest. And I know for a fact that she and Perry are talking.
They all have flaws, it is still going to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils. We can choose the least socialistic of the batch, but we will be the ones who have to be united on a candidate. The demwits don’t have to.
The person who goes up against 0 will have to have charisma, tv appeal, which means a decent set of choppers to smile not grimace at you, not sound dull as a droning professor, and has some fire in their belly, and a touch of the old time preacher man. Along with their facts straight.
And they better have a clean childhood, because the FBI has been busy digging dirt on all of them at 0’s command, which he will drop on the right Friday nights.
Until you start hearing the Reform word, and placing congress people under Medicare, instead of their life time platinum health care, and make them live under the same exact laws they foist on you, they will remain your Lord and Masters, and you the SERF with an open wallet to rape.
Force them to replace the SS funds they stole too. And fix it so they can’t raid it again.
I agree, he has to earn it, but the potential is pretty good that he is going to out perform the rest of the current field. He’s got the best narrative by far of the group. Only Pawlenty has more than one term of executive expeirence, but he’s the longest serving and his state is doing the best in the country. He still has the show us he has the political accum to take on Obama and a platform we are willing to fight for.
I disagree that he is anything like Romney. Perry isn’t the perfect conservative, but he’s long been a champion of building a strong business environment, low taxes, and less government. Romney has not demonstrated much of that at all. Perry is much closer in philosophy to Bachmann and the tea party than he is to Romney, although he has weaknesses. Perry’s downsides are the traditional ties to big business and immigration. He has to convince me as a voter that he has a practical but strong policy on illegals beyond a strong border, and also show a bigger allegiance to shrinking government spending and intrusion than he does to the big business lobbyist.
Do you mean Rick Perry did best by not being there?
1) He had bad grades.
2) His job creation is all low-wage jobs.
3) Conservatives in Texas have bad things to say about him.
Maybe that’s why he won last nights debate. He escaped the platform where he’d have been asked those questions. ;)
It’s deceptive to consider those who did not attend the debate the winners. It’s not winning to avoid debates so that you can avoid questions. Deceptive yes, but not winning. Unless of course you’re Charlie Sheen.
I am totally committed to Sarah Palin, if she runs. If she doesn’t run, here are my priorities.
2. Rick Perry
3. Michelle Bachman
4. Rick Santorum
5. Ron Paul
If Palin doesn’t run, then Cain would head the list for me.
As an aside, I talked to a lot of people today who say they’re taking another look at Gingrich, based on last night’s showing.
Yes, I forgot Cain. He would be ahead of Ron Paul. I just don’t know about Gingrich. He is brilliant He is the author of the contract with America. But he inserts foot in mouth and has some personal baggage.
The challengers have a substantial advantage in debates especially when the incumbent is generally out of favor as is Obama. In these circumstances the challenger in the general election must merely show that he/she is "presidential" to "win" the debate. That's because the debate is really a contest over undecideds. Those who have already decided their vote are not going to be swayed to the other side unless there is a really profound gaffe.
The undecideds are undecided because they are unhappy about the incumbent but not yet convinced about the challenger. The challenger's job is to show that he will not embarrass the country by looking presidential and avoiding gaffes.
So we looked through the debate last night and we ask first, whether any individual who did not look "presidential?" The answer is no but Pawlenty, Huntsman and Cain only barely qualified. Ron Paul is sui generis and does not really factor in. Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum all looked completely presidential and would therefore be acceptable as alternatives to an unpopular incumbent. Second, we ask did anyone make a disqualifying gaffe? The answer is no but Pawlenty came close. Therefore, the debate last night was a great success because it demonstrates that all of the candidates are presidential timber.
Now the question arises from a conservative's point of view, whom should we pick? That is always a subjective weighing of true conservative commitment vs. electability. That is a tension which need not exist but does because the media makes it so. All true conservatives are painted by the media as being crazies and therefore their electability suffers. That is what is going on now with Michele Bachmann and we saw it in the 2010 elections.
Right now Gov. Perry seems to have the best balance of conservative values and electability. That does not mean that he triumphed his absence last night as the author asserts. It means that he has a good record subject to complaints especially about immigration and he combines that record with an extremely good telegenic appearance. In that respect he ranks right up there with Romney. The problem for Perry is that he comes off too Texas and too much of a folksy shit kicker which people will describe as a resemblance to George Bush but which can turn off a lot of Easter and Northern voters as well who might as a result regard him as a masculine version of Sarah Palin.
So Gov. Perry must submit himself to the process like every other candidate and he must show that he can look presidential and avoid gaffes. He must to some degree mitigate his good old boy image If he does so we can expect him to emerge at the head of the pack and, most important, he can beat Obama.
I agree with you about Gingrich. Having said that, he did well in the debate.
Perry is a sitting Governor. Perry was the head of the Republican Governors Assoc. He has contacts in every state (He wrote an Op-Ed with Nikki Haley less than a month ago)
He has an actual record as an executive to run on. He is not running on personality or on a narrow platform and he hasn't been running for the last 3 years. He's been governing one of of not the most successful states in the union.
He's very different from the other candidates in this regard, even Palin.
I am sweet, loving caring" and the back that you are showing says "I am MOM."
What is the problem with being linked to the Chamber of Commerce?
But there is a better than even chance that the Perry and Romney policy differences, which I still do not think are all that great, can be explained by the different constituencies which they represented, not their core beliefs.
Both are way to close to the country club/cheap labor/chamber of commerce wing of the party. There is a reason that most of the money from this wing of the party are going to Mitt or Rick. I don't think you can be all that enthusiastic about one without being enthusiastic about the other. Nor can you despise one without despising the other. They're pretty much two sides of the same coin which operated in vastly different environments.
You’re exactly right about Perry, and that’s why I don’t expect him to falter or fade out. It could happen, but he’s been to the party before, and he knows how to dance.
Whatever. Rick Perry would be better than what we have in there. The Republicans could trop out a cocker spaniel and I would vote for it before voting for Ovomit.
There are, to be sure, differences within RINOs, some superficial, some big. But in general, a RINO is still way better than a committed socialist Democrat because a RINO understands that a healthy private sector is absolutely necessary to generate the taxes necessary for the nanny state. Your average socialist Democrat has no such understanding.
Then whatever you get, you'll deserve.
The drive to privatize profits while dumping the costs on the public is immoral. General Electric is a prime example of this type of thinking.
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.