Posted on 09/08/2011 5:57:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The most intellectually interesting portion of tonight's Republican presidential debate occurred in its opening moments, when Rick Perry and Mitt Romney sparred over their states' record of job creation. Perry cited his states record of creating jobs. Romney replied that his state inherited a worse situation, and wound up with a lower level of unemployment, while of course ignoring that Perry has governed during a recession. Perry responded that Romney created jobs at a lower rate than Michael Dukakis.
The whole exchange seemed to demonstrate conclusively that the method of evaluating a governor's record by its job creation, by any measure, borders on useless. The effect of state policy, compared to the broader environment or other factors beyond a governor's control, is simply too miniscule. Of course, this realization kicks the slats out from beneath Perry's entire general election economic message.
Yet Perry, stylistically, ruled the roost. The media seems to consider Romney the winner. Pardon the condescension, but they're not thinking like Republican base voters. Romney approaches every question as if he is in an actual debate, trying to provide the most intellectually compelling answer available, within the bounds of political expediency. Perry treats questions as interruptions. What scientists do you trust on climate change? I don't want to risk the economy. Are you taking a radical position on social security? We can have reasons or we can have results. His total liberation from the constraints of reason give Perry a chance to represent the Republican id in a way Romney simply cannot match.
In this way Perry eerily apes the style of George W. Bush, who was also mocked for his intellectually vapid debating style, but who succeeded in rallying Republicans behind him. I don't think it's a coincidence. I suspect the Bush-Perry debating style broadcasts a subliminal message of strong leadership. Romney feels compelled to bind himself to the parameters of the question before him. Perry ignores them. It is, in a sense, an alpha male move. I am not going to lower myself to your premise about scientists. I am going to declare my principles.
In my view, Perry established his alpha male style, and that impression will matter more than any position or statement he's made.
The candidates should focus on that every day.
It's pretty sorry if you are basing your vote on a debate. Debates are "dog and pony shows". If you are involved enough to read FR, you should be involved enough to learn the real facts about the candidates. Debates should only affect voters who are ill informed, ignorant or ruled by emotion.
I agreee. I was excited to see what Perry brought and was completely let down. He really did bad. People saying he did great, or even good, must just be “all-in” for Perry (which is fine). He just didn’t do well.
I thought Cain and Newt did the best.
Romney did good, but there is no way he’s getting my vote... so yeah.
I’m just going to sit back and let things play out. If Perry get’s stronger, then so be it. But He did not look strong at the debate.
Should we be liberated from Obama in 2012, Perry appears to be the most capable of leading this great nation out of CHAOS.
It's a shame about Newt. He will not ever be president, but he's a smart guy and he knows how to deal with the media.
Sarah is like Newt in that regard. She knows that the press is the enemy, and she treats them as they deserve.
They both had a good bit of gray around the temples.
Their dark hair certainly contrasted with Jon Huntsman’s coiffed silver locks (not to mention Newt’s snow white hair and Ron Paul’s).
Michele Bachmann’s hair has looked better.
Huck, if you think we are voting for captain of the debate team, then Perry is not your man. But the number of people who are going to make a decision on who they will vote for based upon their performance in a debate is negligible. Most people, like me, would rather watch re-runs of King of Queens than torture themselves for hours watching these useless debates. They are boring and because there are so many also rans clogging up the process, there is nothing of substance to see or hear.
I’m not voting for prom king, I’m voting for President. I didn’t watch the debate. I watched re-runs of King of Queens, and I am a political junkie. I don’t think anyone had their minds changed last night because in the long run nobody watched and nobody cared.
A few negative soundbites were generated. A few more will be generated in the next debate. The RINOs at Fox and the MSM will use them to try to destroy Perry. Other than that, these debates will serve no purpose and have no effect.
Your post made me go back and look the picture again. It seems to capture the moment and express the Republican primary standings fairly well, from Mitt’s expression to little Michelle behind him trying for a better view.
I didn’t think he was all that bad.
If Perry was to win the nomination, all the Tea Party`s hard work would be in vain! All you get is a guy that will say or do anything, just a career politician.
The guy can not credibly mention the name Ronald Reagan with a straight face! He never supported Reagan, he missed the entire Reagan revolution.
We are supposed to believe that he had a conversion? Then explain his support of Rudy G in 2000, his forcing shots on young girls, his earlier support for Hillary care that he now blies and says he didn`t??
This guy is just a politician.
I thought Newt won the debate
Barky eerily apes the style of a gay monkey.
Incorrect. Debates showcase a candidate’s ability to persuade, to sell, to make the case effectively. Perry failed on that score.
Using your analysis, who do you think the author was trying to persuade? I took it more generally as an appeal to elites (who don’t see gender — chuckle).
Whew! Thank God! I thought we were going to be on the same side for a little while there!
Rick Perry won whatever that was last night (it surely was NOT a debate) hands down and the poll numbers will bear this out!
Getting our news from NPR...LOL
Yes.
We are on the same side. We’re just on different sides of our side.
Perry’s performance was so bad, I’m trying to pry myself away from the race altogether and just vote when the time comes. Perry was my last hope for a capable, qualified candidate.
I’ll probably never agree with you again, Huck, but I do COMPLETELY agree with you about Perry last night. The guy was mediocre at best. Personally, I thought he was just plain awful.
P.S. Give Sarah a chance.
(Herman Cain was impressive last night.)
—He was pathetically ineffective in that debate.—
Don’t over think it.
I used to be a member of Toastmasters. There are prepared speeches and then there is something called Table Topics. TT is where I excelled. We would get a subject thrown at us and 30 seconds to prepare a two minute speech on it. I loved it.
However, a couple of the best speakers in the group were dismal failures at it. They could write and present some of the most compelling and truly interesting speeches I ever heard, but put them on the spot on a random subject? The wheels never left the runway.
“Debating” (and I use the term loosely because that was not a debate) skills are good for getting you to the next step, just as phone interview skills are important to get a face to face interview, but they are not the job itself. And that is why Perry actually did what was necessary, just as the article states. It is a power Reagan had as well. As does Palin.
And remember, in this phase, the goal is not to give hard and clear answers to specifics, which the dems can disect and destroy, no matter how good they are. The goal is to create and present a general image. Nothing more.
A man with no tongue can effectively lead a country. A man who believes NO “off the cuff” response to a random, and poolitically charged question is reasonable would answer as Perry did.
His job was not to be “effective” in the raw data in his answers. His job, last night, was to not offend. Think “Babe Ruth” in reverse. The year he hit the most home runs was also the year he struck out the most (I believe he set a record, but I’m not sure).
In a world, and more specifically, a forum, where strike outs get the spotlight and home runs are swept under the carpet, it is not prudent to “swing away”.
Perry’s batting average was excellent from what I am hearing. No home runs, but no strike outs. Maybe even a lot of bunts and a couple of base on error, but at least he got on. And that is really all that matters.
From what I am hearing, he got out of the weeds and focused on principles. That may not be what you and I wanted to hear, but it plays well to those who might have otherwise, when next november comes, said “better the devil I know than the devil I don’t know” and pulled the lever again for Obama.
Perry wasn’t debating the republicans last night. He was preparing for the Obama debate and doing all he could to ensure he gave them no quantifiable ammunition against him.
And I think the author of the article nailed it, though I don’t think they are pleased.
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.