I love how the very same people that said it doesn’t matter if Palin jumps in late and misses the debates are now saying that debate performance in the most critical criteria a candidate can have, and since Perry isn’t quite good at it, he can’t win. And yet... it’s perfectly fine with them if Palin skips all the debates.
And another thing is this: Perry is being sort of gang tackled by several folks. Which is fine, but it is not how a debate one on one against a struggling President trying to defend his awful record will be. This is true for any of them in fact: a free for all with 8-9 candidates who are not incumbents is a totally different animal than one on one with teleprompter boy.
I think all 8 of them, or is it 9, will look better one on one than they do - especially when you are the front runner being gunned for. Then again, Perry probably solved that particular problem last night, and we’ll see how Mitt handles it now.
The debates are futile exercises. I don’t recall what any candidate has said, with the exception of Herman Cain’s “9 - 9 - 9” plan.
You Texans can keep him to create a utopia for illegals and take really great vacations via his “pay to play” schemes.
Interesting observation!
Ronald Reagan had a bad debate night against Carter.
Final point. Some think Palin should get in now after last night. It's unlikely though. Palin does not want to enter the race with Amnesty being the hot issue. If you've ever seen any of her interviews (including one with Vill O'Reilly) she shares many of the same views as Perry on Amnesty (though like McCain she refuses to call it "amnesty".)