Interesting.
I was more pessimistic than I am now, after reading this article.
Perhaps I was over-thinking the whole thing.
I definitely agree about Mitt. It doesn’t matter how “smooth” he is. His smoothness looks like what it is: car-salesman slick.
I was more worried (and remain worried) about the SS question. Why emphasize this now? What happened in 2005 when Bush tried to say the same thing?
I also agree with the article that Perry could have done better on climate change. “Where are your advisors???” I screamed at my streaming computer screen. They should have KNOWN that POS question was coming and Perry should have been READY.
Next time, I hope SOMEONE in the good state of Texas, who knows Perry personally, gets him to read up on the recent CERN study basically PROVING that AGW is a baldfaced lie.
Please, someone, please, tell Rick about that.
Perry wasn’t going to get trapped by the “where do you get your climate change info from?” question. There was no way he would win that one. He knows how to stay on message and not be pulled into the Left’s construct.
“What happened in 2005 when Bush tried to say the same thing?”
At that time our bond ratings had not been downgraded. Maybe there are a few more that see the light.
I would so LOVE to see any Pubbie candidate bring up the subject of TSP accounts, because it would put any incumbent Dim in an very awkward position to have to tell how much they--or their fellow Congress critters--have earned through investments in this PRIVATE investment plan.
I would so LOVE to see any Pubbie candidate bring up the subject of TSP accounts, because it would put any incumbent Dim in an very awkward position to have to tell how much they--or their fellow Congress critters--have earned through investments in this PRIVATE investment plan.
Well, when Bush RAN on fixing SS through private accounts, among other things, he WON. So SS may not be the third rail anymore - but Perry is going to have to get a proposal out there pretty quickly to show how he intends to address the problem. He has rightly identified the problem, but people want to see a solution as well. If he can do that, and can reassure current and near-future recipients that they will not lose their benefits, he can actually make this argument a winner.
Two points: First, a debate is probably not the best place to try to provide a detailed explanation as to why AGW is a hoax. Second, this election is going to be all about jobs and the economy, so if he can tie the AGW argument to that, I think he will connect with more people than trying to make the scientific argument.
“Next time, I hope SOMEONE in the good state of Texas, who knows Perry personally, gets him to read up on the recent CERN study basically PROVING that AGW is a baldfaced lie.
Please, someone, please, tell Rick about that.”
Well, CERN doesnt quite do all that, the cloud impact on climate has more questions than answers, but certainly it debunks the ‘science is settled’ garbage.
Perry needs to have some substance to the charge. He will.
I noticed that when Perry was getting asked the "name two Scientists question" , all the other candidates started looking throught their notes. Guess they thought they might be asked the same thing.
Perhaps they didn't notice that Perry was getting the most questions, followed by Romney. The rest of them were mostly being ignored.
[They should have KNOWN that POS question was coming and Perry should have been READY.]
I think Perry has been spending his time dealing with the wildfires in his state, not preparing for this debate. I can respect that.