Posted on 09/22/2011 9:10:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mitt Romney is an incredibly vulnerable Republican candidate, from his numerous policy reversals to his championing of the Massachusetts health care law that served as the basis from Obamacare. But for him to lose, somebody else has to beat him. And like Tim Pawlenty before him, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is blowing his chances to exploit Romney’s weaknesses.
The defining moment in this debate may well have been the point at which Perry went on the attack against Romney for being a flip flopper. As I noted earlier, there’s a long file to choose from. And Perry had clearly rehearsed such an attack – you can tell he was starting to go through the list of issues Romney had reversed on, and even used the “for it before he was against” phrasing, a not-so-subtle reference to the infamous Massachusetts flip flopper, Sen. John Kerry. But the exchange came toward the end of the debate, and as has been his habit, Perry began to fade as the debate wore on. During this particular answer, he wrestled for words and stammered. He couldn’t finish his sentences. If you weren’t a political junkie who knew all of the background, you’d have no idea what Perry was mumbling about. And Romney's smooth response made him come off as more steady and reassuring, even though on substance, Perry should have owned him.
The rest of the debate was hit or miss for Perry. But when he received an admittedly difficult question about what he would do if he got a 3 a.m. phone call informing him that Pakistan’s nukes had been taken over by Islamists, he struggled. He ended up giving an incoherent answer that was more of an information dump of random stuff he had been briefed on about the region. It was not very reassuring for those of us who are waiting to see if Perry can prove his dissenters wrong and come off as someone substantive, capable of beating President Obama, and of running the country competently.
Romney remains vulnerable. And unlike Pawlenty, Perry is starting from a stronger position in the polls, so he certainly has a good chance of ultimately winning. However, he’s going to have to step up his game by showing a better grasp of the issues, more stamina in these debates, and by being able to take apart Romney’s endless contradictions. In short, Perry has not blown it, but he is blowing it.
I don’t think sitting the debates out is smart. If she had entered and done well in the debates, she could be in a lead position now.
As it stands, nobody knows how she will perform against the rest of the pack.
Perry was flying high at first. He does not perform well in the debates and that is sinking him. That is how fast you can rise or fall. So waiting is not good. Waiting for what?
She is being accused of being afraid to debate.
She should enter very soon and get involved if she plans on a run.
I don't know about you but I'm not electing a debater (remember Obama is great at it, is that what you want running YOUR country?)
Mitt is a loser and I want nothing to do with him, I don't care how good he is at debates, he gives me the creeps.
I have no way to check your facts, but I also find nothing surprising in the list, other than how short it is.
Every Texas Governor in my lifetime has had such a list put together. GWBs was one of the shortest, and our last liberal governor (old leather face, Ann Richards) had a list twice this long. The governor of Texas doesn’t have a lot of ‘direct’ responsibilities, but they do lots of indirect stuff in the way of appointments. And every governor we’ve ever had has used those appointments as rewards.
I would have to rank Perry as about a mid-packer in that regard. Given the length of time that he has been in office, I really would have expected a longer list. Maybe you haven’t found it all yet.
Not only does Perry have many of the same problems that Conservatives hated in both GB 1&2, Amnesty, Crony Cap, NWO, not too bright, shifty ideology...he also has the hated McCain qualities...bomb/bomb Iran, bad/no economic aptitude, crappy lefty poses, etc. The Republican Party may just be done for if Perry/Romney or other creepy statist are nominated.
Perry is exactly what I thought.
W light.
Bachman is a good candidate but she is just getting lost in the crowd. The media just wants to focus on Perry & Romney.
“...The only lousy debater is Perry. He can’t talk. He can’t hang three sentences together without screwing two of them up. Don’t lump the others in with Perry’s lousy speaking skills...”
Big whoop Perry is a lousy debater. Obama is a silver-tongued devil and a lousy President. Actions speak louder than words and Perry is a proven leader.
Let’s see. 85% of those new jobs went to “immigrants” and they were overwhelmingly low paying.
I can probably forgive Perry over time for his “heartless” comment...but...I also worry that Obama would all but annihilate him in the general election debates.
yawn.
Quit pretending, you were never for Perry to begin with, and punishing kids for the actions of their parents is heartless, and 99% of the extremely conservative Texas legislature disagrees with you and the hand full of other anti Perry crusaders on FR.
Seriously, if debates were all that mattered, or if they were even the most important or one of the most important things, then Gingrich and Cain would be fighting for the top spot.
But in the real world, all the good debaters are down in the low single digits. Being a good debater is a handy skill to possess, but is hardly the end all be all of qualities a politician must possess, I wouldn't even put it in the top 10. Perry is human, and he has strengths and weaknesses, debating isn't one of his strengths obviously.
Don't worry, Perry is right on the specifics of his stands and will have ample opportunity to clarify those stands through interviews and ads. Both of which he excels at.
His stance on illegal immigration is worrisome to me and my friends. Have not had a chance to speak with them about the debate last night.
His comment about not having a heart if you don't agree with illegals children being able to attend college ( at tax payer expense ) has soured me quite a bit. Can't understand how he didn't take Mitt apart last night.
All kids are where they are because of their parents. I do not give a rats ass about the Texas legislature.
You Texans are behind the curve on the invasion. Most of the rest of the country is done with Mexicans. The invasion is going to become a big issue in this election.
Go ahead an yawn, your boy is done. Stick a fork in him.
Your partly right, it will be a big issue during the general when Perry racks in 60% of the hispanic vote or more.
Your missing the big picture.
Yeah, just like Reagan, Bush II and McCain got 60% of the Hispanic vote for their stances on illegal immigrants.
Just like how California is a solid conservative state now since the state's demographics have shifted ever more Hispanic.
Oh wait, that never happened. And you don't actually believe it will happen this time, but shilling for Perry and being honest don't exactly go hand in hand so it's understandable.
Bachman is finished. Cain is good and did exceptionally well last night. I like Rick Santorum, but it doesn’t matter because the attacks on Perry are killing him and helping Romney.
The left is loving it. They see it as empowering them, not Mitt Romney.
“His stance on illegal immigration”
I think you’d find many here in Texas have a similar stance. It’s not really about the purity of the question, “illegals or not illegals” it’s about focusing on effect. We see illegals every day. In fact it’s pretty hard not to do business with somebody that has them somewhere in the food chain - either in their business or in one of their supplier’s business. It tends to give people bigger picture attitude, something like:
The illegal gets free health care, free education*, and if they are really bold and good, free food stamps. They contribute low cost labor. So what they cost us is the difference between lower prices and the health care and other benefits.
(I put an astrisk next to education because in actuality, they don’t get free education. We have no income tax, and education is paid for by property tax. If you have a duplex with one side rented to a US citizen, and one side rented to an illegal, the property owner pays the same school property tax regardless. And he’s paying that out of the rent he collects, so who got anything for free?)
Meanwhile, the welfare receipient gets free healthcare, truely free education (government housing), free food stamps
and $832 to $1400+ every month. They contribute only higher crime rates.
The typical old time Texan attitude around here tends to be, “I’ll keep them messkins, they work, let’s deport all them welfare people.” I guess that’s reason most people down here just don’t get as worked about illegals as they do in other places.
I don’t think that Perry has answered any of the questions on immigration very well, all he said was that he had almost 100% support from the Texas state legislature on immigration and in-state tuition for illegals.
He didn’t mention that Texas has one of the cheapest out of state tuition systems in the country, that students from all over the country go to Texas grad schools because the price is right. He didn’t mention that the reason that Texas tuition is lower for UT and Texas A&M is that the tuition is supported by oil and land sales from land that was returned to the state from the RR.
I keep wondering why Perry doesn’t talk about the fact that the Rio Grande runs along the Texas border with Mexico and the border runs through the middle of the river in many places and that if a fence were erected it would cut off ranches from a valuable source of water that they now use for their animals. That is the main reason that Perry opposes the fence, why doesn’t he say it?
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.