Skip to comments.In fifth debate, Perry Finally shows up
Posted on 10/19/2011 6:39:17 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP
click here to read article
FOX has it’s head so far up Romney’s butt - can’t you see it? They were talking today that Romney WON the debate last night! I laughed out loud - under no circumstance did Romney win - he came off as thin-skinned, sputtering and slimy.
Do you really think that Frank Luntz does not manipulate these stupid focus groups?
That’s the plan man.......
“Im still waiting for Cain to lay one punch on Romney. Hes been in the race even longer then Perry so whats his excuse.”
When you are on top of the mountain there is no need to play offense.
Perry was showing voters that Romney is a major flip flopper and can’t be trusted. He says one thing and does another. Perry has taken responsibility for the TX instate tuition bill, which was passed by a veto proof majority and only 4 no votes. That was 10 ears ago. Perry has been viciously attacked by conservative web sites, GOP candidates including Mitt Romney.
“Do you really think that Frank Luntz does not manipulate these stupid focus groups?”
Do you have any evidence that he DOES?
Their audience has also dropped off a whole lot.
” No he is not a good debater, but he can certainly lay out
his plans in speeches. “
I only heard a clip of Perry giving a speech at the Western Republican
Leadership Conference today
and he was on fire.
His speaking style was fluid and he was impassioned .
During debates Perry sounds John Wayneish with the pauses ,
which apparently bothers some.
TP, unless Perry has had those same bad advisors and that back problem for the last eleven years then those aren’t his problems.
In Texas, Perry was the next in line and had the “R” next to his name. Those were his biggest qualities.
1. Perry attacking romney for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is stupid beyond belief.
2. For Perry to give anything to illegals is stupid. It insults all legal Americans. He’s pandering to illegals. If it’s such a struggle to not give illegals benefits then he needs to start telling us legals what laws we can break with no consequence and what new benefits we can expect.
Oh, what bunch of hooey. These so called debates run by liberal moderators are worthless. I am from TX and know Rick Perry for an excellent governor. He is not a good debater, but it is a different situation for speaking and not being attacked like he was the first 3 debates. Perry got the point across about Mitt and that is that he says one thing and does another.
Your right,Fellow Freepers, Please donate to Freerepublic and help us go forward.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2794768/posts
Cain also was exposed as a flip-flopper, and has put his foot in his mouth repeatedly, yet very little is being said about it. Not to mention the silence from Cain and Bachmann in regards to going after Romney. It’s almost like they are competing for the VP spot, in hopes Romney will invite them to join his rotten campaign.
Kennedy won because the media made him the young, energetic, prince with his camlot family. Has nothing to do with the debates.
Ford lost because of Watergate and people did not want to elect a Republican President in 1976. The Poland is not part of Warsaw comments has nothing to do with his defeat.
George H W Bush did not lose the elections in 1992 because he looked at his watch. Bill Clinton was this young energetic guy and the media sold him as they did to JFK before him and Obama after him.
As I said before a candidate lose or win the elections long before the debates that occur few weeks before the elections.
Polling this early in the campaign are useless as you well know. It also depends on what organization is doing the polling. Lots of disinformation is being put out to help Obama. Is that your role?
Why should he bother? If things continue go the way they have, Cain will obliterate Romney in every single primary outside of the Northeast.
Nope. But I heard Bill O’Reilly say that he manipulated a poll on his show by throwing out the Cain and Paul votes to declare Romney the winner. I have heard Frank Luntz say that he gets “rough” with the people in his focus group if they don’t talk to him when the camera is on. I have no doubt that he manipulates - that’s the way most polling is done.
I can see with my own eyes that FOX is in the tank for Romney. Most other people here can see it as well.
Not a Cain supporter, but increasingly an admirer. I hated all of these 7 dwarfs a month ago. Now it seems no one more serious will join the race and we're stuck with them. So be it. Satan would be better than Mittens, so he's out. Perry has been atrocious (and occaisonally insulting) on immigration so far, although he has time to recover. Cain is unflappable, and that impresses me. Piers Morgan started out tonight trying to bash Cain, and after 20 minutes was eating out of Herman's hand. that is the kind of cool that can beat Obama. Not convinced anyone else can.
You know Perry and Bush are nothing alike. Perry would be able to hold his own with obama and his teleprompter. Just say no teleprompter for the debates.
The whole point of Perry bringing it up, was to expose Romney for the hypocritical liar that he has always been. From Romneycare to Lawncare, Romney has been parading around on his typical high horse, pointing fingers at everyone else but himself.
Instead, you pick on Perry for having the courage to go after his royal appointed wonderfulness, scumbag Romney!
You know what, I’ve seen almost every candidate running on Fox several times over EXCEPT Romney and come to think of it, Perry.
I’ve seen Perry only once - but O’Reilly says he is having him on the show this Tuesday - after Perry unveils his economic plan.
You are right though - you NEVER see Romney on there. I think they are trying to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or something. That sounds crazy, but there is no doubt that Romney is touted as the “one” that can beat Obama over-whelmingly by the FOX pundits.
Come to think of it - I never see Romney on any shows on any channel.
I can no longer even watch 5 minutes of FOX, other than their business news channel, but even that is getting sickening. Bloomberg gives the stocks report in a much better format without all the political innuendo.
“Perry is a true conservative, unlike your candidate....”
Just...just stop it. No he’s not. Saying it over and over will not make it so.
I consider myself to the right of Perry and I had to vote against him in 2002 when his Dem opponent was actually more truly “conservative” than he. And his opponent was a 2nd Amendment touting, GWB backing, oilfield businessman of old Spanish heritage. And he was the last really decent opponent that Perry has had in his tenure....the rest being hacks and corpses.
All Perry has had to do to keep his seat is to sit in Austin
wearing his drool bib and be careful not to break any of the pricey furnishings in the Governor’s residence. He’s proven he can do that, I’ll give him his due......
” For Perry to give anything to illegals is stupid. “
The Texas legislature in 2001 passed a veto proof law allowing a small percentage of the children of illegals
to pay in state tuition.
Perry is getting the blame for the Texas legislature.
The point Perry was making was that Romney on a small scale ,
is indicative of the larger problem of employers knowingly
The Boston Globe reported in 2006 that Romney was warned about the Guatemalan gardeners and still kept them on.
“Buenos dias!” — Mitt Romney’s regular greeting to the illegal Guatemalan immigrants who work on his lawn
“Aw, geez.” — Romney to a reporter who asked him about the lawn workers. He then walked away.
I wish Perry had asked Romney why he can’t mow his own lawn.
“Perry is a true conservative”
You may believe that if you say something enough times it becomes true, but don’t go up on the roof of a 10 story building saying, “I can fly, I can fly ....”
I didn’t defend romney. I didn’t defend romney’s use of a lawncare co. that uses illegals. I pointed out that it was just the most pointless political attack against a opponent’s serious weakness that I’ve ever seen to defend one’s self against a similiar weakness.
This didn’t expose romney it just ingratiated romney to all the people and corportations that pay for their lawncare and know that they use illegals.
It was stupid as was your comment to me.
I agree with you and you may know that Romney has opened up a big attack on Perry today by sending out a video with Perry ‘goofs’ on it.
Romney is too savvy a politician to do this based just on a personal animosity for Perry.
He obviously thinks the Perry is still the man to beat in spite of a lot of sentiment around here for Cain.
Romney’s not worried about Cain. He either plans to take him on as veep or he thinks he doesn’t have a chance.
I agree with Romney, Perry is the big threat to him.
And those people who say we are jeopardizing the race by not just jumping on board with Cain are a joke.
That’s like a democrat saying let’s compromise.
I agree it's early, but when you are running at 40% as Perry was in Florida and after you visit it, give a few speeches and after the people get to know you and suddenly you're trailing Michele Bachmann, that's not a good sign.
“Kennedy won because the media made him the young, energetic, prince with his camlot family. Has nothing to do with the debates.
Ford lost because of Watergate and people did not want to elect a Republican President in 1976. The Poland is not part of Warsaw comments has nothing to do with his defeat.
George H W Bush did not lose the elections in 1992 because he looked at his watch. Bill Clinton was this young energetic guy and the media sold him as they did to JFK before him and Obama after him....”
The very famous 1960 Kenneday/Nixon debate is renown. Kennedy, who took make-up and prep for the television appearance, looked better for the TV audience. Nixon, who refused both, appeared pasty and unnerved by the medium. I’ve watched the debate and the difference is notable. Kennedy appeared ready for and comfortable with the new age medium while Nixon appeared not to be. For an electorate evenly split, that appeared enough (along with the mob in Chicago) to get him the Presidency.
In 1976, Ford stood before the American people on national TV and said the WARPAC did not exist. That the Soviet Union had no control over the satellite states of Eastern Europe. Something so obviously incorrect and incoherent that it was not able to be explained away. Only Gerald Ford in a debate with Jimmy Carter in 1976 could have made Jimmy Carter an obvious winner. The public had no problem electing a Republican. They had a big problem electing a Republican who seemed to have no grasp of the previous 30 years of geo-political history. It killed Ford.
1992? I have Bush’s “wrist check” imprinted in my brain to this day. It was an incredibly bad moment of political theater. In a reelection, in the midst of a (today) mild recession, Bush Sr appeared disconnected and distracted on national TV. Irregardless of how you feel about him or that election or anything else............that is how he “appeared” to the vast middle unwashed independent voters who decided that election. Thus he lost.
Appearance and perception are huge. When a person, right or left, can take the controlling ground in that battle and hold it...they win. Electoral politics in the 21st Century is no different than ardent infantry warfare in the 1700s.
We keep looking for a Reagan. A “Reagan” is a once in a lifetime thing. The rest of the time we are stuck with and glad to have a lesser option who won’t embarrass themselves in the process. We are in the “he who embarrasses himself least” mode and there’s nothing wrong with that. Many Americans before us have had to work with much less than we have today. Presidential elections do not always mean that the cream of the crop rises. More often than not, during POTUS, we have to determine who the lesser the crook is and vote accordingly.
I didn’t say anything about illegal tuition aid did I? I said Perry has a illegal immigration problem, like romney. which is pandering for illegals votes. Arizona and Alabama are proving that states can do more but Texas, under Perry, can’t?
Perry’s problem is that he won’t address one of the fundamental problems this country has, which is illegals.
When I was growing up kids would make money mowing other peoples lawns. I watched construction done by my countrymen. I watched roads being built by my countrymen. Not anymore because of illegals.
Drugs, gangs. Brought to you primarily by illegals.
Perry represents a upperclass that says just wait a little while longer and it’ll all be ok.
Oh yeah, he debates like a fart in a whirlwind.
It was classic and Perry was the only one who’s been able to shake Romney out of his comfort zone.
Amen to that Grey Eagle. Thank goodness I’ve stopped caring what those people think or what they say to me.
Actually George H.W. lost because of a certain guy named H. Ross Perot. He took a lot of conservative votes and gave Clinton the victory.
There’s been a lot of speculation around these here parts as to why Perot hated Bush so much. Some say it’s because Bush wouldn’t let him finance a rogue operation to free some prisoners.
Or it could be anything since Perot himself admitted he was crazy but he conned a lot of people into voting for him.
And I might add regarding the debates (when it comes to the mano a mano final debates) that everyone thought algore could out debate Bush and then they thought Kerry could out debate Bush.
I think we all remember who won.
And, I just need to add that I’m not an auto Romney guy.
In 2008 I thought he a manipulator......a flip-flopper....his latent joining of the NRA a ploy. As Rush and the rest of the Rightist media embraced him as the “true conservative” in the media in the race against McCain. Romney was the “conservative” alternative to McCain a few short years ago.
I ask you, has Romney taken less “conservative” positions since then? Rush thought he fine then so what has he done since to be less so? Was the MaHa-Rushie wrong then or now? DO NOT FORGET OR HASH OVER THIS FACT.
Many on the right-of-center have completely forgotten what happened in 2008. They have concocted alternative realities to make themselves feel better. Again, just stop it.
I watched the Luntz group and was not at all impressed with their opinions. If this group thought ‘Perry was petty, mean-spirited, argued about a non issue, and didn’t look Presidential’, then they were wearing blinders or refused to admit that Romney is a flawed candidate. Exposing Romney’s lies about illegal immigrants and his original statement that Romneycare would work well for the country were, in my opinion, major accomplishments. To say the illegal immigrant issue was a non issue is pure folly, because Romney denied he had ever hired an illegal immigrant. He knew for over a year the lawn service was using illegals and he didn’t give a rip until he found out it would hurt him in the election...so he lied about it until forced to admit it last night. I find it extremely odd that many of Romney’s supporters want to overlook the fact he was/is deceitful. When Rick Santorum and Rick Perry exposed his comment in his book that Romneycare would work well for the country, he denied he had ever said that. Guess what?!! He did write it in his book and then took it out of the paper back issue. Maybe his deceitfulness doesn’t bother the Luntz group, but it bothers me.
I don’t think Romney or Perry distinguished themselves last night, but I did think Romney was the petty, mean-spirited one who kept interrupting and yelling over Santorum and Perry to, “Let me talk, let me talk.” What a disgusting display of arrogance that he thinks he should be allowed all the time to talk and others shouldn’t speak if he doesn’t want to hear what they are saying. Perhaps he really didn’t want anyone to understand what they were saying, and that’s why he was speaking over them and interrupting. I don’t blame Perry for not allowing him to filibuster and take over his (Perry’s) time!
I’m not sure if I will support Perry, but I will be fair and unbiased in accessing his record and performance. While he has not been overly impressive in the debates does not bother me. These debates aren’t going to decide who the nominee will be. Newt Gingrich is by far the most intellectual and best debater, but can he lead and will his past indiscretions hurt him? I’m not sure, and I will listen carefully to what he and the others have to say.
” Perry attacking romney for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is stupid beyond belief.”
Couldn’t disagree with this statement more.
Romney started the exchange by bringing up some bogus study about 125,000 or whatever TX jobs going to illegals, when the numbers don’t add up cause an estimated 60,000 total illegals entered TX during that time.
Perry was simply defending himself by throwing a counter-punch, and even if it didn’t make Perry look like the nicest guy in the world, it clearly landed. He caught Romney in a lie and got him clearly flustered. It was about time someone called Romney on his obvious hypocrisy (on scores of issues I might add), and Romney was kind enough to provide Perry the opening to do it.
No, to attack anyone for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is asinine. It’s obvious that everyone does it. It’s not a defense nor a attack. It’s been standard practice for so long that it’s a given. It just shows that Perry can’t attack anyone on illegals because it’s his quicksand.
The base fact is that Perry could’ve made life tough on illegals since the 2010 elections, as that is what the electorate wants. He’s made a different choice and now has to live with the inability to attack anyone on a subject the country is very concerned about. He’s done. And good riddance.
Just exactly what does “looking presidential mean?” Oh, like obama did during his campaign, and look what we got stuck with. People are so danged superficial. To base one’s ability to govern based on whether or not one looks presidential - is immature.
The internals must be frightening Romney to the point where he is no longer attacking Obama like he originally started out to do, when he thought no one could challenge him.
But in light of this, this is sure to backfire on Romney and get the electorate looking very closely at Perry, to see why so much fuss.
Like the WW2 Bomber pilots used to say; “You know you are closest to the target when the flak is the heaviest.”
“No, to attack anyone for using a lawncare co. that uses illegals is asinine. Its obvious that everyone does it. Its not a defense nor a attack. Its been standard practice for so long that its a given. It just shows that Perry cant attack anyone on illegals because its his quicksand.
The base fact is that Perry couldve made life tough on illegals since the 2010 elections, as that is what the electorate wants. Hes made a different choice and now has to live with the inability to attack anyone on a subject the country is very concerned about. Hes done. And good riddance.”
Perry may have a weakness on illegals, but if he was done, the Romney campaign wouldn’t be out with that desperate web ad to try to change the conversation. Funny how the Romney folks seem to be directly most of their energy toward a candidate that I keep hearing around here is “done.”
And you continue to ignore the fact that ROMNEY BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE. It wasn’t as if Perry just attacked him out of the blue. I for one was happy to see Mitt fumble around, then get forced to utter this phrase that confirms everything we in the Tea Party understand to be true about him “We went to the company, and we said, ‘Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property,I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake, I can’t have illegals.”
Furthermore, Mitt lied about not having ever hired an illegal, and he was caught in 2008 STILL EMPLOYING THE SAME ILLEGALS a year after he promised to get rid of them. It’s not so much the fact that he hired a landscape co. that employed illegals, it’s the fact that he failed to take corrective action when the situation was pointed out to him. This goes to the issue of CREDIBILITY. Mitt has none-and especially not on the issue of illegal immigration. This is what Perry was pointing out. You know, throwing stones and glass houses and all that. I haven’t decided yet between Perry and Cain, but that counter-attack showed me that Perry understands what some other GOP candidates don’t seem to-that Romney is nearly as much as enemy to true conservatism as Obama, and he must be stopped. Heck, I don’t even care if Perry’s campaign has to go down with him, as long as he takes down Romney, Cain or Gingrich will fill the frontrunner role nicely.
BTW-Santorum and Gingrich also deserve a lot of credit for finally taking on Mitt on healthcare. No thanks to Romney stalking horse Michele Bachmann though, who had to stick her nose in and change the subject to rescue her boy Mitt from further damage.
All in all, it was a good debate for conservatism. I hope to see many more like this one.
I agree. I don’t want romney, unless it’s another 4 yrs of dumass. But Perry has come across as a twit. He seems like a face on a organization, the way he debates. Lost a lot of faith in him.
You keep making the same nasty comments and claims about Perry, without one shred of evidence to back your rhetoric. All you have is the same hateful repetitious rhetoric you hear others regurgitate around this Forum. It simply says a lot about your character and level of integrity. You demand perfection from others, yet you are unwilling to provide the same standard in how you present your own argument. All we seem to get from you, is a whole bunch of cynical, hateful rumor, totally lacking in facts or honesty.
Looks like you are glad to join the Romney band wagon, because you are certainly helping him do his dirty work, based on your own limited scope or ability to communicate your ideas on a meaningful or positive level.
Romney is starting to have to answer the questions that Perry started. That in itself is priceless!............
People have short memories.
Cain never seems to even criticize Romney.
Wait a minute, you're saying that illegals doing lawns is as American as Mom and apple pie but how do you feel about TX granting in state tuition to illegals?
There is far too much lying and exaggeration of Perry's stance on illegals.
Perry is the one guy running who has been forced to actually deal with the issue and he has a very good record of dealing with it.
Cain didn’t start out on top of the mountain and he may not remain there. Cain has not laid a hand on Romney. Why?
You must have missed the focus group of debate watchers that Frank Luntz had on Hannity last night.
Perry alienated those people even more. They thought the gardener attack was petty and stupid.
None of them said they would vote for him.