Posted on 09/13/2011 9:30:24 AM PDT by shield
They say it ain’t over ’til it’s over or the fat lady sings at least a dozen times, finally making all the high notes in Aida and La Traviata in succession. Nevertheless — after only his second debate — things do look pretty good for Rick Perry.
And consider before this Tampa debate he was already twelve points ahead of nearest rival Mitt Romney, according to its sponsor’s (CNN) own poll.
So it’s no surprise that most of Monday’s affair — which mostly reprised the same questions from last week’s Reagan Library debate (this all could get pretty tedious fast) — was a game of “Everybody on Rick” with the Texas governor, perhaps in deference to his state’s proximity to Mexico, as the designated piñata.
Well, not quite everybody. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain declined to attack Perry. (I will try to explain that later.) But Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and, of course, Romney did their best to slam Perry at every opportunity, sometimes remembering, seemingly as an afterthought, to throw in an unkind word for Barack Obama, as if the Texas governor and the not the president was the incumbent.
The five, however, did their Perry dissing in different ways. The first three — Huntsman, Bachmann and Santorum — I would classify as the soreheads. They are all doing miserably in the polls. Huntsman and Santorum always were. They are both currently at 2%, tied with a generic “Someone else” and 2 points behind “None/No one.” (No surprise here with Santorum who, when last facing the electorate, lost reelection in his home state of Pennsylvania by 18 points.) Who, besides their wives, really knows why they are running?
Bachmann, too, once flying high, has herself sunk to a mere 4% (tied with “None/No one”) since Perry entered the race. No wonder she’s sore at the Texan. She took after him, as did Santorum, during the Monday debate because some years ago Perry evidently tried by fiat to have high school girls vaccinated against cancer of the cervix. Perry admitted this approach was a mistake and this whole thing had apparently been rehashed ad infinitum by Kay Bailey Hutchison in her recent, ill-fated run against Perry for the Texas gubernatorial nomination, but never mind. To Bachmann and Santorum this attempt to prevent cancer, whether ill-founded or not, was a form of child molestation or something. The more they went on about this, the more rabid, and frankly scary, they sounded.
But they never sounded quite so nutsy as Huntsman when he accused Perry of “treason” for not building a border fence. Either the Utah governor is suffering from a cognitive disorder or, more likely, he deliberately misunderstood Perry’s position on the border. But he certainly seemed over-heated. Of course, what Huntsman was really trying to do was define Perry as the dangerous one because he had used the word treason in association with Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. But the word flew back in his face.
All of this was — I would guess almost deliberately — grist for Perry’s mill. Which leads me to the man who is putatively the Texas governor’s great rival — Mitt Romney. My advice to Mitt is that he start rereading his Mark Twain. Ironically, it is the New England governor who is being played for the rube here. He allowed himself to be drawn into the most obvious of traps by again accusing Perry of being excessive in his use of the term “Ponzi scheme” with respect to Social Security. It would “scare” seniors.
What a setup that was. It took Perry about thirty seconds to explain that in no way would his plans to reform Social Security affect those currently or soon receiving it. Romney was left to explain his years of attacks on Social Security in which he called the program, well, close to a “Ponzi scheme.” In fact, the brouhaha about the subject since last week’s debate has led to numerous identifications of interesting people who have called SS a PS in the past. My favorite is Paul Samuelson, the very liberal Nobel Prize-winning author of my freshman economics textbook.
I will put aside Ron Paul, except to say that he was roundly (and quite properly) booed for his bizarre ahistorical assertions that jihad is our fault, and skip on to the aforementioned Gingrich and Cain. They didn’t attack Perry because, in part at least, I think they suspect he is going to win and are acting accordingly. Gingrich is not particularly vice-presidential material but he would make a highly qualified secretary of State (a more interesting job than Fox news commentator, I would imagine). Cain supposedly has his eye on the Senate from Georgia. Although he might not need it, an assist from a President Perry would be extremely helpful.
All politics is local, as they say. Stay tuned.
Total nonsense.
Dr Paul's verbatim regurgitation of Al Qeda 09-11 propaganda was by far the worst performance of the debate
You are exactly right. Perry had an awful night, and he does seem slow on his feet and inarticulate. We need someone who is going to be relentless against Obama in the debates.
Newt, Bachmann and (gulp) Romney are the most relentless. That’s what I want to see.
I’m leaning Newt right now. Articulate, competent, elder statesman. He does have a lot of baggage, though.
I’m not in love with any of these candidates.
Not to throw cold water on anyone’s candidate pick, but it is worth remembering that McCain polled as low as 5 percent before the primaries began. Never underestimate the money, power and organization of the establishment. Romney is their man. It will take a lot of work and support to beat him.
Pretty good analysis.
Perhaps sadly, Gardasil is more of an issue in that he backed off. That issue would probably win him votes in certain northeastern states!
So you are right. That issue is a non-starter.
I think the fact that Perry took hits from all sides is telling, and I think that is likely the impression that will be lasting among those who tuned in, and who were not already committed to a particular candidate. Getting attacked makes Perry look like a winner, the man to beat.
I've disagreed with you a lot before on Perry, but you have a point on this one. It was a crappy response. It made it sound (true or not) that he could be bought, just not that cheaply.
He has had plenty of experience as a politician; he should already have a better answer ready. If he wants to win the election he will need better answers for such accusations.
The author sees frightening “crazy” everywhere. He should seek therapy rather making political observations concerning his paranoia.
I really like Cain, too, but he is a classic “also ran”. Jovial, quick witted, but not the sharpest or most informed.
He has yet to explain “9-9-9” in a debate. I know what it is because I read about it, but he needs to lay out the details.
Dr Paul's verbatim regurgitation of Al Qeda 09-11 propaganda was by far the worst performance of the debate
I'll give you that but counter by saying the expectations for Paul are nowhere near what they are for Perry.
That Perry seemed clueless on how to answer & counter attack on those three issues shows he's got a ways to go on the national stage.
He did exactly that last night. And did so very succinctly which worked very well in a debate format.
Rick Perry needed to do one of Reagan’s “There you go again routines” when Blitzer kept begging the other candidates to go after Perry.
Perry has many years as Governor and being in a top job for a long time is important when we pick a President.
Which is also why Obama is such a loser. He had never held an executive position.
Then you apparently have not bother to listen to him. He explained it last night as he has done any number of other occasions.
How about you all try actually listening to the candidate this time instead of letting the political pundits in the Junk Media tell you what to think about them again this election.
I don’t think Perry did worse than Huntsman or Paul. He needs to be quicker with his response. I hope he’ll improve because if he’s the nominee he’s going to get hit from all sides all the time. (Romney & Bachmann have been in the race alot longer and have their slick lines down) I thought it was a little ridiculous that everyone was attacking him. I chuckled at the expression on Perry’s face sometimes when they were all jumping on him. (except Gingrich & Cain) I’m over Bachmann. I don’t even want her in the VP slot. Romney scares me because of Romneycare - I want Obamacare overturned and I don’t know if he has the will to do it. I don’t really care about the Gardasil issue at all. Perry’s views on immigration seemed moderate to me. We might need moderation to appeal to Latino voters and not lose them forever like the blacks.
I liked how some of them are trying to appeal to younger voters on the SS issue. With the job situation and economy, this is a good time to open the eyes of some of our young people and get them to see the light.
"I propose my 9-9-9 plan: a straight 9% corporate tax, 9% personal income tax, and 9% federal sales tax. If 10% is good enough for God, 9% is good enough for the federal government."
Hi, I’m kinda new here (don’t post much, just read). I agree that Perry did OK last night. He was on fire in the first hour and seemed to peter out after that (actually, Rush said the same thing this am). I wouldn’t be surprised if the MSM has already figured this out and now makes sure to give him the tougher questions later when he’s tired.
I think it’s a learning curve for Gov Perry. If he can learn from early debates, he can really improve. I never saw any improvement with GWB during debates, and it was frustrating. Hopefully Gov Perry has people advising him on how to handle the tough questions.
Newt = <3
No, that the stupid Media talking head dogma. It total nonsense Both Cain and Gingrich realize the way to win here is NOT play the "stir up a dog fight with the other GOP candidates" meme the Junk Media and it's assorted hangers on are pushing. They always forget you have to win the primary before you can run in the general election.
I have been in the GOP over 30 years. One thing GOP voters do not care for are those candidates who spend all their time attacking our side instead of attacking the real foes. O and the Democrats are the real target here
Perry, Gingrich and Cain are the only ones playing it smart here. The others, especially Huntsman, are making a serious error playing the Junk Media's game.
Excellent analysis.
I agree with you. Perry took a huge hit. However, Huntsman without a doubt did the worst. His joke against Perry and the border fence (treasonous) fell so flat you could hear the audience groan...
It’s not Perry’s politics that I have a problem with. What bothers me is HE IS NOT A GOOD DEBATER..... great speaker but he seems awfully uncomfortable, and unsure of himself, in the Debates. He needs some fire in the belly and to not be so monotone. He reminds me of Fred Thompson in the ‘08 race. Good ideas and good policy but doesn’t seem hungry enough. Step it up a few notches Rick.
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.