Mitt Romney’s support and his negatives are baked into the GOP primary. To Romney’s supporters, either his various contradictory policy and issue positions don’t matter or they’re outweighed by his “electability.” They think he is best positioned to defeat President Obama, and so far nothing seems capable of dissuading them. His air of inevitability is gone, but his support remains steady in the 20s. He isn’t going up, and he isn’t going down.
To Romney’s detractors, his various and contradictory policy and issue positions render him unacceptable. But they don’t need those flaws pointed out. They already know them. That’s why there is a large Anybody But Romney faction in the primary. And that’s why despite his having been campaigning for the GOP nomination for about five years now, and having built an experienced national staff and raised a ton of money and launched effective attacks on President Obama’s economic record, and his being “next in line” because he came in second last time, Romney remains stuck in the 20s. He isn’t going up, and he isn’t going down.
Rick Perry came into the race as a frontrunner for the Anybody But Romney vote, and is paying the price for that early success. As a frontrunner, he attracted attacks from the second and third tier candidates who also wanted the Anybody But Romney crown when his campaign was still getting off the ground. Those attacks didn’t help Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann ended up destroying her own candidacy, while Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich didn’t engage in them at all. They stuck to their own game plans, and have benefited from the damage that Bachmann did to herself and to Perry at the same time, and from the damage Perry did to himself in the debates.
So now, the Perry campaign is doing three things to get back on track. One, he is rolling out his energy and jobs plans. Two, he is floating the idea of skipping debates. And three, he is launching attacks on Mitt Romney. The attacks are fair — accusations that RomneyCare includes illegal aliens, which it does, and that he’s unreliable to conservative voters, which he is; and that he has flipped on everything from gun rights to abortion to global warming, all of which are true — but are they likely to help Perry? And is skipping the debates the right idea?
Taken on their own, these are reasonable tactics to take. There are too many debates, and Perry is right that they have mostly been centered on tearing the candidates down. But they have also built two candidates up, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, and vaulted Bachmann’s candidacy for a while. Attacking Romney is also reasonable, since he is a very problematic candidate and he’s a frontrunner. But I doubt either tactic will help, and both are distracting from Perry’s core economic message. The debate skip idea makes him look weak, despite the fact that the 21 or so debates still on the schedule do in fact get in the way of retail politicking that’s crucial to winning in Iowa and South Carolina.
Aside: I omitted New Hampshire because, like Romney’s problems as a candidate, it’s baked in. Romney will win it. So the other campaigns should plan accordingly.
If you’re the Perry campaign, what’s the path to victory? You have a real record and a strong, simple economic plan to run on. You have a lot of campaign cash, the ability to raise a lot more, and a true ground game where you need it. But you’re fourth or fifth in the polls behind Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, neither of whom are serious contenders, and time is getting short. Primary polls at this point don’t tell us where votes will be but they can create and reinforce public perceptions that a campaign is rising or dying, which will impact fundraising.
Rick Perry excels at retail politics and in one-on-ones with local and national media. His past campaigns have also excelled at social media. They have also excelled at attacking past opponents very effectively, but the current opponents, Mitt Romney and Herman Cain, aren’t likely to succumb to normal political opposition attacks. Romney’s known knowns are baked in. Everyone knows he’s a flip-flopper, but most Republicans are willing to vote for him against Obama if they have to. Herman Cain is too likeable and he’s made of Teflon right now. Nothing is sticking to him. Attacks on Cain will blow back on whoever launches them.
So I don’t think Perry can effectively attack either one without damaging himself. Bachmann is a good object lesson here. She went so negative so fast that she ended up destroying her own campaign. There’s a very real risk that while Perry won’t say the ridiculous things that Bachmann said to accelerate her downfall, he could nevertheless similarly damage himself in a sustained attack on Romney. Gingrich and Cain have stayed positive, and risen in the polls. But both Gingrich and Cain have questionable staying power.
The solution? Perry needs to go retail and talk radio/online media in a big way. Perry should forget the attacks on Romney, just deliver his message and explain his record in a disciplined and relentless way. Do multiple daily appearances in Iowa explaining his plans and message to everyday voters, get those appearances captured and posted on YouTube and moved on blogs and social media. Get them in the local newscasts. Run positive issue ads in Iowa and South Carolina. Attack Obama often, get under his skin and make him respond directly to you. Hit the president on specifics and show where, for instance, Perry’s energy plan will undo the damage Obama is doing and thereby create jobs. As for the debates, attend some, skip some, as the schedule allows, but don’t make an issue of skipping them and don’t let them control the campaign schedule.
The Perry campaign has been a bit snakebit ever since the first debates he participated in. Time is short, but a moment can turn a campaign around. Creating some effective moments can shift the momentum very quickly.
Nice analysis and terrific advice, Bryan.
Perry was my choice, but his “drunk cowboy” act broke my heart. I don’t want the most powerful man in the world under the influence of alcohol- EVER!
Now I’ll ride with Ron Paul and see if, up close, he is a straightshooter.
But why do I fear having to vote for some GOP dingbat just because ANYBODY is better than the disease in human form which currently infests the White House?
Excellent advice! The other Republican candidates should consider following it as well (but of course not promoting Governor Perry’s plans in the process).
Today, I lean toward Cain. But if Governor Romney gets the nomination I’ll vote for him. Fortunately, I won’t have to do so while holding my nose in public, since I live outside the country and will vote by absentee ballot.
If Romney gets the nomination, we plan to emigrate.
Perry needs to show he can take on Obama and win. Forget attacking other Republicans, tell us why you should be President. And don’t be affraid of stealing good ideas from other candidates.
– for this at a time when seldom is heard an encouraging word.
Wow. To think what these campaign consultants get for feeding their candidates the crap they do. Perry could do a lot worse than to make Bryan Preston a nice little offer and then listening and following his advice.
Perry is getting a lot of bad ink.
His awful performances at the debates do not make one relish the thought of a Rick Perry-Barack Obama standoff…with rigged questions from in the tank propaganda machine flunkies. THAT would be brutal to watch.
A ground game only, would produce three yard signs and a cloud of dust.
You have to be able to go to the air—waves, and produce effective, articulate, scintillating and memorable moments.
Rick Perry is not instilling confidence in anyone but his most ardent admirers…that he can withstand the withering heat that will come in the faceoff with Obama…not to mention the cheating refs, the fraudulent Monday Morning “reviewers” and all the cheating that the other side gets away with, every time.
Check out what he has to deal with already…as the guy in fifth place.
Via Hot Air
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/perry-backer-switches-to-romney-because-he-isnt-going-to-beat-obama/
http://blog.american.com/2011/10/aei-blog-symposium-can-the-flat-tax-or-anything-else-revive-rick-perrys-presidential-campaign/
However, Perry’s rapid decline didn’t come from a lack of policy-wonk detail, at least not directly. Two bad debate performances followed by an incremental improvement in a third shook confidence in Perry as a candidate, with or without innovative policy positions. To the extent that having a solid policy foundation in his mind helps him debate, the plan could boost his standing again. However, this is not a simple plan, and it will take some eloquence to sell it to the general electorate. Can Perry overcome his apparent lack of talent in live debates to find that kind of eloquence? His performances so far do not give any indication that he will, and even a great policy won’t help Perry if he can’t demonstrate that he can keep up in a debate.
Ed Morrissey
I’ve already watched him talk about his plan over and over again, but I’ve never bought into the media bull that his debate performances were that bad, he got attacked by everyone, and he had been stunned because he probably expected that Republicans would not treat him so harshly, that was his teams fault. But his plan is really good, and he will just need to talk about it in the debates, and when Romney attacks him, Perry will just need to go at Romney with all his recent flip flops. He can do this without being mean, but when Romney tries to act all high and mighty, Perry has to show him he is not going to take it. Perry needs to put all these chumps in their place, like I’ve seen him do it the Right scoop interview, where he said that these other candidates would do anything to keep from having to talk about their record, Perry has the record, the plan, and he is not a shape shifting flip flopper. Here
http://technorati.com/politics/article/the-republican-establishments-golden-boy-shape/
So much THIS.
I posted this same basic idea a week or two ago in response to an attack ad that was posted on here. More than one person tried to tell me of course he had to attack Romney. I say BS to that! He needs to just SELL HIMSELF. Tell everyone what he’s for, what he’s accomplished and what he plans to accomplish.
Precisely — good analysis, Bryan.
I said months ago that the number of debates was far too many, and shame on the RNC for not figuring this out. It cuts into the real campaigning that has to go on, and it places the media in firm control.
There is also word being leaked that Cain is talking about cutting back in an effort to get his house in order.
Perry needs to play to his strengths, while adjusting to the debate performances. People need to see the real Perry who is so effective in one-on-one talks and interviews, without the clock ticking for sound-bites.
I agree, thanks for the analysis. Perry is the most qualified with a proven record and governor of a huge state with unemployment below national avarage. He needs to let people know that he is a real deal not Romney a fake flip flopper.
Gingrich is the guy who can beat Romney. He can explain his past sins as the mistakes of his youth. And he’s the smartest guy and the best talker.
Perry can’t come back. The buzz saw took him down before he could react, and for whatever reason, he isn’t a person who is allowed to say dumb stuff without penalty.
Otherwise, Bryan’s analysis is pretty good.
Like so many above: Yes, and yes.
Perry needs to keep it simple. Be direct and clear. Make his case. Focus on the very impressive plans he’s put forth. Speak and act like the leader this country so desperately wants and needs. Refuse to get “hooked” by cheap shots and the cheap shooters.
In other words, follow Bryan’s outstanding advice.
I hope Governor Perry doesn’t take your advice.
Mostly because I would far prefer Herman Cain.
Cain is a bad joke, and he knows his job is to do nothing but help Romney by splitting the conservative vote. Thats why he is not building a ground game to win, just enough to look like he wants to win.
Great article, a lot of good points. A lot of the stuff you say here I have said in comments on other threads. I’m one of those that pray Romney doesn’t get the nomination but if he does I will vote for him. I don’t like him because I don’t think I can trust him. Gun rights is one of my priorities and I have no idea where he really stands on the 2nd Amendment. He has flopped too much on that. I’ve heard he has a plan to fix the economy but haven’t seen it really spelled out to where it can be understood.
Perry, on the other hand, has come out with his two plans that read in plain English and sound very good. I have said before I don’t like the debate format, there is just not enough time to get your point across. Perry just doesn’t know how to debate. As you say, he needs to get out where he can sit down and spell out exactly what his plans are and how they would benefit the average person. Also show how they differ from the others and why they would work better than the other plans. We all know Obama’s plan is hopeless but Perry needs to show everyone how his plan works and Obama’s doesn’t. He could also show how his plan differs from Cain’s logically, without trying to tear Cain down. Just show how his plan would work better.
Someone on another thread thought Perry should be locked in a room with a group of litigators so they could drill him until he learned how to debate. I don’t know if he should go that far but he does need someone to teach him the ins and outs. I mentioned before his handlers where probably head/desk banging after his last debate. They must have told him he needed to be more aggressive and he went way overboard. They need to sit him down to watch tapes of his last few debates and then show him where he went wrong. Get him up to speed fast!
I’ve always thought this was true about winning the Republican primaries. Whoever the non-Romney is that wants to win the primaries needs to talk past Romney. Make believe the man isn’t even there. Herman Cain does this quite well and you can see why he’s doing so well in the polls. You need to give people a reason to vote for you and stop attacking somebody else. Tell them what your vision of the country will be, and don’t keep defending yourself from somebody else’s attacks. If you keep on trying to respond to other people’s attacks, your own message will get lost in the noise. So talk past your detractors and tell people why YOU should be president. That is, of course, assuming you DO have a message and a reason for running. If you don’t, then no amount of advertising will help you.
I think this writer, liberals and the GOP establishment don’t understand what is known as the tea party. It isn’t a party, its an ideal. Romney has the 20 percent of country club and establishment republicans. The other 80 percent, those with the tea party mentality are looking for that non-Romney, or the true conservative that represents their views and values. Currently, Cain, Newt, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum all split that vote. Some of these at some point for the good of the nation will have to call it quits. IF this winnowing occurs before Romney has won very many primaries early next year, then I believe one of our conservatives will explode and get the nomination.
I like Perry. And I lean towards him at the moment. But Perry doesn’t understand how to instill confidence in the voters. Tea Party activist will vote for a candidate that will cut spending and secure the border. Perry is too vague on those issues. I’m not saying he wouldn’t do those things. He just doesn’t communicate it clearly. When asked about immigration he dodges and weaves and says vague stuff like “the Federal government haven’t done it’s duty” etc. YES WE KNOW. But what will YOU do about it? Tell us Rick Perry. Stop wasting our time with empty talking points. “Doing more” to secure the border doesn’t cut it. The border should be sealed up, no excuses. Whatever it takes. And if that means putting 100.000 troops on the border and building a fence, well do it. Or 200.000 troops – do it. Just secure the damn border, NOW. For instance having 70.000 thousand troops along the border would do much more for Americas security than having 70.000 troops in Europe.
I wonder why Perry (or whoever wants to be the Not-Romney candidate) doesn’t point out that Romno lost quite a few elections in his time? And that his polling after his first term as MASS governor was so bad he didn’t even bother to run for a second term?
Hermie couldn’t do this because, God bless him, he’s never won an election (he lost the only one he ran for, U.S. Senator from Georgia).
Gingrich could point it out, though. Rick Perry sure could, however. For him, the ad writes itself.
So why doesn’t he do so. Draft ad: Perry appears and says, “Republicans want to beat the Bamster. The choice is between me, Mitt Romney, and Herman Cain. I’ve won X number of elections–indeed, I’ve never lost an election. Governor Romney won Y but lost Z. His first term as MASS governor left ‘em cryin’, and not for more Mr. Romney. He didn’t even try to run. Mr. Cain has won none.
(Close-up zoom on a steely eyed Perry) “Vote for me, and I’ll win in 2012.”
As I said, it writes itself.
An Préachán
I’ve always heard that Perry is a “lazy” debater – thing is, debates are not really very important at the State level so he never worked on them much. He ran on his record and experience and that’s what worked. I’m not at all sure that the debates (although the media talks about them all the time) are that important in the primary ….. the National Debates are what count and those are a matter of delivery and knowledge. Delivery can be taught – Perry has the knowledge AND the experience. Obama has talking points, when he goes off teleprompter – he has problems. He also has a very thin skin, which will help anyone who debates against him.
There are too many of the debates and Perry is exactly correct – they are set up for “gotcha” moments for the media. I can’t help but notice that the media is still in full attack mode against Perry when he is so far down in the polls …… and they have gone into attack mode against Marco Rubio also. That only means one thing – Perry is dangerous to Obama based on his experience and his record. Romney is very problematic for many reasons – he is well funded, heavy organization, 5 years of running this campaign …. AND he still can’t break 30%
Herman Cain is very likable and a smart business man, but do we really want another “on the job training” President? That model has not worked out so well for us.
I agree – Perry needs to be Perry. Participate in important debates and do the ground campaign he is known for. Let’s not forget that he beat Kay Bailey Hutchison (when she had a 75% approval rating in Texas) by a wide margin. Perry knows how to win and can bring in the money – which is what he was doing instead of prepping for debates.
Money is important in a long campaign – I hope he follows Bryan’s advice and concentrates on Obama and why he would be the best choice. Ignore Romney, keep it clean (this is why Newt’s star is rising) and hit issues. I’ve voted for/against Rick Perry over the years, but never had a day of concern about his devotion to Texas and what the voters sent him to do. Perry’s great strength at the end of the day is that he pays attention to detail and to the voters that elected him.
Obama’s great weakness (and probably also the case with Romney) is that they are not ‘leaders’, they are politicians who want the glory of they position. Cain’s weakness is that he doesn’t have a clue about how the legislative process or pit-falls. It sounds great to say you are “not a politician”, but it’s not very workable. You have to know how to make it work. Newt, Perry, Santorum can do that – I have grave doubts about Cain and Ron Paul has proven that he can author many bills and pass none. Count on Ron Paul to go forward as a 3rd party candidate – it’s his last shot.
I think most Republicans will face the ultimate question – “will I vote for the GOP candidate? or accept Obama for 4 more years?” I think independents will do the same thing.
When we consider how much damage that Obama has done as of today – who in their right (left or center) mind is going to be inclined to give him control of 4 more years? Not me, not anyone I know. I’ll go with anyone but Obama and figure it can’t possibly be worse that what we have now. I’ve had some problems with Perry over the years, but never for a second worried that he was going to hurt my State. We are in world of hurt right now – I truly believe we are at a tipping point if we don’t replace the current regime. We have a President that is openly campaigning on ” we can’t wait, I will ignore Congress” – he us picking winners/losers, deciding what laws he will/will not enforce and pretending he is some sort of Monarch with absolute power. This could get a whole lot worse. People better wake up.
The one thing that will surprise the voters is how much Perry knows about Foreign Policy – Texas is the largest exporting State in the Union. He has been everywhere and not done all of it through the corrupt State Department – this is somebody who is familiar with a lot of issues. He needs to point that out and concentrate on the important stuff instead of 5 minute boiler-plate debate nonsense.
I was talking to a few friends last weekend and I brought out a very old soapbox to tell them about an idea I’ve had. They all seemed to like it (or they were polite enough to say they did), so I thought I’d say it here even though it’s going to be attacked. I say we need MORE debates!
O.K., I hope some of you are still reading. When I say more debates, I mean a lot more debates but each one is limited to two candidates. My thought is that debates work best when there are only two people debating. Right now we see debates where a lot of candidates fight for airtime and most of them don’t get heard at all.
So the solution is one on one debating. We could have a few a week. One night we could see Michele Bachmann take on Herman Cain. The next night we could see Newt Gingrich take on Rick Perry. Then, perhaps Jon Huntsman could debate Mitt Romney. Eventually every candidate would have debated every other candidate. The audience would have seen the social conservatives debate the RINOs, the fiscal conservatives arguing with the libertarians, the social conservatives taking on the fiscal conservatives etc.
For all we know Perry might shine in a format like that. Then again, maybe Michele Bachmann (who I support) could climb out of the second division based on her true conservatism. Even Jon Huntsman might gain support if he was heard (O.K., maybe not THAT!). Ron Paul would have a chance to take on Santorum one night then bust Romney’s chops another time.
I know that one on one debating would produce a lot of debates, but I love the debates and I wish that every candidate got a chance to be heard. There’s just no way that everyone can be heard when seven candidates have to share two hours.
I’m sure that most of the candidates would refuse this format. I know that it will never happen, but I think I would have one ally among the candidates who would love to debate each candidate one on one.
Newt Gingrich would go for this in a second. Pity I won’t be supporting him.
FULL DISCLOSURE. If you didn’t read it above, I still support Michele Bachmann. These days though I’m feeling a bit lonely.
The Lincoln/Douglas type debates are a good idea, but the Media is not interested in those type of debates. They are good for policy statements, but not so good for Media “gotcha” moments. The Florida jump has removed an entire month of campaigning for the Republicans – good for the Dems, not good for the GOP. Are we really going to allow the Major Media to decide who the GOP candidate is again this year? OR, are we going to use our heads and decide on our own?
Time will tell, but I’m not ready to let the pro-Obama folks make that decision for me.
My neighbors are big Michele Bachmann fans – I will support whoever the GOP candidate is at the end of the day. The alternative is too horrible to even consider. I asked the neighbor after one of the early debates, when they asked me how I thought Bachmann did …… “Did you hear/learn anything new from Bachmann?” That’s been her problem. Too much boiler plate, ‘same ole’ every debate. YadaYada. All the candidates face that problem, but Bachmann turned it into a slash & burn on a fellow Republican, (Ron Paul does the same thing). MB’s last debate was her best, but it was too late at that point. I suspect her health problems are a lot bigger than we are aware of. Politics are brutal – it’s not easy to go the distance.
Romney, Cain & Newt have not done that (slash/burn) …… no secret why they are higher in the polls. Democrats LOVE that slash & burn stuff – Republicans and Indies, not so much.
Bachmann burnt her boat – she is on life support. Ronald Reagan had it right – don’t do the job for the opposition. It’s a tightrope they all have to learn to walk.
Great idea! In fact, there will be a Lincoln-Douglas type debate next Saturday between Cain and Gingrich. The article I read (today in PJ Media) said that it won’t be broadcast! That is one debate I’d love to watch, and unless a network steps up to the plate, we’ll all be cheated. My question to the networks: why won’t you televise this? Does it exceed your low standards of the prior debates?
One debate moderated by liberals was too many- and that includes Fox. The idea that the Republican candidates agree to a bunch of debates with people who are out to destroy them is unfathomable to me. With all those people they aren’t really debates anyway, just beauty pageants. Perry is a crappy debater, but he is the only candidate with a true conservative record of governing who hasn’t cheated on his wife or thrown other conservatives under the bus. I love the advice in the article, I hope Perry or his people read it and take it to heart. I like Herman Cain, but I love Perry. If Milt Romney is nominated I will NOT vote for him. I own a small business and Barry is killing me, but Milt won’t be any better and it will just be blamed on the Republicans.
Uh ….. OK, but be aware that if you don’t vote for Obama’s opponent, then you (in effect) DO vote for Obama.
That would essentially mean that you think Obama is the best option.
This is important folks. Really think about what some sort of weirdo ‘boycott’ vote really means. It really means that you support the status quo – 4 more years of the Big O with no fetters at all on his power.
Is that going to be satisfactory for anyone? I can’t think of anything worse. When we consider what the O has done to this country in only 3 years …… will we have anything left with another 4 years?
Dear Kibby, Uh….Why do you people always talk like anyone who disagrees with you is stupid? What I “essentially” said is that I think Romney is the same thing as Obama. To me, 4 years of Romney is the same thing as four more years of Obama. If you disagree with that, fine. What I can think of that’s worse is four more years of Obama lite that is associated with Republicans- then we’ll get Hillary, who will screw things up just as much.
Oh, there are plenty of things that COULD be worse than four more years of Obama. Most of those scenarios aren’t likely, but they could happen. The question at hand, though, is whether any of the major Republican nominees would be a worse president than Obama.
Probably not. A Ron Paul administration would be worse, but that’s not happening. Let’s take a longer view, though, and move beyond 2012. Of Obama and Romney, which man’s election would be likelier to result in a Republican administration in 2016, and which man would be likelier to hand off the Oval Office to Democratic successors? Romney reminds me of Bush the Elder: Dukakis would have been a worse president while he lasted, but Bush is the reason that TWO Democratic terms followed his own.
Actually, his name is Mitt, not Milt. Are you paying attention?
Romney’s biggest problem is his flip-flopping. Humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.com/2011/10/29/mitt-romney-plastic-man/ showing him as “Plastic Man.”
Cain has not always been positive. His attacks upon Governor Perry are a little beyond reason and made many believe he was a stalking horse for Romney. I have yet to hear anyone explain Cain’s remark – still repeated by Cain – that he would not serve as VP on a Perry ticket. I rather doubt that Cain will be the nominee. He simply does not have the ground game in the early primary states. A good indication of this is that Romney is not threatened by Cain. He is still attacking Perry although Perry appears to be ranked 4th or 5th.
The debate remark from the Perry campaign may be an intentional false remark designed to lower expectations for the next debate. Perry recently expanded his national staff – including a debate coach. Why go to all that trouble if you planned to skip the debates?
Perry should stay positive but not hesitate to point out where he differs from Romney and Cain. Romney is a flipflopper and I am not sure many people beyond the political junkies are aware of that yet. Use Romney’s own words against him. The fact that Cain’s 999 plan will create a new line of taxation should be enough to end his primary run. The fact that he sells it with a dose of unicorns and rainbows should raise a lot of red flags about his political skills.
The trouble with Romney is exagerated. The perils of Perry are understated. Yes he ran as the not Romney candidate, and collapsed when it was clear he was definately not Romney. I mean, he is a shadow of Romney, without the talent. Every time Perry talks about Romney flip flops, I think of Perry’s mother of flip flops from being an Al Gore Democrat. Whenever his wife complains about being persecuted, I think of what she and her husband are doing to Romney. I always thought Perry would fade away once he nominated and I don’t think he has the chutzpah to recover.
You forgot the most important tactic for Perry to prevail. Attack Washington, DC – and the structure of elite, MSM contributors and the huge bureaucracy that supports them. Run against the existing power structure, all of them, whatever party they claim or opinion they hold. Reagan famously said
Washington is not the solution, Washington is the problem. Point out the mammouth salaries those individuals receive. Attack the regulators there; the environmentalists there; the education and energy departments there. Washington, DC is a huge pinata for Perry to bash.
Bryan,
Have you sent this to Perry’s campaign? I think that would be the next logical step.
I too have wondered about Cain’s anti-Perry statement. He and Bachmann have been the most vocal abusers of the 11th Commandment.
Romney & Perry went toe to toe, but it wasn’t slash and burn, it was a heavyweight fight where both landed blows. Romney was smoother, but that doesn’t help his inconstancy with the conservative and Tea folks.
Newt has rightfully stayed above the fray.
BTW, Cain & Newt are going to do a one on one extended debate. I think Cain will pale by comparison, and be done. Newt won’t even have to attack, because Cain is out of his depth. Platitudes don’t cut it in the end, and riffing bon talk radio is not governing and moving legislation.
Only three candidates have the resume, Romney, Perry, and Newt. My suspicion is that Newt will be the VP for the survivor.
A game show format where contestants are limited to a sixty second response to different questions does NOT qualify as a debate.
I learned more about the GOP candidates watching on C-Span the Oct. 21 Iowa Faith&Freedom&Energy dinner than the five “debates” that I did watch. Ten minute intro/stump speech, and then the same four questions, no time limit. Was that a debate? Not really, but a good format for six candidates (Romney and Huntsman were MIA).
Even three person debates are difficult. Impossible with eight people.
Here is the 71 minute in-depth interview that Gov. Perry did with three members of the NH Union Leader editorial board on Oct. 28, 2011, broadcast three times on C-Span so far:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Rick-Perry-Meets-With-New-Hampshire-Newspaper/10737425109/
So far, the media echo has ignored the real Rick Perry, again.
I am a disillusioned dem whose first exposure to Gov. Perry was his very dynamic book tour interview in Nov 2010 with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.
Anyway, I have one suggestion to add to Bryan’s post.
Got to love a man who relaxes with sniper gun target shooting, trying to get five bullets in the same hole. There is a reason why former Marine sniper NCIS Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs is the #1 television favorite in America.
(and it should be noted here that more than TWENTY million voters were watching NCIS instead of the last two game-show style debates)
NEVER underestimate the impact of popular culture. I would not be surprised if NCIS is working on a script for early January in which NCIS has to travel to Texas to investigate the murder of a Navy SEAL that involves a sniper rifle made at the company where Perry does his target shooting. with a cameo appearance…
A Romney-Obama contest will be the lowest turnout in American history.
I shall be re-reading “Final Exit” because I no longer have the ability to emigrate, and will die from a shattered heart at the prospect of watching America descend into ruin and chaos.
K2K, Thank you for that link to Perry’s New Hampshire Union Leader interview. That is what I have been talking about. That is how each candidate should be vetted. Give them all enough time to get their ideas heard. Have the interviewer ask his question then get out of the way while the candidate gives his answer. Too bad that wasn’t on a channel that more people watch. That actually held my attention for the entire hour and 12 minutes it ran.
Thanks for that link!!
Perry has some common sense ideas. The more dramatic ones he always says are things that we need to have a national conversation about. The ideas about streamling and partially eliminating federal agencies are a screaming need. Regional policies can be handled regionally, but why should Idaho have to conform to the same laws as Louisiana when their climate, topography, population density, and goals are highly different? The one size fits all approach truly works in very few specific areas, national defense, international trade, and immigration being the most obvious.
The slowness of West Texas speech patterns may not fit the ear of all, but neither does a glib slickness, especially when that glibness is glossing over gross errors of judgement..
You are both most welcome. I actually watched it twice because C-Span repeated the shorter segment of Perry filing for the NH ballot after the repeat of C-Span’s “The Contenders” on Thomas Dewey, which seemed a good way to drain my adrenalin rush from the Cardinals WINNING! Always loved the St. Louis Cardinals for having real fans and never giving up.
Seems NH has a tradition where the candidate filing is expected to add a slogan on the form. Perry chose NH State motto “Live Free or Die”.
And then repeated the 71-minute discussion at 1:30 am.
I do not know C-Span’s ratings, but appreciate that they cover a lot of candidate events that are totally ignored by other media.
It will be interesting to see how Gov. Perry handles his Sunday morning news debut tomorrow with Chris Wallace.
About that “slowness of West Texas speech patterns” ? Most adults can NOT follow fast speakers. I am over-educated and have no problem with it, but my first job out of grad school in 1978 was in a factory in Menasha, Wisconsin, and I quickly learned how to simultaneously translate my speech pace and words into more effective communication. It was not about the workers’ intelligence. Just adapting to their way of hearing.
Gingrich and Cain also speak more slow than Romney. So does Obama.
One of the points about the Union Leader session was when Perry was asked about Marcus. He avoided explaining that the Perry’s sort of adopted Marcus after his SEAL team was lost in Afghanistan, and that was why Marcus (and his wife) had equal vote with the rest of the family on whether to run.
I still believe it is that protective privacy (?) that kept Perry from admitting that his first three debate performances were affected by his recovery from back surgery in July. I suspect he was in a lot of pain having to stand still for two hours.
Or, maybe he prefers coming-from-behind. America loves come-from-behind underdogs. Like the St. Louis Cardinals. And Atom in “Real Steel”.
Just wish his official website had links to all these other videos –
and everyone still fixated on in-state tuition in Texas should watch THAT segment of his 71 minutes in NH.
Humorous cartoon showing Mitt as the “Plastic Man” at http://drawfortruth.com/2011/10/29/mitt-romney-plastic-man/
Perry has one insurmountable problem: His stance on illegal immigrants.
This inability to distinguish between criminal trespass and honest immigrants disqualifies him for the Presidency,and, I believe that the voters in Texas will judge him harshly when he runs for reelection.
Hmm, Romney a flip-flopper eh? Yeah, I guess that’s true, since he was once a Democrat who supported Al Gore.
Oh, wait, THAT WAS RICK PERRY.
The ultimate flip-flop of all is owned by Perry.
Karla,
While the Cain-Gingrich debate may not be broadcast on TV, I’m sure it will be streamed live on the Internet. That feed, in turn, will generate fair-use clips which will appear all over the Internet & TV. I just hope the organizer gets a dedicated site and a strong feed, rather than some dinky ustream.com channel or the like.
All well and good , but the unfortunate truth is that Rick Perry is less intelligent than the average fence post. This has been well substantiated by his debate performances. Is that what you want?
I think Perry being for Gardasil mandates before he was against them, and being for Al Gore before he was against him qualifies Perry as a flip flopper.
Thats like calling Reagan a flip flopper. Perry was for a center right version of Ale Gore, and even then he was for the more conservative of the two, because you should remember who Ale was running against. Back then most of Texas was Democrats, but it was a conservative wing of the party. The Democrats moved left, and many Texans joined the Republicans. So you should probably talk about things you understand instead of what you are clueless about.
You forgive the flaws in Perry while being horrified at the flaws in other candidates. I am sink and tired of the demonisation going on amon GOP candidates. They are all good people so lets start showing them respect.
Whats hurting Perry is the innuendo’s the bloggers and media keep using when discussing his campaign. The racist rock was not at his family hunting camp. Perry did not say he was skipping the debates, his campaign said they may not do all of them if they keep adding them. That is much different than saying he will skip debates, and he is not the only candidate that may not do them all. I think he will do well in the next debate because he will have his plan to talk about, and he can contrast that with how he was able to help create a environment in Texas that fostered job creation.
Many of us find it not useful to advise those who wish to be in power how to get there, when such folks have plenty of help in their own organizations. It sometimes appears to be an effort to latch on to a group you might like to win, give some advice, and if they win claim some responsibility.
In the same vein, it is a tool used by the establishment to claim so and so is unelectable, in an attempt to eliminate them from general voters consideration. Personally I give no credence to such proclamations. They may possibly be true, but just saying them does not prove them, and therefore repeating them is unhelpful in consideration of the candidates.
And finally, I will provide here a part of a response to another web site, that may actually help you in your efforts to promote certain candidates.
“There are many things the new Congress and Administration must do to begin to redevelop a sustainable economy and recover our freedom. For fun here is a wild idea that could be called “Unoccupy D.C”.
Unoccupy D.C means the seat of Government should be moved around the country. Each year or so, take bids from cities around the country to be the seat of Government for a year or so. Why the graft flowing from such a procedure alone would pay off the National debt in no time. Ask anyone who participated in winning a location for the Olympic Games.”
I expect whoever we choose as the nominee will be more than amply supported or checked as the case may be, by the next Republican congress. That makes a Romney presidency palatable. However, a president we would not have to check like Perry, Gingrich, Cain or Paul would be better. One we wouldn’t have to coach like Cain would be a good choice, too. Cain admits his strength is power delegation. In a president that means he puts himself as a puppet, reflecting the advise of others. I am not yet convinced he has a cogent, overarching, strategic vision for the country. Get him off 9-9-9 and he is nowhere. Gingrich, Perry and Paul have all got the complete package. Their negatives come from nuanced positions, not on large theme ones. Those three would be good presidents.
How to Lose an Election
Definitive results of Republican preferences for their party’s 2012 nominee for president of the United States are far from in although thousands have expressed their opinions in non-binding state straw polls. There won’t be any real results until the numbers from the January 3rd Iowa caucuses and January 1oth New Hampshire primary are tabulated.
Still, based on early polls, the debates, educated guesses, and inconsequential straw ballots, pundits and non-pundits alike have a gut feeling on who will snag the gold GOP ring and, perhaps more importantly, who should be the nominee’s choice for a running mate.
As of now, it looks like former Massachusetts governor Willard Mitt Romney for the top spot. Assuming Mitt wants to win on November 6th,2012, he will pick Florida’s Senator Marco Antonio Rubio to run with him against President Barack Hussein Obama and Person-to-be-Named-Later, after Obama tests how the fickle political winds are blowing.
Designated late night Democrat hatchetmen Leno and Letterman would have tons of idiotic fun poking ridicule at “Willard” and “Marco” while ignoring the equivalent hilarity of “Barack” and his comical gaffes and ineptitude but they won’t get the chance unless Willard and Marco share the GOP ticket.
As we all know, things can change quickly and dramatically in the world of contemporary politics. Witness New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s unexpected fade in the 2008 Democrat presidential sweepstakes and, more recently, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s and Gov. Rick Perry’s falls from grace among Republicans.
We also know the sheer terror Rubio has struck in the liberal minds and soul-less hearts of Obama’s MSM as seen in the current campaign by the Washington Post, et al. to deconstruct Rubio based on an innocent error concerning the date of his parents’ flight from Castro’s Cuba. The lib theory seems to be, when you have nothing, go with it, the same angle they unsuccessfully used on Herman Cain.
Good man that he is, Cain can’t be elected despite his recent popularity; he’s even more inexperienced and unqualified to be president than a certain community organizer was three years ago and lacks the advantage of mainstream media backing him and concealing his flaws.
Barring some catastrophic event, a Hillary insurrection, or Obama pulling an LBJ, he will head the Democrat ticket next year and, barring a miracle, Romney will be the Republican nominee. He will then have to decide whether to beat Obama or try once again to win in 2016. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5846.)
It is interesting to see who the bloggers identify as “good people”; and on what basis they do so. Are womanizers “good people”? Are those who support illegal conduct “good people”? Are hypocritical, polytheistic materialists “good people”? Are those liars who represent themselves to catholics as catholics and to protestants as protestants “good people”? Are those who debate while very obviously under the influence of alcohol “good people”? Are those who maintain that one may abuse others terribly, fail to repent and still enjoy Heaven “good people”? Are those who advocate the legalization of narcotics “good people”?
If so, God save us all from the “good people”!